Further to the previous article, let us demolish a few more lies regarding the Prithviraj era that are perpetuated in the mainstream. 

Jaichand Was A Traitor, And Prithviraj-Sanyogita’s Love Was The Catalyst Of Prithviraj-Jaichand Enmity

Maharaja Jayachandra

Raso incorrectly calls Maharaja Jayachandra a Rathore. He was a Gahadavala (separate clan), as has been stated by all sources before the 15th-century genesis of Raso. We found no contemporary or near-contemporary evidence of this allegation that Jayachandra was a traitor who invited Ghori to India against Prithviraj. Even Raso’s author, Chandvardai, extols Jayachandra for terrorizing Ghori. ^[1]

The Gahadavala inscriptions are full of their conflicts and antagonism with the Turukshas (Muslims). A few examples:

– Sarnath inscription ^[2] of KumāraDevī, wife of Govindachandra Gahadavala: 

It says that Govindachandra applied Turushka danda (tax). It was to fight Muslim invasions. The inscription also says that Jayachandra had come to this earth as an avatāra of Hari to save Kashi from the Turushka menace. Minhaj’s data from Tabaqat-i-Nasiri shows that the Turushka menace was said in the context of a Ghaznavid expedition around 1115 AD by their General Hajib Tughatigin under Masud III.

– Many such inscriptions, like the Etawah copper grant, the Badaun inscription of Lakhanapala, and the inscription placed in the Royal Asiatic Society, etc., are portals of the long-standing Gahadavala struggle with Muslim powers. ^[3]

– Jayachandra’s battles against Islamic invaders have been praised in the 14th century politically neutral text, Purusha Pariksha ^[4] of Vidyapati.

Beyond inscriptions and texts, the collective memory of our society is a witness of its own. Even in the late Mughal era and the early British era, it shows no sign of negative connotation attached to Jayachandra or his name. Rathore texts like Ajitvilas ^[5] and Suraj Prakash ^[6] written in Rajasthan, glorify Jayachandra. British gazetteers like Calcutta 1877 AD and Imperial India 1897 AD witnessed the name Jayachandra proudly used by elite sections of society.

Another charge is that Jayachandra rejoiced upon the demise of Prithviraj Chauhan and had his city illuminated for celebration. The only source spouting this is the 15th-century Prithviraj Prabandh ^[7], whose genesis lies around the same time as Raso. There are two problems with this: 

1. Most Jaina traditions of the medieval era were seeded under Chaulukyan patronage. Chaulukya-Chauhan rivalry in Prithviraj’s times is no secret. It makes the anti-Chauhan bias in these texts obvious, such as the atrocious statement that Prithviraj was sleeping on the battlefield for ten days. The Jaina text makes Jayachandra celebrate the development.
2. If Jayachandra’s daughter had run away and married Prithviraj, wouldn’t Jayachandra (who let the wedding happen and sent the dowry, by the way) have to worry about his daughter’s safety instead of celebrating Prithviraj’s death? Or if she had passed away already, wouldn’t Jayachandra be in mourning or at least not celebrate?

Now the important question is how this nasty myth began. At the root of this is the lie propagated in the Ain-e-Akbari. Its author, Abul-Fazl was a bard of the Mughals. By the time we reach Akbar’s rule, the Delhi-Agra region had been the political epicenter of north India for centuries. Hence, the counter-narrative from the Hindus also portrayed Prithviraj as the Hindu Emperor of Delhi before the Muslim rule in Delhi. When Abul-Fazl began covering the history of the same Delhi (now the seat of Akbar). He was forced to defend the power transition from Hindus to i.e., Prithviraj to the Ghurids. Per his loyalties and ideologies, Abul Fazl could not acknowledge a bloodied takeover by Muslim power. The fault must lie with the native Hindus. Hence, he fabricates that Maharaja Jayachandra invited Ghori to India against Prithviraj, to give the notion that – it wasn’t a forced entry, but we were invited here by your own people. ^[8] 

This work was written toward the end of the 16th century. What it speaks of the events of the end of the 12th century can not be taken at face value without corroboration. On the basic requirement of a primary source predating himself, Abul Fazl could not give any specific evidence of that kind as none existed. He simply wants us to trust his words about what happened 400 years before him. That’s not all; two Hindu sources reached the mainstream around the same time as Ain-e-Akbari, i.e., Prithviraj Raso and Surjaran Charit. Both cover Prithviraj Chauhan and the events of the 12th century. Neither of them makes any mention of such a betrayal by Maharaja Jayachandra. 

Why did we lap up this myth? Finding simple answers to all questions is needed among the masses as well as for polarizing narratives. This leads to the murder of specifics of history. It is much easier to dump the blame on a fabricated local traitor than to ponder deeper on the reasons for failures. More worrisome than this myth is the fact that our society has let it fester for so long. If history doesn’t force us to introspect, then we’re not learning from it. It is time to truly introspect.

