78 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XV. 
From the cumulative evidence of the facts considered 
above it would therefore seem that rava Vik6, the founder of 
Bikaner, was elder than rava Sijo, the progenitor of the Jodha 
Rathoras who for over four centuries have been sitting on the 
gaddi of Jodhpur. Consequently, the ruling family of Bikaner 
is justified in its claim of seniority in respect to the ruling 
family of Jodhpur. Needless to say, the solution of the ques- 
tion of seniority in favour of Bikaner, has merely an ideal 
value, and does in no way affect the existing relations between 
the two States, nor detract from or add to the prestige of their 
respective Rulers. For if Sujo was not the legitimate heir of 
Satala by right of birth, he was the legitimate heir by election, 
and we have seen that, in the case of Marwar, the assembly of 
the nobles had the power to set nore the law of primogeniture 
and legalize the succession of a younger son. Therefore the 
election of Stjo was baile fecal But Viko, to all appear- 
ances, was elder than h 
The problem ‘hick I have tried to solve in the above 
Chronicles had preserved to us the accurate dates of birth of 
Vik6 and Sajo. Sursevatibtely: these dates have been altered 
both by the Bikaner Chronicles and by the Chronicles of Jodh- 
pur, each of the two sides wishing to represent the progenitor 
of its ruling family as senior to the progenitor of the ruling 
family of the other State. Thus the great majority of the 
Jodhpur Chronicles give Samvat 1497 as the vear of the birth 
of Viko, and Samvat 1496 as the year of the birth of Sijo, 
making the latter elder by only one year, just what was suffi- 
cient for their purpose. To counteract their measure, Dayala 
n force 
seme ay the birth of Viko in ioe heey 1495, Phos one ee earlier 
om in most of these cases. The réle of Raikeyi in the 
saan wa wel many times by other crafty ranis at the courts of 
Petes ana, Tradition says that a female had her share in fostering the 
of excluding him from the succession and even banishing him from Jod 
pur (D. C.,i, i, 5, pp. 29a rhs Another siastins drama had been enacted 
Jesalmer about three centuries earlier, when ravala _ po a had 
banished his eldest son Kelhan na and nominated t cessor 
Lakhamana, a younger son. In Bikaner itself we find ak Rai Singha 
(Samvat 1630-68 ?) designate Pedlnmeco a younger son, from affection 
ase 
as mar ev y Muhammada storians: ‘‘ The oms 
of the Rathéras are different from those of other Rajputs a ‘that child 
sue whose mother be father has loved most, though he be the 
younger , rom t a above-sin ntioned family custom] it heppanad 
that on the death of Uae Singha, A toate a Singha, though he was younger 
than his brothers, succeeded to the title of Rajah . ”  (Maasiru-l- 
umara, transl. by Beveridge, pp. 571: 2). 
