Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. I, Part I: History of Gujarat c10: Part II. The Kingdom of Anahilavada. A.D. 746-1300

Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. I, Part I: History of Gujarát c10

Language
English

Contents

Part II. The Kingdom of Anahilavada. A.D. 746-1300

c10.1

THE KINGDOM OF ANAHILAVADA.

c10.2

A.D. 746-1300.

Chapter I. The Chavadas A.D. 720-956

c10.s1.1

THE CHAVADAS

c10.s1.2

A.D. 720-956.

c10.s1.3

The history of Gujarat in the preceding chapters is noted for being fragmentary, pieced together from coins, stone and copperplate inscriptions, local traditions and other available sources. A history based on such materials must necessarily be imperfect, but the blanks which it may be hoped future research will gradually fill.

c10.s1.4

The rise of the kingdom of Anahilavada in A.D. 746 marks a new period in Gujarat history, a period for which materials are available from established writings. Though the history of Gujarat history begins with the establishment of Anahilavada by the Chavadas (A.D. 720-956), the details for the earlier portion are very imperfect, being written during the time of the Chalukyas (Solankis A.D. 957-1242), successors of the Chavadas. The chief sources of information regarding the earlier period of Chavadas are the opening chapters of the Prabandhachintamani, Vicharshreni, Sukritakirtikallolini, and Ratnamala.

c10.s1.5

Before the establishment of Anahilavada, a small Chavada chieftainship existed at Panchasar, now a small village in Radhanpur, between Cutch and Kathiawar. The existence of a Chavada chieftainship at Panchasar is proved by the Navsari grant, dated Samvat 800 (A.D. 738-65) of the Gujarat Chalukya king Pulakesi Janasraya. This grant mentions the defeat of the Tajikas (a name of the Tajiks or Arabs)

c10.s1.6

The following authorities have been consulted in preparing Part II. Merutunga's Prabandhachintamani, translated by C. H. Tawney; the Vicharshreni of Merutunga; the Prabandhakosha of Rajasekhara Suri; the Sukritakirtikallolini of Someshvara; the Ratnamala of Krishnaji; the Kumarapalacharita of Hemachandra; the Dvyashrayakavya of Hemachandra; the Vadnagar Prashasti; and various other inscriptions and copperplates from Gujarat and Kathiawar.

c10.s1.7

The Prabandhachintamani is a short historical compilation by a Jain monk, Merutunga, in A.D. 1304. It is written in Sanskrit, and is a collection of stories about the kings of Gujarat. It is very well known, and contains many stories taken from the Prabandhachintamani in Sanskrit. Another work is the Vicharshreni of Merutunga, which is a list of kings.

c10.s1.8

The Ratnamala of Krishnaji, a work of the Vaghela period, is slightly called after the name of the king.

c10.s1.9

From Sindh to Navsārī and mentioning the kingdoms attacked by the Arabs, names the Chāvaṭakas next after the kings of Saurāshtra. These Chāvaṭakas can be no other than the rulers of Pañchāsar on the borders of Kachh. The Chāvaṭas of Vatsa do not appear to have been important rulers. At the most they seem to have held Vadhīār and part of the north coast of Kachh. Whatever the origin of the name Chāvaṭa, which was later Sanskritised into the highsounding Chāpoṭkaṭa or Strāgachchha, it does not seem to be the name of any great dynasty. The name closely resembles the Gujarāti Chor (Prakrit Chora or Chora) meaning thieves or robbers; and Jāvaḍā, which is a further corruption of Chāvaṭa, is the word now in use in these parts for a thief or bandit. Except the mention of the Chāvaṭakas in the Navsārī copperplate we do not find the Chāvaṭas noticed in any known contemporary Gujarāt copperplates. For this reason it seems fair to regard them as unimportant rulers over a territory extending from Pañchāsar to Anahilavāḍa.

c10.s1.10

The author of the Ratnamālā (c. 1230 A.D.) says that in A.D. 756 (S. 756) Jayasekhara the Chāvaṭa king of Pañchāsar was attacked by the Chaulukya king Bhuvada of Kalyāṇakaṭaka in Kanyakubja or Kanoj and slain in battle. Before his death Jayasekhara, finding his affairs hopeless, sent his pregnant wife Rūpasundarī to the forest in charge of his brother Surapāla, one of his chief warriors. After Jayasekhara's death Rūpasundarī gave birth to a son, Vanarāja, who became the illustrious founder of Anahilavāḍa. It is hard to say how much truth underlies this tradition. In the eighth century no Chaulukya but Pāla kings flourished in Kanoj. No place of importance called Kalyāṇakaṭaka is recorded in the Kanoj records. And though there was a southern Chālukya kingdom with its capital at Kalyāṇ, its establishment at Kalyāṇ was about the middle of the eleventh not in the seventh century. Besides the known Dakhan Chālukya lists contain no king named Bhuvada, unless he be the great Chālukya king Vijayāditya (A.D. 696-733) also called Jayāśraya, who warred in the north and was there imprisoned and made his escape. The inference is that the author of the Ratnamālā, knowing that a Chālukya originally belonged to a city called Kalyāṇ, and knowing that a Chālukya king named Bhuvada had defeated the Chāvaṭas, may have called Bhuvada king of Kalyāṇakaṭaka and identified Kalyāṇakaṭaka with a country so well known to Paurāṇik fame as Kanyakubja. This view is supported by the absence in the Prabandha-chintāmaṇi and other old records of any mention of an invasion from Kanoj. It is possible that in A.D. 696 a king Bhuvada of the Gujarāt Chālukyas, of whom at this time branches were ruling as far north as Kaira, invaded the Chāvaṭas under Jayasekhara. Since there is no sign of a Chāvaṭaka kingdom remain, at least as late as A.D. 720, it seems probable that the destruction of Pañchāsar was caused not by Bhuvada in A.D. 696, but in the Arab raid mentioned above which falls about A.D. 720. About A.D. 720 may therefore be taken as the date.

c10.s1.11

¹ See above page 148.

c10.s1.12

² See above page 149.

c10.s1.13

of the birth of Vanaraja. Merutunga, the author of the Prabandha Chintamani, tells how Rupsundari was living in the forest owing to the death of her husband, when a Jain priest named Silaguna Suri, passing by, predicted that her son would one day be a king. The story adds that the boy, named Vanaraja, was born in the forest, and was called Vanaraja or the Forest King. When about ten old, the mother and child went to the court of the king of Panchasar, and the boy was well received. The king, however, was not the rightful owner of the kingdom. He had usurped the throne of his brother. These details are, however, by no means in the same form in every version of the story, and are of little historical value.

