Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c6: Chapter II

The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c6

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II

c6.1

The century and a half that followed Mahmud's accession to the principality of Ghazni witnessed the rise and fall of two great empires. The Seljuqs, who supplanted the Ghaznawides in Central Asia¹, were, during the period under review, in their turn, undergoing a process of rapid decline facilitating the rise of new dynasties. Sanjar was the last of the imperial Seljuqs whose long reign could scarce conceal signs of the approaching end. His early triumphs over Ghazni², Samarqand³, and Ghor⁴, were followed by defeats which shook the empire to its foundation. The most crushing defeat came from the southern Turks, called Qara-Khitai by the Muslim writers, who had established a strong empire on the eastern bank of the Jaxartes and were making powerful inroads into Transoxiana. In 537/1137 they invaded Samarqand and obtained a decisive victory over Sanjar's vassal⁵.

c6.2

¹ The beginning of Seljuq empire can be dated from 1040, the year in which they inflicted a resounding defeat on Masud I, south of the Oxus. Guzidah, I, p. 435.

c6.3

² In 510/1116, according to Ibnul Asir, X. p. 213, Sanjar successfully intervened in favour of Bahram in his quarrel with his step-brother Arslan. On his accepting Seljuq suzerainty, the former was installed on the Ghazni throne. Bahram soon repudiated the vassalage and stopped the payment of tribute; but he was easily reduced in 530/1135. Guzidah I, p. 458. Juwaini gives the date as 529/1134, I p. 4.

c6.4

³ Ibnul Asir, XI, p. 281-82; Guzidah, gives a slightly different account.

c6.5

⁴ According to Fasihi, quoted by Raverty: trans. Tab, Nas., p. 358, note I, even the father of Alauddin Husain of Ghor, the "world-burner" was Sanjar's vassal. Alauddin himself was reduced in 547/1152. Minhaj seems to allude to this fact in his account of Alauddin's conflict with Sanjar. Ibid, p. 149 and 357-8.

c6.6

⁵ Bartold: Turkestan, p. 328.

c6.7

Five years later, they again crossed the Jaxartes on the plea of aiding their Qarlugh allies who had broken in revolt against the Khan of Samarqand. The later thereupon summoned his suzerain to assistance. In the battle that followed Sanjar suffered the greatest defeat of his life and could escape only with a few followers¹. This defeat cost him the whole of Transoxiana². It produced repercussions on other parts of the empire as well. According to the *Guzidah*³, Atsiz, the vassal ruler of Khwarizm (Khiva) now declared independence and assumed royal titles; he even captured Merv, Sanjar's capital, which however, was easily recovered. The final disaster to his empire was the eruption of the Ghuzz from Balkh⁴ and his subsequent defeat and captivity at their hands in 548/1153. After four years he managed to escape but died soon⁵.

c6.8

¹ Ibnul Asir, XI, p. 37-8. *Guzidah*, I, p. 487 and Rawandi, p. 172, place it in 534/1140. but Juwaini, II, p. 5, and Ibnul Asir, XI, p. 37, as well as Bartold: *Turkestan*, p. 326, place it in 536/1141.

c6.9

² Juwaini, p. 88.

c6.10

³ I. P. 487. For the origin of the dynasty of Khwarizm, which was founded by Nushtigin, a slave of Malik Shah, see Juwaini, p. 2; *Guzidah* I, p. 486; Minhaj, pp. 234-5, however, gives an entirely different account. For the name Khwarizm and its capital Gurganj (modern Kunya Urgendg) see the article on Khwarizm in *Encyclopaedia of Islam*.

c6.11

⁴ The Ghuzz belonged to the Turkish stock and had only recently began to accept Islam. See *Ency. Isl.*, article on *Ghuzz*.

c6.12

⁵ For details see Bartold: *Turkestan*, p. 329ff.

c6.13

Even before his death smaller states were well on their way to independence. The western provinces of Iraq, Azarbaijan and Hamadan, under the collateral Seljuq family of the *Atabeks*, were practically cut off from Central Asian politics by their quarrel with the Abbaside Caliphs of Baghdad whose ambition to revive temporal power soon culminated in a bitter hostility to the Seljuqs⁶.

c6.14

⁶ The beginning of this quarrel may be traced to the early years of Sanjar's reign when Masud I, the Seljuq ruler of Iraq (1134-1152) deposed the reigning Caliph and appointed his own nominee. See Ibnul Asir, X, pp. 270-272 for details.

c6.15

New states.

c6.16

Sanjar's successor was forced to accept Ghuzz vassalage and was practically a prisoner in their hands. He obtained his freedom in 557/1162 only to die a prisoner in the hands of Muayyid, a former slave of Sanjar and at that time the self-appointed ruler of the greater part of Khurasan¹.

c6.17

¹ Juwaini, ii, p. 16; Guzidah, i, p. 463. According to Ibnul Asir, xi, p. 101, he was originally Sanjar's slave, but Bartold: op. cit. p. 335, asserts that he was the leader of the Ghuzz.

c6.18

Of supreme importance for the history of Central Asia at this period was the rise of Khwarizm and Ghor and their eventual struggle for the mastery of Khurasan. Atsiz, the real founder of Khwarizm's greatness, was originally a loyal vassal of Sanjar untill jealousy of the latter's courtiers drove him to open revolt in 533/1138. Sanjar, however, easily defeated him and to his office appointed his nephew Sulaiman². As soon as Sanjar's back was turned, Atsiz advanced and drove Sulaiman out of Khwarizm. Reference has already been made to his assertion of sovereignty in 1141 when Sanjar's defeat by the Qara-Khitais foreshadowed the end of Saljuq power³. Their predominance, however, affected Atsiz's position also; for his own territories were also overrun on this occasion and he was forced to pay an annual tribute of thirty thousand gold dinars, —an obligation which he is said to have scrupulously fulfilled for the rest of his life⁴. His second defeat by Sanjar in 538/1143, following his capture of Merv referred to above, failed to rid him of ambition; for although he was pardoned and reinstated⁵, he revolted almost immediately after, and slew Sanjar's agent. He even planned to assasinate his overlord. For the third time Sanjar marched to Khwarizm in 542/1147 and once again pardoned the vanquished rebel¹. During Sanjar's captivity at the Ghuzz camp, Atsiz invaded Khurasan on the pretext of freeing his sovereign but had to retire without effecting his real object. During the last few years of his life he desisted from open revolt but continued surreptitiously to extend his dominions. Before his death in 551/1156 he had thus annexed Jand and Mankislagh and had imposed something like suzerainty over the Khan of Samarqand². In Khurasan, however, Ghuzz predominance impeded his progress and favoured the rise of Muayyid who, pretending to champion the Seljuq cause, succeeded in establishing his hold on Neshapur, Tus and the adjacent districts. The Ghuzz held Merv, Sarakhs and Balkh³, while Herat was under the possession of Aetigin, a former vassal of the Seljuqs and now a Ghuzz protegeé.

