Origin of the Guhilots
Summary
This article examines Mr. M. L. Mathur’s contribution to the Indian Historical Quarterly, XXVI, in which he attempts to refute Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar’s thesis that the Guhilots of Mewar were originally Brahmanas. The author, Malati Sharma, systematically critiques Mathur’s main arguments and sources. Mathur relies on a fragmentary inscription of 977 A.D. 15, which he believes refers to the Guhilots as Raghuvamsins. However, the author argues that the correct reading of the inscription, as found in the Bhavnagar Inscriptions, defines the Guhilots as proclaimers of Rama’s glory, not as descendants of the solar family. Secondly, Mathur uses a gold coin ascribed to Bappa Rawal, bearing the symbol of the Sun, as decisive proof of the Guhilots' solar Kshatriya status. The author counters that the coin’s findspot and other indications do not favor its ascription to the Guhila dynasty of Mewar. Thirdly, Mathur points to the sixth verse of the Atpur inscription, dated 977 A.D., which describes Naravahana as a Kshatriya. The author argues that the word "Kshatra" should be understood as military prowess, especially since Naravahana’s ancestor, Guhila, is described as "viprakulanandas mabideva," meaning a Brahmana, in the first part of the same inscription. Mathur’s attempts to explain away the term "mabideva" as a synonym for "Raja" are dismissed, as the author states that "mabideva" is a yogarddha word referring exclusively to a Brahmana. Furthermore, the author cites multiple sources, including the Chittorgarh inscription of V. 1331, the Acaledvara inscription of V. 1342, and the Rajasthani annalist Muhgot Nainsi, all of which describe the Guhilots as originally Brahmanas. Maharana Kumbha’s Ekalingamahatmya and Rasikapriya also describe the Guhilot ancestors as Brahmanas. The author rebuts Mathur’s claim that the first seven names in the Ekalingamahatmya belong to royal priests by noting that these members followed the Brahmana rule of life and were not rulers, hence their exclusion from royal genealogies. In conclusion, the author agrees with Dr. Bhandarkar, stating that the Guhilas of Mewar, like the Satavahanas and Kidambas, practiced a priestly avocation for generations before turning to military pursuits. They eventually came to be regarded as the foremost Kshatriyas of Rajasthan, having led the Aryan hosts in the fight for independence and defense.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This article critically evaluates Mr. M. L. Mathur’s arguments against Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar’s thesis, ultimately reaffirming that the Guhilots of Mewar were originally Brahmanas. The author systematically refutes Mathur’s reliance on a fragmentary inscription, a disputed gold coin, and the Atpur inscription by demonstrating textual misinterpretations and contextual inaccuracies. Furthermore, the conclusion synthesizes corroborating evidence from the Chittorgarh, Acaledvara, and Ekalingamahatmya inscriptions, alongside historical accounts by Muhnot Nainsi and Maharana Kumbha, to solidify the Guhilots’ initial Brahminical status. Ultimately, the article concludes that, similar to the Satavahanas and Chahamanas, the Guhilots transitioned from a priestly to a martial caste. This transformation was facilitated by their Aryan lineage and their subsequent leadership in the defense of Aryan interests, justifying their later recognition as prominent solar Kshatriyas.