Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1: Volume 1

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1

Language
English

Contents

Volume 1

Front matter

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period), Volume I

v1.c2.1

(EARLY MEDIAEVAL PERIOD)

v1.c2.2

IN TWO VOLUMES

v1.c2.5

By H. C. RAY, M.A. (Cal.), Ph.D. (Lond.)

v1.c2.6

With a Foreword By L. D. BARNETT, M.A., Litt.D.

v1.c2.7

VOL I

v1.c2.9

*Munshiram Manoharlal* *Publishers Pvt. Ltd.*

v1.c2.10

Munshiram Manoharlal

v1.c2.11

Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

v1.c2.12

54, RANI JHANSI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110055 *Book Shop* : 4416. NAI SARAK, DELHI-110006

v1.c2.13

First Published in 1931-36 by the University of Calcutta © Smt. Sabita Ray, Calcutta

v1.c2.14

*Thesis approved for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of London*

v1.c2.15

Printed in India by Shri Surjeet K. Gupta at Nu-Tech Photolithographers, Shahdara, Delhi-110032

Foreword

v1.c3.1

"Histories," says Bacon, "make men wise." To read with understanding the record of men's strivings in the past for good and for evil, of the ambitions of individuals and the struggles of masses in their play and counter-play, is often saddening, but always helpful for the knowledge of the present. Most of the worst errors of society might be avoided if its leaders had knowledge of its past and power to use it. Even the driest bones of historical fact are precious: they reveal conditions and forces in the past which have still a significance for the present, for man changes little, and "bleibt stets von gleichem Schlag," even the most sweeping revolutions being unable to destroy the bonds which unite him to former generations.

v1.c3.2

Indian culture has produced singularly few works of genuine historiography; but it has preserved abundant materials for the historian in the form of inscriptions, literary data, and documents of various kinds. By judicious use of these, it is possible to construct a record of the political and social experiences of many centuries. The story is indeed very incomplete: great gaps yawn in many parts of it, and even where the facts are visible, the causes which brought them about are often obscure. But the main lines of Indian history are now certain, thanks to the patient and skilful labours of generations of scholars, and, in the present work, Dr. Ray has rendered a service of immense value by supplying a complete critical survey of them as they run through the North from the latter end of the classical period down to the beginnings of the modern era. He has not only collected all the relevant materials and arranged them in lucid connexion, but he has likewise examined them in the spirit of judicious and constructive historiography, emending where possible their errors, discounting their exaggerations, and endeavouring to interpret obscurities by the light of sober sense. No such comprehensive work in the domain of Indian history has yet appeared, and Dr. Ray deserves credit as much for the boldness of his design as for the skill and industry with which he has executed it.

v1.c3.3

L. D. Barnett.

v1.c3.4

TO THE MEMORY

v1.c3.5

OF

v1.c3.6

ASUTOSH MOOKERJEE

Preface

v1.c4.1

In the present work an attempt has been made to give an account of the dynasties that ruled in Northern India during the period of transition intervening between the decline of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire and the Muslim conquest. The history of Northern India between *c.* 916 and 1196 A.D. only very roughly covers the *period* of this transition. In my account of the dynasties I had often to go beyond these limits for the reason that the history of some of the dynasties began before 916 A.D., and in other cases some of them were not conquered by the Muslims till considerably after 1196 A.D. As the work was really intended to bridge the gulf between the Hindu and the early Muslim (better called Turkish and Afghan) periods, I have, acting on the advice of Dr. Barnett, taken the liberty of overstepping the limits whenever necessary.

v1.c4.2

The idea of the present work suggested itself to me as early as 1920-21 when I was faced with the task of delivering lectures on the Hindu period of Indian History to the Post-Graduate students of the University of Calcutta. The first two volumes of the work were however actually planned and completed during my stay in Europe during the years 1927-29. These two volumes mainly contain the political history of the ‘Dynasties.’ The third volume which is in course of preparation will deal with the following topics : (*i*) Minor Dynasties, (*ii*) Administrative History, (*iii*) Economic History, (*iv*) Social and Religious History, (*v*) Literary History, (*vi*) Monuments and Coins, (*vii*) Origin of the Rajputs, and (*viii*) The Causes of the Decline and Downfall of the Hindu Dynasties in Northern India.

v1.c4.3

Within the limited time at my disposal, I have spared no pains to make the Index and the Synchronistic Table as full and accurate as possible. In some cases I have tried to indicate in the Index alternative forms of the spelling of names, so that the reader may find the name from whatever angle of transliteration he approaches the book. I have thus sometimes given the same name twice under different forms. As a general rule modern place names are spelt as they appear in the *Imperial Gazetteer of India (Atlas)*, Vol. XXVI. One important exception is 'Bihar' for Behar. As to ancient Sanskritic names, I have followed the system adopted by Profs. Macdonell and Keith in the *Vedic Index*. Any want of uniformity in the spelling of Arabic and Persian names will, I hope, be rectified to some extent by the Index.

v1.c4.4

The importance of Maps in the study of History is recognised in all countries. In the case of Ancient and Mediaeval Indian History, however, the task of preparing maps is rendered extremely difficult by the lack of detailed information concerning the exact areas indicated by the various geographical and topographical names in Indian records. Moreover, there is evidence to show that in some cases the same geographical term indicated different regions not only in different periods but also within the same period. I have, therefore, taken some risk in preparing the ten maps which are included in the first volume. Moreover, to save time and cost I have prepared the maps by my own hand and therefore they may not be found to be so accurate as mechanical reproductions of Survey of India maps. But within these limitations I have spared no labour to make the maps useful to the reader. In this task I have received considerable assistance from Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri. The printing of Ancient and Mediaeval names in red will, I hope, increase the value of the maps.

v1.c4.5

At various stages of my work I have received occasional suggestions and help from the late Sir T. W. Arnold, Sir E. Denison Ross, Sir Wolseley Haig, Prof. H. H. Dodwell, Mr. H. A. R. Gibb, Dr. Margaret Smith (all of the School of Oriental Studies, London), Prof. F. W. Thomas (Oxford University), Mr. C. A. Storey (Librarian, India Office), Mr. John Allan (British Museum), Mr. J. Van Manen (Asiatic Society of Bengal), Prof. R. C. Majumdar (Dacca University), Dr. M. W. Mirza (Lucknow University), Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri and Prof. M. Z. Siddiqi (of the University of Calcutta). I take this opportunity to express my gratefulness for their kind assistance. To Mr. J. C. Chakravorti, the Offg. Registrar and Mr. A. C. Ghatak I am thankful for the help rendered to me in the printing and publication of this volume. Acknowledgment is also due to Mr. Benoy Krishna Ray for assistance in preparing the Index. To Messrs. H. C. Chakladar and J. N. Bannerji I am indebted for the permission to use an excellent snapshot of the porch of the temple of Mukteśvara at Bhuvaneswar, which is reproduced on the cover. To Messrs. Aga Kazim Shirazi and S. N. Mitra I am indebted for occasional help in proof reading. I must also express my appreciation of the courtesy and consideration shown to me by the officers in charge of the various European libraries, specially those attached to the School of Oriental Studies (London), the British Museum and the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. But above all, I am indebted to Dr. L. D. Barnett, who with unfailing kindness and great patience has gone through every chapter of the first two volumes of the present work and suggested corrections and alterations most of which I have incorporated in the body of my thesis. It was also due to his intercession that the High Commissioner of India made a grant of £30 towards the expenses of the publication of this work. Dr. Barnett has further increased my debt of gratitude to him by adding a kind Foreword to this work.

