Maharana Mokal ascended the throne of Mewar in V.S. 14761 /1419 A D.[1] after the death of his father Maharana Lakha. Former historians disagreed about the date of his accession, but the later findings have now settled the matter almost finally.[2]
But there still exists a wide divergence about the age of Maharana Mokal at the time of his accession. According to Tod he was just a child of five only and Ranmal, his maternal uncle, used to sit on the throne of Bappa Rawal with Maharana Mokal on his knees [3] Reu, the historian from Marwar, disagrees with Tod. According to him he should have been born in V.S. 1466/1409-10 A.D. [4]
This makes Maharana Mokal a lad of 9/10 years of age at the time of his accession. Ojha goes slightly further and claims him to be at least 14 [5] though he attempts to give no exact date of his birth. Gopinath Sharma,[6] a modern authority on Rajasthan history, falls in line with Ojha. Kaviraja Shyamaldas, the first modern historian from Mewar, also does not propose any exact date of birth of Maharana Mokal, but definitely regards him to be a minor at the time of his accession. He cites V.S. 1454/1397 A.D.[7] as the year of Maharana Mokal’s accession on the basis of the accounts of the Khyats but likes to place it some time after V.S. 1460/1403 A.D.[8] on his own part. [9]
If we take Maharana Mokal to be 5 at that time, it would make him a young lad of about 21 in V.S. 1476/1419 A D., the generally accepted date of his accession now. Ramvallabh Somani, a recent biographer of Kumbha, incidentally discusses the date of birth of Mokal and asserts that it can definitely be placed before V.S 1452/1395 A. D.,[10] but not later in any case, This would make Maharana Mokal a full-blooded young man of 24/25 at the time of his accession. But the author of “Maharana Kumbha” goes no further.
When the year of Maharana Mokal’s birth is so much a point of debate, there can be no question of any knowledge of his actual date of birth. It is our attempt to fix some definite period of Mokal’s birth in this article.
It will be borne in mind that all this confusion about Maharana Mokal’s date of birth takes its origin in our ignorance of the timing of Hansa Bai’s marriage with Lakha and the traditional notions surrounding the incident. The incident has been linked with Lakha’s old age and the last years of his reign on the one hand and with Ranmal’s coming to Mewar on the other. And Ranmal’s coming to Mewar has been linked with the incident of Kanha’s birth, a younger brother of Ranmal, and the death of Rao Chunda, which are both shrouded in historical uncertainties as regards their actual time of occurrence.
It is not at all certain when Kanha was born, or died. Similarly, Rao Chunda has been variously described to have met his end in V.S. 1465/1408 A.D., V.S. 1475/1418 A.D. and V.S. 1480/1423 A.D. Hence it is not possible to fix the Hansa Bai Lakha marriage on the basis of the above incidents except that the said marriage must have taken place early in the fifteenth century or near about.
The fact is that a proper analysis of these incidents without allowing them any undue interference with each other is the only way to arrive at a correct conclusion.
In this connection let us turn our attention to a Rajasthani work “Achaldas Khichi Ri Vachanika” and its counterpart the “Lala Mewari Ri Vat”, lately come to light. The ‘Vachanika’ is definitely a contemporary work [11] – the main incident and its chief characters standing the test of historicity [12]. It tells us that Maharana Mokal’s daughter Puhpa Bai (“Lala Mewari” of the “Vat”) was married to Achaldas Khichi of Gagraun. [13]
Most of the Vanshavallis and Khyats of Mewar acknowledge this fact [14] as also the modern historians of Rajasthan. They also agree on the point that Mokal promised at the time of this marriage to come to the rescue of Achaldas in the event of his being attacked by the Sultan of Malwa, [15]
This Achaldas was quite a grown up man having a number of wives and grown up children already. His marriage with the Mewar princess was not in any case a question of child marriage. The descriptions of her in the “Lala Mewari Ri Vat” [16] -the fact of her controlling the affairs of the state, her hold upon Achaldas, her feminine jealousy and pride and finally the fact of her becoming a “Sati” – all preclude the presumption.