c6.19

² Ibnul Asir, xi, p. 168. Juwaini, idem, places the event in 565/1169, but

c6.20

³ Ibnul Asir, xi, p. 37, states that Atsiz even concluded a friendly alliance with the Qara-Khitais against his suzerain; but Bartold: Turkestan, p. 327, is inclined to doubt it.

c6.21

⁴ Juwaini, ii, p. 88, Guzidah, i, p. 489.

c6.22

⁵ Juwaini, op. cit. p. 7.

c6.23

¹ Ibid, p. 7.

c6.24

² Juwani, II, p. 10. For these periodical conflicts in which the help of the Qara-Khitai and the Seljuq or the Khwarizm Shah was invariably sought by the two contending parties, see Bartold; op. cit. p. 333ff.

c6.25

³ Ibnul Asir: XI, p. 131.

c6.26

Il-Arslan, the successor of Atsiz, followed his father's imperialist policy with steadfast resolution. He obtained Sanjar's approval to his accession and was also recognised by Ghiyasuddin, the Seljuq Atabek of Iraq. Soon he managed to establish his suzerainty over the Ghuzz chief of Gurgan and Dihistan, and when in 558/1162, the chief was found making common cause with Muayyid with whom he had lately fought an indecisive battle, made it a pretext to annex

The Qara Khitai

c6.s1.1

the latter district¹. In order to extend his influence over Transoxiana Il-Arslan, in 553/1116 readily agreed to intervene in the quarrel which again broke out between the Qarlughs and the Khan of Samarqand. The result, however, did not prove happy for him; for although the dispute ended peacefully, his siding with the Khan of Samarqand, led to an eventual rupture with his father's Qara-Khitai suzerain. By his refusal to continue the annual tribute, he even provoked them to invade his territories in 567/1172. In the engagement that followed the Khwarizm army was decisively beaten². This was a forcible reminder that no empire-building was possible in Central Asia until this infidel power was finally crushed; henceforth Khwarizm directed her policy to that end. Il-Arslan died early next year.

c6.s1.2

¹ Juwaini, II, p. 16.

c6.s1.3

² Ibnul Asir, XI, p. 168, Juwaini, idem, places the event in 565/1169, but Bartold upholds the above date.

c6.s1.4

In Khurasan the Khwarizm Shah failed to make much headway; the Ghuzz and, lately, the Qara-Khitai, arrested his efforts. His preoccupations, however, provided an opportunity to the rulers of the petty principality of Ghor to extend their power quietly at the cost of the war-leaders holding the province. From their insignificant position as the chiefs of the mountain fortress of Ghor, they came into prominence during the reign of the Ghaznawide Bahram, who perfidiously murdered Malik Qutbuddin Hasan, a Ghuride prince who had taken refuge at his court and been married to one of Bahram's daughters. This roused the wrath of Saifuddin Suri, brother of the murdered prince, who thereupon invaded Ghazni and drove Bahram from the

c6.s1.5

Rise of Ghor.

c6.s1.6

city. He soon returned in 543/1148 and, taking advantage of the absence of the Ghoride troops, sent home for the winter, seized Saifuddin and sent his head to Sanjar¹. Alauddin Hussain, Saifuddin's younger brother, then advanced on Ghazni and wreaked a terrible vengeance; after plundering the city he set fire to the buildings, which were left burning for seven days, and massacred the whole population². This action which earned him the unenviable nickname of *Jahan Soz* (the world-burner), combined with his refusal to pay the stipulated tribute due from Bahram, enraged Sanjar whom he had already provoked by unwarrantedly capturing Herat and Balkh³ during his preoccupation with Atsiz's rebellion. His consequent defeat and imprisonment has already been aluded to¹. His wit and refined intelligence, however, impressed his captor who restored him to his principality. Taking advantage of Sanjar's subsequent captivity, Alauddin later conquered Bamian, Tukharistan, the districts of Jarum and Bust, and reduced Garjistan in the valley of the Murghab river; he even made an inroad into Khurasan by capturing Tulak near Herat². His conquests in Balkh and Tukharistan, however, were soon lost to the Ghuzz while one of their allies, Aetigin, possessed himself of Herat. The 'world-burner' died in 1161³, and was succeeded by another of his brothers named Saifuddin who recovered and successfully defended a part of Herat against Muayyid's attack⁴. Following his death in an unsuccessful attempt to dislodge the Ghuzz from Balkh, Ghazni was also lost to them who occupied the city for twelve years⁵. Ghiyasuddin, succeeding to his cousin's throne in Ghor, however, resumed the struggle and is stated to have liberated Garmsir and Zamin Dawar⁶. The waning power of the Ghuzz enabled him to annex Faras, Kaliyun, Garjistan, Baghshor and Talqan and finally, in 568/1173-4, to recover Ghazni⁷. Sijistan also acknowledged his away and, four years later, Herat was delivered by the citizens who opposed the pro-Ghuzz policy of its ruler.¹ The Ghuzz chief of Kirman eventually accepted his vassalage; Balkh, and parts of Khurasan, adjacent to Herat, were thus gradually annexed to his growing empire.

c6.s1.7

¹ Guzidah i, p. 460; Rawandi: p. 175.

c6.s1.8

² Minhaj: p. 55ff. It is not certain who was the antagonist of Alauddin at Ghazni, for the accounts are not unanimous as to the date of Bahram's death and the accession of his son Khusrau. Minhaj, pp. 24-5, states that Bahram was driven out of Ghazni by Alauddin, and places his death in 552/1156. An anecdote on p. 115, however, implies that it was Khusrau who opposed Alauddin. Guzidah, i, p. 406, and Ibnul Asir, xi, p. 85, date Bahram's death in 544/1149 and 548/1153, respectively. Baizawi, f. 51a, states that Bahram died before Alauddin's march on Ghazni, which must have occurred soon after 544, the year on which Saifuddin's head was sent to Sanjar. Ibnul Asir, xi, p. 74, places Alauddin's sack of Ghazni after his defeat by Sanjar in 547, which seems improbable. He further states that Alauddin placed his brother Saifuddin on the throne of Ghazni and on Bahram subsequently murdering the latter, once again marched to sack the city. But Bahram had died in the meantime and his successor Khusrau had fled to the Punjab. Guzidah supports this but confuses Khusrau with his son Khusrau Malik, last of the Ghaznawides. According to Minhaj, Khusrau left Ghazni only on the approach of the Ghuzz who then occupied it for 10 years. The dates 552/1157 and 555/1160 for the accessions of Khusrau and his son, Khusrau Malik, quoted by Raverty: op. cit., p. 114, note—from their suppositions coins described in a manuscript entitled Tafsil-i-sikkah, do not prove anything, since the legends given therein are fictitious and the work was admittedly compiled late in the 18th century.