v1.c4.6

It was the late Sir Asutosh Mookerjee who first offered me facilities for research in Indian History. The irreparable loss which the University of Calcutta has suffered by his untimely death is too well-known to require any mention here. But I take this opportunity to dedicate this volume of my work to his memory as a token of the gratitude and admiration I shall ever cherish for him.

v1.c4.7

In conclusion I must add that I am fully conscious of the many lapses and omissions in this volume inspite of my best efforts to make it useful to the reader. I can only hope :

v1.c4.8

सूर्पवहोषमुत्सृज्य गुणम् गृह्णन्ति साधवः।

v1.c4.9

.Department of History, / University of Calcutta. / 25th December, 1930. Hemchandra Ray.

Table of Contents

v1.c5.1

| | | | | PAGE |
| Foreword by Dr. L. D. Barnett | ... | ... | ... | v |
| Dedication | ... | ... | ... | vii |
| Author's Preface | ... | ... | ... | ix |
| List of Bibliographies | ... | ... | ... | xv |
| Genealogical Tables | ... | ... | ... | xvii |
| List of Maps | ... | ... | ... | xix |
| List of Contractions | ... | ... | ... | xxi |
| Introduction | ... | ... | ... | xxix |
| Chapter I : | Dynastic History of Sind | ... | ... | 1 |
| Chapter II : | Śāhis of Afghanistan and the Punjab | ... | ... | 55 |
| Chapter III : | Dynastic History of Kashmir | ... | .. | 107 |
| Chapter IV : | Dynastic History of Nepal | ... | ... | 185 |
| Chapter V : | Dynastic History of Assam | ... | ... | 235 |
| Chapter VI : | Dynastic History of Bengal and Bihar | ... | ... | 271 |
| Chapter VII : | Dynasties of Orissa | ... | ... | 391 |
| Chapter VIII : | Gāhaḍavālas (Gaharwars) of Vārāṇasī and Kānyakubja | ... | ... | 504 |
| Chapter IX : | Rāshṭrakūṭas of Northern India | ... | ... | 550 |
| Chapter X : | Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj | ... | . | 569 |
| Coins of the Arab Governors of Sind | ... | ... | 13 fn. 5 |
| Appendix : | Coins of the Śāhis | ... | ... | 102 |
| Index | ... | ... | ... | ... | 615 |
| Corrigenda | ... | ... | ... | ... | 665 |
| Synchronistic Table | ... | ... | *in pocket at end of volume.* |

v1.c5.2

In conclusion I must add that I am fully conscious of the many lapses and omissions in this volume inspite of my best efforts to make it useful to the reader. I can only hope :

v1.c5.3

**सूपॆवद्दोषमुत्सृज्य गुणम् गृह्णन्ति साधवः ।**

v1.c5.4

.Department of History, / University of Calcutta. / 25th December, 1930. \textsc{Hemchandra Ray}.

v1.c5.5

| | | | | PAGE |
| Foreword by Dr. L. D. Barnett | ... | ... | ... | v |
| Dedication | ... | ... | ... | vii |
| Author's Preface | ... | ... | ... | ix |
| List of Bibliographies | ... | ... | ... | xv |
| Genealogical Tables | ... | ... | ... | xvii |
| List of Maps | ... | ... | ... | xix |
| List of Contractions | ... | ... | ... | xxi |
| Introduction | ... | ... | ... | xxix |
| Chapter I : Dynastic History of Sind | ... | ... | ... | 1 |
| Chapter II : Sāhis of Afghanistan and the Punjab | | ... | ... | 55 |
| Chapter III : Dynastic History of Kashmir | | ... | .. | 107 |
| Chapter IV : Dynastic History of Nepal | ... | ... | | 185 |
| Chapter V : Dynastic History of Assam | ... | ... | ... | 235 |
| Chapter VI : Dynastic History of Bengal and Bihar | | ... | ... | 271 |
| Chapter VII : Dynasties of Orissa | ... | ... | ... | 391 |
| Chapter VIII : Gāhaḍavālas (Gaharwars) of Vārāṇasī and Kānyakubja | | ... | ... | 504 |
| Chapter IX : Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Northern India | | ... | ... | 550 |
| Chapter X : Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj | | ... | ... | 569 |
| Coins of the Arab Governors of Sind | ... | | | 13 fn. 5 |
| Appendix : Coins of the Sāhis | ... | ... | ... | 102 |
| Index . ... | ... | ... | ... | 615 |
| Corrigenda | ... | ... | ... | 665 |
| Synchronistic Table ... | ... | *in pocket at end of volume.* | | |

v1.c5.6

An empty page (blank page).

Genealogical Tables

v1.c6.1

| | | | | | PAGE |
| Chapter I | ... | ... | ... | ... | 47 |
| Chapter II | ... | ... | ... | ... | 103 |
| Chapter III | ... | ... | ... | ... | 181 |
| Chapter IV | ... | ... | ... | ... | 229 |
| Chapter V | ... | ... | ... | ... | 268 |
| Chapter VI | ... | ... | ... | ... | 384 |
| Chapter VII | ... | ... | ... | ... | 499 |
| Chapter VIII | ... | ... | ... | ... | 548 |
| Chapter IX | ... | ... | ... | ... | 566 |
| Chapter X | ... | ... | ... | ... | 610 |