c10.s1.14

As he grew up, Vanaraja showed a great deal of intelligence, much courage, and a remarkable power of command. He was, however, not allowed to remain in peace. The king, under the sympathy of the queen, who had a great affection for him, having heard of the prophecy of Vanaraja’s future, and fearing he might be a rival to his own son, determined to remove the presence of the boy. Vanaraja, however, having been warned by the queen, fled, and after many adventures, succeeded in escaping the king’s persecution. He then gathered a band of followers, and in order to realize the rewards of his bravery, he and his men collected a large amount of wealth by means of raids. With this wealth, he took and fortified Panchasar. Vanaraja was now well established, and he soon commenced his career as a king. With the wealth thus acquired, Vanaraja marched an army and established his own kingdom, hence the name of the city of Anahilwada. The story of what afterwards rose to be the city of Anahilwada. The story of the conquest of the city, the establishment of Anahilwada, the building of the temple standing there, and the display of strength and courage, Vanaraja is said to have built a library of Sanskrit, and named Anahilwada after a shepherd who showed him a best site. Anahilwada was built in the year 802 of the Vikrama era, and he then enclosed a city. However, the tradition of Anahilwada city that has been called after him, and it is said that he was popularly known as Anahila, and the city was named after the place of Anahila. The Prabandha Chintamani says that he was born in (S. 802) at the time of the installation of the city, and that Vanaraja was the son of another dynasty (S. 802) is mainly seen at the date of his installation. The date of the city was planted by saying in 746 (S. 802) is the date of Vanaraja getting the kingdom, and the date of his installation (S. 821) is the date of his installation at the city of Anahilwada. The installation of the date (S. 746 & 802) with an image of the city which is said to be as the establishment of the city and

c10.s1.15

[The text at the bottom is cut off and partially illegible, but appears to be:] in the year 746 by the king, Anahilwada city was also named after the shepherd of the city. The city was in the kingdom of the Chavada king, commonly called Vanaraja.

c10.s1.16

to bear the date 802. But as the letters of the inscription on the image can be made out by ordinary readers they cannot be inscribed at nearly so early a date as 802 A.D. (746 A.D.), the year given in the Vichārasreṇī, seems the more probable date of installation as the Prabandhachintāmaṇi says that Vanarāja himself installed at Anahilapura when he was king. This accords with the date fixed on other grounds. Vanarāja’s birth at about A.D. 720 would make him 44 in A.D. 764, the date at which according to the Vichārasreṇī he was formally set as sovereign of Anahilvāda. Merutunga in both his works gives length of Vanarāja’s life at 109 and of his reign at sixty. The figure 60 seems to mark the length of his life and not of his reign; a long a reign as sixty years is barely possible for a sovereign who succeeded late in life, and the 109 years of his life can hardly be correct. Taking Vanarāja’s age at 45 when he was installed at Anahilvāda (S. 821) and allowing fifteen years more to complete the state to A.D. 780 (S. 836) would be the closing year of his reign.

c10.s1.17

The Prabandhachintāmaṇi narrates how generously Vanarāja rewarded those who had helped him in his adversity. His installation was performed by a woman named Srī Devī of Kākaṇ village, in fulfilment of an early promise Vanarāja had taken to be his sister. The story regarding the promise is that once when Vanarāja had gone with his uncle on a thieving expedition to Kākaṇ village and had broken into the house of a merchant he by mistake dipped his hand into a pot of curds. As to touch curds is the same as to dine at a house as a guest, Vanarāja left the house without taking any hire from it. Hearing what had happened the merchant’s sister invited Vanarāja as a brother to dinner and gave him clothes. In return Vanarāja promised if he ever regained his father’s kingdom he should receive his installation as king at her hands. Vanarāja chose as minister a Bania named Jāmba. The story is that while Vanarāja was looting with two others he came across a merchant Jāmba who had two arrows. Seeing only these enemies, Jāmba broke and threw away one of the arrows, shouting ‘One for each of you.’ Vanarāja admiring his coolness persuaded Jāmba to join his band and found him a useful ally; he promised to make him minister. From the absence of any reference to him in these and similar tales it is probable that his uncle Surapāla died before the installing of Vanarāja. Vanarāja is said to have built at Anahilvāda a Jain temple of Pañchāsara Pārsvanātha, and that the image was brought from the old settlement of Pañchāsara. Men of this temple continues during the Solanki and Vāghela times.

c10.s1.18

Vanarāja is said to have placed a bowing image of himself facing the image of Pārsvanātha. The figure of Vanarāja is still shown at Sidhpur.

c10.s1.19

¹ The text is ‘Pañchāsaravarsbadesyaḥ.’

c10.s1.20

² Probably Kākaṇ famous for its bullocks.

c10.s1.21

³ Stories of thieves refraining from plundering houses where they have accidentally laid their hands on salt or millet are common.

c10.s1.22

⁴ The making of the installation mark on the forehead is the privilege of the king’s sister who gives a blessing and receives a present of villages.

c10.s1.23

and a version of it is given by the late Mr. Forbes in his Râs Mâlâ. This is clearly the figure of a king with the umbrella of state and chauri, as is the head-dress in the east. He long ornaments called kundal are not of the usual form, but are like those of the Jains or Buddhists. Figures like these were consequently called Vâniâs. The king wears a long coat, a dhoti, and a scarf, which hangs down the back. Beside the king is a female, with bracelets, earrings, and anklets, and a large ornament hangs over the chest from the shoulder. To the right he holds a staff, and in his left hand he holds a long white object, not a sword. Below is the animal, perhaps a lion, but very indistinct. The style of art closely resembles the Jaina images of a king of the Bâbhrâ or perhaps Vâniâ, in the yard of a temple at Mâli about twenty-five miles north of Sâmnâth Pâtan. It is possibly a Jaina image, and is certainly contemporary with the other figures of an era of the Jaina or similar faith, and is not, as some suppose, the statue of Anraja the father of Jayasimha, a statue of Vasantapâla at Girnâr. The details of this figure belong to the Jaina period.