c6.s1.9

³ Ibnul Asir, xi, pp. 66 and 74. Rawandi, p. 176, and Guzidah, i, p. 460, add that Alauddin also entered into an alliance with Ali Chatri, Sanjar's rebellious Governor of Herat, who was, however, executed at the time of Alauddin's defeat. See Minhaj (tr. p. 237) for an ambiguous allusion to this fact.

c6.s1.10

¹ Supra p. 20. See also Nizami Uruzi: *Chahar Maqala*, p. 29, for an eye-witness account of the event.

c6.s1.11

² Minhaj, p. 62ff.

c6.s1.12

³ Ibnul Asir: xi, p. 121. *Guzidah*, i, p. 408, and *Baizawi*, 68b, however respectively, date the event in 551/1156 and 558/1163. Raverty: *op. cit.* p. 363, note, also supports *Guzidah*, but in view of the fact that Nizami Uruzi dedicated his *Chahar Maqala*, finished, according to Browne, in 1156/7, to Alauddin, who is referred to as living, Ibnul Asir's date must be regarded as correct. Browne: translation of *Chahar Maqala*, p. 37.

c6.s1.13

⁴ Ibnul Asir: p. 126.

c6.s1.14

⁵ Ibid, p. 131.

c6.s1.15

⁶ *Fasihi*, quoted by Raverty *op. cit.* p. 374, note 3; Minhaj, p. 71.

c6.s1.16

⁷ *Ibid*, p. 72 ff.

c6.s1.17

¹ Raverty: op. cit. p. 192, Minhaj, p. 73; Ibnul Asir: xi, p. 77.

c6.s1.18

This advance into Khurasan brought the Ghoridas into open rivalry with the Khwarizm Shah. Il-Arslan's death was followed by a civil war between his two sons, Takash and Sultan Shah, in which the former, by agreeing to pay an annual tribute, obtained help from the Qara-Khitai in expelling his brother. Sultan Shah took refuge with Muayyid who soon lost his life fighting for him with Takash. Sultan then fled to Dihistan and eventually to Ghor². His ambition thus introduced a new factor into the complex political situation of Khurasan. Takash soon quarrelled with his Qara-Khitai suzerains with whom Sultan now found it expedient to enter into alliance³. With their help he succeeded in wresting Merv, Sarakhs and Tus from the Ghuzz chieftain, Malik Dinar, and also in dislodging Tughan Shah, Muayyid's successor, from Neshapur. The latter then accepted vassalage under Takash who allowed him to hold Nessa till his death⁴. Following Takash's capture of Neshapur in 583/1187, the two brothers entered into an agreement by which Sultan was permitted to retain sovereignty over Merv, Sarakhs and a few other towns⁵. His ambition however, gave him no rest and led him to open conflict even with his erstwhile Ghoride friends. Allying himself with Tughril, an adventurer who siezed and for a brief period, held sway over Herat, Sultan now “invested Fushanj and made raids upon the territories of Ghor and created tumult and disorder”¹.

c6.s1.19

² Juwaini, ii, pp. 17-19; Raverty: op. cit. pp. 245 and 378.

c6.s1.20

³ Ibnul Asir: xi, p. 169; Juwaini, ii, p. 19f.

c6.s1.21

⁴ Bartold: Turkestan, p. 340. Juwaini, ii, p. 22, adds that he vainly appealed to the Ghorides for help against Sultan.

c6.s1.22

⁵ Juwaini, ii. pp. 24-25.

c6.s1.23

¹ Minhaj. p. 73-4.

c6.s1.24

Beginning of Ghoride hostility to Khwarizm.

c6.s1.25

The Ghorides found their ambition thwarted for Khwarizm reimposed her domination in Khurasan; Sultan only aggravated a situation in which a recourse to arms seemed unavoidable. Owing to their preoccupations with the Ghaznawides at the moment and Ghiyasuddin’s brother, Muizzuddin’s projected Indian expedition, the Ghorides, however, could hardly open hostilities and sought to negotiate with Takash regarding matters in Khurasan; Ghiyasuddin was even anxious to obtain the latter’s help against Sultan Shah, and in a letter dated in 1183 he offered armed assistance in return². Minhaj speaks even of a treaty of alliance between the two sovereigns³, and makes some reference to, possibly, a resultant, Ghoride conflict with the Qara-Khitai the termination of whose unwelcome suzerainty the Khwarizm Shah desired by all means. After Takash’s above-mentioned agreement with his brother, the alliance, directed against Sultan, naturally became inoperative; the Ghorides were thus left to deal single handed with Sultan. When they were in a position to move against him in 586/1190-91⁴, they had, however, a freer hand, for the Ghaznawide enemy had been entirely eliminated. Both Sultan, and his ally, Tughril of Herat, were easily defeated, and Herat most probably annexed to Ghor¹. Sultan died next year but his possessions were at once occupied by Takash².

c6.s1.26

² Bartold: *Turkestan*, p. 340-42.

c6.s1.27

³ Minhaj; p. 329. Raverty, *op. cit.* pp. 243, 245 and 382.

c6.s1.28

⁴ Ibnul Asir: xii, p. 28. Juwaini, ii, p. 28, places some events which happened subsequently, in 586/1190. Minhaj p. 74, dates these in 588/1192 but in this year Muizzuddin could not have been present in this battle as he is reported to have been, since in that year he was engaged in preparations for his second expedition against Prithviraja.

c6.s1.29

¹ Ibnul Asir: xii, p. 64, also mentions the fact that in 594, Takash beseiged Herat which would show that the city was not included in his empire See also Minhaj, p. 329.

c6.s1.30

² Juwaini, ii, p. 30.

c6.s1.31

Inspite of his victory over Sultan, Ghiyasuddin was thus unable to extend his dominions, for Takash controlled the whole of Khurasan. In 578/1182, he sent an expedition to Bukhara to consolidate his possessions in Transoxania; he also reduced the turbulent tribes of Qipchaq on the northern boundary of his empire. On the west he successfully intervened in the last Seljuq, Tughril's conflict with his rebellious vassal, the Atabek Inanaj and in the battle that followed the Atabek's head was sent as a present to the Caliph at Baghdad³. He thus became the virtual successor to the Seljuq emperors. But with their empire he also inherited their traditional enmity to the Caliph. This had the most disastrous consequence not only for his empire but also for the whole of Muslim Asia. It converted the political situation into a triangular conflict which facilitated the easy advance of the Mongols a few years later. For the time being, Takash's advance into Iraq offered a prospect to the Caliph of realising his ambitions of temporal power, so long thwarted by the Seljuqs. But his hopes were frustrated when Takash paid scanty respect to his Wazir and did not show any inclination to share the sovereignty of Iraq with him⁴. As a result, the Caliph became bitterly hostile and henceforth devoted himself exclusively to fomenting enmity against the Khwarizm Shah. Minhaj records the arrival at Ghor of emissaries from Baghdad urging Ghiyasuddin to make immediate war on Takash¹.

