Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c12: Chapter II. Sāhis of Afghanistan and the Punjab

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. Sāhis of Afghanistan and the Punjab

v1.c12.2

The title "King of Kings" is Iranic in origin. Scholars have traced it to the epithet '*Khshāyathiya Khshāyathiānām*,' occurring in the opening lines of the Behistum inscription of the Achaemenian Emperor Darius I (521-485 B.C.).¹ Under the Greek form, ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ, it definitely appears on the coin legends of the Arsacid king Mithradates II (*c.* 123-88 B.C.).² This Greek legend together with its Indian forms *rajatiraja*, *rajaraja*, and *rajadiraja*, appears on the coins of the Indo-Scythian³ and early Kuṣān kings. The Persian form þAONANO þAO in Greek characters is first found in India on the coins of Kaniṣka and his successors.⁴ A portion of this legend, þAO, is also found on some of the copper coins of Kaniṣka.⁵ These titles appear to have been the special designation of these Turkish rulers of the Punjab, Afghanistan and the Oxus valley, long after the fall of their empire in the beginning of the 3rd century A.D.⁶ In the fourth century, Hariṣeṇa in his Allahabad *praśasti* of the Gupta emperor Samudra Gupta (*c.* 335-375 A.D.) undoubtedly refers to these rulers by the phrase '*Daivaputra-ṣāhi-ṣāhānuṣāhi*.'⁷ The coins issued by these later Kuṣāns between *c.* 300 to 450 A.D. also bear the legend þANANO þAO.⁸

v1.c12.3

¹ *CHI*, Vol. I, p. 567; *SC*, Bombay, 1924, p. 286.

v1.c12.4

² Warwick Wroth, *Catalogue of Greek Coins*, *Parthia*, 1908, pp. 24 ff. The Sasanids, who succeeded the Arsacids, took the title *Malkān Malkā*; the form *Shāhānshā* appears on their coins from the last quarter of the 5th century A.D. See Paruck, *SC*, pp. 286-88 and 294-95.

v1.c12.5

³ According to the Jaina legend, the *Kālakācārya kathānaka*, the *sāmamtas* of the Śakas were styled *Sāhi* and their emperors *Sāhānusāhi*. See *ZDMG*, 1880, p. 262; *CHI*, Vol. I, pp. 167-68; Raychaudhuri, *Political History of Ancient India*, 2nd Ed., p. 274.

v1.c12.6

⁴ Whitehead, *Catalogue of Coins in the Punjab Museum*, *Lahore*, Vol. I, 1914, pp. 187 ff.

v1.c12.7

⁵ *Ibid*, p. 188.

v1.c12.8

⁶ *NC*, Third Series, Vol. XIII, 1893, p. 177.

v1.c12.9

⁷ *GI*, p 8.

v1.c12.10

⁸ *NC*, Third Series, Vol. XIII, 1893, pp. 167 ff.