List of Maps

v1.c7.1

| No. | For | | PAGE |
| 1. | Dynastic History of Sind | ... | *before p.* 1 |
| 2. | Sāhis of Afghanistan and the Punjab | ... | *between pp.* 54 *and* 55 |
| 3. | Dynastic History of Kashmir | ... | *between pp.* 106 *and* 107 |
| 4. | Dynastic History of Nepal | ... | *between pp.* 184 *and* 185 |
| 5. | Dynastic History of Assam | ... | *between pp.* 234 *and* 235 |
| 6. | Dynastic History of Bengal and Bihar | ... | *between pp.* 270 *and* 271 |
| 7. | Dynasties of Orissa | ... | *between pp.* 390 *and* 391 |
| 8. | Gāhaḍavālas (Gaharwars) of Vārāṇasī and Kānyakubja | ... | *between pp.* 504 *and* 505 |
| 9. | Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Northern India | | *between pp.* 550 *and* 551 |
| 10. | Later Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj | ... | *between pp.* 568 *and* 569 |

Corrigenda

v1.c8.1

P. 1, l. 7 from foot : *for* Mukaddasī *read* Muqaddasī P. 3, fn. 4 *for* Postands ,, Postans. P. 7, l. 9 ,, Ziyād ,, Ziyād. P. 8, l. 17 ,, Sulāymān ,, Sulaymān. P. 9, l. 16 ,, Avani Janāśraya ,, Avanijanāśraya. P. 9, fn. 2 ,, can Bailamān be... ,, that Bailamān may be... P. 13, ,, 5 ,, Naṣar ,, Naṣr P. 14, l. 15 ,, ...a Quraisite, and the... ,, a Quraishite, and of the... P. 14, fn. 2 ,, Dhahb ,, Dhahab. P. 14, ,, 3 ,, Akālīm ,, Aqālīm. P. 25, l. 14 ,, appears ,, appear. P. 26, l. 6 from foot : *for* Malāḥida ,, Mulāḥida. P. 26, fn. 4 ,, ,, ,, P. 30, l. 3 (and pages following) *for* Mīr Ma'ṣūmī ,, Mīr Ma'ṣum. P. 43, l. 5 *for* Maḥmūd ,, Muḥammad. P. 47, l. 10 ,, 1581 A.D. ,, 1511 A.D. P. 49, l. 8-10 : after (15), *read* (15a) Mūsā i. Yaḥia 217 A.H. (832) ; for 'Amran i. Mūsa 217 A.H. (832 A.D ) *read* 'Amran i. Mūsa 221 A.H. (836 A.D.) P. 49, l. 6 from foot : *for* 332 to 366 A H. = 942-976 *read* c. 332 to 349 A.H. = c. 943 to 960 A D. P. 55, l. 4 *for* Behistum *read* Behistun (Bahistān). P. 57, l. 10 ,, the Śiva ,, god Śiva. P. 58, l. 1 ,, Ṣāhanuṣāhis ,, Ṣāhānuṣāhis. P. 61, l. 19 ,, Epthalites ,, Ephthalites. P. 62, l. 1 ,, the Śiva ,, god Śiva P. 62, l. 11 ,, Turks were ,, Turks who were. P. 64, l. 14 ,, they succeeded ,, it succeeded. P. 65, l. 4 ,, ībn ,, ibn P. 66, l. 5 ,, numbers ,, number. P. 87, l. 19 ,, west bank ,, left bank. P. 111, l. 6 ,, Parbal ,, Marbal. P. 113, l. 21 ,, A D. 855-56 to 823 ,, A.D. 855-56—883. P. 118, l. 18 ,, Darbāvābhisāra ,, Dārvābhisāra. P. 121, l. 2 ,, serious taxation ,, serious form of taxation. P. 127, l. 3 ,, Svapāki ,, Śvapāki. P. 127, l. 25 ,, of his cruel ,, at his cruel. P. 130, ll. 3-4 ,, Parvateśvara ,, Parvagupteśvara. P. 135, l. 8 from foot : *for* Toṣī ,, Tauṣī. P. 154, l. 17 *for* Advantipura ,, Avantipura. P. 180, l. 1, place 'and' before 'Alleśvara.' P. 188, l. 5 *for* marks ,, mark. P. 193, l. 11 ,, Ral-pa-ćan ,, Ral-pa-can. P. 208, l. 4 ,, year 261 (1141 A.D.) ,, year 254 (1134 A.D.). P. 216, l. 5 from foot : *for* on the part ,, on the part of. P. 231, ll. 9-11 omit vertical line which connects Rājalladevi and Jaya-Rājadeva : join Jagatsimha with Rājalladevī with a vertical line. P. 251, l. 23 *for* Prāgjyotiṣādhipas *read* Prāgjyotiṣādhipatis. P. 257, l. 17 ,, bhūvi ,, bhuvi. P. 261, l. 1 ,, Bakht yar ,, Bakht-yār. P. 265, l. 16 ,, Karnāni ,, Karrānī. P. 268, fn. 1 ,, establised ,, established. P. 272, l. 6 ,, Sumha ,, Suhma. P. 276, l. 12 ,, Jivitagupta ,, Jīvitagupta II. P. 284, l. 20 ,, jaladhe ,, jaladher. P. 285, l. 7 from foot : *for* Vordhamāna ,, Vardhamāna.

v1.c8.3

P. 296, l. 2 from foot : *for* 29th *read* 39th. P. 307, ll. 19-20 *read* inscription of Dhaṅga informs us,....the Candella Yaśovarman defeated the king of Gauḍa......... P. 321, fn. 4 *for* Gobindacandra *read* Govindacandra. P. 338, l. 8 ,, Sahodara ,, anuja. P. 341. l. 2 from foot : *for* Kośala-nāḍu ,, Kośalai nāḍu. P. 351, l. 7 ,, ,, Bhāṭṭaputra ,, Bhaṭṭaputra. P. 368, l. 10 *for* Varuṇā andt ,, Varapā and P. 384, ,, Vākpāla ,, Vākpāla. P. 387, ,, Akga ,, Aṅga. P. 418, l. 7 from foot : *for* 18th ,, 187th. P. 421, after Parama-vaiṣṇavī omit hyphen. P. 423. l. 1 *for* The Bhañjas ,, (3) The Bhañjas. P. 428, l. 3 from foot : *for* fact that none ,, fact that almost none. P. 432. l. 2 ,, ,, (B) N ,, (B) M. P. 451, l. 5 *for* Avanti ,, Ananta. P. 455, l. 20 *for* (x+44+3+35+3+½+3+ ,, (x+41+3+35+3+35+½+3+ P. 460, l. 13 ,, Kimidi Kosala ,, Kimiḍi, Kosala. P. 472, l. 3 ,, Chandralekhā ,, Candralekhā. P. 475, l. 7 ,, Bhīma II ,, Bhīma I. P. 477, l. 14 ,, Anaṅgabhīma lII ,, Anaṅgabhīma II. P. 478, l. 5 from foot : *for* sister ,, daughter. P. 483, fn. 3, l. 2, omit Anantavarman P. 501, *for* Kāmārṇava VI ,, Kāmārṇava V. ,, Mādhu-Kāmārṇava V ,, Madhu-Kāmārṇava VI. ,, Aniyaṅkabhīma II ,, Aniyaṅkabhīma I. ,, Anaṅgabhīma III ,, Anaṅgabhīma II. P. 565, omit the vertical line above ‘Chikkora’ and add one above ‘Śaṅkaradevī.’ P. 567, *for* Bālaprasāda (c 880-1000 A.D.) *read* Bālaprasāda (c. 980-1000 A.D.) P. 578, fn. 1, l 1 *for* 3rd Century A.D *read* 3rd Century A.H. P. 595, ll. 2 and 4 ,, Karṇa ,, Lakṣmī-Karṇa. P. 597, l. 6 ,, Ṭabqāt ,, Ṭabaqāt. P. 600, fn. ,, *Habīb us-şiyar* ,, *Habīb us-siyar*. P. 604, l. 2 ,, on doubt ,, no doubt. P. 633, ,, Jīvitagupta III ,, Jīvitagupta II. P. 642, l. 7 ,, Manṣūrah ,, Manṣūrah.

