samar n pratha showed in RPOC - Page 2

can any plzzz post the pics plzzzz?

wat..samar n pratha in rpoc..uff..kuch samajh nhi araha..kya history h kya nhi..m so confused..!!

Originally posted by: khushi:-)

Samar Singh was died in Second battle of Tairan in 1192. After 104 yeras later death of prithvi Alaudin Khilji came in power of Delhi in 1296. He attacked in 1303 on chittor.

Earlier Hindu Kings name like.... King George 1, King George 2, King George 3 etc. So i think you guys make some misunderstanding while you watching.

OR it might possible Serial has not make historical accuracy for entertaitment purpose

Yes agreed dear!😳😃

Kaviraj Chand Bardai was a court poet of Maharana Prithviraj and his composition "Prithviraj Raso" is an historical epic and an authentic source of India's medieval history. But the British termed it as spurious and fake. Dr. Buhler was instrumental in having the British regime put a ban on Raso's publication. Regrettably some Indian scholars were also taken in by the British slander against the Raso. Kaviraj Syamaldas of Udaipur wrote an article supporting the British thesis ^{1, 2}. But Raso is an authentic history and this can be established from data available in inscriptions.

Chand BardaiChand Bardai's Prithviraj Raso is Authentic History

Murlidhar H. Pahoja, Ph.D.

Kaviraj Chand Bardai was a court poet of Maharana Prithviraj and his composition "Prithviraj Raso" is an historical epic and an authentic source of India's medieval history. But the British termed it as spurious and fake. Dr. Buhler was instrumental in having the British regime put a ban on Raso's publication. Regrettably some Indian scholars were also taken in by the British slander against the Raso. Kaviraj Syamaldas of Udaipur wrote an article supporting the British thesis ^{1, 2}. But Raso is an authentic history and this can be established from data available in inscriptions.

Dr. Buhler's thesis as also the criticism by Kaviraj Syamaldas, are mainly in relation to the interpretation of certain facts mentioned in the Raso. Their main arguments are as follows:

•1. The Raso states that Prithviraj Chauhan's sister Prithabai was married to Raval Samar Singh of Chittaurgarh. Chronologically this is an impossibility as Prithviraj Chauhan (c.1200 AD) and Raval Samar Singh (c.1300 AD) are placed a century apart.

•2. The Raso states that Prithviraj Chauhan defeated and killed Solanki Bhola Bhim of Gujarat in a battle. Solanki Bhim was living even after the death of Prithviraj as is proved by Solanki Bhim's copper plate grant of Samvat 1256 (1199 AD).

•3. The dates given in the Raso do not correspond with the known dates and uniformly precede the known dates by 90 years. The dates given in Raso are therefore, in error and are not reliable.

The above arguments are examined below:

Raval Samar Singh: Guhil Raval Samar Singh, father of Raval Ratna Singh of Padmini fame, is placed in c.1300 AD, is true. But the Raso does not associate Samar Singh with the Guhil clan of Rajputs. It is true that Chittaurgarh was ruled by the Guhil Rajputs for centuries and the first Guhil Raval was the famed Bappa Raval. But the question here is who was the contemporary of Prithviraj, ruling at Chittaurgarh. Was there another Raval Samar Singh? Sure enough, an examination of the list of inscriptions brings forth another Samar Singh placed in the required time period. Songira Chauhan Maharaj Samar Singh Dev issued two inscriptions dated in Samvat 1239 and 1242 corresponding to AD 1182 and 1185 (Bhandarkar, List Nos. 396 and 406) ³. Kirtipal (also known as Kitu), father of Samar Singh Dev was the founder of the Songira branch of the Chahamanas at Jalor. Kirtipal took possession of Chittaurgarh by defeating Guhil Samant Singh⁴. Kirtipal was succeeded by his son Samar Singh. It was this Samar Singh who was ruling at Chittaurgarh during the times of Prithviraj and whose wife was Prithabai the sister of Prithviraj.

In addition to the above inscriptions, there are available documents of the time of Samar Singh which corroborate the marriage of Prithabai and Samar Singh. These are as follows⁵:

•1. Letter from Prithviraj dated Anand Samvat 1143 (1175 AD) to Acharaj Rishikesh telling him that he has been assigned to Prithabai as part of her dowry.

•2. Letters of Raval Samar Singh to Acharaj Rishikesh

•(i) Dated Anand Samvat 1139 (1171 AD) welcoming him as a part of Prithabai's entourage and assigning him his rights.

(ii) Dated Anand Samvat 1145 (1177 AD) stating that the village of Moi is being granted to Acharaj Rishikesh.