c6.s1.32

³ Bartold: Turkestan, p. 341. For the details of Tughril's conflict with the Atabeks, see Rawandi: pp. 435 441; Ibnul Asir, xii, pp. 12 44-50; Guzidah, i, pp. 475-6.

c6.s1.33

⁴ The Caliph Nasir-le-dinellah, in support of the Atabek against Tughril, sent along with Inanaj's letter, a similar invitation to Takash to intervene in the quarrel. Ibnul Asir: xii, p. 45; Bartold: Turkestan, 346-7; Juwaini, ii, p. 33.

c6.s1.34

¹ Raverty: op. cit. p. 243. A similar letter from the Caliph urging him even to enter into an alliance with the ‘infidel’ Qara-khitais against Takash, was discovered at Ghazni, in 1215; Juwaini, ii, p. 86. See also Ibnul Asir, xii, pp. 51 sq.

c6.s1.35

Inspite of their ambition, the Ghorides were however, not strong enough to comply immediately with the request. But on Takash’s death in 596/1200, they at once took advantage of a civil war that broke out between his son and grand son, Alauddin and Hindu Khan. Ghoride troops entered Khurasan and captured Neshapur, Merv, Sarakhs and Tus early next year², Territories as far as Jurjan and Bistam were brought under their sway; Kohistan, the stronghold of the Mulahidah heretics was plundered, and the whole of Khurasan for the first time was occupied by the Ghorides.

c6.s1.36

² Juwaini, ii, p. 48-49.

c6.s1.37

Their triumph was however short-lived, for Alauddin, who ultimately succeeded to Takash’s throne, proved to be of the same metal as his father. He soon recovered Neshapur and other Ghoride conquests; even Herat capitulated to him in 598/1201³. Inspite of his easy success Alauddin appears to have been anxious for peace with Ghorides, in order to deal finally with his hated Qara-khitai suzerain⁴. But they gave him no rest. Impatient to recover Khurasan, they opened the attack and after obtaining a victory near the Merv-ar-rud, beseiged Tus and Sarakhs. Herat easily fell before them Alauddin however, taking advantage of Muizzuddin's brief absence from Herat on the occasion of his brother, Ghiyasuddin's death in 599/1202, defeated the Ghoride troops under Kharnak beseiging Merv, and relieved the city¹. The long standing rivalry between the two dynasties thus came to a head and a decisive conflict could no longer be postponed.

c6.s1.38

³ Ibnul Asir, xii, p. 81-82.

c6.s1.39

⁴ Minhaj, p. 75, refers to a request made by Alauddin for the conclusion of an agreement wth Ghor even on condition of his vassalage. Ibnul Asir, idem, also refers to a similar request made by the Khwarizm Shah in 598/1201.

c6.s1.40

¹ Minhaj, p. 77.

c6.s1.41

With a view to striking a final blow, Muizzuddin accordingly advanced to besiege Gurganj, Alauddin's capital. The latter then hastily returned and was compelled to appeal for help to his Qara-khitai suzerains². This turned the table and Muizzuddin, on the news of the letter's approach had to beat a hasty retreat. The Qara-khitais pursued and on the banks of the Oxus signally defeated his forces and on his escaping with the remnant of his beaten army, was surrounded at Andhkhud in 601/1204³. It was only through the intercession of Takash's vassal, Usman, the Khan of Samarqand, that he was able to obtain a safe retreat to his capital. Thus beaten most decisively, Muizzuddin could hardly refuse to conclude a defensive alliance with his former enemy Alauddin⁴. Of their late conquest Alauddin allowed the Ghorides to retain possession only of Herat and Balkh.

c6.s1.42

² Juwaini, ii, p. 55. *Guzidah*, i, p. 411, adds that he also summoned to his assistance his vassal, the Khan of Samarqand on this occasion.

c6.s1.43

³ Minhaj, p. 123; Ibnul Asir, xii, p. 86.

c6.s1.44

⁴ Juwaini, ii, p. 58. *Guzidah*, i, p. 412.

c6.s1.45

The Khwarizm Shah thus clearly beat his rival not only in war but also in diplomacy. In vain he had

c6.s1.46

Ghoride defeat at Andhkhud.

c6.s1.47

sought Ghoride assistance against the *Qara-khitais*; all he had achieved was merely to increase the ambition of the opportunist Muizuddin. In compelling the latter to make peace and even enter into an alliance with him, he now used the same enemy whose destruction was his ultimate aim. But neither the Ghorides nor the *Qara-khitais* realised the significance of Alauddin's policy. His ignominious defeat hung heavily on Muizzuddin's mind and the destruction of the infidel power became his immediate objective¹. "Vainly did the Caliph of Baghdad entreat him to finish with the Khwarizm Shah first and even to conclude an alliance with the *Qara-khitais* for the purpose²." Hostilities were commenced with the latter by Muizzuddin's governor of Balkh who captured Tirmiz³. Before he could follow this up by a full scale invasion of their territory in Transoxiana, the rising in the Punjab, however compelled Muizzuddin to make a hasty expedition thither in order to "put the affairs of the treasury and armory in order⁴." On his way back he despatched orders to the ruler of Bamian to prepare for the ensuing campaign and to arrange for the building of a bridge over the Oxus. From Lahore he granted leave to his troops to return to their homes for a short while after which they were to assemble for the campaign which he proposed to carry on for three years⁵.

c6.s1.48

¹ Minhaj, p. 121; Juwaini, p. 58.

c6.s1.49

² Bartold: *Turkestan*, p. 352.

c6.s1.50

³ Ibnul Asir, xii, p. 96.

c6.s1.51

⁴ Juwaini, ii, p. 58.

c6.s1.52

⁵ Minhaj, p. 123.

c6.s1.53

This, he was never able to commence, for he died before he could reach his capital. With him died his empire across the Hindu Kush. Within a few years Mahmud, his nephew and successor at Ghor, was compelled to acknowledge the Khwarizm Shah’s suzerainty; after his death the Shansabani kingdom was practically absorbed within the Khwarizmi empire. The dissolution of Ghor was complete when in 612/1215 Yalduz, Muizzuddin’s viceroy, was driven out and Ghazni was attached to the appanage of Alauddin’s crown prince, Jalaluddin. In his scheme of empire-building, Muizzuddin’s Indian conquests appeared to have a secondary importance. And yet they survived the destruction of his own principality. Had not the Khwarizmi empire gone down before the Mongols, the infant state of Delhi would probably have met with a similar fate.