c10.s1.24

The rule of Vanarâja, as we have seen, greatly on the wane, on the basis of the dates and the lengths of reign, the total time can be fixed in round numbers at about 196 years, or a duration of 196 years by the Chavada dynasty, or the period of Vanarâja, the accession of the Solanki family, this date is given by the Vâniâs or the Jaina books found in the Prabandhachintâmani of Merutunga, as corresponding with the original difference of nineteen years (S. 802-821) (A.D. 746-765) for the founding of the city. Forbes says that indeed the total amount of the dynasty was traditionally known to be 147 years, the one or two or three years not known and some materials to the Jaina or the different books, and Carter says that of the dynasty is not known with the compilers and the known records show some discrepancies in the various accounts.

c10.s1.25

According to the calculations given above, Vanarâja began his reign in A.D. 750. Authorities reckon Vanarâja’s reign as one of thirty-five years, or twenty. The length of Vanarâja’s reign is given as thirty-five years by the Prabandhachintâmani and the Râsamâlâ and as twenty-nine by the Vâniâs. This is according to the Prabandhachintâmani and Râsamâlâ, his reign closes in A.D. 845 (S. 897), and according to the Vâniâs it in A.D. 838 (S. 891). On the whole the Prabandhachintâmani date A.D. 841 (S. 897) seems the more probable. The author of the Vâniâs account may have mistaken the 7 of the manuscript, for a 1, the excellence in the manuscripts of that date being the figure 7, A.D. 746 Vanarâja at the close of Vanarâja’s reign and the accession of Yogarâja a sign an interval of twenty-five years as left. This blank, which perhaps accounts for the length of the reign and life assigned to Nâgarâja, may have been filled by the forgotten reign of a childless elder brother of Yogarâja.

c10.s1.26

Of Yogaraja the *Prabandhachintamani* tells the following: Kshemaraja one of Yogaraja's three sons reported that they were storm-stayed at Prabhasa or Somanatha. The ships had horses, many elephants, and millions of money and treasure. The raju prayed that he might seize the treasure. Yogaraja refused. In spite of their father's orders the sons seized the treasure and brought it to the king. Yogaraja said nothing. And when they asked him why he was silent he answered "To say I approve would be a sin; to say I do not approve would annoy you. On account of an ancestor's misdeeds we have been laughed at as a race of thieves. Our name was improving and we were rising to the rank of true kings. This act of my sons has renewed the old stain." Yogaraja would not be comforted and mounted the funeral pyre.

c10.s1.27

According to the *Prabandhachintamani* in A.D. 841 (S. 898) Yogaraja was succeeded by his son Kshemaraja. The *Vicharasreni* says that Yogaraja was succeeded by Ratnaditya, who reigned fifteen years, and he by Vairisimha who reigned eleven years. Then comes Kshemaraja who is mentioned as the son of Yogaraja and as coming to the throne in A.D. 849 (S. 905). The relationship of Yogaraja to Ratnaditya and Vairisimha is not given. Probably both were sons of Yogaraja as the *Prabandhachintamani* mentions that Yogaraja had three sons. The duration of Kshemaraja's reign is given as thirty-nine years. It is probable that the reigns of the three brothers lasted altogether for thirty-one years, fourteen years for the two elder brothers and twenty-five years for Kshemaraja the period mentioned by the *Prabandhachintamani*. According to this chronology A.D. 880 (S. 936) will be the date of the close of Kshemaraja's reign.

c10.s1.28

According to the *Vicharasreni* and the *Sukritasankirtana* Kshemaraja was succeeded by his son Chamunda. Instead of Chamunda the *Prabandhachintamani* mentions Bhuyada a perhaps another name of Chamunda, as in the *Prabandhachintamani* the name Chamunda does not occur. The *Prabandhachintamani* notes that Bhuyada reigned twenty-nine years and built in Agahilvada Patan the temple of Bhuyadeshvar. The *Vicharasreni* gives twenty-five years as the length of Chamunda's reign an insignificant difference of two years. This gives A.D. 905 (S. 961) as the close of Chamunda's reign according to the *Vicharasreni*.

c10.s1.29

After Bhuyada the *Prabandhachintamani* places Vairisimha and Ratnaditya assigning twenty-five and fifteen years as the reigns of each. The *Vicharasreni* mentions as the successor of Chamunda his son Ghaghada who is called Rahada in the *Sukritasankirtana*. The son of Ghaghada the *Prabandhachintamani* gives Somasimha the Lion Chieftain perhaps a title of Ghaghada's. The *Vicharasreni* gives Ghaghada a reign of twenty-seven years and mentions as his successor an unnamed son who reigned nineteen years. The *Sukritasankirtana* gives the name of this son as Bhubhata. According to these calculations the close of Ghaghada's reign would be A.D. 932 (Samvat 965 + 27 = 992). Adding nineteen years for Bhubhata's reign brings the date of the end of the dynasty to A.D. 951 (Samvat 1008).

c10.s1.30

993 + 19 = 1012; that is, five years earlier than A.D. 1012, the date given by the *Prabandha Chintamani*. Until some evidence to the contrary is discovered, the date A.D. 941 (S. 998) + 190 = 1131 may be taken as correct.

c10.s1.31

According to the above, the Chavada genealogy stands as follows:—

c10.s1.32

Vanaraja, A.D. 746, died A.D. 806.

c10.s1.33

Yogaraja, 35 years.

c10.s1.34

Kshemaraja, 25 years.

c10.s1.35

Bhuyada, 29 years.

c10.s1.36

Virisimha, 25 years.

c10.s1.37

Ratnaditya, 15 years.

c10.s1.38

Samantasimha, 7 years. (The dynasty ends A.D. 942).

c10.s1.39

Chavada dynasty, A.D. 746-942.

c10.s1.40

Whether the list of Chavada kings is historical is likely to remain a matter of opinion. The lists of the different generations throw some light on the subject, but they are far from the confused and contradictory accounts of the bards and chroniclers, none of which are consistent with the others. For the present a few points only can be established as certain:—

c10.s1.41

(1) The Chavadas of the Patan-Chavadas are connected with the Chavadas of Anhilvada, and are therefore of Gurjara race (see *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XII, 195).

c10.s1.42

(2) They probably are no more than feudatories of the Chalukyas.

c10.s1.43

(3) Though the legend says the fall of Panchasar is A.D. 696 and the foundation of Anhilvada is A.D. 746, the list of Prabandha Chintamani shows that the Chavada kingdom lasted 196 years.

c10.s1.44

As regards the chronology of the dynasty, the duration of the life of 190 years assigned to Vanaraja may be that a grandson of the real founder was taken as the head of the family. The name of Samantasimha, the last of the line, is pointed out, even in Merutunga’s list, as being the last, but he is in some author’s lists two different persons, and the accounts of Merutunga and the *Prabandha Chintamani* and the *Vichara Sreni* are clearly not derived from a consistent story from the chroniclers.