List of Contractions

v1.c9.1

| *AAK* | *A'īn-ī-Akbarī* Trans. by Blochmann and Jarrett. |
| *ABOI* | *Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute*, Poona (India). |
| *AGI* | *The Ancient Geography of India* by Alexander Cunningham, 2nd edition. Edited by S. N. Majumdar, Sastri, Calcutta, 1924. |
| *AO* | *Antiquities of Orissa* by Rajendralala Mitra, Calcutta, 1875 and 1880. |
| *AR* | Tod's *Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan*. Edited by William Crooke. |
| *ARB* | *Antiquarian Remains of the Bombay Presidency*. |
| *ASI* | *Archaeological Survey of India*. Annual Report. |
| *ASI, WC* | *Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle*. |
| *ASR* | *Archaeological Survey Reports* by Cunningham. |
| *ASWI* | *Archaeological Survey of Western India*. |
| | |
| *BEFEO* | *Bulletin de L'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient*. |
| *BG* | *Bombay Gazetteer*. |
| *BHG* | *History of Gujarat* by Sir Edward Clive Bayley, London, 1886. |

v1.c9.2

| *BI* | *Prakrit and Sanskrit Inscriptions of Kattywar*; published by the Bhavnagar Archaeological Department, Bhavnagar. |
| *BR* | *Buddhist Record of the Western World* by S. Beal. |
| *Caliphate* | *The Caliphate, its Rise, Decline and Fall* by William Muir. |
| *CBMC* | *Catalogue of the Buddhist Sanskrit MSS. in the University Library, Cambridge*, by Bendall, Cambridge, 1883. |
| *CCIM* | *Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Vol. I*, by Vincent A. Smith, Oxford, 1906. |
| *CHI* | *Cambridge History of India*. |
| *CI* | Central India (Province). |
| *CIC* | *Catalogue of Indian Coins (Andhras and Kṣatrapas)* by E. J. Rapson, London, 1908. |
| *CMI* | *Coins of Mediaeval India* by Cunningham. |
| *CP* | Central Provinces of India. |
| *CPMDN* | *Catalogue of Palm-leaf and selected paper MSS. belonging to the Durbar Library, Nepal*, by H. P. Sastri, with a Historical Introduction by Prof. C. Bendall, 1905, Calcutta. |
| *CSBM* | *Catalogue of the Sanskrit MSS. in the British Museum* by C. Bendall, London, 1902. |
| *DLI* | *Descriptive List of Inscriptions in C. P. & Berar* by Hiralal, Nagpur, 1916. |

v1.c9.3

| *EHI* | *Early History of India*, 4th edition, by V. A. Smith. |
| *EI* | *Epigraphia Indica*. |
| *EIA* | *Essays on Indian Antiquities* by James Prinsep. Ed. by Edward Thomas, London, 1858. |
| *Elliot* | *The History of India as told by its own Historians* by Sir H. M. Elliot. |
| *GDI* | *Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Mediaeval India*, by N. Dey, Luzac, 1927. |
| *GI* | *Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum*, *Vol. III*, *Gupta Inscriptions* by John Faithful Fleet, Calcutta, 1888. |
| *GOS* | *Gaekwad Oriental Series*. |
| *HA* | *History of Assam* by Sir Edward Gait, 2nd Ed., 1926, Calcutta, Thacker Spink & Co. |
| *HR* | *History of Rajputana* by Ojha (Rai Bahadur Pandit G. H.), Ajmer. |
| *I* | *Ibn*. |
| *IA* | *Indian Antiquary*. |
| *IB* | *Inscriptions of Bengal*, Vol. III, Edited with Translations and Notes by N. G. Majumdar, Varendra Research Society, Rajshahi, 1929. |
| *IGI* | *Imperial Gazetteer of India* |
| *IHQ* | *Indian Historical Quarterly*. |
| *IHT* | *Ancient Indian Historical Tradition* by F. E. Pargiter, London, 1922. |

v1.c9.4

| *JA* | *Journal Asiatique.* |
| *JAOS* | *Journal of American Oriental Society.* |
| *JASB* | *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.* |
| *JBORS* | *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society.* |
| *JBRAS* | *Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.* |
| *JBTS* | *Journal of the Buddhist Text Society.* |
| *JL* | *Journal of the Department of Letters*, University of Calcutta. |
| *Journey* | *A Journey in Nepal and Northern India* by C. Bendall, Cambridge University Press, 1886. |
| *JRAS* | *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society*, London. |
| | |
| *KFB* | *Kitāb Futūḥ al-Buldān* of Balādhurī, Trans. by Hitti and Murgotten. |
| *KH* | *Kitāb ul-Hind* of al-Bīrūnī. |
| *KY* | *Kitāb-i-Yamīnī* of ‘Utbī. Translated by Reynolds from the Persian version, London. |
| *KZA* | *Kitāb Zain ul-Akhbār* of Abū Sa‘īd ‘Abd ul-Ḥayy b. ad-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muḥammad Gardīzī (c. 440 A.H.). Ed. by Muḥammad Naẓīm, Iranschahr, Berlin, 1928. |
| | |
| *LEC* | *Lands of the Eastern Caliphate*, by Le Strange, Cambridge, University Press. |
| *Life* | *Life of Hiuen Tsiang* by S. Beal. |
| | |
| *M* | *Mahārājādhirāja.* |
| *MA* | *Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī* of ‘Alī Muḥammad Khān. |

