1.1 Rajput Identities
The period between the 8th and 11th centuries witnessed the emergence and rise of different Rajput clans and lineages in Rajasthan and Gujarat. This was also a period when there were several invasions, raids and clashes with Muslim chieftains and rulers (for example, with Muhammed Ghori, 1175 CE). It was also the time when the Delhi sultanate under the so-called slave kings (for example, Qutb al-Din Aibak, ruled CE 1206 – 1210) and the Khaljī dynasty was established. This was also a time of interchange, allegiances, victories and defeats that occurred between Rajput rulers themselves and Muslim sultans. It was a time when the culture of valour, heroism and self-sacrifice – a particular kind of Rajput martial ethos – begins to emerge. Not only are a number of heroic narratives composed during this time in Rajasthani and Sanskrit, contemporary oral epics in Rajasthani such as those of Pābūjī and Devnārāyaṇ also situate themselves in that period, i. e. 10th–11th centuries.19 One of the main themes of these oral narratives is the self-sacrificial deeds of the heroes. These oral narratives, as well as written compositions from the period, celebrate heroic death. Death and dying is seen as a kind of victory. Indeed, in all its complexity, the Hammīra-Mahākāvya celebrates this idea in a fundamental manner.20
One of the central narratives that we also find evidence for during this period through inscriptions and also written texts is the so-called agni-kula origins of certain Rajput clans. According to this narrative, of which there exist a number of tellings, Rajput clans, in particular the Chauhans or Cahamanas, arose either directly out of the fire or from the sun during the performance of a yajña (Vedic fire ritual) by Brahmā.21 Their prime purpose was the protection of the yajña from marauding groups of dānavas, daityas and possibly Mlecchas. The narrative of Brahmā’s yajña and the origin of the Chauhans is also retold at the beginning of the Hammīra-Mahākāvya.22
The period preceding the composition of the Hammīra-Mahākāvya is therefore one in which various new kṣatriya (warrior caste) and Rajput identities, clans and dynasties are being forged. The formation of these new clans and dynasties was taking place in the context of allegiances and conflicts amongst Rajput clans themselves as well as between them and the Muslim rulers of the time. One of the most well-known and powerful clans that emerged was that of the Chahamanas or Chauhans. The Hammīra-Mahākāvya is a narrative about one of the most celebrated leaders of this dynasty.
1.2 The Poet
Perhaps it is time now to turn from this rather enigmatic mode to introducing the reader to the poet and the warrior king who appears in his dream. The poet’s name, as mentioned earlier, is Nayachandra Sūri. The warrior king, we already know, is Hammīra.
Nayachandra Sūri is of the Jaina faith. He is a poet with a remarkable scholarly pedigree: he is the disciple and grandson of Jayasiṃha Sūri, a scholar and poet who knew six languages and composed three important works – the Nyāya Sāraṭika, a new grammar of Sanskrit and a poem on Kumāra Nṛpati. But he was famous also because he is supposed to have vanquished Sāraṅga (dhara) in a disputation and was considered to be a master of logic, grammar and poesy. Nayachandra himself was court poet to the Tomara ruler King Vīrama. Hammīra, the hero of the poem he composed, apparently visited him not once but several times in a dream instructing him in the content of the narrative. But there is more to this fascinating story of how the poem got written – not only did Hammīra instruct him in what to write, but Nayachandra