The Chaulukyas or Solankis

c10.s2.1

(A.D. 961-1242)

c10.s2.2

The next rulers are the Chaulukyas, a dynasty whose conversion to Jainism has secured them many chroniclers. The earliest writer on the subject is Hemachandra (A.D. 1089-1173), in his *Dvyāśraya*, who has given a fairly full and correct account of the reign of Siddharāja (A.D. 1143). The work was continued by Hemachandra about A.D. 1160, and finished later on by another Jain monk named Abhayatilaka. The last chapter which is in Prākrit describes the Kingnama. This work is a grammar rather than a chronicle, but with references to dates, it is a good collection of facts and descriptions. For chronology the best guide is the *Vichāraśreṇi* which seems to have taken pains to make the chief authority on dates. This work was written by Merutunga about A.D. 1304, and is known as the *Prabandhachintāmaṇi*.

c10.s2.3

According to the *Vichāraśreṇi* after the death of the king (Vaisākha Suddha 1017), began the reign of Mūlarāja the son of the daughter of the last Chāvaḍa ruler. The name, Chaulukya, is a Sanskritised form, through an earlier form Chulukya, of the old word Chalkya, Chālikya, Chinkya, Chālinkya of the Deccan dynasty (A.D. 552-573), made to harmonise with the Paurāṇik stories that the founder of the dynasty sprang from the *chuluka* of Brahmā. The form Chālukya seems to have been confined to poets and writers. It was used by the great Deccan king Pulakesin (A.D.) and by the Pāṭanvāḍa chroniclers. In Gujarat, the popular form of the word seems to have been Solanki, a possible variant of Chālukya, a name till lately used by Rajput land-owners. The similarity of names seems to show the Deccan and Gujarat dynasties to be branches of one stock. No materials are available to prove the original seat of the family or to show why and when they came to Gujarat. The balance of probability is that the Solankis and Mūlarāja’s ancestors came from the north.

c10.s2.4

The *Sukṛitasaṅkīrtana* says that the last Chāvaḍa king was succeeded by his sister’s son Mūlarāja. Of the origin of Mūlarāja’s father no details are given. The *Dvyāśraya* says that Mūlarāja was the sister’s son of Sāmantasiṃha. The *Vichāraśreṇi* says: In A.D. 960 of the family of Bhinmāla (who were of the lunar race) three brothers Rāji, Bīja, and Daṇḍaka, who arrived in the city on their way back from a pilgrimage to Somnātha in the guise of Kārpaṭika or Kāpḍi beggars. The three brothers attended the court.

c10.s2.5

¹ Ind. Ant. IV. 71-72 and VI. 180.

c10.s2.6

² Ind. Ant. VI. 180. The suggestion may be offered that the name is mentioned as the clan of Mūlarāja’s ancestors in the *Dvyāśraya*.

c10.s2.7

³ Compare Burgess’ Kathiawar and Kutch, 178.

c10.s2.8

heir to the king Sāmantasimha. An objection taken by Rāji to these chivalry movements pleased Sāmantasimha, who, taking the son of some noble family, gave him his sister Līlādevī, who was then left pregnant and the child, which was taken from the dead mother's womb was called Mūlarāja, because the operation was performed when the Mūla constellation was in power. He grew up an able and popular prince and helped to extend the kingdom of his maternal uncle. In a fit of intoxication Sāmantasimha allowed Mūlarāja to be placed on the throne. He afterwards cancelled this act, but Mūlarāja contended that a king once installed could not be degraded. He collected troops, defeated and slew his uncle and secured the throne in A.D. 942 (S. 998). The main facts of this story, that his father was one Rāji of the Cālukya family, that his mother was a Cāvaḍā princess, and that he came to the Cāvaḍā throne through the maternal uncle, appear to be true. That Mūlarāja's father was Rāji is proved by Dr. Bühler's copper-plates. Merutuṅga's details that Rāji came in disguise to satisfy the fancy of Sāmantasimha, and received his sister in marriage, are things in the style common in the bardic praises of kings. Dr. Bühler's copper-plate further disproves the story that he was the son of the illustrious Rāji, the great king of Kanyakubja, a title which would not be given to a wanderer. It appears to have been of almost equal rank with the Cālukyas. The Rāsāmālā calls Rāji fifth in descent from Bhūvaḍa, the others being Karṇāditya, Candrāditya, Somāditya, and Kṣemāditya, but the Rāsāmālā list is on the face of it wrong, as it is used instead of seven or eight kings to fill the space of over two centuries between Vayasekhara and Mūlarāja.