•3. Letter of Prithabai to her son informing him that Samar Singh has been killed in battle and I am performing Sati, please take care of Rishikesh and his children.

It is clear from the above that Raval Samar Singh of the Raso is a Songira Chauhan ruler and not a Guhil King and that this Raval Samar Singh was ruling at Chittaur and was married to Prithabai.

Solanki Bhola Bhim: Detractors of Raso cite Chaulukya Bhimdev's copper plate grant of Samvat 1256 (No. 438 of Bhandarkar's list) ³ to point out that Solanki (Chaulukyas of Gujrat are also called Solanki) Bhim was living even after the last battle of Prithviraj (Samvat 1249) and hence conclude that Raso was wrong in stating that Bhola Bhim was killed by Prithviraj. As a matter of fact Inscriptions of Solanki Bhim Dev are available from Samvat 1235 (1178 AD) to Samvat 1296 (1239 AD) (Nos. 381, 386, 435, 438, 451, 452, 486, 487, 526 and 527 of the Bhandarkar list) ³ However, all of these do not belong to the same Bhim Dev. The inscription of Samvat 1236 (No. 386 of Bhandarkar list) calls Bhim as Bala Bhim son of Ajay. The geneology given in the copper plate of Samvat 1256 on the other hand, shows Bhim as grandson of Ajay and son of Mulraj. Clearly, Bala Bhim and Mulraj were brothers and Bhim Dev son of Muldev was a nephew of Bala Bhim. It is significant that Bhola Bhim is also called Balakka Bhim in the Raso. This Bala Bhim of inscriptions is the Bhola Bhim or Balakka Bhim of Raso who was killed in battle by Prithviraj sometime after Samvat 1236 (1179 AD).

Anand Samvat: The Samvats of Raso uniformly precede the known Vikram Samvats by 90 years. It only means that the Samvat used in the Raso has a starting point in 90 Vikram Samvat. In fact the Raso itself states that the Samvat of Prithviraj is Anand Samvat and is different from Vikram Samvat.

,dkn'k ls iapng fodze 'kkd vuanA

frfg fjiq iqj tS gju dks gq; i'fFkjkt ufjUnAA

In the year 1115 by Vikram Anand reckoning, Prithviraj took birth to win in battle the cities of the enemies.

The Raso equates the Anand Vikram era with Gupta Era.

,dkn'k le;s lqd'r fodze ftfe /kzelqkA

r'rh; lkd i'Fohjkt dks fy[;ks foizxqu xqIrAA

The year 1100 refers to the reckoning of Prithviraj which like Vikram and Dharmaraj era's is a third era described by the learned as 'Gupta'.

This is an important statement regarding Gupta Era the starting point of which the Raso fixes at 90 Vikram. This is at variance with the view held by historians that the Gupta Era starts at 376 Vikram which view needs to be reconsidered in the light of the above assertion in the Raso.

In conclusion it can be said that based on inscriptional data, the objections raised with regard to the authenticity of the Raso are without foundation and result from ignorance of facts and incomplete homework on the part of the detractors of Raso. The decision by the British Regime to ban the publication of Raso was a highhanded and ill-motivated action. Dr. Buhler who initiated the action, did not base his recommendations on objective analysis and his claim to scholarship is questionable.

References

•1. Kaviraj Syamaldas "The Antiquity, Authenticity and Genuineness of the epic called the Prithviraj Rasa and commonly ascribed to Chand Bardai" J Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, V 55, Pt.1, 1886.

•2. dfojkt ';keynkl % ^i'Fohjkt jklk dh uohurk*] i'Fohjkt jklks dh foospuk] lEiknd eksguyky O;kl 'kkL=h ,oa ukFkwyky O;kl] i'- 1&61] mn;iqj] la- 2015 bZ- 1959

•3. D.R. Bhandarkar : List of Inscriptions of Northern India in Brahmi and its derivative scripts from about 200 A.C., Appendix to Epigraphia Indica Vol XIX to XXIII, 1983.

•4. D.C. Ganguly, "Northern India during the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries", History and Culture of the Indian People, Ed. R.C. Majumdar, Vol 5, Ch II, pp 87-88, Bombay 1979.

•5. jk; cgknqj ia- xkSjh'kadj ghjkpUn vks>k % ^jklks dk fuekZ.k dky*] i'Fohjkt jklks dh foospuk] lEiknd eksguyky O;kl 'kkL=h ,oa ukFkwyky O;kl] i'- 214&48] mn;iqj] la- 2015 bZ- 1959

actually me too confused reading all this sabko padne ko diya

Thanks for sharing this information khushi dear! Pls. post this in history of PRC Thread as well buddy!⭐️