North India

c6.s2.1

The beginning of Turkish ascendancy over the Islamic world was almost contemporaneous with the emergence of a new fighting order in Indian society. The Arab had to fight a Brahmin dynasty in Sind; the Turk faced the Rajput. Resulting from foreign invasions and colonizations, in India great social transformations had been in progress from the beginning of the Christian era. The passing of Harsha’s empire towards the end of the 7th century and with it, of ancient traditions and social ties, saw a new aristocracy taking gradual shape. This was the Rajput who, for the next few centuries championed a resuscitated Brahmanism and controlled the destiny of North India. He claimed to have a purely Indian origin, a twice-born *Dwija*, sprung from the sacrificial fire at Mt. Abu, and to represent the solar dynasty. Scholars agree in giving him a mixed origin, with a large proportion of foreign blood, who eventually found a place in Hindu society but with a distinctive name. He practically replaced the old fighting class, the Kshatriya, and in so doing, inaugurated an age of romantic militarism, chivalry and of ballads. He had points of resemblance with the Turk. To both, the sword was the means of achieving glory; philosophical speculation held no attraction for either of them; clannishness and a blind loyalty characterised the two peoples. A kind of feudalism featured both the political systems. But the Rajput excelled the Turk in reckless bravery and a chivalric sense of honour that led him to commit self-destruction rather than suffer defeat or go down in his own estimation.

c6.s2.2

The Arabs had faced an effete people in Sind. To the Turk was opposed this virile warrior race who ruled the country from the Siwalikh to the Vindhyas. But the Rajput thirst for military glory proved his nemesis, for it led to constant wars and to political disintegration. The Gurjara-Pratihara empire¹ had given way to a multi-state system in which a ceaseless struggle for lord-paramountcy was the order of the day. The militant Muslims occupying Sind and the Punjab increased the forces of disunity. Twelfth century was, indeed, a tempting prize for the land-hungry Turks.

c6.s2.3

¹ For an account of the dynasty's achievements see Majumdar: The Gurjara-Pratihara Empire.

c6.s2.4

It would be convenient to make a rapid political survey of the North Indian states under dynastic groupings.

Muslim States of Punjab and Sind

c6.s3.1

Ever since the days of Mahmud, Punjab had remained an integral part of the Ghaznawide empire. Masud found there a safe refuge from the Seljuqs. We have seen how Bahram and finally his son Khusrau were driven out of Ghazni to rule their Indian province. The last-named was succeeded by Khusrau Malik at Lahore, but, in the language of the chronicler, "abandoned himself wholly to pleasure while the servants of state and governors of the country exercised independent power¹.

c6.s3.2

¹ Minhaj, p. 26.

c6.s3.3

The extent of his kingdom cannot be determined with any amount of certainty. It probably included Peshawar to which Muizzuddin led his first attack on the Ghaznawide possessions in India. Mahmud had wrested Multan from the Qaramitah sect of the Shiite Muslims but with the reassertion of the latter's power a few years after his death, it fell off from the Punjab province². Sialkot appears as the boundary towards the state of Jammu which, according to a late chronicle, was hostile to Khusrau Malik³. The Ghaznawide frontier, however, was far from stable, for the Rajputs steadily pushed it back. An inscription of the Chauhana prince Prithviraja I records his conquest of Asi (Hansi) and its conversion into a fortified outpost against the Muslims, in V.S. 1224/1167 A.D.⁴ That this pressure must have continued is proved by the fact that Bhatinda (written Tabarhinda), situated further north, appears a few years later, in the possession of Prithviraja II from whom Muizuddin was to capture it in 1191.

c6.s3.4

² Adabul Harb; f. 76a.

c6.s3.5

³ Raj Darashani, I. O. 507, f. 45. The Raja of Jammu is named Chakra Deo and is said to have invited and helped Muizzuddin against Khusrau. The account, inspite of its doubtful authenticity is accepted unreservedly in the CHI, iii, p. 39. Raverty quotes extensively from it. The hostility of the alleged ruler of Jammu with Khusrau, however, might have had some connection with the aggressions of the "Mlecchas from the upper Indus valley" in 1144 and of the "Javana Turushkas" between 1150-55, as mentioned in the Kashmir chronicles; Rajatarangini, ii, p. 217; see also introduction, p. 128; Dvitiya Rajatarangini, cited in Roy, H.C.: Dynastic history of Northern India, i, pp. 172-3.

c6.s3.6

⁴ IA, xli, p. 17-8; see also Tod: Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, p. 135. Thomas: Chronicles, p. 60.

c6.s3.7

Faced with the prospect of a long war with the Khwarizm Shah, the Shansabanis found it necessary to eliminate the enemy finally from the rear. The thrust through Sind proving a failure, Muizzuddin directed his attention to the northern entrance and occupied Peshawar in 575/1179¹. Two years later he advanced against Lahore. Khusrau could buy his safety only by offering costly presents and furnishing his son as a hostage. In 581/1185 Muizuddin again invaded the Punjab but contented himself in plundering the countryside and occupying the fortress of Sialkot, which was repaired and garisoned. Sensing the enemy's ultimate design, Khusrau at last exerted himself, and with the help of the Khokar² tribes besieged the fortress but had to retire unsuccessful. Next year, Muizuddin returned to the attack and laid siege to Lahore. Unable to take it by force, he resorted to diplomacy and by assurances of safety persuaded Khusrau to visit his camp. There, he was treacherously siezed and sent to the castle of Balarwan in Gharjistan to be kept in perpetual confinement. He was put to death in 588/1192³.

c6.s3.8

¹ Raverty: *op. cit.* p. 452, note 8, doubts whether the word *Furshor*, as written in Minhaj, p. 116, really refers to Peshawar, which according to him, was called Bagram in those days. Ibnul Asir, xi, pp. 75-6, however, removes the doubt by referring to it as Furshawar which according to Raverty, was the same as Peshawar. Minhaj also uses the term on another occasion; p. 9.

c6.s3.9

² Minhaj, p. 117. The *Raj Darashani*, f, 45b, states that the Khokars were originally subjects of Jammu but had withheld the payment of taxes and allied themselves with Khusrau. Upon this the Raja invited Muiz-zuddin and it was on his suggestion that Sialkot was garrisoned.

c6.s3.10

³ Minhaj gives no less than three dates for the event: p. 27, 598; p. 118, 587; p. 74, 588.

c6.s3.11

The Qaramitah of Multan held the greater part of Upper Sind. The history of Uch, however, is far from clear. Later writers like Yahya Sirhindi, Ferishta and others, probably on the authority of Ibnul Asir, state that it was held by the Bhatti Rajputs¹. The annals of the Bhattis, however, do not make the slightest reference to their ever having held Uch². A likelier suggestion is that it was held by the Qaramitah; Muizzuddin in any case captured both Uch and Multan in one operation in 571/1175³.

