The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c11.127

Language: English

v1.c11.127.1

The next period in the history of Sind, which roughly extends from the first quarter of the 11th century down to the 16th century, is the history of the gradual encroachment of the Turks from the North. Though the internal administration of the country probably did not materially differ, being left as heretofore in the hands of petty local Hindu chiefs, the Arab was gradually replaced by the Turk as the dominating power in the Lower Indus Valley. But the details of the history of this period are as obscure as the previous period. We have already referred to the incidents that led to the practical liberation of Sind from the control of the Caliphs.¹ The accession of Sabuk-tigīn to the throne of Ghazni in 977 A.D. led to the foundation of a powerful Turkish kingdom on the Indian frontier which approximately synchronised with the decline of the Sāmānids of Transoxania. The conquests of Sabuk-tigīn and those of his son Maḥmūd soon brought the principalities in Sind within the radius of their campaigns. Quṣdār (al-Quzdār) is mentioned amongst the earliest conquests of Sabuk-tigīn.² The conflicts with the *Sāhis* of Afghanistan and Western Punjab and the conquest of Bhera (Bahātih; *c.* 395 = A.D. 1004) which was situated on the left bank of the Jhelum under the Salt Range, brought the Yamīnī dynasty to the borders of Multan.

v1.c11.127.2

The northern boundaries of Multan in those days appears to have touched the Salt Range, for both ‘Utbī and Niẓām ud-Dīn tell us that Maḥmūd had to march through the territory of Multan to reach this place.³ The chief of Multan was far-sighted enough to see the danger to his principality from this Turkish dynasty. According to Firishta when Alp-tigīn (*c.* 963 A.D.) was still the ruler of Ghazni, Saikh Ḥamīd Lodī, the chief of Multan co-operated with the *Sāhi* prince Jayapāla and the Bhattia Rāja⁴ (Bijay Ray of Bhera) to oppose his general Sabuk-tigīn in Lamghān.⁵ But in the reign of Sabuk-tigīn he is reported to have ‘united himself with that prince,’ and Sabuk-tigīn, we are told, ‘from motives of policy avoided the districts of Shaikh Ḥamīd by every means in his power.’⁶ The statement of Firishta, that he owed allegiance to Sabuk-tigīn, is more than doubtful. Elliot has already pointed out that the word "tribute" used by Briggs in his translation is not 'authorised.'¹ What appears to be more likely was that Sabuk-tigīn by a shrewd diplomatic move dissolved the combination of the three powers which blocked his progress in the Indus Valley. Jayapāla being thus isolated was easily defeated. But the ruler of Multan soon found out his mistake, and again formed an alliance with the *Śāhis* to stop the progress of Maḥmūd.² But it was too late. Abu'l-Fatḥ Dā'ūd, the son of Naṣr, succeeded his grandfather Shaikh Ḥamid Lodī on the throne of Multan.

v1.c11.127.3

'Utbī paints this prince as 'one of malignant craftiness, deceitful treachery, dubious fidelity and detestable inclinations.' According to this authority, 'he set up a claim over the people of the Khutbah (*i.e.*, the chief sovereignty) of Multan, to deal with them according to his will and pleasure, and cast the people into the lubricity of his error, and the ruin of his folly. They signified the case to the Sulṭān, whose reverence for Islam and jealousy for the faith stirred up and excited him, to a sufficient examination of this crime.'³ According to Nizām ud-Dīn Dā'ūd belonged to a sect of the Malāḥida. Hence the Sulṭān was incited by his zeal for religion to punish him.⁴ According to Firishta, the cause of the attack was the abandonment by Dā'ūd of the 'tenets of the faithful,' and the shaking off of his allegiance to the Yaminī dynasty.⁵ The true cause however was Maḥmūd's ambition, and everything else came as welcome pretexts. As I have said Dā'ūd tried to stem the advancing tide by renewing his alliance with the *Sāhis*. Ānandapāla, who was appealed to by Dā'ūd, 'detached the greater part of his army to oppose Maḥmūd at Peshawar,' but was defeated and fled to Kashmir, and Multan was besieged by Maḥmūd.¹ After a siege of seven days, Dā'ūd agreed to pay a tribute of 20,000 dirhams, 'engaged to follow the true religion and foreswore his errors'² A.H. 396=1005 A.D.). This was the beginning of the end. In 401 A.H. (A.D.

v1.c11.127.4

1010) soon after the capture of Ghūr, Maḥmūd again attacked Multan. According to Firishta, the cause of this invasion was the rebellion of Dā'ūd.³ Multan was conquered, and annexed and Maḥmūd 'put most of the schismatics and heretics who were there to the sword ; he cut off the hands of some, and ordered others to be imprisoned in a fort where they died.' Dā'ūd was taken to Ghazni and died as prisoner in the fort of Ghurak.⁴ Soon after this the Sulṭān attacked Quṣdār which was, as we have seen, one of the earliest conquests of Sabuk-tigīn. The prince of that place, who appears to have ceased to pay tribute was surprised, and compelled to pay 'five hundred packets of a thousand dirhams which was due.' Maḥmūd also seized fifteen yoke of elephants, which that prince had stored up for times and seasons of war and compelled him to 'pay dutiful submission and obedience.'⁵ According to some historians, Maḥmūd while returning from his expedition against Somnāth (A. H. 416=1025 A.D.) followed a route through lower Sind in order to avoid the combined resistance of the Hindu chiefs who were blocking his retreat through Rajputana.¹ Ibn Athīr tells us that during the course of this march he proceeded 'against Manṣūrah, the ruler of which was an apostate Muhammadan. When the news of Maḥmūd's approach reached this chief, he fled into the date-palm forests.

v1.c11.127.5

Maḥmūd proceeded against him, and surrounding him and his adherents, many of them were slain, many drowned, and but a few escaped.'² As this author calls the last prince of Manṣūrah an apostate Muhammadan and as he expressly states that Maḥmūd then placed a Muhammadan prince on his throne, we can safely conclude that the previous ruler was regarded as a heretic, and possibly belonged to the Qarmāṭian sect. Elliot has suggested that this heretical family had usurped the government from the Habbārī dynasty who were ruling at Manṣūrah in the 10th century.³ If Firishta is to be believed, the ruling dynasty of Multan, which was destroyed by Maḥmūd, was an Afghan family. As he calls Shaikh Ḥamīd Lodī 'the first ruler of Multan' and as he is described as a contemporary of Alp-tigīn (*c.* 963 A.D.), he must be placed sometime after the middle of the 10th century.⁴ It appears likely however that Ḥamīd Lodī was preceded by Jalam Ibn Shaibān, who is mentioned by al-Bīrūnī as the Qarmāṭian usurper of Multan.⁵ If that was so it was Jalam who put an end to the rule of the Quraishite 'children of a Usāmah' who were ruling in Multan in the period A.H. 332 to 340 (A.D. 943-51).