The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c11.161

Language: English

v1.c11.161.1

The extracts quoted above give us some idea of our difficulties. But we can at once reject the suggestion that the Sūmras were Arabs. ‘This fictitious genealogy was assumed by them when the majority of the tribe were converted to Islam, and as the name Samāra offered a sufficiently specious resemblance that town was adopted as the probable seat of their origin, though it was not built till after the supposed period of their emigration.’⁴ Both Elphinstone and Elliot regard them as Rajput in origin.⁵ According to the latter “the Sūmras of the desert are one of the sub-divisions of the Parmāra Rajputs, and frequently combining with their brethren the ‘Umars, gave name to a large tract of country, which is even still recognised as Umra-Sūmra, and within which Alor is situated.” Tod in his *Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan* remarks: “Umars and Sumras are from the Pramar or Puar race, and are now chiefly in the ranks of the faithful, though a few are to be found in Jaisalmir and in the *thal* called after them.”⁶ These statements are supported by Mīr Ṭāhir, who in the 17th century was familiar with the tradition that the Sūmras were Hindus.¹ As to the probable period of their rise we have to depend upon Mīr Ma‘ṣūmī and Muḥammad Yūsuf.

v1.c11.161.2

It is quite likely, as I have already suggested, that Southern Sind was never thoroughly conquered by the house of Ghazni, and with the first sign of decay in that dynasty, the Sūmras, a local tribe living in the vicinity of Thari, established their supremacy in this region. According to the *Ta'rīkh-i-Ṭāhirī* their territory included Alor in the north and their capital was Muḥammad-Tūr, in the Pargana of Dirak identified by Elliot with Shākapur, a populous village about 10 miles south of Mīrpur on the borders of Tharr.'² Another capital of the Sūmras is said to have been Vijeh-kot,³ five miles to the east of the Puran river, above the Allāh-band. But in the *Ta'rīkh-i-Ma'ṣūmī*, Thatta is often mentioned as the residence of some of the kings of this dynasty.⁴ According to all the Sind chronicles, the Sūmra chief who founded the dynasty strengthened his position by marrying the daughter of a powerful local Zamindar named Sa‘d. Her son Bhungar appears to have been an active ruler, and died in A. H. 461 (1068 A. D.) after a reign of 15 years. His son Dūdā extended his authority to Naṣrpur, but died in the prime of his manhood in A. H. 485 (1092 A. D.) after a reign of 24 years. His son Singhar was a minor when his father died; but he grew up to be a vigorous ruler ‘and directed his efforts against the country of Kachh, and extended his sway as far as Mānik Bai.'⁵ He died without leaving any son after reigning 15 years.

v1.c11.161.3

The government was for some time carried on by his wife Hamūn, but after a period of internal strife, Pitthu, a descendant of Dūdā, established himself in the sovereignty. He was succeeded by Khaira, a man of unknown origin, and then came Khafīf,¹ who reigned for 33 years. ‘During his government the ryots and all the other people of Sind were relieved from thieves and disturbers of the peace; all were happy and contented.’ The Baluchis, Sodhas and Jarejas under their leaders Mihran, Ran Mal and Rām Rāi paid him homage, and we are told that ‘in all the country under him from Nasrpur……no one during his reign disobeyed his orders.’ It is during this reign that we hear for the first time about the ‘thieves of the tribe of Samna,’ who were adequately punished for having robbed the Baluchis. He lived ‘a long while at Thatta’ where he died. He appears to have been succeeded by ‘Umar, son of Pitthu, who reigned for 40 years. After his death the people raised his son Dūdā II, to the vacant throne. During this reign the Sammas of Cutch threatened to invade Thatta, but were compelled to submit. The Sodhas also rebelled under Ran Mal, but their chief was killed and they were defeated in an engagement with great slaughter. Ran Mal’s son Sāhiba ‘obtained forgiveness’ of his faults, on the payment of 20,000 as *nazrānā*. He died in Thatta after a reign of 14 years. There are some discrepancies in our authorities about the list of rulers here.

v1.c11.161.4

According to Mīr Ma‘ṣūmī he was succeeded by his son ‘Umar, who “took to drinking wine and paying no attention to the country,” as a result of which the Sammas, the Sodhas, the Jats and the Baluchis left off obeying his orders and became rebellious. But with the assistance of Mullā Ḥamīd he defeated the Sammas and succeeded in suppressing the rebellions. He then went to Thari, where he died. He was succeeded by his nephew Chanar (Chanīsar), who was soon ousted by ‘Umar’s son Dūdā III, with the assistance of Sulṭān Maudūd, Shāh of Ghazni.² But Muḥammad Yūsuf, followed by ‘Alī Shīr Qāni‘, places Pahtu (33 years), Genhra (16 years), Muḥammad Ṭūr (15 years), Genhra II (several years) between Dūdā II and Dūdā III. According to Mīr Ma‘ṣum Dūdā III was succeeded by ‘a person named Armīl.’ He proved to be a ‘tyrant and an oppressor’ and was killed by Unar of the Samma tribe, who had settled in Sind from Cutch. But according to two other authorities Dūdā III was succeeded by Tai (24 years), Chanīsar (18 years), Bhungar II (15 years), Ḥafīf II (18 years), Dūdā IV (25 years), ‘Umar Sūmra (35 years), Bhungar III (10 years). Then the government fell to Hamīr, who was deposed by the tribe of Samma, ‘on account of his tyranny.’ According to the *Tuḥfat ul-Kirām*, ‘Umar Sumra gave his name to the fort of ‘Umarkot.¹