c10.s2.9

The chroniclers begin the history of Aṇahilavāḍa with Mūlarāja, and with him starts the glory of the dynasty. After taking the reins of the kingdom Mūlarāja spread his power in all directions, overcoming Kaccha-deśa and Kacch on the west, and fighting Bāruppa of the Lāṭa deśa, Gujarāt on the south, and Vigraharāja king of Sapādalakṣa on the north. The Ajmir kings were called Sapādalakṣas. Why they were so called is not known. This much is certain that Sapādalakṣa is the Sanskrit form of the modern Sewālik. It would seem that the Cāuhāns, whom the Gujarāt Jain chroniclers call Sapādalakṣas, came to Gujarāt from the Sewālik hills. After the fall of the Sewālik hills the capital was at Ajmir, which is usually said to have been founded by the Cāuhān king Ajayapāla (A.D. 1174-1177). This is not accepted by the Cāuhāns. The name Ajmir appears to be connected with the Mehrs who were in power in these parts between the seventh and eighth centuries. The Hammīramahākāvya begins the history of the Cāuhāns with Vāsudeva (A.D. 780) and states that Vāsudeva's son Sāmantarāya established the hill fort of Ajmir. About this time the Cāuhāns seem to have made settlements in the Ajmir country and harassed Gujarāt. Vigraharāja the tenth in succession from Vasantavilas describes his killing Râja-kula Dhavala, weakening the Gurjjara country. The author of the Prabandha Chintamani gives the following details. The Sapadalaksha king, the enemy of Mularaja, being informed that Mularaja was at the same time attacked by Bârappa, a general of king Tailapa of Telingana, unable to see both enemies, Mularaja, by the advice of his minister Kanthaditya, apparently Kanthaditya in Cutch, 21, at that time of the Navaratra or Nine-Night festival, at that time of the rains when the expected the Sapadalaksha king would leave his camp to a junction to worship the goddess Sakambhari when he was left alone. At the close of the rains the Sapadalaksha king had his camp near a place called Sakanambhari and bringing the goddess there held the Nine-Night festival. This came to Mularaja's ears. He sent for his commander of nobles and by them prepared. He with them his plans and called a merchant, slipped into the camp of the Sapadalaksha king. Mularaja then mounted, leaving his elephant with his attendant but the driver cut at the elephant came suddenly at the camp. He dismounted and holding a sword in his hand, at the doorkeeper 'What is you doing doing.' Go and tell your master that Mularaja waits at his abode. Then the attendant was run away to give the message. Mularaja pushed him on one side and himself went into the presence. The doorkeeper called 'Here comes Mularaja.' Before he could be stopped Mularaja was thus saying and took his seat on the throne. The Sapadalaksha king in astonishment asked 'Are you Mularaja?' Mularaja answered 'I would expect this as brave king who would meet me face to face in battle. While I am thinking no such brave enemy exists you have arrived. I ask you whether you mean to fight with me. But as I asked you what you are doing, I am telling, at almost time, Bârappa the general of King Tailapa of Telingana has arrived to attack me. While I am punishing that you should keep quiet and not give me a side blow.' The Ajmer king said 'Enough, you are a king, you have come here alone like a bold soldier, I am caring for your safety. I will let you alone for this.' Mularaja said 'Say not so.' He refused the Râja's invitation to drink and saying sword to hand mounted his elephant and with his nobles and the army of Bârappa, Bârappa was killed and eighteen of his elephants and 10,000 of his horses fell into Mularaja's hands. While returning with the spoil Mularaja received news that the Sapadalaksha king had died.

c10.s2.10

¹ The death of Ajmer king is mentioned in Vasantavilas, the Prabandha Chintamani, and the revised edition of the Har-gaurivivaha by Prof. Peterson, in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. II, 116ff. It is one of the best different king was there, and the story is told in the first part of the same century as early. The Sapadalaksha king is the same as the king of the Sapadalaksha country, especially in the Sapadalaksha and the Karnat, Chahamana dynasty, Prithviraja Prabandha, etc.

c10.s2.11

² It appears from the Prabandha Chintamani, as also by Tod, Ant. XII, 196, and from the Somnath inscription that the enemy Bârappa was the son of a dynasty who was the general of the Chalukya king of the Dakhan, Tailapa, a noted king of the Chalukya dynasty, who ruled the country from the Krishna or the river of the south. The Sapadalaksha king is the same as the Chahamana king of Sakambhari.

c10.s2.12

³ The date of the death of Mularaja is A.D. 996, and he was succeeded by his son Chamundaraja.

c10.s2.13

This story of the author of the Prabandhachintāmaṇi differs from that given by the author of the Hammīrakāvya who describes Mūlarāja as defeated and slain. The truth seems to be that the Ajmīr king defeated Mūlarāja and on Mūlarāja's submission did not press his advantage. In these circumstances Mūlarāja's victory over Bārappa seems improbable. The Dvyāśraya devotes seventy-five verses (27-101) of its sixth chapter to the contest between Bārappa and Mūlarāja. The details may be thus summarised. Once when Mūlarāja received presents from various Indian kings Dvārappa king of Lāṭadeśa sent an ill-omened elephant. The marks being examined by royal officers and by prince Chāmuṇḍa they decided the elephant would bring destruction on the king who kept him. The elephant was sent back in disgrace and Mūlarāja and his son started with an army to attack Lāṭadeśa and avenge the insult. In his march Mūlarāja first came to the Svabhravatī or Sābarmatī which formed the boundary of his kingdom frightening the people. From the Sābarmatī he advanced to the ancient Purī where also the people became confused. The Lāṭa king prepared for fight, and was slain by Chāmuṇḍa in single combat. Mūlarāja advanced to Broach where Bārappa who was assisted by the island kings opposed him. Chāmuṇḍa overcame them and slew Bārappa. After this success Mūlarāja and Chāmuṇḍa returned to Aṇahilapura.

c10.s2.14

The Dvyāśraya styles Bārappa king of Lāṭadeśa; the Prabandhachintāmaṇi calls him a general of Tailapa king of Telingana; the Sukṛitasankīrtana a general of the Kanyakubja king; and the Kīrtikaumudī a general of the Lord of Lāṭa.

c10.s2.15

Other evidence proves that at the time of Mūlarāja a Chaulukya king named Bārappa did reign in Lāṭadeśa. The Surat grant of Trilochanapāla grandson of Bārappa is dated A.D. 1018 (Saka 940). This, taking twenty years to a king, brings Bārappa's date to A.D. 978 (Saka 900), a year which falls in the reign of Mūlarāja (A.D. 941-996; S. 998-1053). The statement in the Prabandhachintāmaṇi that Bārappa was a general of Tailapa seems correct. The southern form of the name Bārappa supports the statement. And as Tailapa overthrew the Rāshṭrakūṭas in A.D. 973 (Saka 894) he might well place a general in military charge of Lāṭa, and allow him practical independence. This would explain why the Dvyāśraya calls Bārappa king of Lāṭadeśa and why the Kīrtikaumudī calls him general of the Lord of Lāṭa.

c10.s2.16

One of Mūlarāja's earliest wars was with Graharipu the Abhīra or Chuḍāsama ruler of Soraṭh. According to Mūlarāja's bards, the cause

c10.s2.17

¹ Apparently a Sanskrit form of Bārappa.

c10.s2.18

² Broach according to the commentator.

c10.s2.19

³ The Sukṛitasankīrtana mentions this defeat of Bārappa who is said to be a general of the Kanyakubja or Kanoj king. The Prabandhachintāmaṇi (Mūlarāja-prabandha) also mentions the invasion and slaughter of Bārappa; but there is no reference to this in the grant of Bārappa's descendant Trilochanapāla (Ind. Ant. XII. 196).

c10.s2.20

⁴ Canto II. Verse 3.

c10.s2.21

⁵ As Mr. Forbes rightly observed Graharipu the Planet-seizer is a made-up title based on the resemblance of the planet-seizer's name Rāhu to Ko the title of the Chuḍāsamas of Junagadh. The personal name of the chief is not given and the list of the Junagadh Chuḍāsamas is too incomplete to allow of identification.