c6.s3.12

¹ *TM* p. 6, Ferishta, p. 56. *TA*, I, p. 37. The story of Muizzuddin's intrigue with the queen of the Bhatti raja of Uch who, in the hope of marrying her daughter to the Ghoride chief, poisoned her husband and then allowed the fort to be occupied, is first related by Ibnul Asir, XI, p. 77; but the author himself admits, on p. 79, that his account regarding India is based on hearsay and is unconfirmed. And yet this admittedly tainted account is unreservedly accepted in *CHI*, III, p. 38. For an obviously legendary account of the early Muslim occupation of Uch see, *IGI*, XXIV, p. 82.

c6.s3.13

² See Tod: *Annals*, II, pp. 1190-1205, where the progress of the Bhattis from the Punjab to Jaisalmer in the end of the XII century is recounted. Jaisal, the founder of Jaisalmer, is said to have sought and obtained the assistance of the king of Ghor in occupying Lodorva, the ancient capital, 10 miles N. W. of Jaisalmer. He is also said to have acknowledged the latter's suzerainty whose troops thereafter left for Bhakar in Lower Sind. The story may have some obscure reference to actual facts but does not confirm Ibnul Asir's account. See also Erskine: *Rajputana Gazetteer*, p. 11.

c6.s3.14

³ Minhaj, p. 127, speaks of the holy war against the Qaramitah of Multan and Uch; see also *TM*, p. 5-6. Ferishta, I, p. 56, dates the event in 572/1176.

c6.s3.15

Lower Sind, with its capital at Debal, was under a local dynasty. Mahmud's conquests in those parts were anything but complete. Not long after his death, a local tribe called Sumra, recovered control over the district and became independent. The origin of the tribe is uncertain. Ibn Battuta had heard they were of Arab descent⁴. He is supported by the *Tuhfatul Kiram*⁵, but controverted by Ferishta, Tahir Nisyani and Abul Fazal who assert that they were a local Indian tribe converted to Islam at an early date⁶. Elliot and Tod regarded them as of Rajput stock, a branch of the Paramaras¹. Their rise to power, according to Mir Masum², occurred towards the end of Abdur Rashid Ghaznawide’s reign whose weakness prompted them to establish their sovereignty near the town of Thari. The *Tarikh-i-Tahiri*, however, places the beginning of their independence about 700/1302³. This is near enough to the statement of the *Tuhfatul-Kiram* that they rose to power in the reign of Ghiyasuddin Tughluq⁴. This, however, should in reality, refer to the Summas who, it is certain, supplanted the earlier dynasty and were in possession of Lower Sind when Firoz Tughluq, in 762/1362, opened his attack against the Jam of Thatta. Elliot found evidence dating from 1032 of a Sumra prince (Rai) of Sind receiving communications of a religious import from the Qaramitah leader of the Druzes who were staunch supporters of the Fatimide Caliphs⁵. Their acceptance of the Shiite faith and a resulting intimacy with the Qaramitah of Multan would thus appear to be long-standing. In the list of the Sumra rulers found in the *Tuhfatul-Kiram*, the eleventh, named Chanisar (or Chatisar) is clearly to be identified with Sinanuddin Chanisar, the ruler of Debal who submitted to Iltutmish in 1228⁶. According to Juwaini, he fled from his capital when the Khwarizmi prince Jalaluddin Mangbarni passed through Lower Sind on his way to Iraq⁷. When Muizzuddin captured Debal “as far as the sea” in 578/1182⁸, he must have only

c6.s3.16

⁴ *Kitabur-Rahlah*, II, p. 5.

c6.s3.17

⁵ Add. 21589 f. 263b.

c6.s3.18

⁶ Ferishta, II, p. 314; *Tarikh-i-Tahiri*, f. 14b; *Ain-i-Akbari*, Jarrett

c6.s3.19

¹ Elliot, i, pp. 448-9; *Annals*, iii, pp. 1281-83 and 1299.

c6.s3.20

² *Tarikh-i-Masumi*; f. 51a.

c6.s3.21

³ *Op. cit.* f. 12a.

c6.s3.22

⁴ *Op. cit.* 263b.

c6.s3.23

⁵ Elliot i, p. 491.

c6.s3.24

⁶ Quoted by Raverty, *op. cit.* p. 614; note; Minhaj, p. 173.

c6.s3.25

⁷ ii, p. 147.

c6.s3.26

⁸ Minhaj, p. 117.

c6.s3.27

and Blochmann, ii, p. 341, 345.

c6.s3.28

compelled the Sumra ruler to acknowledge his suzerainty.

The Western Rajputs

c6.s4.1

Three powerful dynasties ruled the land from Delhi to Gujrat including Rajputana. Of these the Chalukya dynasty of Anhilwara (Anahillapattan) attained the zenith of its power in the reign of Jayasinha Siddharaja, (1092-1143), who after prolonged warfare annexed a considerable portion of the Paramara kingdom of Malwa¹. He also conquered the principality of Chitor. Following the defeat of Jasovarma (1133-1143), the Paramaras practically became Chalukya feudatories. Not until the weak reign of the Chalukya, Mularaja II, (1176-1178) were the Paramaras, under Vindhyavarman, able to reassert their independence². Branches of the Paramaras, ruling in the country round Mt. Abu, also reduced to subjection, however, continued in their vassalage until 1179 when those ruling at Bagar were supplanted by the Guhelots of Mewar³. The Chauhana principality of Nadol also submitted to the Chalukyas⁴. Jayasinha also reduced the Jadava principality of Girnar, in Kathiawar peninsula⁵.

c6.s4.2

¹ Ojha: *Rajputana* pp. 196 and 217.

c6.s4.3

² *Ibid.* p. 199; *JAOS*, VII, p. 32-3.

c6.s4.4

³ Ojha: *op. cit.* p. 208; Bagar, according to Ray: *Dynastic History*, II, p. 1182, is to be identified with the modern state of Dungarpur.

c6.s4.5

⁴ Ojha; *op. cit.* p. 216.

c6.s4.6

⁵ *Ibid.* p. 217.

c6.s4.7

Their power soon brought them into hostility with other ambitious dynasties. Jayasinha fought an indecisive battle with the Chandellas of Bundelkhand⁶. His most powerful rival was the Chauhana king of Ajmer. This dynasty, founded by Samanta, received considerable extension of territory under Ajaipal who founded Ajmer in the eleventh century. His descendant, Arnoraja (c.1153-1164) was for a short period compelled to acknowledge Chalukya suzerainty, but soon obtained his independence. One of the Chauhana branches occupied Nadol, and about the year V.S. 1200/1143 A.D., supplanted the Pariharas of Mandor¹. Branches from this family founded the ruling houses of Kotah, Jalor, Sirohi and Bundi².

c6.s4.8

⁶ Ray: *Dynastic History*, II, p. 971.