It is not known when was she married to Achaldas Khichi. It might have taken place some time after the accession of Mokal, her father. But we know for certain that Hoshang Shah (alam Shah or Ghuri Shah of the “Vachanika”), the Sultan of Malwa, attacked Gagraun in 826 A.H.15/1423 A.D.[17]
Achaldas sent his son Prince Dhir [18] to get the promised help from Maharana Mokal, his father-in-law. But Maharana Mokal, due to his own circumstances, not our concern here to follow, was not in a position to come to the rescue of his relation or dispatch timely and solid help to him.
Though there were sufficient stocks of food grains inside the fort, Achaldas had been negligent in providing for the adequate defenses of the fort and to provide unaffected perennial water sources, specially in case of an attack. As soon as Hoshang Shah had laid siege to the fort, he started putting increasing pressure on the inmates of the fort and cut off its sources of water supply. [19]
Achaldas, hard-pressed and finding himself alone, was reduced to hopelessness and decided to perform “Jauhar” after a short siege of a fortnight- 8th Shukla Ashwan to 8th Krishna Kartik[20] (VS 1480)/Monday Sept 13th to Monday Sept. 27th, 1423 A.D Maharana Mokal’s daughter “Puhpa Bai” (or “Lala”) was among those who performed “jauhar” and became a “Sati”. [21]
Now if we take Puhpa Bai to be just 17/18 at the time of her death in 1423 A D., she must have been born in 1405-06 A.D. We also know that Kumbha and Puhpa Bai were real brother and sister born of the same mother. [22] Even if we take Puhpa Bai to be the elder of the two, her father MaharanaMokal should have been born some time in 1387-1388 A.D., if not earlier. This would mean that Maharana Mokal was at least 31/32 at the time of his accession in 1419 A.D. This also implies that Hansa Bai Lakha marriage had taken place during the beginning of Lakha’s reign.
Now we have to follow the traditional belief about Ranmal’s coming to Mewar. According to Reu, Kanha was born in V.S. 1465/1408 A.D.[23] and it was his birth which occasioned Ranmal’s coming to Mewar. He came to Mewar during the same year and Hansa Bai’s marriage with Lakha took place shortly afterwards.
There are other sources which trace the coming of Ranmal to Mewar to the death of Rao Chunda. Some assign the death of Rao Chunda in V.S. 1465/1408 AD.[24] A few place it in V.S. 1475/1418 A.D.[25] Reu places the death of Rao Chunda in V.S. 1480 on Chaitra Sudi 3/1423 A.D.,[26] which, however, is not correct.[27]
Sultan Muzaffar Shah (I) of Gujarat assigned the province of Nagaur to his brother Shams Khan Dandani in A.H. 806/1400-05 A.D.[28] after he had successfully come out of his personal difficulties. Shams Khan, as soon as he arrived in Nagaur, started consolidating it. He reoccupied the provinces of Sambhar, Didwana and Ajmer from Rao Chunda. A balanced interpretation of the Rajasthani and Persian sources prompts us to believe that Rao Chunda was killed in V.S. 1465/1408 A.D. in one of the encounters with this Shams Khan Dandani near Nagaur.[29]
Ranmal must have come to Mewar some time before this in about 1405 A.D., and we find him capturing Ajmer in V.S. 1465/1408 A.D.[30] for Mewar with the help of the Mewari forces. If we take Hansa Bai’s marriage with Lakha some time after Ranmal’s coming to Mewar, as is traditionally believed, it proves historically unsound in the light of the “Vachanika”.
The above observation proves that there is no logical connection between Hansa Bai Lakha marriage and Ranmal’s coming to Mewar.
And so we note that there is no logical relationship between the “old age” of Lakha and his marriage with Hansa Bai, except very superficially. Of course, when the local historians placed the incident of Hansa Bai-Lakha marriage some 23/24 years hence in 1406-08 A.D. they did make him that much old which he was not at the time of its actual happening.
Now Lakha ascended the throne of Mewar in V.S 1439/1382 A.D.,[31] as generally accepted. If we take the arrival of the coconut from Mandover soon after it, as the “Vachanika” indirectly indicates it to be, we must accept Lakha to be a grown up man of at least 35/36 who was father of a young son of marriageable age, namely Chunda. It is on record that he was already father of nine princes [32] at that time. In the circumstances, it does not seem inappropriate that Lakha addressed himself as an “old man”, particularly in view of the jovial, light hearted man he seems to be. But it would be wrong to take him literally. The birth of Mokal and Bagha soon after his marriage with Hansa Bai [33] testifies to it. But as it was, the epithet of his being an “old man” was attached to this incident and the future historians of Mewar and Rajasthan as a whole, relegated this incident to the old age of Lakha’s life- to the last years of his reign.