v1.c12.11

The history of these later *Sāhi* rulers is extremely obscure. It is generally assumed that after the death of Vāsudeva, the Indian empire of the Kuṣāns fell into decay. But the *Wei-lio* “informs us that during the period of the three kingdoms (A.D. 221-277) Ki-pin, Ta-hia, Kao-fu and T‘ien-ču were all subject to the Great Yüe-či.”¹ Chavannes concluded from this that in the middle of the 3rd century “the power of the Kushān kings was at its climax.” The portion of India indicated by the word ‘T‘ien-ču’ is however uncertain. But there is evidence to show that their power continued in the North-western part of India, Afghanistan, and the Oxus valley up to the 4th century A.D. In the 3rd and 4th centuries the influence of the Sasanids of Persia on these Kuṣān princes is illustrated by the latter’s imitation on their coins of the former’s head-dress.² One of the Sasanian kings, Hormazd II (A.D. 301-10), married a daughter of one of these Kuṣān kings, and on some of his gold coins assumed the title *Kuṣān Malkān Malkā*.³ E. Thomas supposed from this that the Kuṣān prince of the Kabul valley might have been conquered by the Sasanian king. In the opinion of Cunningham the legend “must refer to the Kushān alliance,” which was made by the Kuṣān prince ‘by giving a daughter and ceding the province of Balkh to the north of Hindukush.’⁴ In *c.* 358-60 one of these Kuṣān princes, named Grumbates, appears to have helped Shāpur II (310-79 A.D.) against the Romans in the siege of Amida. This prince is described as the king of the Chionitæ, “of middle age and wrinkled limbs, but of a grand spirit and already distinguished for many victories.”⁵ It is difficult to estimate the exact relationship between the Sasanids and the later Kuṣāns ; but if there is any truth in the tradition generally accepted by oriental historians that Ardashīr I (212-241 A.D.) conquered Balkh, Khurāsān and Kābul and advanced as far as Sirhind beyond the Sutlej, then the title *Kuṣān Malkān Malkā* or *Kuṣān Malkā* may indicate their position as vassals of the Persian empire.¹ That the relationship was sufficiently intimate is proved by the discovery of Sasanid coins in Afghanistan and the Punjab and the imitation of Kuṣān coin-type by the Sasanids. A coin of Ardashīr I was discovered as far east as the Jhelum District, while the Śiva and his bull and the Indian altar appear on the coins of Hormazd II.² The mere discovery of coins of contiguous states in each other's territory has not necessarily any political significance, but it is to be noted that in this case the Kuṣān coin appears to have been "counter-struck with Sasanian device."³ Rapson attributes certain "coins of Sasanian type and fabric bearing inscriptions in Nāgarī, Sasanian Pahlavi and an alphabet hitherto unread which is probably a development of the modified form of the Greek alphabet, used by the Scytho-Sasanians" to some Sasanian dynasty or dynasties which ruled in the Indus valley.⁴ Under the circumstances it is probably not unlikely that the later Kuṣāns for a time came under the power of the Sasanids. A contributory cause of their loss of power may have been the gradual advance of the Gupta power towards the Indus valley. In the 4th century A.D. Samudra Gupta claimed 'acts of respectful service, such as offering themselves as sacrifices, bringing presents of maidens, (giving) Garuḍa tokens (surrendering) the enjoyment of their own territories and soliciting commands' from the *Ṣāhi-Ṣāhanuṣāhis* of Afghanistan and the Punjab.¹

v1.c12.12

¹ Cordier and Chavannes, *T'oung pao*, Série II, Vol. VI, Leide 1905, pp. 538-89.

v1.c12.13

² *NC*, Third Series, Vol. XIII, 1893, pp. 168-69.

v1.c12.14

³ *SC*, pp. 89, 281-83; on some copper coins appear only *Kuṣān Malkā*. For this marriage, see also Nöldeke, *Tabari*, p. 278; De Sacy. *Mirkhond*, p. 304.

v1.c12.15

⁴ *Ibid*, pp. 169-71; Cunningham takes Chionitæ to be ‘the Kushāns or Tokhāri.

v1.c12.16

⁵ *Ibid*, pp. 171-72.

v1.c12.17

¹ *SC*, pp. 71, 79-81; Gibbon, *Decline and Fall*, Ed. by Bury (Methuen & Co.), Vol. I, p. 204. Nöldeke, *Tabari*, pp. 17-18; *TF*, Trans. Briggs, Vol. I, p. lxxiv; V. Smith, *EHI*, 1924, p. 289, fn. 3.

v1.c12.18

² *JASB*, 1897, Vol. LXVI, Part I, p. 5 and fig. VIII on Plate I; *SC*, p. 90; Whitehead, *Catalogue of Coins of the Punjab Museum, Lahore*, Vol. I, p. 213.

v1.c12.19

³ *JRAS*, 1920, pp. 221 ff.; *SC*, pp. 79-80.

v1.c12.20

⁴ *Indian Coins*, Strassburg, p. 30; *SC*, pp. 98 and 270-71.

v1.c12.21

¹ *GI*, p. 8.