c6.s4.9

¹ Inscription of Sahajapala, dated V.S. 1202/1145 A.D.; ASR, 1909-10, p. 102-3.

c6.s4.10

² Erskine: Rajputana Gazetteer, p. 236-7; EI, IX p. 72.

c6.s4.11

The two paramount dynasties of Rajputana with their insatiable ambition for power, could thus hardly live in peace. Between 1140 and 1150, Siddharaja's successor, Kumarapala (1143-1173) twice defeated Arnoraja of Ajmer³.

c6.s4.12

³ Ojha: op. cit. p. 218.

c6.s4.13

Decline of the Chalukyas.

c6.s4.14

For a second time the Chauhanas became vassals of Gujrat and Someswara, son and successor of Arnoraja, fought under Kumarapala's banners in the latter's war with the Silaharas of Konkan⁴. With his death, however, Chalukya power declined. The next ruler, Ajaipal suffered defeat from the petty Guhelot chieftain, Samanta Sinha of Chitor who, from a later inscription, appears to have expelled the Chalukyas from Mewar even in the life time of Kumarapala⁵. The Paramaras of Malwa also asserted independence and even invaded Gujrat⁶. Only the Paramaras of Chandravati, remained faithful to the Chalukyas even upto 1230⁷; the rest of western and southern Rajputana became independent. The next two rulers of Gujrat, Mularaja II and Bhima depended entirely on the support of their Paramara vassal and on the Baghela chief Lavanaprasada, whose son Viradhavala ultimately supplanted the dynasty.

c6.s4.15

⁴ Nagari Pracharini Patrika, I, p. 399. From inscriptions found in Udaipur, Kumarapala appears to have conquered Mewar also; EI, II, p. 421.

c6.s4.16

⁵ EI, VIII, p. 216; IA, LIII, pp. 100-102.

c6.s4.17

⁶ JASB, 1836, p. 378-9; Ojha: op. cit. p. 200.

c6.s4.18

⁷ Vienna Oriental Journal, XXI: "The Chirwa inscription"; IA 1928, p. 32.

c6.s4.19

With the decline of the Chalukyas, the Paramaras of Malwa and the Chauhanas of Ajmer rose to eminence. The former were not destined to retain power for long, for their success over the Chalukyas and the Guhelots was followed by a series of defeats which brought about a complete collapse. The Chauhanas on the other hand, rapidly swallowed up North-eastern Rajputana. Visalaraja of Ajmer was a mighty conqueror and by 1150 captured Delhi from the Tomaras¹. In his inscription he boasts of his having conquered and subjugated the land between the Himalayas and the Vindhya mountains including "Baikuntha and Jabalipura². His capture of Hansi from the Ghaznawides has already been mentioned. After the short and uneventful reigns of his son Amaragangeya and that of his cousin Prithviraja I, the throne devolved on his younger brother Someswara. He ruled from 1170 to 1179 and was succeeded by his son, the famous Prithviraja II, or Rai Pithora of the Muslim writers. Much of his alleged prowess and conquests, recounted in the *Prithviraja Rasau* of Chand Bardai have been disproved by modern research³. The only undoubted evidence of his military exploits is an inscription in the Lalitpur district of

c6.s4.20

¹ *JASB*, 1886, pp. 41-43; Ojha: *op. cit.* p. 234.

c6.s4.21

² *IA*, 1890, pp. 215-217.

c6.s4.22

³ See *Proc. Asiatic Society of Bengal*, 1893, p. 93-94; Cunningham, *Coins of medieval India*, p. 83; *JASB*, 1886, p. 5; *IA*, 1930, pp. 6-9, cf. Smith: *Early History of India* p. 402, note 2, who tries to explain the obvious impossibilities contained in the ballad.

c6.s4.23

Extension of Chauhana power.

c6.s4.24

Bundelkhand, dated 1118, recording his conquest of Mahoba from Paramardi, the Chandella king of Kalinjar¹. It is needless to refer to his war with the Paramaras of Abu, the Chalukyas of Gujrat or the Gahdvalas of Kanouj—the latter following his abduction of Jaichand’s (Jayachandra) daughter—for these rest on no better authority than the legendary and unreliable *Rasau*². He was undoubtedly a vigorous king though his claim to lord-paramountcy of North India requires substantiation. His relation with the neighbouring kings could hardly have been cordial which explains his single-handed resistance to the Muslim invader. We have no means of ascertaining the names of the feudatory princes who are said to have fought in his side against Muizzuddin³. It is probable that Govindarai (written Khandirai by the Muslim chronicler), and described as the Rai of Delhi, was his vassal and belonged to the Tomara dynasty.

c6.s4.25

¹ Cunningham: *Reports*, XXI, p. 173-4; another inscription at Visalpur, Jaipur State, mentions his name and is dated V.S. 1244/1187; *Ibid*, VI, p. 156. Another at Udaipur is noticed in *ASR*, Western Circle, 1906, p. 62.

c6.s4.26

² The *Prithviraja-Vijaya-kavya*, makes no reference to these events, see, *JRAS*, 1913, p. 26; *IA*, 1879, p. 25; Ojha: op. cit. p. 277-8.

c6.s4.27

³ Minhaj, p. 118.

The Eastern Rajputs

c6.s5.1

These consisted of the Gahdvalas of Kanouj, the Chandellas of Kalinjar and the Kalachuris of Chedi. The Gahdvala principality was founded towards the end of the eleventh century by Chandra Deva⁴. The Chandellas established their power at the expense of the declining Gurjara-Pratiharas, earlier in the century¹. They held a brief suzerainty over the Ganges-Jumna Doab but were supplanted by Lakshmikarna of the Kalachuri dynasty, founded still earlier at Tripuri, in the Jubbulpur district of the Central provinces². The latter, however, had to succumb to the rising Gahdvalas who, under Govindachandra (1114-1154) extended their territory at the cost of the Pala and Sena rulers of Bengal on one side and probably of the Tomaras of Delhi, on the other. The Chandella dominion comprised western Bundelkhand, probably with the Jumna as the northern boundary; the south-eastern frontier must have been co-terminous with that of the Kalachuris. They also appear to have exercised suzerainty over the Kachwaha ruler of Gwalior³. The Gahdvala kingdom originally consisted of Kasi (Benares), Kosala (Awadh), Kausik (Allahabad region), and Indrasthana (Indraprastha—Delhi?)⁴. The expansionist policy followed by the kings of this dynasty soon affected the neighbouring states. Judging from the regnal titles of Chandra Deva, which include those borne earlier by Jasahkarna of Tripuri, the Kalachuris were the first to suffer⁵.

c6.s5.2

⁴ His earliest known inscription is dated V. S. 1148/1090; *EI*, IX. p. 304. His rise to power and conquests are described in the inscription of Govindachandra; *IA*, 1885, p. 102-3.