The fact is that the coconut for Prince Chunda, Lakha’s son, was received from Mandore[34] (Mandover) and Ranmal,[35] the eldest son of Rao Chunda of Marwar, headed the embassy. When the embassy was announced in the court, it came out from the mouth of Lakha- “I do not suppose you send such play things to an old greybeard like me.” Lakha must have uttered these words in the usual light-heartedness of his soul. But Chunda took it differently. He took the stand that howsoever light-heartedly spoken, the Rana had expressed his desire for the woman; she was like his mother to him now and he could not accept her in any other form except that.
Chunda was the heir-apparent prince of Mewar and the Rathores, by sending the coconut for him, expected to be the maternal kith and kin of the future ruler of Mewar. Returning the coconut for any account would have brought dishonour to the house of Marwar and it would have created bad blood between the two prominent clans of Rajasthan- the Rathores of Marwar and the Sisodias of Mewar.
It was suggested by Mandore that if the condition of the male issue from this union being the future Rana of Mewar was acceptable to Chittor [36] , it would have no objection even to this union- Hansa Bai- Lakha union. The above condition testifies that the underlying motive of the Rathores in sending the coconut for Prince Chunda was to have for themselves the credit of being the maternal blood-relations of the future sovereigns of Mewar.
Prince Chunda in his high idealism accepted to forego his rights and those of his future descendants to be the sovereigns of Mewar in case of Hansa Bai having a male issue as a result of this union. This was solemnly promised and given in writing as well [37] – the sources both from Mewar and Marwar make mention of it.
As such the crux of the ” Hansa Bai – Lakha issue ” was not that Lakha was “that old” but that the Rathores were bent upon seeing the future male issue of Hansa Bai, in case she had one, to be the future Rana of Mewar and the Mewaris were finding it difficult to deprive such a nice, devoted and loving young prince from his rightful privileges.
The Rathores had put their condition and though Chunda himself had accepted it, how could the Rana, the royal house and the Sisodia jagirdars of Mewar could accede to it? It was difficult for them to eschew it.
That is why even after all those promises and commitments were reduced to writing and the Hansa Bai- Lakha marriage had taken place, Maharana Mokal had been born and further documents had been exchanged between the parties, there prevailed a feeling in all concerned that meint nothing or, at least, it could be set aside. Perhaps Lakha had it in his heart [38] and even Hansa Bai [39] thought the same way.
It was only Chunda’s righteousness and steadfastness which kept him firm and he avowed simply to remain the humble servant of Maharana Mokal and that of Mewar.
The above discussion at length establishes the fact that the argument of Lakha’s “old age” is simply out of place in this connection- it was secondary at the most. The fact of Lakba’s old age has simply been overemphasized.
As per the indirect conclusions from the “Vachanika” Hansa Bai- Lakha marriage should have taken place sometime in V.S. 1442-43/1385-86 A.D. According to the historians of Mewar, Lakha ascended the throne of Mewar in V.S. 1439/1382 A.D.
If we accept the coming of the coconut from Mandore soon after his accession, it must have taken one/one and a half years to get over the situation which was created. Ranmal, who headed the embassy which had come to Chittor to affiance his sister with Prince Chunda, played an important role in all this, he being the eldest son of Rao Chunda of Marwar and the real brother of Hansa Bai.
But these conclusions will just totter down if it proves that Rao Chunda of Marwar could not have had a daughter of marriageable age in V.S. 1439/1382 A.D. or that Lakha himself could not have had a son of marriageable age in that year. But if they stand the measure of this test even, it will have to be accepted that they are in the right direction and there is worth in them.
Despite the fact that the Vanshavallis and the Khyats cannot be relied without corroboration, it will have to be accepted that Lakha died quite an old man. He died in V.S 1476/1419 A.D. or near about; thus according to the analysis made above he must have attained the age 72/73 at the time of his death which is quite in keeping with the historical traditions as well.