also rose to a challenge put forth in King Vīrama’s court that no poet could compose kāvya of the same high order as did Kalidāsa, Bilhana and so on over a thousand years prior. Writing Sanskrit poetry, it seems, had come to a standstill or was at best only mediocre subsequent to the epoch of these grand poets. The king is supposed to have gestured with his eyebrows towards Nayachandra Sūri as the poet in his court who would be capable of composing a poem comparable in poetic depth to the earlier ‘classical’ poetry. Nayachandra thereupon composed this poem about Hammīra that contains sṛṅgāra, vīra and adbhuta rasa.23 Nayachandra’s vision thus encompassed a twofold dream, one about Hammīra, and the other about writing a poem that would match the bygone golden age of Sanskrit poetry. He traverses different worlds in following his creative impulse: the worlds or states of dreaming and being awake, the world of the past that seems to represent a closure, and the world of the future that presents novel possibilities through his investiture of a new age of poetical effort.24
1.3 The Chieftain
The poem is about Hammīra, whose name itself suggests Arabic influence. This is not uncommon amongst Rajputs who carry names such as Zalim Singh, Bahadur Singh, Iqbal Singh and so on. In fact, Hammīra is a Sanskrit form of the Arabic title ‘Amir,’ meaning chieftain or commander. This title was conferred upon early Ghaznavid rulers before the title of ‘Sultan’ was used.25 Indeed, these early Ghaznavid rulers adopted the Sanskritized version of Amir, namely Hammīra or its variants such as Hamira, Hambira, and Hamvira. In fact, several north Indian dynasties refer to the latter series of titles when describing their political adversaries.26 For example:
Hambira is […] mentioned in an eleventh- or twelfth-century inscription from Bada’un while several copperplate inscriptions issued in the name of the Gahadvala rajas of Kanauj between Vikrama 1165 / AD 1109 and Vikrama 1232 / AD 1175 refer to Hammīra. Similarly, a Chauhan inscription of 1167 refers to Hansi fort being protected against Hammīra. Over the following decades, an inscription in the name of the Chalukya Raja Bhima II (1178 – 1239) at Veraval on the coast of Gujarat records the defeat of Hammīra; around the same time, a Yadava inscription from Patna dated ca. 1209 – 10 makes a similar claim […] by the second half of the thirteenth century the term Hammīra had come to denote a series of formidable Turko-Persian adversaries who had menaced the Rajput kingdoms for almost three centuries […] In all these instances, Hammīra is portrayed as a ferocious opponent, an enemy by virtue of strength rather than religious affiliation (Flood 2009, 255 – 256; emphasis added).
Since Hammīra is used to denote a chieftain or great warrior it is to be distinguished as a title from other Sanskrit labels that signify Muslim ethnicity such as Tajika, Turuska and Yavana – as well as Mleccha, which is a more general category to denote stranger, foreigner or barbarian that was also used to refer to non-Vedic communities and cultures such as those belonging to the Kambojas, Śakas, Hunas, Kushanas and so on (Flood 2009, 256). Hammīra thus did not necessarily designate a personal name. For example, Mahmud of Ghazni is conferred the epithet/title Hammīra in a number of places (Flood 2009, 256 and Chattopadhyay 1998). Subsequent to the establishment of the Delhi sultanate, this Sanskritized version of the Arabic Amir “was adopted as a personal name by a myriad of northern Indian Hindu rulers. In an ironic twist, for example, the last scion of the Chauhan royal house was named Hammīra” (Flood 2009, 257).