c6.s5.3

¹ Smith: op. cit. p. 405.

c6.s5.4

² Ray: Dynastic History, I. P. 504; II, p. 779.

c6.s5.5

³ For a traditional account of the Gwalior fort see Gwalior Namah of Hiraman Munshi; also Cunningham: Reports, II, pp. 312-316. According to Ojha: Tod's Annals, Hindi edition, p. 373, the Kachwahas ruled there upto 1155; see also Ray: Dynastic History, II, p. 825-6.

c6.s5.6

⁴ EI, IX, p. 304; IA, XVII.

c6.s5.7

⁵ EI, XVIII, p. 193.

c6.s5.8

Chandradeva's grandson, Govindachandra, was the greatest ruler of his dynasty. His contemporary in Kalinjar, Madanavarma was another equally aggressive prince who is said to have defeated the Paramaras of Malwa, and to have successfully crossed swords with Siddharaja of Gujrat¹. The ambition of these two rulers could find permanent satisfaction only at the cost of the weak Kalachuris. A part of the latter kingdom, comprising parts of Sagar, Damoh and Jubbulpur districts, was annexed to the Chandella kingdom². On the northwest, Govindachandra appropriated a goodly portion³. Towards the south, also, the Kalachuris suffered attacks from the Ganga kings of Orissa who attained the height of their power under Chodaganga (1076-1147). Hostilities with the latter are referred to in two inscriptions of a line of collateral Kalachuri princes of Tummana⁴, which led to prolonged warfare. The Gangas ultimately succeeded in reducing to vassalage the Kalachuri king Paramardi who is mentioned as fighting under the banners of Narasinha II (1278-1302)⁵. The dissolution of their kingdom even by the end of the 12th century is indicated by a grant, dated in 1214, wherein the Maharanaka of Kakkaredi, (modern Rewah), formerly a Kalachuri vassal, is found acknowledging Chandella paramountcy⁶. The last Kalachuri record so far discovered belongs to the year 1195 A.D.⁷.

c6.s5.9

¹ EI, I, pp. 195-207; JASB, XVII, pp. 317-20.

c6.s5.10

² IA, 1908, p. 143-4.

c6.s5.11

³ In an inscription he is found confirming a grant originally made by Jashahkarna; JASB, XXXI, p. 123-4.

c6.s5.12

⁴ EI, Z, pp. 45-52.

c6.s5.13

⁵ Ibid, XIII, p. 151-2.

c6.s5.14

⁶ Cunningham: Reports, XXI, p. 104, 146-48. Cf. Smith, IA, 1908, p. 124, note 35 who does not think that Trailokyavarma of the inscription belonged to the Chandella dynasty.

c6.s5.15

⁷ IA, XVII, p. 228; see IHQ, 1927, p. 175, for some coins of a Kalachuri prince, said to have been ruling at Ratnapur in the Central provinces, from 1250 to 1293.

c6.s5.16

Rise of the Gahdvala and Chandella powers.

c6.s5.17

Inspite of this initial success the Chandellas appear to have been finally beaten by the Gahdvalas in the race for power in North India. The long reign of Madanavarma (1125-1165) was followed by that of his grand son Paramardideva. His power was shaken by the defeat inflicted by Prithviraja II, resulting in the probable loss of his western possessions to the Chauhanas. His immediate control could not have extended far beyond Mahoba, Khajuraho, Kalinjar and Ajaigarh. An inscription dated in 1176, recording a gift of some villages, would however extend his suzerainty upto Jhansi¹.

c6.s5.18

¹ IA, 1909/10, p. 44.

c6.s5.19

Gahdvala- Chandella rivalry.

c6.s5.20

Left alone in the field, the Gahdvalas steadily widened their dominion. Grants found in Gorakhpur, Allahabad, and Patna outline the eastward expansion of Govindachandra’s kingdom². These conquests were mostly at the cost of the Pala possessions. The expansionist policy was continued by Vijayachandra (c. 1155-1170) in whose reign the district of Shahabad appears under Gahdvala sway³. His son and successor, Jaichand of the Muslim writers, was the last of the imperial Gahdvalas. Among his grants, which range in date from 1170 to 1189, those issued from Benares and Gaya testify to his continued hold on Bihar⁴. We shall have occasion to describe the hostilities that must have been occasioned by these conquests with the Pala and Sena rulers. Towards the northeast corner of the Gahdvala kingdom a line of Rashtrakuta princes held sway over Budaon from the time of Chandradeva⁵, presumably as feudatories.

c6.s5.21

² EI, V, pp. 113-15; VII, p. 98; 1922, p. 81.

c6.s5.22

³ JAOS, VI, p. 547. The grant, dated in 1169 mentions a feudatory ruler, named Maharanaka Pratapadhavala of Japila. See also EI, V. no. 153 (Kielhorn’s list).

c6.s5.23

⁴ IA, XVIII, pp. 129-134; IHQ, 1929, pp. 14-30.

c6.s5.24

⁵ IA, XVII, p. 61. Kielhorn read the date on Madanapala’s inscription as V. S. 1276/1219-20, but the mistake was later rectified and the correct reading was found to be 1176/1119-20; IA, XXIV, p. 176; see also JASB, 1892, extra number, p. 58. Lakhanapala of the Budaon inscription belongs to the same line of princes as Madanapala who is herein mentioned; *EI*, I, p. 61-2. On paleographic grounds the second inscription is ascribed to the end of the 12th century. See also Reu: *History of the Rathors*, p. 16, for the relation of this Rashtrakuta family to the Gahdvalas of Kanouj.

The States of Eastern India

c6.s6.1

The principal feature in the political condition of Northeastern India during the period under review was the rapid dissolution of the Pala empire. Rampala (c. 1126) who succeeded in recovering his ancestral throne from the Kaivarta usurper Dibya, was able to revive for a short period the imperial glory by obtaining victories in Utkala, Kalinga and Kamrup. But his death was followed by an almost immediate collapse. His viceroy, Vaidyadeva, declared independence in the Brahmaputra valley¹. The feudatory kings of the Varman dynasty ruling over eastern and part of southern Bengal also set themselves up as independent sovereigns². Even the petty rulers of Apara-Mandara (in western Bengal, Hooghly district) repudiated their vassalage and, what is more, entered into alliance with the Senas who, under Vijayasena (1097-1159), had lately asserted independence over a part of Radha (West Bengal)³. Under Kumara-pala (1126-30) and Madanapala (c. 1130-50) the Pala dominion fast dwindled in size and came to comprise only a small portion of the Varendri division of North Bengal. In Bihar their power was circumscribed by the independent principality of Yakshapala, at Gaya, a former vassal of Rampala⁴. Another recently independent dynasty, calling themselves Pithipatis, ruled in parts of the Gaya and Hazaribagh districts⁵.

First 163 of 189 passages. Read on

Linked texts (5)