Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:42:56.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aurangzeb in the Perspective of Kachvāhā Literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2018

MONIKA HORSTMANN
MONIKA HORSTMANN*
Affiliation:
South Asia Institute, University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The literary and genealogical accounts produced at the Kachvāhā court of Jaipur, addressing the relationship between Aurangzeb and the Kachvāhās, post-date Aurangzeb. Three of these are introduced, one of them in Sanskrit, two vernacular. While all these writings are informed by archival records, they serve the end of glorifying Kachvāhā kingship as it had started visibly defying Mughal authority from the late 1660s. The last of these accounts was written in the middle of the nineteenth century, when Jaipur was a British protectorate, and reflects an attempt to represent the sum total of Kachvāhā Rajput ethos and history at the critical point when the Jaipur state was overhauled by administrative reforms.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 441 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the self-definition and mutual definition of the two groups, see for example Eleanor Zelliott, “A Medieval Encounter Between Hindu and Muslim: Eknath's Drama-Poem Hindu-Turk Saṃvād”, in Images of Man: Religion and Historical Process in South Asia, (ed.) Fred W. Clothey (Madras, 1982), pp. 171–195; also Lorenzen, David N., “Who Invented Hinduism?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 41.4 (1999), pp. 630–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a comprehensive study, see Talbot, Cynthia, “Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu–Muslim identities in Pre-Colonial India”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 37.4 (1995), pp. 692–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Horstmann, M., Der Zusammenhalt der Welt: Religiöse Herrschaftslegitimation und Religionspolitik Mahārājā Savaī Jaisinghs (1700–1743) (Wiesbaden, 2009)Google Scholar.

3 In the following, the name of the emperor is spelt in this way. Sanskrit and occasionally vernacular sources sometimes render his name in a sanskritised fashion as Navaraṅgajīva. Dara Shikoh appears in Indian sources as Dārā Śukoh(a).

4 For the relationship of Jai Singh I with Aurangzeb, see Tod, J., Annals and Antiquities of Rajast´han, or the Central and Western Rajpoot States of India. Reprint of the 2nd edition 1914. 2 vols. (1st ed. 1829–1832) (New Delhi, 1978), Vol.2, pp. 287–288Google Scholar. For Tod's characterisation of Aurangzeb as “bigoted”, see, for example, ibid., Vol. 1, p. 297 and Vol. 2, p. 46.

5 An example of this turn in research is Chandra, S., Mughal Religious Policies, the Rajputs and the Deccan (New Delhi, 1983)Google Scholar; for a recent assessment of Aurangzeb, M. D. Faruqi, “Awrangzīb”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd edition. http://ubproxy.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/login?url=http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/awrangzib-COM_23859?s.num=1&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of-islam-3&s.q=Aurangzeb, accessed on 14 February 2017.

6 Viśvanātha Cittapāvana Rāṇade, Rāmavilāsakāvyam, edited with notes and introduction by Gopal Narayan Bahura (Jaipur, 1978).

7 Kṛṣṇa Bhaṭṭa, Kavikalānidhi-devarṣi-śrīkṛṣṇabhaṭṭaviracitam Īśvaravilāsamahākāvyam. (Rājasthān-Purātan-Granthmālā 29) (Jaipur, 1958). For the author, see Gode, P. K., “Krishnakavi, the Author of Ishvaravilasakavya, His Works and Descendants”, Bharata Itihasa Samshodhanan Mandala Quarterly 12 (1941), pp. 15–23Google Scholar.

8 Cand Kavi, Kūrmavilāsa (Jaypur rājya ke kachvāh śāsakoṁ kā itihās), (ed.) Girjāśaṅkar Śarmā and Satyanārāyaṇ Svāmī (Bikaner, 1991). Its editors call its language a mixture of Khaṛī Bolī, Braj Bhāṣā, and Ḍhūṇḍhārī (pp. 2–3 of the introduction).

9 Ibid. p. 2 (pagination of the text), stanza 9. The editors's information on the years of composition of the text is only partly correct (p. 2 of the introduction).