To sum up,  ‘Traitors par sum Jayachandras’ is one of the filthiest crimes committed to History in modern times. Without evidence, a man who oversaw the construction of Treta Ke Thakur Temple ^[9] has been turned into the synonym of a traitor. The laymen, the so-called intellectuals, and even famous (ex) army dabangs who are media personalities these days ^[10], they all use Jayachandra’s name like a cool expletive that comes in handy when one has an itch to sermonize. Most disappointing has been the charge made by Cynthia Talbot, a professor at the University of Texas. In her book tracing the memory of Prithviraj Chauhan, she states that the Raso places on Maharaja Jayachandra the blame for inviting Ghori to India against Prithviraj. ^[11] The fact, however, is that no recension of Raso has any such statement about the Gahadavala King.^[12] 

Sanyogita

Now we turn to the Sanyogita side of this story. Supposed daughter of Jayachandra and princess of Gahadavalas/Rathores. The brief story that transpires between the second-last and last conflict of Prithviraj-Ghori is as follows:

Jayachandra, the ruler of Kannauj, planned a Rājasūya yagna and Swayamvara^[13] for princess Sanyogita. He invited various kings/chieftains. An invitation was sent to Prithviraj Chauhan as well, but it read – “Take a stick and guard the door of yagna ceremony hall.” Prithviraj’s court challenged that the egoistic Jayachandra would fail in his deluded objective. Angry Jayachandra had a gold effigy of Prithviraj placed as a gatekeeper in the yagna hall for derision. Despite Jayachandra’s efforts to dissuade Princess Sanyogita, she was determined to wed Prithviraj only. The Kannauj King confined her to her palace. Soon, Prithviraj reaches Kannauj with a small chosen party of a few hundred and Chandvardai. While Prithviraj remained covert as a disguised follower of his bard, Chandvardai met Jayachandra at Kannauj in a regular fashion. Jayachandra’s spies get the wind of what was going on and inform him. He swiftly deployed his army. But scuttling the ceremonies, a horse-mounted Prithviraj plucks the excited Sanyogita away, amidst the heavily outnumbering infantry of Jayachandra. For three days, the vast army of Jayachandra was hot on the heels of Prithviraj’s entourage. Numerous of the latter’s sāmantas and officers sacrificed themselves in trying to slow down the chasing army till Prithviraj reached his territory. Jayachandra eventually relented and sent dowry and other ritualistic items for his daughter’s wedding, which happened with all the pomp in Delhi. ^[14]

Does History ratify this? Let us see.

Prithviraj Raso, the only text identifying Sanyogita and the love story with Prithviraj, comprises broadly four recensions which amply differ from each other. One of the stark differences is the number of wives Prithviraj has:

Longest recension – 13 wives

Medium – 5 wives

Short—2 (Sanyogita and Ichchin)

Shortest – 1 (Sanyogita)

Rājasūya and Swayamvara are grand ceremonies to perform, even rarer for a medieval king. Such events are bound to be illustrated in the history of the performing king. Yet no source before the 400-year-old Raso speaks of any such events on Jayachandra’s part. This is baffling because these ceremonies form the meat of the supposed Jayachandra-Prithviraj enmity.

Based on Raso’s data, this high voltage abduction and wedding happened between the two Tarain battles. Both the battles of Tarain between Ghori and Prithviraj took place in the 1190 to 1192 AD bracket. For many months after the Tarain-I victory, Prithviraj couldn’t rest or distract himself because of the Chauhans sieging Sirhind/Sarhind fort (early 1192 AD) in Punjab, where the Ghurid garrison was holed up. The Second Battle of Tarain was fought 2-3 months after Sirhind’s Ghurid garrison fell.^[15] So when did Prithviraj have the time to correspond with a princess, admit his love, and carry her away from Kannauj, far away in the east?

Around 1400 AD came Nayachandra Suri, who wrote extensively on both the Gahadavalas and Chauhans via Rambha Manjari Natika and Hammir Mahakavya. He was privy to data on both sides, yet makes no mention of any Sanyogita affair or Prithviraj-Jayachandra enmity. If an event like an open abduction of a rival’s princess happens amidst a pair of rare Rājasūya and Swayamvara events, leading up to a dramatic and epoch-changing fallout for the whole of north India, are we supposed to believe that so many portals of history would forget about it? 

At one point, Raso^[16] tells that Jayachandra and Prithviraj were cousins (their mothers being Tomara daughters of Anangapal). Later it also states that Prithviraj eloped and married Jayachandra’s daughter Sanyogita, i.e. his own niece. What could be more preposterous in medieval Hindu society than someone marrying their niece?

