The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c10.25

c10.25

Muslim hold on Magadha (South Bihar) was never extensive; only a narrow strip along the Ganges containing the original possession of Uddandapur Vihar, carried the route from Benares through the Shahabad, Patna, Monghyr and Bhagalpur districts. To the south, independent princes surviving the Sena-Gahdvala dominion, held sway. Tibetan records extend the rule of the line of princes calling themselves Pithipatis, whose inscriptions have been discovered round Bodhgaya, far into the 13th century and describe them as vassals of the Turks². In Bodhgaya itself are records inscribed by the ruling chiefs of Kama (Kumaon) and Sapadalaksha, whose dates suggest a continuous occupation of the district by the Hindus, upto, at least, the reign of Balban³. It is uncertain if the Mahanayakas of Rhotasgarh, one of whose feudatories is found donating lands near Sasaram in 1197¹, survived in the 13th century, but extension of Muslim power towards the south, in the first half of the century, is certainly not indicated by the chronicles; nor does it seem probable. On the contrary, even the town of Bihar appears to have suffered from Hindu aggression; for early in the reign of Mahmud, the governor, Kuret Khan, is said to have lost his life in repelling what was evidently a siege². By what process Muslim power was re-established in the region is not known; it should in any case, be supposed to have preceded Balban's accession, for in 1265 Bihar was certainly in Muslim control. Recognition of Balban's suzerainty is implied by the inclusion of his name (written Birubana) in a Sanskrit inscription of a resident of Gaya, named Vanaraja, dated in V.S. 1325/1268 A.D.³. If credence is to be placed in the bardic annals recounting Rajput attempts in the 13th century to free Gaya and other holy places from the Turks⁴, direct annexation of the district must be presumed, which seems highly improbable. Balban's declared policy of defensive consolidation would accord, at best, only with an acknowledgment of his paramountcy, most probably, as the Tibetan account asserts, from the Pithipatis.