v1.c9.5

| *MASB* | *Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.* |
| *MASI* | *Memoirs of the Archæological Survey of India.* |
| *MER* | *Madras Epigraphist's Report*, by Dr. E. Hultzsch, Nos. 814, 815, Public, 6th August, 1896. |
| *MG* | *Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin* by M. Habib, 1927. |
| *MM* | Mukhalingeśvara Temple at Mukhaliṅgam, Ganjam district (Madras). |
| | |
| *NA* | *Notes on Afghanistan* by Raverty. |
| *NC* | *Numismatic Chronicle.* |
| *NKGWG* | *Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen.* |
| | |
| *OH* | *Oxford History of India* by V. A. Smith. |
| *OM* | *Orissa in the Making* by B. C. Mozumdar, 1925. |
| | |
| *P* | *Parameśvara.* |
| *PASB* | *Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.* |
| *Pb* | *Paramabhaṭṭāraka.* |
| *PB* | *Pṛthvīrājavijaya* |
| *PC* | *Prabandhacintāmaṇi* of Merutuṅga Ācārya. Trans. by C. H. Tawney, Calcutta, 1901. |
| *PI* | *Preaching of Islam* by T. W. Arnold |
| *PTOC* | *Proceedings and Transactions of the Oriental Conference (India).* |
| | |
| *QJAHS* | *Quarterly Journal of Andhra Historical Societ* |

v1.c9.6

| *Ras* | Forbes' *Ras Mala*. Edited by Rawlinson, Oxford, 1924. |
| *RGD* | *Records of the Gupta Dynasty* by Edward Thomas, London, 1876. |
| *RMR* | *Rajputana Museum Report*. |
| *Sāhis von Kabul* | *Festgruss an Rudolf von Roth zum Doctor-Jubiläum*, Stuttgart, 1893. *Zur Geschichte der Sāhis von Kabul* by Marc Aurel Stein. |
| *SC* | *Sasanian Coins* by F. D. J. Paruck, Bombay, 1924. |
| *TA* | *Ṭabaqāt-i-Akbarī*, Bibliotheca Indica Trans. by B. Dey. |
| *TF* | *Ta'rīkh-i-Firishta*. |
| *TFSB* | *Ta'rīkh-i-Fīrūzshāhī* of Baranī. |
| *TFSS* | *Ta'rīkh-i-Fīrūzshāhī* of Shams-i-Sirāj 'Afīf. |
| *TH* | *Ta'rīkh-ul-Hind* of al-Bīrūnī. |
| *TK* | *Tuḥfat ul-Kirām* of 'Alī Shīr Qānī‘. |
| *TKA* | *Al-Ta'rīkh ul-Kāmil* of Ibn ul-Athīr. |
| *TM* | *Ta'rīkh-i-Ma'ṣūmī*. |
| *TN* | *Ṭabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* of Maulānā Minhāj ud-Dīn. Translated by Raverty. |
| *TRAS* | *Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland*. |
| *UP* | The United Provinces of India. |
| *WZKM* | *Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes*. Also known as ‘Vienna Oriental Journal.’ |

v1.c9.7

*YC* *On Yuan Chwang*, by Thomas Watters, Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1904.

v1.c9.8

*ZDMG* *Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft*.

v1.c9.9

This page appears to be completely blank.

Introduction

v1.c10.1

Nowhere is the comparison of history with a stream that rises in the dark and mysterious heights of the past and flows into eternity more apt than in the case of Indian history. Very few countries in the world "can boast of an ancient civilization, so continuous and unbroken as in India." But while this is true, it is also unfortunately a fact that its source and earlier courses are shrouded in a mystery which is darker than in the case of most countries. We do not even know who were the most ancient peoples in India. The theory that the Dravidians were the autochthons of India is gradually being given up in favour of the Pre-Dravidians. The Mundas of North-Eastern India are supposed to be typical representatives of this physical type, which is preserved on small isolated areas in India and Burma. Their language, which is closely allied to the Austric group of speech, is found scattered over a wide area, extending from the South Pacific and the Indian Ocean to the Punjab. So far there is no inherent improbability in the supposition that a branch of this great race of the human family inhabited India at least before the Dravidians. As to these latter nobody can definitely say whence they originally came or what their features originally were. The difficulty of an attempt to generalise a physical type from the appearance of the modern speakers of the Dravidian languages, is exemplified in the case of the Brahuis in Baluchistan, who are totally different in appearance from their supposed cousins in the south of India. If the Brahui type was altered by the admixture of Iranian blood, what guarantee is there that the Dravidian tribes who filtered into the Indian peninsula were not also fundamentally altered by contact with the Pre-Dravidians? The presence of Dravidian speech in Baluchistan, near one of the gates of India, in the north-west, and "the undoubted similarity of the Sumerian and Dravidian ethnic types," have given rise to rival theories. While Rapson contends that they came into India through Baluchistan, Hall thought that they went to Western Asia from India. The recent excavations at Harappa (Montgomery district, Punjab) and Mohen-jo Daro (Larkana district, Sind) may have important bearings on the question. Scholars have found a similarity between this Indian civilization and the Sumerian culture of the 4th millennium B.C. In the present state of our knowledge, it would be perhaps risky to base any conclusions on the data revealed by the explorers' spade; but it is significant that so far no arms or weapons of any kind have been discovered at Harappa and Mohen-jo Daro. To all appearance therefore they were colonies of a people devoted mainly to the arts of peace. If this is conceded, it rather goes against their identification with the *Dāsas* against whose citadels and weapons the Āryans so often invoked the aid of Indra. The identification of the *Dāsas* with the Dravidians, again, though frequently assumed, is difficult to prove. Beyond the fact that they had flat noses (*anās* = noseless?) and are described as 'of hostile speech' (*mṛdhra-vāc*), of black skin (*tvacam kṛṣṇām*; *kṛṣṇā*) and possibly as phallus-worshippers (*śiśna-devāḥ*), we know very little about the physical appearance of these enemies of the Āryans. It may be pointed out that some of the epithets mentioned above may still be applied without distinction to many of the tribes who now speak Dravidian or the Austric languages. It is not unlikely therefore that the word *Dāsa* was a term which was used in general to denote the non-Āryan tribes who opposed the Vedic Indians. In that case, the term may not have had in the Vedic period any definite ethnic sense to designate a compact racial group.