10 Ibid., p. 479, stanza 2.

11 There is an indication that Cand had also access to letters written by Udairāj (Udirāj) Munśī, the secretary of Jai Singh I, letters that after his father's death had been brought out by his son as a collection of model letters. This collection, named Inshā-ihaft anjumān, was temporarily lost to be retrieved by Jadunath Sarkar between 1905 and 1907 in Banaras. See Sarkar, J. N., House of Shivaji: Studies and Documents of Maratha History: Royal Period. 3rd edition 1955. Reprint (New Delhi, 1978), pp. 115–116, 136Google Scholar. For an indication of the letters of Udairāj being used by Cand, compare Cand Kavi, Kūrmavilāsa, p. 380, stanzas 50–59 with J. N. Sarkar, A History of Jaipur, c. 1503–1938 (Jaipur, 1984), pp. 141–142.

12 For this type of sources as it was prevalent in Marwar and differing in a number of aspects from the Kachvāhā genealogical sources, see Ziegler, N. P., “The Seventeenth-Century Chronicles of Māṛvāṛa: A Study in the Evolution and Use of Oral Traditions in Western India”, History in Africa 3 (976), pp. 127–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., “Marvari Historical Chronicles: Sources for the Social and Cultural History of Rajasthan”, Indian Economic and Social History Review 13.2 (1976), pp. 219–250.

13 Rawat, S. S. (ed.), Kacchawan ri vanshavali (A Genealogical Account of the Kacchawa Nobility) (Jaipur, 1981)Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., p. iii.

15 Ibid., p. 109.

16 See Kamphorst, J., In Praise of Death: History and Poetry in Medieval Marwar (South Asia) (Leiden, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 For a sample, see Śekhāvat, S.S., “Ḍiṅgal gītoṁ meṁ Chatrapati Śivājī”, Vardā 11.3 (1968), pp. 21–22Google Scholar.

18 Kṛṣṇadatta, Pratāpa-prakāsa, (ed.) with annotations by Gopalnarayan Bahura.With a note on arms and weapons by Y. Sahai. (Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Memorial Series 5) (Jaipur, 1983), pp. 5–6 (pagination of the Hindi text). If necessary, the Indian term has been added in brackets.

19 This discovery triggered a series of articles of Gode which were published in the years between 1937 and 1946. These are listed on pp. 2–3 of his foreword to the poem, for which see n. 7.

20 J. N. Sarkar, A History of Jaipur, p. 128.

21 In his commentary on this verse, Mathurānāth Śāstrī gives a different explanation (Kṛṣṇa Bhaṭṭa, Īśvaravilāsamahākāvyam, p. 28). He identifies Dalel Khan with a Pathan of that name who marched against Jahāngīr in 1625. The intent of the verse seems however to praise the service done by Jai Singh to Aurangzeb.

22 Ibid., p. 141.

23 For the manuscripts commissioned and collected by Ram Singh, see Bahura, G. N., Literary Heritage of the Rulers of Amber and Jaipur: With an Index to the Register of Manuscripts in the Pothikhana of Jaipur, I, Khasmohor Collection (Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II. Memorial Series 2) (Jaipur, 1976), pp. 42–45Google Scholar.

24 J. N. Sarkar, House of Shivaji, p. 185.

25 Bahura, G. N., “Śrī Govinda Gātha: Service Rendered to Govinda by the Rulers of Āmera and Jayapura”, in Govindadeva: A Dialogue in Stone, (ed.) by Case, M. (New Delhi, 1996), pp. 195–213Google Scholar, for the year 1671, ibid., p. 204; this evidence is corroborated by I. Habib, “A Documentary History of the Gosā’ins (Gosvāmīs) of the Caitanya Sect at Vṛndāvana”, ibid., pp. 131–159; for 1671, p. 157. It may well have been that the withdrawal of the deity Govinda was prepared as early as 1667, when Ram Singh promulgated a grant for the maintenance of Govinda and its custodian in Govindpur, in Kachvāhā territory, where the image came to be installed for some time on its way to Āmer. See Horstmann, M., In Favour of Govinddevjī: Historical Documents Relating to a Deity of Vrindaban and Eastern Rajasthan (New Delhi, 1999), pp. 135–145Google Scholar.

26 Kṛṣṇadatta, Pratāpa-prakāsa, p. 4 of the original text.

27 Bhatnagar, V. S., Life and Times of Sawai Jai Singh, 1688–1743 (Delhi, 1974), pp. 11–12Google Scholar.

28 see: Bhimsen's genealogy as quoted on the 14th page of this article.

29 [Bhīmsen] Sarkar, J. N. (translation), Tarikh-i-Dilkasha, English translation (Memoirs of Bhimsen Relating to Aurangzeb's Deccan Campaigns), (ed.) by Khobrekar, V. G. (Bombay 1972), p. 134Google Scholar. This is corroborated by Persian historiography, see ibid., p. 134, n. 1.