Hammīra’s name itself suggests a relationship to Mongol/Mughal rulers of the time that may not necessarily have been anchored in resistance. If resistance to Mongol ‘colonial’ rule was foremost in the list of his clan’s aspirations, would they have chosen an appellation derived from the language and culture of their oppressors? Rivalries certainly did exist between Rajput clans and Mongol rulers just as there were rivalries between different Rajput clans. But to adopt a name used by one’s enemies also indicates a kind of admiration and mutuality. Moreover, the ‘Mohammadan’ enemies of Hammīra that Kirtane mentions, are, in fact, never referred to with that particular religious signifier; rather, they are called Yavanas/Śakas/Turks/Mongols/Mughals, even Mlecchas, but not Muslims or ‘Mohammadans.’27 ‘Mleccha’ as a term of exclusion has a long and differentiated pedigree denoting ‘non-Vedic’ communities, foreigners or barbarians. Mleccha, but even more so Śaka, Turk or Mongol, alludes to an ethnicity or a place of origin, along with its accompanying insinuations of divergence from the norm and of ‘otherness.’ Furthermore, as Romila Thapar points out, “much space is given in the Hammīra-Mahākāvya to Hammīra’s conquests of neighbouring kingdoms and his plundering of many cities. As in the case of the Turko-Persian chronicles, battle, plunder and loot were the hallmarks of a heroic king in the literature of the courts” (Thapar 2005, 120). Hammīra’s early conquest are therefore directed to other Rajput kingdoms, it is only toward the latter sections of the poem that his conflicts concern ʿAlāʾ al‐Dīn Khaljī and his generals. Here again the matter is not a simple one of Hindu king versus Muslim sultan. As the sultan lays siege of Hammīra’s fortress, Ranthambore, it is his own Rajput generals who betray him in the hope of being rewarded by being given control of his kingdom by ʿAlāʾ al‐Dīn. In striking contrast to the treachery of the Rajput commanders is the unflinching loyalty of the Mongol/Mudgal/Mughal or so-called ‘neo-Muslim’ rebel generals of ʿAlāʾ al‐Dīn Khaljī to whom Hammīra has granted refuge after they revolted against the former on account of a misunderstanding over the amount of tax they were supposed to hand over to the royal treasury. According to Baranī, these insurgent generals were “neo-Muslims who had taken service with the Khaljīs and settled in various part of Delhi and some had also been granted villages. They were central Asians more recently converted to Islam” (Thapar 2005, 121). The narrative that emerges here is more complex and multifaceted than an uncomplicated story of clear-cut allegiances between groups organized around their religious or quasi-national identities. Instead power, wealth, control and loyalty seem to be the common denominators around which are ordered the actions of Hammīra, ʿAlāʾ al‐Dīn and their respective commanders involving different Rajput clans, Śakas, Turks as well as Mongols.28
Hammīra was a descendant of another great Chauhan king, Pṛthvīrāj III, who ruled from about 1160 CE. Pṛthvīrāj III is the subject of a number of narratives himself, particularly the Sanskrit Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya and the Pṛthvīrāja-rāso, which is also a Sanskrit composition describing Pṛthvīrāj’s reign. Pṛthvīrāj fought a number of battles against Muhammed Ghori but was finally captured and killed by him in 1192 CE. His death and defeat are not mentioned in the Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya. Our knowledge of Hammīra is derived from a number of sources, one being the Hammīra-Mahākāvya itself, but also through inscriptions (from Balwan and Gadha) and other narrative and textual sources such as the Khazāʾin al-futūḥ of Amir Khusraw, the Taʾrīkh-i Fīrūz Shāhī of Ẓiyāʾ al‐Dīn Baranī, the Surjanacarita, the Prākṛta-piṅgala and Sāraṅgadhara-paddhati, as well as later Hindavī and Rajasthani works such as the Hammīra Rāso of Jodharāja, Hammīrahaṭṭa of Candraśekhara and Hammīrāyan of Bhāṇḍauvyās.29
After ascending the throne in 1282, Hammīra set out on a digvijaya (conquest of the cardinal directions) which is also described in the Hammīra-Mahākāvya. The digvijaya led him through towns and principalities in south-eastern Rajasthan and Malwa (Madhya Pradesh) including Mandalgarh, Ujjaini, Dhar, Chittor, Abu, Vardhanapura, Pushkar and so on. After completing the digvijaya he performed a koṭi yajña under the direction of his Purohit, Viṣvarūpa. In the meantime, in 1290 ʿAlāʾ al‐Dīn Khaljī ascended the throne of the Delhi sultanate. In 1298, according to the Taʾrīkh-i Fīrūz Shāhī, ʿAlāʾ al‐Dīn conceived the idea of founding a new religion like the prophet Mohammed and conquering the whole world like a second Alexander. He gave up his first idea quite quickly, considering it to be arrogant. However, he translated the second idea into first conquering Ranthambo...
