Brief History and information about Himachal Pradesh
The period that followed Harsha, experienced the greatest power vacuum in India. His death had weakened the bonds which restrained the disruptive forces. The entire country was pushed to a state of anarchical autonomy. Himachal areas were no exception. The dissensions between local petty chiefs invited outside interference. Rajput princes, who had to leave their own states due to pressures or who came in search of new adventures, appeared on the scene. The old Ranas and Thakurs disappeared or became tributaries and in their places were installed new ones by sword and deceit. Some old Ranas and Thakurs continued for some years, owing nominal allegiance to the new Rajas, who finally emerged as the supreme authority with the passage of time. From the genealogical records and from other evidence, it appears that most of the hill states were already formed before the twelfth century. Some of them as Brah-mapura (Brahmaur), Kuluta (Kulu), Spiti and Srughna (ap-proximately Sirmur area) were, however, in existence for quite some centuries and these are mentioned by Hiuen Tsang as also in the earlier records.
Kangra formed part of the Trigarta Shashtha of jalandhara since very early times of Indian history. As a result of the Hun invasion and the incursions by many tribes later the plains were cut off from the hilly areas. The hilly areas constituted a separate state with its capital at Nagarkot or Kangra. With the passage of time from this state sprang the offshoots of Jaswan, Guler, Siba and Datarpur; Jaswan was formed in A.D. 1170 and Guler in A.D. 1405.
Nurpur was founded in about A.D. 1000 by Jethpal, a Tomar Rajput. Its capital was Pratisthan (Pathankot).
According to Panini, Chamba was a `Janapada’ under the name of Brahmagupta and it formed part of Trigarta Shashtha. It became a state sometime in the sixth century and in A.D. 680, a powerful king, Manu Verman, ruled it. Originally, its area was limited to Brahmaur. King Shail Verman extended its boundaries and founded the city of Chamba in A.D. 920.
According to Hiuen Tsang, Kulu was about 75 miles in circuit and was surrounded by high mountains. Raja Brahmpal ruled it in A.D. 500.
Raja Bir Sen, whose ancestors fled from Bengal in the wake of Muslim invasion, founded Suket in A.D. 1288. His brother, Girisen, founded Keonthal.
Mandi state is an offshoot of Suket and was founded by Ban Sen in the fourteenth century. The town of Mandi was built by Ajber Sen in 1527.
Kutlehar was founded by a Brahman, Jaspal, who ranked as a Rajput. Another state Banghal, was similarly founded by another Brahman, Prithipal, in A.D. 1200.
Bir Chand from Chanderi in Bundelkhand, after defeat-ing the local Thakurs in the Sutlej valley, founded the state of Bilaspur (Kehloor) in about A.D. 900. Its capital was Naina Devi at first but it was later shifted to Bilaspur. Nalagarh is an offshoot of Bilaspur and was founded by Ajai Chand a scion of the Kehlur Rajas.
Bushahar was one of the largest states in Himachal. Evidence regarding its foundation is inconclusive. Its ancient seat was Kamru in Baspa valley and was shifted to Sarahan. The Raja of Bushahar defeated the joint forces of Tibet and Ladakh and by a treaty in the seventeenth century pushed the territories of Tibet to its present boundaries. In this he had the support of the Moghul court.
Sirmur was founded by Raja Rasalu, son of Raja Salvahan of Jaisalmer, its area being approximately the same as under the ancient kingdom of Srugna. Its earlier capital, Sirmuri Tal was washed away by the floods in Giri River in the 12th century and later Nahan became the headquarters of the state. Jubbal, Balson, Ratesh were the offshoots of Sirmur.
With the exception of Kangra, Kulu, Bushahar and Chamba, the other states were founded by Rajput adventurers from the plains between the eighth and twelfth centuries and even in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Of the rest, Mandi, Suket, Sirmur and Nurpur were bigger states while the remaining were small principalities, mostly Thakurais. There were 30 Thakurais, divided into two groups of 12 and 18, Barah Thakurai and Atharah Thakurai which were respectively located in lower Shimla hills and in the valleys of Tons, Pabar and Sutlej rivers. These were Keonthal, Baghat, Kuthar, Kunihar, Bhajji, Dhami, Mehlog, Koti, Mangal, Beja, Bharoli and Baghal of the first group and Jubbal, Sari, Rawingarh, Balson, Ratesh, Ghund, Madhan, Theog, Kumarsain, Khneti, Dela th, Karangla, Kotkhai-Kotgarh, Darkoti, Tharoch, Dhadi, Sangri and Dodra Kawar of the second group.
These states were preoccupied with perpetual wars with one another. But these wars were not usually fought to the finish. Being of the same race or clan and also mostly connected by matrimony, the Rajas, Ranas and Thakurs were content to make the other his tributary. Moreover, the nature of the terrain allowed them to fight only limited wars. A battle or two ensued and that led the states to the exhaustion of their resources. Manpower was scanty as population was thin and scattered. It was mostly through a show of force and pomp and glory instead of actual clash of arms, that a chieftain tried to overawe the other. Bloody and destructive wars were few and deceit and diplomacy were the other means resorted to. It was for these reasons that the rulers usurped most of the state finances, which were meager, and spent them on their own households and pompous living.
Their great forts and magnificent palaces at impressive heights, surrounded by the miserable looking shanties of their subjects are memorials to the forced labour (begar) they extracted from them. In the hills the lands were the prerogative of the crown. As such, the select, irrigated and finest portions of land in valleys belonged to the Raja personally, while the people had to struggle and cut terraces in rocky hill-sides to make land cultivable to eke out a living. Even the results of their labour, the small fields, were not under their control. Land is life in the hills and the land belonged to the Raja. He thus controlled everything, life, security, wealth, and prestige. People owed him implicit allegiance and his authority was complete—personal, feudal and religious.
The economy of these states depended on their natural resources and the way the rulers developed them. Size, forests and trade routes determined the economy of these principalities. The rulers vied with one another in the exhibition of pomp and show, the smaller ones overreaching their means in aping the bigger ones. Consequently, they ran into debts and extorted still more from their subjects to pay the loans off. As such, the smaller the state, the more under-developed it remained, barring one or two exceptions where the rulers were enlightened. Only a few of them had annual revenue of more than Rupees six Lakhs.
Swan Tours - Blogs 