30 Samrāṭ is the title of a king who has performed a Vājapeya sacrifice.

31 All English translations are mine.

32 Implied here is that according to Jaimini and the Mīmāṃsakas gods are not corporeal, while Jai Singh is a corporeal god on earth, “god on earth” being a common terms for “king”. For the position of the Mīmāṃsakas, first formulated in Jaimini's Pūrvaṃīmāṃsāsūtras, see F. X. Clooney “What's a God? The Quest for the Right Understanding of devatā in Brāhmaṇical Ritual Theory (mīmāṃsā)”, International Journal of Hindu Studies, 1. 2 (Aug., 1997), pp. 337–385. (I thank Anand Mishra for referring me to this article). Clooney summarises the Mīmāṃsā debates saying, “. . . for the Mīmāṃsakas the devatās are integral components of the language which is about them and which uses them in broader and large statements; devatās are meaningful words, nothing more and certainly nothing less.” (ibid., p. 380). In his commentary on the above stanza 1.37, p. 27 (pagination of the Sanskrit text), the commentator Mathurānāth Śāstrī says just this when explaining that the dictum of Jaimini is mantrātmakādivyā eva devāḥ, “The gods are divine in consisting of (Vedic) mantras”.

33 Ram Singh was posted in Assam in the years from 1667 to 1676 (J. N. Sarkar, History of Jaipur, pp. 146–148).

34 That is, to the sea.

35 The text has raṅgamṛdbhūmi, paraphrased in the commentary as “Rangun”. Raṅgamaṭṭī was the frontier post in the north Brahmaputra valley occupied by Ram Singh (J. N. Sarkar, History of Jaipur, pp. 147).

36 This refers to the years from 1681. Ram Singh was based in Jamrud in Afghanistan and died in Kohat (ibid., pp. 148–150).

37 The most famous representative of the khyāt genre is the Middle Marwari Naiṇsī rī khyāt by Muṁhnot Naiṇsī (1610–1670), published as Muṃhatā Nāiṇasī rī khyāta, edited by B. Sākariyā. 2 vols. (Jodhpur, 1984).

38 For an historical account, see J. N. Sarkar, A History of Jaipur, pp. 108–114. On Murād's military ill fortune, see ibid., p. 106.

39 S. S. Rawat (ed.), Kacchawan ri vanshavali, pp. 96–97.

40 V. K. Vasishtha, Rajputana Agency 1832–1858 (Jaipur [1978]), pp. 124–138.

41 Cand Kavi, Kūrmavilāsa, pp. 366–367, stanzas 57–68.

42 For the episode of Ram Singh and Shivaji, S. S. Rawat (ed.), Kacchawan ri vanshavali, pp. 97–98; for the passage quoted verbatim, see p. 98.

43 The name is rendered as “Sevo”.

44 Presentation confirming the loyalty of the giver.

45 Cand Kavi, Kūrmavilāsa, p. 379, stanzas 36–41.

46 See: section on KrsnaBhatta's Isvaravilasa-mahakavya, on 7th page of this article.

47 J. N. Sarkar, A History of Jaipur, pp. 143–144, n. 3.

48 [Bhīmsen] J. N. Sarkar (translation), Tarikh-i-Dilkasha, p. 52.

49 Ibid., p. 53.

50 S. S. Rawat (ed.), Kacchawan ri vanshavali, pp. 98–99. For the passage on Ram Singh, see 12th page of this article.

51 Cand Kavi, Kūrmavilāsa, p. 393, stanzas 43–47.

52 V. S. Bhatnagar, Life and Times of Sawai Jai Singh, p. 16.

53 Śyāmaldās Kavirāj, Vīrvinod: Mevāṛ kā itihās, 2 vols. in 3 pts., reprint of the 1886 edition (Delhi, 1986), Vol. 2, pp. 1297–1298.

54 S. S. Rawat (ed.), Kacchawan ri vanshavali, p. 101.

55 This refers to the wedding.

56 Asad Khan was the Mughal wazir.

57 Cand Kavi, Kūrmavilāsa, p. 407, stanzas 71–75.

58 Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajast´han, Vol.2, pp. 287–288. See also n. 4 above.

59 Monika Horstmann, Der Zusammenhalt der Welt, Chapter 2.