Now to come to Rao Chunda of Marwar, the sources of Marwar vary widely both about his birth and death. But this much is certain that he also died quite old. The time and circumstances of Chunda’s death have been examined above and our opinion expressed. As regards his birth Reu says that Rao was born in V.S. 1434/1377 A.D.[40]
According to this opinion, he must have been just a lad of 5 only, when Lakha ascended the throne of Mewar. On the basis of the “Vachanika” this is contrary to historical truth. The fact is that the Khyats of Marwar, like all other Khyats are unreliable as regards the description of the earlier periods, more particularly in their time sequence.
But one Dayaldas Ki Khyat which enjoys a higher repute gives the date of birth of Rao Chuada as Bhadrapad Sud 5, V.S..1401/1344 A.D. [41] If we take it to be true, Rao Chunda comes to be of 38 in VS. 1439/1382 A D. the year of Lakha’s accession.
And like Lakha, he could well have been father of a marriageable daughter, Ranmal and others. If we accept his death in V.S. 1455/1408 A.D., he would have been 64 in that year. Even if we accept Dayaldas’ date- V.S. 1475/1418 A.D.[42] – in this respect, he would have been 74 then. In the light of the “Vachanika” and the “Lala Mewari Ri Vat” that date of birth as given by Dayaldas seems to be convincing.
Mokal’s date of birth as discussed above is testified by one more slightly known source- the Kurabad Ki Tawarikh. Kurabad was the seat of jagir, in the former Mewar State, of one of the lines of the descendants of Prince (later Rawat) Chunda.
As such the Kurabad Tawarikh attains a special importance in our discussion, particularly when something, it says, is in line with the modern findings. The above Tawarikh reproduces a document from Mokal’s hand which is given below in its English translation in essence:-
“I, Prince Mokal greet you Chundaji, my elder brother. There will be no deviation from that what Dajiraj (father) has committed to you in writing. [43]I shall be guilty before Dajiraj and Shri Eklingji (the family deity) if I deviate from that. I am seven years of age (at the time of making this document). I (cause to) write this document as per the orders of Dajiraj and in his presence. Samvat 1449, the day in the hand of.”[44]
Prior to this the Kurabad Tawarikh refers to a document by Prince It does not reproduce it. It is about Chunda’s forsaking his right to accession in case of Hansa Bai’s having one.[45] The date of his document as given therein is V.S. 1438/1381 A.D. Though the actual document is not reproduced there, it does corroborate an incident approved by all other sources. Only that the year of this document herein may cause some concern.
It is V.S. 1438/1381 A.D. whereas the year of accession of Lakha, by general acceptance, is V.S. 1439/1382 A.D. But the present year of Lakha’s accession does not rest on any inscription, copper-plate or such other solid irrefutable sources. Hence we may safely presume Lakha’s accession to be sometime in V.S. 1437/1380 A.D. as the Kurabad Tawarikh would demand it to be.
The coconut from Mandore must have come sometime soon after, and the said document came in existence in V.S. 1438/1381 A.D. as given there in the Kurabad Tawarikh. As per the same source Maharana Mokal was seven years old in V.S. 1449/1392 A.D, i.e. he was born some time in V.S. 1442-43/1385-85 A.D. This leads us to conclude that Maharana Mokal was born within 4/5 years of Hansa Bai’s marriage with Lakha and not two years as claimed by some bardic sources.
To sum up Lakha ascended the throne of Mewar not in V.S. 1439/ 1382 A.D. but in V.S. 1437/1380 A D. His son Chunda was of marriageable age at that time. Lakha was at least 35/36 at that time end he was 72/73 years old in V.S. 1476/1419 A.D. when he died.
Similarly, Rao Chunda of Marwar must have been born in V S. 1401/1314 A.D. and he was about 36in V.S. 1437/1380 A.D. at the time of Lakha’s accession. He was father of a daughter of marriageable age at the time, and Ranmal and others. He sent the coconut for Prince Chunda of Mewar with Ranmal as the head of that embassy. And finally, Mokal was born in V.S. 1442-43/1385-86 A.D. and was about 33/34- a mature young man – in V.S. 1476/1419 A.D. when he ascended the throne.[46]
[1] Ojha, Udaipur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 271, Fn. 2; H.B. Sarda, Maharana Kumbha, p. 22: (Gopinath Sharma regards that the accession of Mokal took place in 1421 A.D. only – Rajasthan Ka Itihas, p. 220)
[2] Dr. (Mrs.) Urmila Joshi, Mokal’s Date of Birth, Proceedings of Rajasthan History Congress, 1976] pp. 43-56.