c10.s2.22

THE CHALUKYAS, A.D. 961-1242, Mularája, A.D. 961-996.

c10.s2.23

of war was Graharipu's oppression of pilgrims to Prabhás. Graharipu's capital was Vámanasthali, the modern Vanthali near the city of Junágadh, and the fort of Durgapalli which Graharipu is said to have established must be Junágadh itself, which was then called Girinár. Graharipu is described as a cow-eating Mlechchha. He is said to have had much influence over the tribes of Kacch and to have been helped by Turushka soldiers. Múlarája reached the Jambamáli river, he was met by the king and his army. With Graharipu was Lákhá of Kacch, a chief who was probably a Sumrá, Mewás Bhílas, and the sons of Graharipu. A Nílú who had been summoned from near the Sindhu, wrote a song in the Yavana language.¹ With Múlarája were the kings of Siláprastha,² of Márwár, of Kási, of Arbuda, the son of Sámanta, and Bhínmál. Múlarája had also his own court brother, Jángala, and his friend king Revátimitra, and Bhíls. It is mentioned that in this expedition Múlarája received no help from the sons of his paternal uncles Bija and Dandaka. The king ended in Múlarája being made prisoner by Múlarája, and in Lákhá being slain with a spear. After the victory Múlarája went to Prabhás, worshipped the Linga, and returned to Anahilaváda with his army and 108 elephants.

c10.s2.24

¹ The mention of her name and of the language in which she wrote suggests something remarkable in the race and position of queen Nílú.

c10.s2.25

² Perhaps Sitbá in Jhalávád.

c10.s2.26

According to the author of the Prabandhachintámani, Lákhá met his death in a different contest with Múlarája. Lákhá who is described as the son of Phuladá and Kámalatá daughter of Kirttirája a Távaka king, is said to have been invincible because he was under the protection of king Yas'ovarman of Málwa. He defeated Múlarája's army on several times. In a twelfth encounter Múlarája, aided by a trick, slew him in single combat, and trod on his dying head. Enraged at this insult to her dead son Lákhá's mother called down on Múlarája and his descendants the curse of the spider poison.³

c10.s2.27

³ The same account appears in the Kumárapálacharita.

c10.s2.28

Mr. Forbes, apparently from bardic sources, states that on the death Ráji the father of Múlarája went to the capital of Vijayapála of Dwárká. On his return he visited the court of Lákhá Phuláni and espoused Lákhá's sister Ráyáji by whom he had a son named Rája. This marriage proved the ruin of Ráji. In a dispute about precedence Lákhá slew Ráji and many of his Rájputs, his wife Ráyáji becoming a Satí. Bija, the uncle of Múlarája, then sought to avenge his father's death and Múlarája joined him in the war against Lákhá because Lákhá harboured Rákháet, who had fled from his court as a rival to Múlarája.

c10.s2.29

According to the Dvyásraya, either from the horror of his sin or from repentance for his own rough acts after the glorious victory over Bárappa Múlarája installed him as ruler and devoted himself to religion and charity. According to the Prabandhachintámani he built in Anahilaváda a Jain temple named Múlavásaka, But at the same symbol on his copperplate shows that Mūlarāja was a devoted Śaivite, it is possible that this temple was built by some Jain guild or community and named after the reigning chief.¹ Mūlarāja built a Mahā-deva temple called Mūlasvāmi in Aṇahilavāḍa, and, in honour of his mother, he built the temple of Mūlesvara at Maṇḍali-nagara where he went at the bidding of the god.² He also built at Aṇahilavāḍa a temple of Mahādeva called Tripuruṣaprasāda on a site to which the tradition tells that seeing Mūlarāja daily visiting the temple of Mūlasvāmi at Maṇḍali, Somanātha Mahādeva being greatly pleased, promised to bring the ocean to Aṇahilavāḍa. Somanātha also said that the ocean accompanying the god certain ponds became brackish. In honour of these salt pools Mūlarāja built the Tripuruṣa-prasāda, looking for some one to place in charge of this temple, Mūlarāja heard of an ascetic named Kanthadi at Siddhapura on the banks of the Sarasvatī who used to fast every other day and on the intervening day lived on five morsels of food. Mūlarāja offered this sage the charge of the temple. The sage declined saying 'Authority is a steep path to hell.' Eventually Vayajalladeva a disciple of the sage undertook the management on certain conditions. Mūla-rāja passed most of his days at the holy shrine of Siddhapura, the river Sarasvatī, on the Sarasvatī about fifteen miles north-east of Aṇahilavāḍa. At Sidhpur Mūlarāja made many grants to Brāhmans. Several branches of Gujarāt Brāhmans, Audīchyas Srīgauḍas and others, trace their origin in Gujarāt to an invitation from Mūlarāja from Sidhpur and the local Purāṇas and Māhātmyas confirm the story. The word Audīchya means Northerner Mūlarāja may have invited Brāhmans from some such holy place as Kurukshetra which the Audīchyas claim as their home. From Kānyakubja in the Madhyadesa or from the Ganges and the Yamunā another equally holy place the Brāhmans may have been invited. The Srī Gauḍas appear to have come from Bengal and Tirhut Gauḍa and Tirhut Brāhmans are noted for their knowledge as a branch of learning for which both the kings and the rulers of Gujarāt have a great fondness. Grants of villages were made to these Brāhmans. Sidhpur was given to the Audīchyas, Sūmpura or Sihor in Kāthiāvāḍa to some other colony, and Sambhar or Cambay to the Srī Gauḍas. At Siddhapura Mūlarāja built the famous temple called the Rudramahālaya or the great shrine of Rudra. According to tradition Mūlarāja did not finish the Rudramahālaya and Siddhārāja finished it. In spite of this tradition it does not appear that Mūlarāja died leaving the great temple unfinished as a copperplate of A.D. 987 (S. 1043) records that

c10.s2.30

¹ The Jashmi-Vihāra Jain temple in Jesalmir built by the Jain Sangha is named after the reigning king Lakshmana.

c10.s2.31

² The copperplate of Mūlarāja records a grant to this temple, said to be of Mūlesvara at Maṇḍali in the Vardhi zilla, apparently the modern Māndal near Viramgam in the Jhalāwār province near Jhunjhavāḍa. The grant is in Samvat 1043 and refers to Aṇahilapura though the actual gift was made at Sristhala or Siddhapur on the Sarasvatī and worshipping the god of the Rudramahālaya. The grant is of the village of Kamboika, the modern Kamboi near Modhera. Ind. Ant. VI. 191. The grant is said to have been written by a Kayastha named Mahattara and with the words " of the illustrious Mūlarāja."

c10.s2.32

THE CHAULUKYAS, A.D. 961-1242.