v1.c12.22.1

During the 4th and 5th centuries another important development appears to have occurred in the fortunes of the *Sāhis*. Spectht has shown from the Chinese annals that during the reign of the Wei-dynasty (386-556 A.D.) there was a division in the power of the Yueh-chis. In that period Ki-to-lo, a prince of the Great Yueh-chi clan, separated himself from the main body and established the kingdom of Little Yueh-chi in the territories south of the Hindukush with Fo-lu-sha (Peshawar) as his capital. The Great Yueh-chi clan however continued to rule in the region north of the Hindukush. In the opinion of Alfred von Gutschmid, the separation of this new branch from the old Indo-Scythian ruling dynasty occurred in about the year 430 A.D.² The causes of this revolution are probably largely to be found in the continued domination of the Balkh and the Oxus valley by the Sasanids. But there was another important reason. In the 4th century A.D. there was again one of those mysterious movements of the nomadic tribes of Central Asia which had brought the Yueh-chi hordes to the Oxus and the borders of India in the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C. Though it is perhaps not permissible to assume that "the Hūns and the Hūnas are the same as the Hiung-nu of the Chinese"³ who first caused the dislocation of the Yueh-chi in the middle of the 2nd century B.C., yet there is no doubt that they belonged to the same stock of warlike nomads.

v1.c12.22.2

A branch of these settled in Transoxania, and troubled the Sasanids from *c.* 420 to 557 A.D. In the struggles with these tribes Fīrūz I (459-484 A.D.) appears to have lost his life after a terrible battle in 484 A.D.⁴ It was probably soon after this disaster that a section of them pushed through the Hindukush into Afghanistan and India, exactly as the Yueh-chi had done before them about five centuries ago. For a time from their headquarters at Bāmiyān and Herat they appear to have ruled over a wide dominion which extended from the borders of Persia and Khotan to Central India. The capital of this Hun dominion was visited by the Chinese pilgrim, Song-Yun, ambassador of the Wei dynasty, who records that the Ye-tha (Epthalites) received tribute from the forty neighbouring countries.¹ Kan-t'o-lo (Gandhāra) which was also visited by Song-Yun (A.D. 520) was devastated by these Epthalites, who had set up a representative (*tch'e-k'in*=Turkish *tégin*) of theirs to rule over the country.² During this period the *Śāhi* princes who ruled in the South of the Hindukush must have bent before the storm and rendered homage to their Hun overlords. But fortunately the Hunic empire did not last long.

v1.c12.22.3

It seems to have disappeared as a result of a series of defeats inflicted on them by the Western Turks (T'u-chüeh), the Sasanid king Khusrau I, surnamed Anōshirvān (531-79 A.D.), and the Indian kings Yaśodharman and Bālāditya in about the middle of the 6th century A.D.³ It is possible that after the downfall of the Huns, the Sasanids again established their power over the borders of India. According to Ṭabarī and Mīrkhond, Khusrau I, in his later years sent expeditions to India by sea and obtained territory from an Indian king. Gibbon includes Kābul and Zābulistān in the empire of Khusrau.⁴ But if this was so it must have been for a comparatively short period, for soon afterwards, the Sasanid power itself began to decline, and a new body of nomadic tribes, usually designated as ‘Turks’ (Chinese T'u-chüeh) spread over the Oxus valley from the borders of China.¹ Khusrau I had already formed a matrimonial alliance with them and was materially aided by them in his campaigns against the Epthalites, while Bahrām VI (590-91 A.D.) and Bistām (592-96 A.D.) both sought refuge and met with death amongst them.² The Turks thus displaced the Epthalites and occupied their position in Transoxania. In 620-28 A.D. they assisted Heraclius in his campaigns against Persia.³ When Yuan Chwang started on his Indian pilgrimage in 630 A.D.

v1.c12.22.4

he found the whole region, roughly from Turfan to Merv and Lake Issykkul to the Hindukush, under the control of the *Khagan* (Khan) of the western branch of this Turkish horde. Their capital city was “the town of the Su-yeh river” which “may be the present Constantinovosk, or perhaps Belasagun,⁴ the capital of the Karakhitai, on the river Chu.”⁵ Yuan Chwang describes the countries and princes south of the Hindukush, and the Punjab. From Balkh, he passed through several small principalities, and after crossing the ‘Snowy Mountains’ (Hindukush), Bāmiyān and the Black Ridge (Kōh Bābā or Siyāh Kōh), arrived in the kingdom of Kia-pi-shi (Kāpiśa). This kingdom appears to have been a powerful one. It was 4,000 li in circuit, and was bounded on the north by the ‘Snowy Mountains.’ The king, who was selected from the *Kṣatriya* caste, was a clever and shrewd man and had brought under his control some ten kingdoms. The capital of this prince was probably situated not far from the “affluence of the Kabul river flowing through the Ghorband valley.” Toward the east his authority extended over Lan-po (Lamghān or mod. Laghman), Na-kie-lo-ho (Nagarahāra = mod. Jalalabad district), and Kan-t'o-lo (Gandhāra = mod. Peshawar, Charsadda and Und). On the borders of Ta-ch'a-shi-lo (Takṣaśilā = mod.