[3] Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Vol. I, p. 224.
[4] Reu, Marwar Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 72, Fn. 2.
[5] Ojha, Udaipur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 271, Fn. 2
[6] Gopinath Sharma, Rajasthan Ka Itihas, p. 220.
[7] Kaviraja Shyamaldas, Vir Vinod, Vol. I, pp. 310-311.
[8] Ibid., p. 311, Footnote.
[9] Dr. (Mrs.) Urmila Joshi, Mokal’s Date of Birth, Proceedings of Rajasthan History Congress, 1976] pp. 43-56.
[10] Ramvallabha Somani, Maharana Kumbha, p. 30.
[11] Achaldas Khichi Ri Vachanika (Itihas Ki Drishti Se Parikshana, by Dasharath Sharma, p. 3).
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid. (Itihas Ki Drishti Se Parikshana, by Dasharath Sharma, p. 7), pp. 30 & 34: (Also, Desai Lallubhai Bhimbhai,Chauhan Kul Kalpa-Drum, Vols. 1-2, pp. 106-107)
[14] MS. Udaipur Ri Khyat (Anup Sanskrit Library, Bikaner – now onwards ASLB), F. 33; MS. Khyat Rana Kheta Ri (State Archives, Bikaner- now onwards SAB), F. 3: MS Rawal Ranaji Ri Vat (Oriental Research Institute, Udaipur – now onwards ORIU), F. 33A: MS. Suryavansh Vanshavali, (ORIU), F. 41 B: MS. Tawarikh Vanshavali, (ORIU), F. 54 A; MS. Vanshavali 828, (ORIU), FF. 53A-53B: MS. Vanshavali 878, (ORIU), FF. 55 B-56A: MS. Mewar Ke Rajaon Ki Raniyon Avam Kunwaron Ka Hal (Sahitya Sansthan, Udaipur – now onwards SSU), F. 2B: (In addition to the names of Lal Kunwar Bai and Penp Kunwar Bai, mistakenly regarded by the author of the Khyat to be two separate identities, it gives a yet another name Rudra Kunwar Bai).
[15] MS. Udaipur Ri Khyat, (ASLB), F. 33; MS. Khyat Rana Kheta Ri,(SAB), F. 3: MS Rawal Ranaji Ri Vat, (ORIU), F, 33A: MS. Suryavansh Vanshavali, (ORIU), F. 41B: MS. Tawarikh Vanshavali, (ORIU) FF. 54A-54B: MS. Vanshavali 828, (ORIU), FF. 53A-53B: MS. Van- shavali 878, (ORIU), FF. 55B-56A.
[16] Lala Mewari Ri Vat (Parishishta, Achaldas Khichi Ri Vachanika, pp. 1, 3, 8, and 15)
[17] Nizamuddin, Tabaqat-i-Akbari (Akbarshahi), MS. (ORIU), F. 471A: Rizvi, Uttar Timur Kalin Bharat, Vol. II, p. 57: U.N. Day, Medieval Malwa, p. 49.
[18] Achaldas Khichi Ri Vachanika, p. 34: MS. Khyat Rana Kheta Ri, (SAB), F. 3; MS. Rawal Ranaji Ri Vat, (ORIU), FF. 33A-33B: H.B. Sarda, Maharana Kumbha, p. 29
[19] MS. Ma-a-thir-i-Mahmudshahi, F. 134B
[20] Achaldas Khichi Ri Vachanika, p. 24 (and Itihas Ki Drishti Se Parikshana, by Dasharath Sharma, p. 9)
[21] Achaldas Khichi Ri Vachanika, pp. 41 & 42: Lala Mewari Ri Vat (Paiishishta, Achaldas Khichi RiVachanika, p. 16). Khilchipur Ri Khyat (Desai Lallubhai,Bhimbhai, Chauhan Kul
Kalpa-Drum, Vols. 1-2, p. 104
[22] MS. Vanshavali, 828, (ORIU), FF. 53A & 54A; MS. Tawarikh Vanshavali, (ORIU), FF 54A & 55B; MS. Udaipur Ri Khyat, (ASLB), FF. 33-34.