Mūlarāja, A.D. 961-996

c10.s2.t1.1

Mūlarāja made the grant after worshipping the god at the Rudramahālaya on the occasion of a solar eclipse in the dark half of Māgha. It would seem therefore that he built the Rudramahālaya which Siddhārāja is said to have completed. Mūlarāja is said while still in health to have abdicated the throne, an act which some writers trace to religious and others to political reasons. The Vichāraśreṇi gives the Mūlarāja’s reign at thirty-five years A.D. 961-996 (S. 1017-1053). The Prabandhachintāmani begins the reign at A.D. 942 (S. 998) and ends A.D. 997 (S. 1053) that is a length of fifty-five years. The thirty-five years seems the more probable, as if this calculation be correct, Mūlarāja can scarcely have been a young man when he overthrew his uncle’s power.

c10.s2.t1.2

Of Mūlarāja’s son and successor Chāmuṇḍa no historical information is available. The author of the Dvayāśraya assigns him a reign of thirteen years. The author of the Dvayāśraya says he had three sons Vallabha Rāja, Durlabha, and Nāga Rāja. According to one account Chāmuṇḍa resigned Vallabha in A.D. 1010 (S. 1066) and went on pilgrimage to Benares. On his way through Mālwā Muñja the Mālwā king carried off Chāmuṇḍa’s umbrella and other marks of royalty. Chāmuṇḍa went on to Benares in the guise of a hermit. On his return he heard of the insult offered by the king of Mālwā. Vallabha started with an army but died of small-pox. The author of the Prabandhachintāmani gives Chāmuṇḍa a reign of six months, while the author of the Vichāraśreṇi entirely drops his name and gives the reign of thirteen years to Vallabha made up of the thirteen years of Chāmuṇḍa and the months of Vallabha. This seems to be the view which is the more correct, as is done in several copies, and no doubt Vallabha since he must have reigned jointly with his father and he was not wanted for purposes of succession. The Vichāraśreṇi and Prabandhachintāmani agree in ending the reign in A.D. 1010 (S. 1066). The author of the Dvayāśraya says that Chāmuṇḍa, greatly lamenting the death of Vallabha, crowned his younger brother Durlabha, and himself retired to the banks of the Narbadā.

c10.s2.t1.3

Durlabha whom the Sukritasankīrtana calls the Jagat-svāmī or World Guardian came to the throne in A.D. 1010. The Prabandhachintāmani gives the length of his reign as twelve years and six months while the Vichāraśreṇi makes it twelve years and ends it in A.D. 1022 (S. 1078). The author of the Dvayāśraya says that along with his brother Nāga Rāja, Durlabha attended the Svayamvara or bridegroom-choosing of Durlabha Devī the sister of Mahendra.

c10.s2.t1.4

¹ The difference between 1053 and 1058 is probably due to a copyist’s error.

c10.s2.t1.5

² The fight with Muñja must have taken place about A.D. 997 (S. 1053). Chāmuṇḍa started just after installing Vallabha the beginning of the reign is before A.D. 997 as Tailapa who fought with Muñja in that year. A copperplate manuscript dated A.D. 994 (S. 1050) which gives the name of Muñja. Thus Bhoja Muñja’s successor was ruling in A.D. 1011 (S. 1070), makes it probable Muñja’s reign extended to A.D. 1011 (S. 1067).

c10.s2.t1.6

Raja of Nâga Râja of Mârwâr. The kings of Anga, Kâsí, Avantí, Chedi, Kanyakubja, Mathurâ, Vindhya, and Andhra were also present.¹ The princess chose Durlabha and Mahendra gave his younger sister Durlabhadeví to Durlabha's brother Nâga Râja. The princess' choice of Durlabha brought upon him the enmity of certain of the other kings all of whom he defeated. The brothers then returned to Anahilavâda where Durlabha built a lake called Durlabhasarovara. The author of the Prabandhachintâmani says that Durlabha gave up the kingdom to Bhima. He also states that Durlabha went on pilgrimage and was lost in the way by Muñja king of Mâlwa. This seems to be contrary to the Dvyâśraya tells of Châmunda. Since Muñja was a contemporary of Durlabha the Dvyâśraya's account is the more correct.

c10.s2.t1.7

¹ The list of attendant and rival kings seem imaginary. The kingdom was not important enough to draw kings from the countries named. It is certain that Bhima was Durlabha's nephew not his son.

c10.s2.t1.8

Durlabha was succeeded by his nephew Bhima the son of Durlabha's younger brother Nâga Râja. The author of the Dvyâśraya says that Durlabha wishing to retire from the world offered the kingdom to his brother Nâga Râja but Bhima declined in favour of his father Nâga Râja. The latter also refused; that Durlabha and Nâga Râja persuaded Bhima to take the government; and that after installing Bhima they both retired together. Such a voluntary double death sounds purely legendary. The result was due to the machinations of Bhima. The Prabandhachintâmani gives Bhima a reign of fifty-two years from A.D. 1022 to 1074 (S. 1078-1130), while the Vichâraśrení gives him forty-two years placing his close in A.D. 1064 (S. 1120). The two years would seem to be correct as another copy of the Prabandhachintâmani has 42.

c10.s2.t1.9

Two copperplates of Bhima are available one dated A.D. 1030 (S. 1086) or nine years after he came to the throne, the other dated A.D. 1031 (S. 1088).

c10.s2.t1.10

Bhima seems to have been more powerful than either of his predecessors. According to the Dvyâśraya his two chief enemies were the kings of Sindh and of Chedi or Bundelkhand. He led a victorious expedition against Hammuka the king of Sindh, who had conquered the king of Kânyakubja and another against Karna king of Chedi who eventually submitted. The Prabandhachintâmani has a verse, apparently an old verse interpolated, which says that on the Mâlwa expedition, while sacking Dhârâpurí, Karna took Bhima as a prisoner, and that afterwards Bhima's general Dâmara took Karna prisoner and took from him a gold mandapikâ or canopy and images of the god Nílakantheśvara Mahâdeva. Bhima is said to have presented the canopy to Somanâtha.