The contemporary Prithviraj Vijaya is incomplete and the available parts have hardly any usable historical information after the 1178 AD events of Ghori and Chaulukyas. There is no mention of Prithviraj’s marriage or children in this text. As per Prithviraj Vijaya, when the young king is mesmerized by the portrait of the heavenly nymph Tilottama in a gallery, its author, Jayanak, seems to tell Prithviraj about the nymph’s avatara in a city on the bank of Ganga.^[17] But even before that, when Prime Minister Kadambavas had to dissuade Prithviraj from getting involved in Ghori’s 1178 AD campaign, he said – ‘Don’t intervene in Ghori-Chaulukya war. They’ll kill each other for territory, just as Sunda and Upasunda did for getting Tilottama.’ It dilutes the credence given to the mention of Tilottama, in connecting her to Sanyogita; drawing parallel to the fact that Raso calls Sanyogita an avatara of nymph Rambha.

Tilottamā, Rambha, etc. nymph incarnations have been used as a fictional theme by other bardic authors of the era. One resemblance between the narrative of Raso and Prithviraj Vijaya, in this case, can’t be relied upon as the sole proof to conclude the historicity of the Sanyogita-Prithviraj love marriage.

Tilottama-Sanyogita identification is tenuous at best. In the 12th century, there were three major ancient cities on the bank of the river Ganga  – Haridwar, Kashi, and Patna. How do we become sure it is the Kashi princess Sanyogita only? 

In all contemporary and near-contemporary sources of Prithviraj’s history, the Gahadavala Kingdom wasn’t central to the focus/awareness of Prithviraj and his court. It is supported by the fact that the two kingdoms didn’t even share a border. In the south, there were Bhadanakas, Kachhapaghatas, and Paramaras. Up north, there were Tomaras with reasonable sovereignty, minting their own coins.

The timing of events makes it further untenable. The Chauhan scion falls madly in love with the Tilottamā avatara of Prithviraj Vijaya already in the 1178-79 AD timeframe, and her mundane identity is also revealed. If she was Sanyogita, as some suggest, then how were all the events of a love affair, abduction, marriage, neglect of administration, etc. happening 12 years later in the early 1190s (before Tarain-II)?

Ladies Defiled?

There are murmurs in some corners that after Tarain-II, Sanyogita was misbehaved with by some Ajmer-based Mullah. Not only the existence of Sanyogita is itself un-established. There is no contemporary or near contemporary evidence of such a thing happening to any royal lady after the war. While Raso’s recensions varyingly say that Sanyogita either died immediately upon hearing of Prithviraj’s demise or became Sati (self immolation). The contemporary norms are humbly recorded in numerous inscriptions of the medieval era. They tell us that the ladies of the house of any king or small chieftain would typically commit Sati upon his untimely/violent demise. Few examples from just around the time of the famous battle:

The Ustra (Ustaran) Inscription – May 4th , 1192 AD ^[18]
Goth-Mangalod Inscription – May 4th , 1192 AD ^[19]
Badlu (Nagaur) Inscription – April 27th , 1192 AD ^[20] 

Citations

[1]. Prithviraj Raso Laghu Sanskarana, Ch. 9, verse 33-35

[2]. Epigraphia Indica vol 09, Pg 319-21

[3]. Prithviraj Chauhan – A light on the mist in History, Pg 90

[4]. Ch. 37, Pg 201

[5]. Pg 198 

[6]. verse 145

[7]. Puratan Prabandh Sangraha – SJG edition, Pg 86 & 89

[8]. Ain-e-Akbari – edited by Jadunath Sarkar, vol 2, Pg 307

[9]. Instrumental evidence in Ram Janma Bhumi Ayodhya case

[10]. TAG TV: India-Pakistan War and Peace Prospects – Major Gaurav Arya’s exclusive conversation with Tahir Gora – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnjJkkY5U8g

[11]. The Last Hindu Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past 1200-2000 AD by Cynthia Talbot – Pages 25, 111

[12]. Raso Sahitya Vimarsh – MataPrasad Gupt, Pg 161

[13]. Rajasuya is the consecration of a King, formally establishing his power and charisma in surrounding Kingdoms. Swayamvara is the ceremony of a potential bride selecting by her choice the groom from a pool of candidates.

[14]. Prithviraj Raso Laghu Sanskarana, Ch. 6

[15]. Tabaqat-I-Nasiri, Pg 464

[16]. Prithviraj Raso Vrihat Sanskarana, Nagri Pracharini Sabha edition, Ādi Parva, Pg 134, verse 342

[17]. PrithvirajVijaya, Ch. 12, verse 78

[18]. Rajasthan Itihas Ke Strot, Pg 99

[19]. Prithviraj Chauhan and His Times, Pg 181

[20]. Dillipati Prithviraj Chauhan triteey evam Unka Yug, Pg 146