v1.c10.2

The problems confronting us in regard to the rise and growth of the power of the Vedic Āryans are not less obscure. After a discussion extending over a period of about a hundred years we are still in the region of conjecture as to their original habitat and the date of their first arrival in India. The discovery of the names of Ṛgvedic gods in the Boghaz-köi inscriptions in Cappadocia, dated in about 1400 B.C., and of Āryan names in the inscriptions of Mesopotamia of about the same period, must have an important bearing on these questions. But though this may be accepted as “specific evidence for the supposition that by the fifteenth century B.C. tribes of Āryan stock held, or exercised influence over, a wide area, extending from northern Asia Minor over north-west Babylonia to Media,” the further assumption of Dr. Giles that “even then, or soon after, the Āryans pushed their way still eastwards” till they reached India is obviously open to some doubt. Jacobi and Pargiter, for instance, have formed quite different conclusions on the same data. Without agreeing with all that these scholars have urged, we may point out that nothing conclusive can be urged against their view that the Boghaz-köi inscription may be an evidence of an overflow of races of Āryan stock from India. Not only is the date of the first arrival of the Āryans in India uncertain, but anything of the nature of the accepted chronology for the whole period down to about 600 B.C. is practically non-existent. It is true that the epic and *pauranic* literatures claim to give us the history of this period. Thorough analysis of this tradition by Pargiter and a number of Indian scholars has shown that these should not be hastily rejected as mere ‘bardic tales.’ But the scheme of chronology proposed by them on the basis of this tradition¹ has not yet been thoroughly discussed and tested so that it can be safely adopted in any survey of Indian history. For practical purposes the approximate dates of the

v1.c10.3

¹ | | | | |

v1.c10.4

| (*a*) | Kṛta Age | . . . . . c. | 2090-1610 B.C. |
| (*b*) | Tretā Age | . . . . . c. | 1610-1310 B.C. |
| (*c*) | Dvāpara Age | . . . . . c. | 1310-950 B.C. |
| (*d*) | Sudāsa and the battle of the 10 kings | . . . . . c. | 1274 B.C. |
| (*e*) | Foundation of the Bārhadrathas | . . . . . c. | 1106 B.C. |
| (*f*) | The Bhārata battle | . . . . . c. | 950 B.C |
| (*g*) | Beginning of the Pradyotas | . . . . . c. | 619 B.C. |
| (*h*) | Accession of Mahāpadma | . . . . . c. | 402 B.C. |

v1.c10.5

See Pargiter, *Ancient Indian Historical Tradition*, London, 1922. The chronology adopted in Raychaudhuri's *Political History of Ancient India*, Book I, and Pradhan's *Chronology of Ancient India* is somewhat different.

v1.c10.6

Achaemenian invasion of India (*c.* 520-18 B.C.) and the date of Alexander's irruption (*c.* 326-25 B.C.) are still the earliest landmarks known for certain in Indian history. By calculating backwards from these dates, and with the assistance of the information contained in the chronicles of the Brahmans, Jains, and Buddhists a rough chronological framework has been established from about 600 B.C. downwards. It seems that about this period Northern India and a portion of the Deccan were parcelled out into small independent principalities. A stereotyped list of sixteen such states is probably contained in the *Aṅguttara Nikāya* of the Buddhists. Before the death of Buddha, however, in the eighties of the fifth century B.C. a considerable change appears to have taken place in the political geography of Northern India. Some of the smaller states seem to have been absorbed in four principalities of considerable size, viz., Avanti, Vatsa, Kosala and Magadha. About the last quarter of the 4th century B.C., the last of these had swallowed up the other three. When Alexander crossed the Ravi in 326 B.C., he was opposed on the Beas by an Indian prince who was most probably a king of the Nanda dynasty of Magadha. Under the Mauryas the Magadhan empire grew until it embraced the whole of India excepting the extreme south, where a few Tamil states were suffered to exist by the peaceful policy of Aśoka. This practical unification of India under the hegemony of Magadha is an event of great importance in the history of India before the advent of the British. It was twice nearly achieved under some of the Tughluqs and the Mughuls. But during the Hindu period India was never again united under one sceptre. Historians have, of course, tried to add unity to pre-Muslim history by clustering the political events round this or that dynasty of Northern India which grew powerful from time to time; but it must be pointed out that none of these ruled even over the whole of Northern India, not to speak of the peninsular portion, where often equally powerful if not stronger dynasties ruled contemporaneously, with them. The Magadhan empire did not long survive the death of Aśoka. The pressure of successive hordes of Yavanas, Śaka-Pahlavas, and Yueh-chi invaders from the north-western gates and the rise of the Sātavāhanas in the Deccan gradually reduced the successors of the Mauryas to little more than Magadhan princes. The establishment of the Kuṣāṇa empire in the North-west removed the centre of political interest, at least in Northern India, from Pāṭaliputra to Peshawar. In the time of Kaniṣka the Kuṣāṇa dominions stretched across the Punjab to the Ganges valley as far east as Sarnath, and may have even included Magadha. By the beginning of the 3rd century, the Kuṣāṇas were reduced to the position of local rulers in the Punjab, while the rest of Northern India was probably parcelled out amongst the Satraps of Ujjayinī, the Nāgas, the Licchavis, and other minor powers, and in the Deccan the position of the Sātavāhanas appears to have been taken up by the Vākāṭakas. Further south, in the Guntur, Bellary and the Northern Tamil districts, we find the first beginnings of the rise of the Pallava power. The end of the 3rd century brings us to a revival of the power of Magadha under the Guptas. By the end of the 4th century the Magadhan empire under Candragupta II embraced a large portion of Northern India. But Sind, portions of Rajputana and the Punjab, Kashmir, portions of Nepal, Assam, and large areas of Bengal and Orissa remained permanently outside the orbit of the Gupta empire, though some of them may have acknowledged a nominal allegiance to the Gupta emperor. The Southern contemporaries of the Guptas during this period were in the Deccan, the Vākāṭakas and further south the Pallavas and Kadambas.

v1.c10.7

The failure of the Guptas to capture and guard the north-western gates of India soon resulted in the arrival of another horde of barbarian invaders, the Hūṇas, about the middle of the 5th century A.D. The shock of the Hūṇa invasions must have shaken the foundations of the imperial power of the Guptas, although, as is indicated by the Damodarpur plates (443-543 A.D.), they apparently retained a substantial section of their dominions till about the first half of the 6th century A.D. But the Gupta power was fast declining by that time, and new rivals had arisen who threatened its foundations. The period that followed saw a scramble for power amongst the Puṣpabhūtis of Sthāṇvīśvara, the Maukharis of Kānyakubja, the Gauḍas of Karṇasuvarṇa, the Bhagadattas of Prāgjyotiṣa, and the later Guptas. The struggle ended about the beginning of the 7th century A.D. in the establishment of the hegemony of the Puṣpabhūtis over a large portion of Northern India, with their capital at Kanauj. In the Deccan the Cāḷukyas of Vātāpi had supplanted the Vākāṭakas, while further south the Pallavas of Kāñcī were fast growing into a great power. There was little love lost between these three kingdoms, and bitter wars soon ensued between them. The Cāḷukyas had to maintain a twofold struggle on the Narbada and the Kistna-Tungabhadra frontiers against their northern and southern enemies.