[23] Reu, Marwar Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 68. (But Reu does not substantiate his statement)
[24] Rathore Vansh Ri Vigat, p. 9. Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Vol. II, p. 12, Kaviraja Shyamaldas Vir Vinod, Vol. I, p. 312; (According to Shyamaldas, Rao Chunda died in V.S. 1467/1410 A.D.) Ojha, Jodhpur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol. I, pp. 208-211
[25] MS. Bikaner Re Rathoran Ri Khyat (by Dayaldas), (ASLB), F. 91
[26] Reu, Marwar Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 65. Also Fn. 1.
[27] Ojha, Jodhpur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 213.
[28] Nizamuddin, Tabaqat-i-Akbari (Akbarshahi), MS., (ORIU), F. 398-B; 58 Rizvi, Uttar Timur Kalin Bharat, Vol. II, p. 182; Sikandar, Mirat-i- Sikandari, MS. (ORIU), F. 19; Rizvi, Uttar Timur Kalin Bharat, Vol. II, p. 260.
[29] Infra, Fn. 22, p. 6.
[30] Reu, Marwar Ka Itihas, Vol. I, pp. 70-71
(Ajmer had been cccupied by Rao Chunda of Marwar in V.S. 1462/ 1405 A.D. (Reu, Marwar Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 63; Thakur Gopalsinghji Medatiya, Jaimal vanshaprakash, p. 52). Later it seems to have been occupied by Shams Khan Dandani, the new governor of Nagaur from Gujarat, Ranmal, who had come to Mewar by this time, attacked it in V.S. 1465/1408 A.D. and occupied it. Sarda write that Ajmer was captured between 1397 A.D. and 1409 A.D. (H.B. Sarda, Ajmer-Historical and Descriptive, p. 157). Other Rajasthani sources also approve of this incident. (MS. Rathoran Ri Khyat, (ORIU), Vol. I, F. 17B)
[31] Kaviraja Shyamaldas, Vir Vinod, Vol. I, p. 305. Ojha, Udaipur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 259., H.B. Sarda, Maharana Kumbha, p. 8., G.N. Sharma, Mewar and the Mughal, Emperors, p. 9
[32] MS Sisod Vanshavali, (ORIU), FF. 14B-15A; (SSU), F. 13A
(Their names as given in this Vanshavali are as follows :-
1.Chondoji, 2. Ajoji, 3.Duloji, 4.Sarangdeji, 5.Bhandoji, 6.Siaji, 7.Ragodeji, 8.Baloji, and 9. Inderji; MS. Rawal Ranaji Ri Vat, (ORIU), F. 29B
(It gives six names only including that of Mokal in the end. They are
1. Chundaji, 2. Raghoji, 3.Bhojji, 4.Bhakharji, 5.Bhandoji and 6. Mokalji; MS. Mewar Ke Rajaon Ki Raniyon Avam Kunwaron Ka Hal, (SSU), F. 2A
(It has eight names in all including that of Mokal. They are:-
1. Chundoji, 2. Mokalji, 3.Ragodeji, 4.Ajoji, 5.Duloji, 6.Udoji, 7.Bhimji and 8.Dungarsinghji. Kaviraja Shyamaldas, Vir Vinod, Vol. I, p. 308
[33] Muhta Nensi Ri Khyat, Vol. II, p. 334; MS. Rawal Ranaji Ri Vat, (ORIU), F. 31A; Reu Marwar Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 71; Kaviraja Shyamaldas, Vir Vinod, Vol. I, p. 308., Ojha, Udaipur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol. I, pp. 270 & 272; MS. Mewar Ke Rajaon Ki Raniyon Avam Kunwaron Ka Hal, (SSU), F. 2A
(It gives the name ‘Champa Kanwar’ instead of Hansa Bai. It lists the names of two daughters also, namely (1) Raj Kanwar Bai and (2) Karmeta Bai, from Champa Kanwar.)