v1.c12.22.5

Rawalpindi district) it touched the boundaries of the kingdom of Kashmir, which under the vigorous rule of the Kārkoṭa Durlabhavardhana (*c.* 631-33 A.D.) had extended its power up to the Salt Range (Sāng-ho-po-lo = Simhapura). In the south, the Kia-pi-shi kingdom included Fa-la-na (Varana = banks of river Gomal and Bannu district). It is also likely that it included Tsu-ku-cha (Tsaukūṭa? = Arachosia)¹ with its capital at Ho-si-na (Ghazna), for we find the king of Kia-pi-shi apparently accompanying Yuan Chwang on his homeward journey from the town of U-to-kia-han-ch'a (Uṭakhāṇḍa = Und), *via* Lan-po, Fa-la-na, O-po-kin, Tsau-ku-cha, Fo-li-shi to the frontiers of Kāpiśa.²

v1.c12.23

² *Śāhis von Kābul*, p. 196; *Études sur l'Asie Centrale*, Paris, 1890, pp. 12 ff.; *Geschichte Irans*, Tübingen, 1888, pp. 158 ff.

v1.c12.24

³ See article on the Huns by Sir Charles Elliott, *Encyclopaedia Britannica* (1910) Vol. XIII, p. 932; Gibbon, *Decline and Fall*, Vol. III, pp. 82 ff.

v1.c12.25

⁴ *SC*, p. 101.

v1.c12.26

¹ *BEFEO*, 1903, pp. 404 ff.; *BR*, Vol. I, pp. xc ff.; *GI*, pp. 158-61, 161-64; *EI*, Vol. I, p. 238; *EHI*, p. 335.

v1.c12.27

² *BEFEO*, 1903, pp. 416-17; *BR*, I, pp. xcix-c.

v1.c12.28

³ *SC*, p. 105; *GI*, pp. 146-47; *BR*, I, pp. 168 ff.; Stein, *Ancient Khotan*, Vol. I, p. 58.

v1.c12.29

⁴ *SC*, pp. 105-06; *Decline and Fall*, Vol. IV, p. 384; Nöldeke, *Tabarī*, pp. 211-18; De Sacy *Mirkhond*, p. 372.

v1.c12.30

¹ Edouard Chavannes, *Les Tou-kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux*, St. Pétersbourg, 1903, pp. 226 ff.; Stein, *Ancient Khotan*, Vol. I, pp. 58 ff. Sir Charles Elliot on Turks, *Encyclopaedia Britannica* (1910), Vol. XXVII, p. 470. See also Gibbon’s *Decline and Fall*, Vol. IV, p. 349.

v1.c12.31

² *SC*, pp. 108, 112 and 113; Chavannes, *Les Tou-kiue Occidentaux*, p. 226.

v1.c12.32

³ Chavannes, *Les Tou-kiue Occidentaux*, pp. 252 ff.

v1.c12.33

⁴ Prof. F. W. Thomas suggests the spelling ‘Balgasun.’ But see *BR*, I, p. 26, fn. 81.

v1.c12.34

⁵ *BR*, I, p. 26, fn. 81; see also *ibid*, pp. 24 ff.; II, pp. 286 ff.; *Life*, pp. 41 ff.; *Encyclopaedia Britannica* (1910), Vol. XXVII, p. 471; Stein, *Ancient Khotan*, Vol. I, pp. 58-59.

v1.c12.35

¹ *BR*, Vol. II, p. 283 ff.; *YC* (II, pp. 264 ff.) spells the name as *Tsao-ku-t'a* and restores the word as *Jāguḍa*. This seems more reasonable.

v1.c12.36

² *Life*, pp. 51-72, 192-95; *BR*, Vol. I, pp. 49-68, 190-164: Vol. II, pp. 283-84; *YC*, Vol. I. pp. 115-30, 178-285; Vol. II, pp. 264-66.