v1.c10.8

The death of Harṣa, soon after 646 A.D., has been regarded by historians as an epoch in the history of India. According to V. A. Smith, India after this date lapsed back into its normal condition, " a medley of petty states with ever varying boundaries and engaged in unceasing internecine war," till it fell a prey to Islamic invaders. During the period that followed everything declined, and polity, literature, and religion sank into mediocrity. Accordingly that excellent historian considered the year 647 A.D. as the beginning of the mediaeval period of Indian history. In this conclusion, he has of late been followed by a number of writers both European and Indian. But even a superficial examination of the facts shows the utter hollowness of the proposition. The year 647 A.D. marked no epoch in the history of the Deccan and the far south, which continued to flourish as before under separate dynasties. In the Deccan the Cālukyas (c. 550-753 A.D.) were followed about the middle of the 8th century by the Rāṣṭrakūṭas (c. 753-973 A.D.) and the latter in the middle of the 10th century by the Cāḷukyas of Kalyāṇa (c. 973-1190 A.D.). In the south the Pallavas (c. 550-880 A.D.)

v1.c10.9

continued to reign till about the last quarter of the 8th century, when they were supplanted by the Cōḷas (*c.* 880-1300 A.D.) as the supreme power south of the Tungabhadra. Even Northern India was not wholly included in Harṣa's dominions. Smith himself admits that Kashmir, Punjab, Sind, Rajputana and Kāmarūpa were outside his empire. The evidence on which Valabhī, Nepal, and Bengal are reckoned as part of his dominions is extremely uncertain and vague. An Indian scholar has recently tried to show after a critical study of the epigraphic and literary evidence that Harṣa's territory only "comprised the districts roughly corresponding to the present United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, with a portion of Eastern Punjab and Western Bihar.¹ "According to this view Harsa's dominions were bounded by the Himalayas, the Western Punjab, Rajputana, Central India, and Bengal." Though this may perhaps be regarded as a rather extreme statement of the position, yet I think the time has come when we should try to avoid basing our conclusions on vague statements of partisans and *prasastikāras*. That Harṣa was the most considerable prince of Northern India is proved by the epithet *Sakala-Uttarā-patheśvara*, applied to him by his enemies the Cālukyas;² but we must learn to differentiate between the most powerful king of Northern India and the emperor of Northen India. In view of this position, it is absurd to say that no emperor arose in Northern India whose dominions could rival those of Harṣa. There is unquestioned evidence, as we shall see later on, that some of the Pratīhāra emperors ruled over an empire more extensive than that of the Puṣpabhūti king. Again, the assertion that there was a general decline in everything from about 647 A.D. is, to say the least, extremely exaggerated. It is true that no Kālidāsa was born again; but to regard poets and dramatists like Bahavabhūti, Viśākhadatta and Rājaśekhara as representatives of a decadent literature is, I fear, somewhat inaccurate. In religion; if Buddhism disappeared, the period saw the birth of teachers like Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja. In the field of Mathematics and Astronomy it produced the famous Bhāskarācārya, whose work “enjoyed more authority in India than any other astronomical work except the *Sūrya-Siddhānta*.” In the domain of architecture Smith himself admits that “it was practised on a magnificent scale” during the period that followed the death of Harṣa. Under these circumstances to regard Harṣa's death as an epoch marking the end of all unity in India and ushering in the mediaeval period is to show a false perspective of the main currents of affairs. If Indian history lost her unity she lost it with the death of Aśoka in the 3rd century B.C. If we have to find for practical purposes another date which will serve as a landmark in the history of Northern India, then 916 A.D., and not 647, is more appropriate, as we shall presently see.

v1.c10.10

¹ Dr. R. C. Majumdar, *JBORS*, 1923.

v1.c10.11

² *EI*, Vol. V, p. 202, line 9.

v1.c10.12.1

But though the year 647 A.D. cannot be regarded as an epoch marking the transition of the ancient into the mediaeval period, it is certainly a date of considerable importance in the history of Northern India. There is some reason to believe that after the death of Harṣa the power of Tibet extended across Nepal to the Ganges valley. There was also probably a revival of the power of the Guptas under Ādityasena. But the most important event that followed was the struggle for the mastery of Kanauj. That city appears to have acquired an imperial reputation under the sway of the Maukharis and the Puṣpabhūtis. For about a hundred years Kānyakubja and the Ganges-Jumna Doab remained a bone of contention amongst the rulers of India. The struggle was opened by the Kārkoṭa Lalitāditya of Kashmir, who about 736 A.D. conquered the principality of Kānyakubja, which at that time extended “from the bank of the Yamunā to that of the Kālikā” (probably the Kālī Nadī, which runs parallel to the Ganges and falls into it below Kanauj). Then came the Pālas of Bengal and Bihar, who some time after 783 A.D., under Dharmapāla, conquered the city of Kanauj and extended their power as far as the eastern districts of the Punjab. Then came the attacks of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Western India and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of the Deccan. The tripartite struggle between Pālas, Raṣṭrakūṭas and Pratīhāras at last resulted in the winning of the *Mahodayaśrī* by the last-named.

v1.c10.12.2

It is not exactly known when they first captured Kanauj; but they must have done it some time before 836 A.D., the date of the Barah inscription of Bhoja I, which was issued from Mahodaya itself. The capture of this city gradually led to the foundation of a Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire which rivalled that of the Guptas, and was more extensive than that of the Puṣpabhūtis. Even if we omit the somewhat doubtful passage in the *Rājataraṅgiṇī* which refers to the dominion in the Punjab of an *Adhirāja* Bhoja, the power of the Bhoja I in the Punjab is unquestionably demonstrated by the discovery of his Pehowa inscriptions in the district of Karnal. The Una grants of Balavarman and Avanivarman show that the Saurāṣṭra-*Maṇḍala* (Kathiawar) was within the dominions of Mahendrapāla I. As the Khajuraho inscription of the Candellas, dated in V. S. 1101 (A.D. 954) still acknowledges the sovereignty of Vināyakapāla, it is reasonable to conclude that the Candellas were also feudatories of the Pratīhāras from an earlier period. The Dighwa Dubauli plates of Mahendrapāla I, show that Śrāvastī-*Viṣaya* in the U. P. was in his dominions. The writings of the Arab geographers seem to indicate that the Gurjara empire touched the borders of Sind in the extreme west, while the Ramgaya, Guneria and Itkhori inscriptions in the East show Pratīhāra power in Bihar.