[34] MS. Bikaner Ke Rathoran Ri Khyat (By Dayaldas), (ASLB), F. 82, MS. Sisod Vanshavali, (ORIU), F. 15A; (SSU), F. 13A; MS. Rawal Ranaji Ri Vat, (ORIU), FF. 29B-30A;
(Hansabai has been said to be the daughter of Ranmal in this work)MS. Snryavansh Vanshavali, (ORIU), F. 40A; MS. Vanshavali 828, (ORIU), F. 51A; MS. Vanshavali 872, (ORIU, F. 52A; MS. Vanshavali 878, (ORIU), F. 54 A; (These Vanshavalis speak of Mewar demanding the hand of his daughter from Rao Chunda of Mandover)
[35] MS. Bikaner Re Rathoran Ri Khyat (by Dayaldas), (ASLB), F. 82.
[36] MS. Sisod Vanshavali, (ORIU), F. 15A; (SSU), F. 13A; MS. Suryavansh Vanshavali, (ORIU), F. 40A; MS. Vanshavali 828, (ORIU), FF. 51A-51B; MS. Vanshavali 872, (ORIU), F. 52A; MS. Vanshavali 878, (ORIU), F. 54A; MS. Vanshavali 882, (ORIU), F. 28B; MS. Rawal Ranaji Ri Vat, (ORIU), F. 30
The following sources also tell the same tale with slight change :-
Muhta-Nensi Ri Khyat, Vol. I, p. 333; Kaviraja Shyamaldas, Vir Vinod, Vol.I, pp. 307-308; Ojha, Udaipur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol.I, p. 265; Reu, Marwar Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 71.
[37] MS. Sisod Vanshavali, (ORIU), F. 15A; (SSU), F. 13A; MS. Suryavansh Vanshavali, (ORIU), F. 40A; MS. Vanshavali 828, (ORIU), F. 51B; MS. Vanshavali 872, (ORIU), FF. 52A-52B; MS. Vanshavali 878, (ORIU), F. 54 A; MS. Rawal Ranaji Ri Vat, (ORIU), FF. 30B- 31A; Muhta Nensi Ri Khyat, Vol. I, p. 333; MS. Bikaner Re Rathoran Ri Khyat (by Dayaldas), (ASLB), F. 82; Kaviraja Shyamaldas, Vir Vinod, Vol. I, p. 308; Ojha, Udaipur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol.I, pp. 265- 266; Reu, Marwar Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 71
[38] Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Vol. I, p. 224.
[39] Muhta Nensi Ri Khyat, Vol. II, p. 334; Kaviraja Shyamaldas, Vir Vinod, Vol. I, p. 310; Ojha, Udaipur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol. I, pp. 270-71.
[40] Reu, Marwar Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 58.
[41] MS. Bikaner Re Rathoran Ki Khyat (by Dayaldas), (ASLB), F. 78.
[42] Ibid., F. 91.
[43] Undoubtedly the reference to this document by Lakha in favour of Prince Chuuda refers to the one which he had made granting him and the direct descendants in his line the privilege to put the seal of the state emblem, that of the spear, on all ‘sanads’, ‘pattas’ and ‘parvanas’ issued by the State before they could be regarded as valid. The Ranas then used to put their signature (it disappears after Kumbha) or ‘Sahi’. This practice of putting the seal of the ‘spear’ by the descendants of Chunda wasobserved till recent times. (Ojha, Udaipur Rajya Ka Itihas, Vol. I, p. 266 Els and Fn. 2).
[44] MS. Kurabad Ki Tawarikh, (SAB), F. 2
(Dayaldas’ Khyat also mentions that Chunda and Mokal struck documents which must refer to this document of the Kurabad Tawarikh and that one referred to in it and so many others – MS. Bikaner Re Rathoran Ri Khyat, (ASLB), F. 82)
[45] MS. Kurabad Ki Tawarikh, (SAB), F. 2.
[46] This analysis of the age of Mokal disproves the notion that Kumbha was just a minor at the time of his accession. Puhpabai must have been born some time in 1405-06 A.D. as seen above. If we regard Kumbha to be younger and born some time in 1408-09 A.D., he must have been a full blooded youth of 24/25 at the time of his accession in V.S. 1490/1433 A.D. This presumption fit into the literary account of him in the Sanskrit verses of his own times and the heroic exploits of Kumbha soon after his accession.