c10.s2.t1.11

When Bhima was engaged against the king of Sindh, Kulachandra the general of the Mâlwa king Bhoja with all the Mâlwa feudatories, invaded Anahilavâda, sacked the city, and sowed shell-money at the place where the time-marking gong was sounded. So great was the destruction.

c10.s2.t1.12

The list of attendant and rival kings seem imaginary. The kingdom was not important enough to draw kings from the countries named. It is certain that Bhima was Durlabha's nephew not his son.

c10.s2.t1.13

THE CHAULUKYAS. A.D. 961-1242. Bhima I. A.D. 1022-1064.

c10.s2.t1.14

loss that the ‘sacking of Kulachandra’ has passed into a proverb. Kulachandra also took from Aṇahilavāḍa an acknowledgment of defeat or jayapatra. On his return Bhoja received Kulachandra with honours, but blamed him for not sowing salt instead of shell-money. It is said the shell-money is an omen that the wealth of Malwa will flow to Gujarāt. An unpublished inscription of Bhoja’s successor, Udayāditya, in a temple at Udepur near Bhilsā confirms the above statement that Bhīma was conquered by Bhoja’s officers.¹

c10.s2.t1.15

¹ By sowing cowries Kulachandra may have meant to show the cheapness of lives lost. Bhoja’s meaning was that as shells are money, to sow shells means wealth in Gujarāt. If Kulachandra had sown salt all would have melted, and none been left. This seems a symbolic later-stage explanation. The sowing of salt or sowing keeps the Aṇahilavāḍa guardians in place since guardians of the soil by sowing scares the guardian spirits and makes the site of the city the property of Bhoja’s city that thanks to his general the Luck of Aṇahilavāḍa would remain in his shells.

c10.s2.t1.16

The Solaṅki kings of Aṇahilapura being Saivites, held the temple of Somanātha of Prabhāsa in great veneration. The very ancient and holy shrine of Prabhāsa has long been a place of special pilgrimage, as early as the Yādavas of Dvārkā,² pilgrimages to Prabhāsa are mentioned, but the Mahābhārata makes no mention either of Somanātha or of any other Saivite shrine. The shrine of Somanātha was probably not established before the time of the Valabhis (A.D. 480-766). As the Valabhi kings were most open-handed in religious gifts, it was probably through their grants that the Somanātha temple rose to importance. The Solaṅkis were not behind the Valabhis in devotion to Somanātha. To save pilgrims from oppression, Mūlarāja fought Graharipu the Abhīra king of Somanātha. Mūlarāja also went to Prabhāsa and also built temples in Gujarāt in honour of the god Somanātha. As Mūlarāja’s successors Chāmuṇḍa and Durlabha continued firm devotees of Somanātha during their reigns (A.D. 997-1022), the wealth of the temple must have greatly increased.

c10.s2.t1.17

² See above page 9.

c10.s2.t1.18

Mahmúd’s Invasion, A.D. 1024.

c10.s2.t1.19

No Gujarāt Hindu writer refers to the destruction of the great temple soon after Bhīma’s accession. But the Musalmān historians place beyond doubt that in A.D. 1024 the famous temple was...

c10.s2.t1.20

³ The Prabandhachintāmaṇi tells other stories of the relations between Bhīma and Bhoja. Once when Gujarāt was suffering from famine Bhīma heard of Bhoja coming with a force against Gujarāt. Alarmed at the news Bhīma sent Dāmara, his minister of peace and war to prevent Bhoja coming. Dāmara went to Bhoja, amused the king by witty stories, and while a play was being acted in court he began joking other kings, something that was said regarding Tailapa of Telingana. On this Bhoja reminded the king that the head of his grandfather Muñja was fixed at Tailapa’s gate. Bhoja grew excited and started with an army against Telingana. Hearing this, Bhīma had come against him as far as Bhīmapura (?) Bhoja asked Dāmara to prevent Bhīma advancing further. Dāmara stopped Bhīma by taking him an elephant as a present from Bhoja. The Prabandhachintāmaṇi gives numerous other stories showing that at times the relations between Bhoja and Bhīma were friendly. † See above page 160. ‡ With this silence compare the absence (Reinaud’s Mémoire Sur l’Inde) of any reference either in Sanskrit or in Buddhist books to the victories, even those of Alexander the Great. Also in modern times the ignoring of British rule in the inscriptions of Jain repairers of temples on Satrunjaya hill who belong to the territory. The only foreign reference is by one merchant of Daman who mentions the protection of the Firangi jāti Puratabāla Pātashāhi the king of the Firangis. Portugal. Bühler in Epigraphia Indica, II. 36.

c10.s2.t1.21

Mahmūd of Ghazni, ended in the destruction and plunder of Somanātha.

c10.s2.t1.22

Of the destruction of Somanātha the earliest Musalmān account, that of Ibn Asīr (A.D. 1160-1229), supplies the following details: In the year A.D. 1024 (H. 414) Mahmūd captured several forts and cities in Hind and he also took the idol called Somanātha. This idol was the greatest of all the idols of Hind. At every eclipse the Hindus went on pilgrimage to the temple, and there congregated to the number of a hundred thousand persons. According to their doctrine of transmigration the Hindus believe that after separation from the body the souls of men meet at Somanātha and that the ebb and flow of the tide is the worship paid to the best of its power by the sea to the idol. All that is most precious in India was brought to Somanātha. The temple attendants received the most valuable presents, and the temple was endowed with more than 10,000 villages. In the temple were stored jewels of the most exquisite quality and of incalculable value. The people of India have a great river called Ganga to which they pay the highest honour and into which they cast the bones of their dead in the belief that the deceased will thus secure an entrance into heaven. Though between this river and Somanātha is a distance of about 1000 miles (200 parasangs) water was daily brought from it to wash the idol. Every day a thousand Brahmans performed the service and introduced visitors. The shaving of the heads and beards of pilgrims employed three hundred barbers. Three hundred musicians and persons sang and danced at the gate of the temple, every one receiving a settled daily allowance. When Mahmūd was gaining victories and demolishing idols in North India, the Hindus said Somanātha is displeased with these idols. If Somanātha had been satisfied with them no one could have destroyed or injured them. When Mahmūd heard this he resolved on making a campaign to destroy Somanātha, believing that when the Hindus saw their prayers and supplications to be false and futile they would embrace the Faith.

First 100 of 296 passages. Read on

Cites (38)