v1.c10.12.3

The recent discovery of a pillar-inscription of Mahendrapāla I at Paharpur, in North Bengal probably shows the extreme eastern extension of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras' kingdom. In the face of all this epigraphic evidence which shows that the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire embraced the whole of Northern India excepting Sind, western portions of the Punjab, Kashmir, Nepal, Assam and portions of Bengal, C. P., and Orissa, it is absurd to say that they ruled over only "the Cis-Sutlej districts of the Punjab, the greater part of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh and the Gwalior territory.’¹ Unlike the limits of the empire of Harṣa, which has been defined for us by vague expression of his friends and enemies, the bounds of the Pratīhāras’ empire are determined by unquestioned archaeological evidence. It is of course unfortunate that no Bāṇa or Yuan Chwang has left for us a detailed account of the life and administration of Bhoja and Mahendrapāla I; but that is no reason why we should relegate their history to the mediaeval period, which, according to V. A. Smith and his followers, specifically deals with the history of the ‘petty states’ whose internecine wars preceded the Muslim conquest of India. The period of disruption that intervened between the fall of the Puṣpabhūtis and the rise of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras cannot in any sense be regarded as a curious phenomenon marking an epoch in Indian history.

v1.c10.12.4

A period of struggle has always intervened between the fall of one and the rise of another powerful dynasty in India until the establishment of British rule. But if for practical purposes we must draw a line between the so-called ancient and mediaeval periods, it is more convenient to draw it somewhere about 916 A.D. when the Pratīhāra empire in Northern India at last began to break up into numerous petty states. As usual, ‘‘a political re-adjustment would probably have taken place, sooner or later, if the Indian states were left to themselves.’’ But unfortunately the Turks appeared at this crisis on the north-western frontier carrying the Muslim flag. The Pratīhāra empire had played no insignificant part in preventing the Arabs from gaining the same success in India as in other lands. But the Turks were more fortunate, and before the breach could be repaired by the same natural process which had hitherto always operated in India, they charged through the gap and carried everything before them. The incidents during the period of about three hundred years (*c.* 916 to 1200 A.D.) may be taken to be only a prelude to the final act of the drama, which saw the standards of Islam on most of the important citadels of Northern India. Considered from this point of view, the year 916 A.D. may for practical purposes be accepted as the line of demarcation between the two periods in the history of Northern India. These may be called the ancient and the mediaeval periods;

v1.c10.12.5

but it would perhaps be more reasonable to call them simply the Hindu period and the period of the Turks and Afghans.

v1.c10.13

¹ Ishwari Prasad, *History of Mediaeval India*, 1925, Allahabad, pp. 2-3.

v1.c10.14

I have already pointed out the danger of calling Harṣa the emperor of Northern India on the strength of mere catch-phrases. A large portion of Northern India remained outside his dominions; and in this region the year 647 A.D. was only in a very limited sense, if at all, an event of any importance. Similarly a large part of it, though probably less in extent than in the time of Harṣa, lay outside the orbit of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire; and here again the year 916 A.D., which saw the beginning of the break-up of the Pratīhāra empire did not bring such vital changes as to mark an epoch in its history. To some at least the year 916 A.D., does not appear to have had the slightest significance. The time has come when we should realise more clearly the vastness of India and recognise the limitations of such expressions as 'emperor of India' or even 'emperor of Northern India' which are so frequently used in text-books on Indian history. In the strictest sense of the word there was perhaps no Hindu ruler who could be called the emperor of the whole of Northern India after the fall of the Mauryas. But for practical purposes, as I have said, the arrival of the Turk on the Indian frontier in the 10th century may well serve as a land-mark in Indian history.

v1.c10.15

A minute study of the dynasties that ruled in Northern India from the 10th century till the completion of the Turkish conquest is important for more than one reason.

v1.c10.16

Firstly, the period forms a very important chapter in the growth, rise, and decay of the Rajput states. Most of the Hindu states in Northern India during this period were ruled by tribes who claimed Rajput descent. Since the day when Tod wrote his celebrated *Annals*, no attempt has yet been made to study systematically the various sources of information and give a connected account of these tribes based on sound archæological evidence.¹ Tod’s work is in many ways a masterpiece; but it is hopelessly out-of-date. The scanty accounts of these tribes given in various publications since the time of Tod are mainly based on Muḥammadan chronicles. These works have many excellent characteristics, but they were written by enemies of the Rajputs, whose difference in religion would further tend to make them more tainted and onesided. Again, these chroniclers often wrote as historians of the Delhi empire, and as such omitted many interesting details of the history of these Rajput tribes which appeared to them to be rather trivial and unimportant It has, therefore, become necessary to check and supplement their accounts, wherever possible, with the evidence of archæology and more reliable Hindu chronicles, some of which have recently been discovered.

v1.c10.17

¹ Since this was written, I have seen some fascicules of Rai Bahadur G. H. Ojha's *History of the Rajputs*, written in Hindi.

v1.c10.18

Secondly, a critical study of this period is important for the history of the Hindus in general. For it will probably reveal some of the forces which vitally influenced Hindu society, religion and polity, the marks of which can be traced even to this day. But a critical study of the period is perhaps more important for the history of the Turks and Afghans in India. When they conquered Northern India, they could not at once change the whole system of administration of the country. Local government, revenue administration and many other features of Hindu polity must have continued unchanged under their régime. A careful analysis of this data from the inscriptions and other records of the Hindu states cannot therefore fail to be of supreme value if we would rightly understand the beginnings of Muslim rule in India. It will help us to judge how far, if at all, the Turkish and Afghan rulers borrowed their methods of administration from their Hindu predecessors.

v1.c10.19

DYNASTIC HISTORY OF NORTHERN INDIA

Chapter I. Dynastic History of Sind

v1.c11.2

The area indicated by the word *Sind* has varied from age to age. The Hindu geographers probably included the lower Indus valley in the term *Sindhu-Sauvīra*.¹ When Yuan Chwang visited Sind, the whole region from Shikarpur down to the sea was politically subject to Sind, but of this area *Sin-tu* (Sind) appears to have formed only a small portion.² To the Arab writers however *as-Sind* meant a much bigger area. Thus Balādhurī (9th century A.D.) describes al-Kīkān (modern Kelat³ in Baluchistan) as 'part of the land of *as-Sind* where it borders on Khurāsān.'⁴ Mukaddasī (10th century A.D.) praises 'al-Lahūm,' a city in Bāmiyān as 'the trade port of Khurāsān and the treasure house of Sind.'⁵ This passage probably refers to the proximity of the frontiers of Bāmiyān, Khurāsān, and Sind. Multan, which was outside Sind in the time of Yuan Chwang, was also included in *as-Sind* by the Arab historians. The boundaries of Sind in the east cannot be precisely indicated.

First 70 of 4,009 passages. Read on

Linked texts (18)