v1.c12.37

But where are the *Śāhis*, who, as we have seen had founded an independent power south of the Hindukush in about the year 430 A.D.? Did they gradually disappear in the clash and turmoil of the invasions of the armies of the Sasanids, the Epthalites, and the Turks? It has been presumed by scholars that the kingdom of Kia-pi-shi described above is the rump of the once mighty Kuṣān empire.³ This presumption is of course not invalidated by the description of the king as a *Kṣatriya*. By this the pilgrim probably meant nothing more than that the king belonged to the Brahmanical faith.⁴ But even if he was right in his description of the caste of the prince it presents no insuperable difficulties. The history of the gradual assimilation of the Yueh-chi hordes in the fold of Hinduism is well-known. Early in their history the Śiva appears on the coin-legends of Kadphises¹ and the progress of the movement is illustrated by the acceptance of the Indian name Vāsudeva by one of the successors of Kaniṣka. There is no reason to believe that this process of assimilation did not continue amongst the successors of the Great Kuṣāns; and it is quite likely that some of their chiefs even claimed Kṣatriya rank.² This assumption that the kingdom of Kia-pi-shi belonged to the Little Yueh-chi rulers seems to be supported by the *Kitāb ul-Hind* of al-Bīrūnī. He gives us the following account of the kings of Kābul :

v1.c12.38

³ *Šāhis von Kabul*, p. 197.

v1.c12.39

⁴ Yuan Chwang's description of castes of the Indian princes is not always reliable; see *supra*, p. 5, fn. 5.

v1.c12.40

¹ Rapson, *Indian Coins*, Plate II.

v1.c12.41

² Though it is not proved that all the Rajput tribes were of foreign origin, yet that some of them are of foreign origin is proved by the acceptance of the Hūṇas for instance in the recognised list of Rajput tribes.

v1.c12.42

“The Hindus had kings residing in Kābul, Turks were said to be of Tibetan origin. The first of them, Barhatakīn, came into the country and entered a cave in Kābul . . . . . ; he brought these countries under his sway and ruled them under the title of a *Shāhia of Kābul*. The rule remained among his descendants for generations, the number of which is said to be about sixty. Unfortunately the Hindus do not pay much attention to the historical order of things, they are very careless in relating the chronological succession of their kings, and when they are pressed for information they are at a loss, and not knowing what to say, invariably take to tale-telling…….I have been told that the pedigree of this royal family, written on silk, exists in the fortress Nagarkot,³ and I much desired to make myself acquainted with it, but the thing was impossible for various reasons. One of this series of kings was Kanik, the same who is said to have built the *vihāra* (Buddhistic monastery) of Purushāvar. It is called after him *Kanik-caitya*………………. The last king of this race was *Lagatūrmān*, and his Vazīr was Kallār, a Brahman. The latter

v1.c12.43

³ Identified with the modern *Kot Kangra*, the chief place of the Kangra district in the Punjab. See Stein, Eng. Trans. of *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, Vol. I, p. 204, footnote on verses 143-44; Cunningham, *ASR*, Vol. X, pp. 155 ff.

v1.c12.44

had been fortunate, in so far as he had found by accident hidden treasures, which gave him much influence and power. In consequence the last of this Tibetan house, after it had held the royal power for so long a period let it by degree slip from his hands. Besides Lagatūrmān had bad manners and a worse behaviour, on account of which people complained of him greatly to the Vazīr. Now the Vazīr put him in chains and imprisoned him for correction, but then he himself found ruling sweet, his riches enabled him to carry out his plans, and so he occupied the royal throne.''¹

v1.c12.45

¹ Eng. Trans. by Sachau, Vol. II, pp. 10-13.

v1.c12.46

All lovers of Indian History will regret that al-Bīrūnī could not acquaint himself with the pedigree of the family preserved at Nagarkot. For the account he supplies us, being necessarily based on defective historical information of the Hindus, which he so rightly condemns, assumes at places a rather fictitious character.² But that the kings mentioned by him really belonged to the Kuṣān group is rendered probable by the proposed identification of the Kanik of al-Bīrūnī with the great Kaniṣka, on the ground of the common tradition of their building a *vihāra* at Peshawar.³ It is, however, by no means certain that the number of kings who ruled in Kābul from the foundation of the dynasty of Barhatakīn down to its extinction in the reign of Lagatūrmān was sixty, nor can we definitely state that they all belonged to one dynasty. But it appears to be clear that the whole period was covered by the rule of the Hinduised Yueh-chi rulers, and Stein is probably right when he suggests that the error of al-Bīrūnī in mentioning a continuous reign of sixty generations must be ascribed to the "continued use of the title *Sāhi*, a title applied by al-Bīrūnī even to the last dynasty conquered by Mahmūd of Ghazna.''⁴

v1.c12.47

² *E.g.*, the extraordinary circumstances which led to the rise to power of Barhatakin which I have omitted, *ibid*, p. 10.

v1.c12.48

³ Reinaud, *Mémoire Géographique, etc., sur l'Inde*, pp. 76 ff.; *Śāhis von Kābul*, p. 196.

v1.c12.49

⁴ *Śāhis von Kābul*, p. 197.

v1.c12.50

Al-Bīrūnī tells us nothing about the internal history of these rulers of Kia-pi-shi, who held the Kabul valley for at least two hundred years. For this we must turn to the annals of the Arabs, whose conquering armies had shattered the Sasanids and were threatening Khurāsān and Sijistān in the middle of the 7th century A.D.¹ I have already referred to the destruction of the Epthalite power on the Oxus by the Turks in the middle of the sixth century A.D. Taking advantage of the waning power of the Sasanids, the Turks had spread their influence south of that river and even beyond the Hindukush.² But '*the establishment of the T'ang dynasty in 618 A.D. marked the beginning of a new and glorious epoch in the history of the Chinese relations with the 'western regions.'*³ Aided by the internal feuds of the Turks, they succeeded in destroying the power of the Northern Turks in 630 A.D. and that of Western Turks in 658-59 A.D. and soon extended their suzerainty across Turkistan and the Oxus valley to the territories south of the Hindukush.³ Thus in relation to the *Sāhis*, the Chinese and the Arabs occupied the same position in the middle of the seventh century A.D. which the Sasanids and the Turks occupied in the middle of the sixth. But the terrible defeat of the Chinese imperial forces in 670 A.D. and the brilliant campaigns of Qutayba (705-15 A.D.) initiated an irresistible movement of the Arabs towards Central Asia, which soon made them supreme in Transoxania. In A. H. 256 (A.D. 870) Yaʻqūb ibn Layth al-Ṣaffār had already brought the flag of Islam into the Kabul valley.⁴

v1.c12.51

¹ *KFB*, Part II, p. 141.

v1.c12.52

² Stein, *Ancient Khotan*, Vol. I, p. 58.

v1.c12.53

³ Stein, *Ancient Khotan*, Vol. I, pp. 5, 58-59. There was a revival of the power of he Northern Turks under the *Khagan*, called Mo-cho in the Chinese annals (691-716 A.D.); see *ibid*, p. 62.

v1.c12.54

⁴ *The Encyclopædia of Islam*, Fasciculus A, 1924, p. 55; see also H. A. R. Gibb, *The Arab Conquests in Central Asia*, 1923, pp. 15 ff.

v1.c12.55

The steps which gradually brought Islam into the Kābul valley, are recorded in the Arab annals, and incidentally throw some light on the history of the Hindu dynasties that ruled from the Zarah Lake to the Indus river. In the year A.H. 30 (A.D. 650), the Arab general ‘Abd Ullāh ibn ‘Āmir, when he set out for Khurāsān, despatched ar-Rabī‘ ibn-Ziyād to Sijistān.¹ Ar-Rabī‘ reached the Hindamand (Helmund) and appeared before Zaranj, the capital of the country. The people of the city “opposed him fiercely” and “a number of Moslems were wounded,” but in the end they were defeated and driven back into the city with slaughter. Ar-Rabī‘ struck terror into the heart of the *Satrap*, who submitted and allowed the Arab general to enter the city.² Balādhūrī, to whom we are indebted for this account does not tell us the name of the overlord of this *Satrap*. But it seems from his subsequent account that he was probably an officer of the line of Indian princes who ruled in the Kābul and Helmund valleys and were variously known to the Arabs as Rutbīl, Rantbīl, or Zunbīl.³ After two and a half years Ibn ‘Āmir next appointed ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Samurah as governor of Sijistān. This new officer compelled the Satrap to pay him 2,000,000 dirhams, and made himself the “master over everything between Zaranj and Kishsh⁴ of the land of al-Hind, and over that part of the region of the road of ar-Rukhkhaj which is between it and the province of ad-Dāwar.”⁵ In his description of this campaign

v1.c12.56

¹ “Sīstān, which the earlier Arabs called Sijistān, from the Persian Sagastān, is the lowland lying round, and to the eastward of the Zarah lake, which more specially includes the deltas of Helmund and other rivers which drain into this inland sea.” The capital was Zaranj, on Lake Zarah; see *LEC*, pp. 334 ff. Dr. Barnett suggests :

v1.c12.57

² *KFB*, Part II, pp. 141-43.

v1.c12.58

³ For this word see *infra*, p. 71, fn no. 1.

v1.c12.59

⁴ Yāqūt, Vol. IV, p. 277; Meynard, *Dictionnaire de la Perse*, p. 488.

v1.c12.60

⁵ *KFB*, Part I, p. 143. For the places see Yāqūt, Vol. II, p. 541. Meynard, *op. cit.*, p. 221; *LEC*, p. 345.

v1.c12.61

[Figure: Saka-stāna (land of Śakas)

v1.c12.62

Sagastān

v1.c12.63

| . . . . .
| |

v1.c12.64

Sajastān or Sijistān Saistān (Pers.) (in Arab.) | Mod. Sīstān (سیستان)]

v1.c12.65.1

Balādhuri tells us a story which curiously reminds us of the idol-breaking incident in the temple of Somnath. We are told that when "he got as far as the provinces of ad-Dāwar, he surrounded the enemy in the mountain of az-Zūr.¹ They soon surrendered to him. The numbers of Moslems with him was 8,000 and each man received 4,000 dirhams. Ibn-Samurah went into the temple of the Zūr, an idol of gold with two rubies for eyes, and cut off a hand and took out the rubies. Then he said to the *Satrap*, 'keep the gold and gems. I only wanted to show you that it had no power to harm or help.' "² Ibn Samurah next "obtained control over Bust and Zābul.³ He did not want to take prisoners from Zābul, saying that ‘Uthmān had made a compact (*walth*) with them. Wakī‘ says that he made an agreement (*‘aqd*) with them, which is inferior to covenant (*‘ahd*)."⁴ Ibn-Samurah was succeeded by Umair ibn Aḥmar. The people of Zaranj expelled him and closed the town. But in the reign of ‘Alī, Rib‘ī ibn al-Kās "established order in the country." In the reign of Mu‘āwiyah, Ibn Samurah again became governor of Sijistān. He was faced with a formidable task, for we are told that the people of Sijistān had apostatized, and the people of Zābulistān and Kābul had broken their treaties. By a series of campaigns he is said to have captured Kābul, in spite of the vigorous resistance of the '*polytheists*,' defeated the inhabitants of Zābulistān, and captured Bust and Rukhkhaj.

v1.c12.65.2

Balādhuri says that this officer "took with him to al-Baṣrah slaves captured at Kābul, and they built him a mosque in his castle after the Kābul style of building.” He died in A.H. 50 (A.D. 670) but before his death he was succeeded by ar-Rabī‘ ibn Ziyād. During his administration Kābul and Zābulistān again revolted. We are told that the “*Kābul Shāh* assembled a force to oppose the Moslems and drove out all of them that were in Kābul. And Ratbīl came and gained control of Zābulistān and ar-Rukhkhaj as far as Bust. Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Ziyād led out his men and attacked Ratbīl at Bust and put him to flight, and pursued him until he reached ar-Rukhkhaj. After attacking him in ar-Rukhkhaj, he continued to advance, and subdued the city of ad-Dāwar.” He was succeeded in the government of Sijistān by ‘Ubayd Ullāh ibn Abi Bakrah. He continued the campaign for some time and reached Razān. But “ Ratbīl sent to him *asking for peace for his own country and the land of Kābul in return for* 1,200,000 dirhams.” This sum was reduced to 1,000,000 dirhams and the peace was confirmed by Ziyād, the governor of Baṣra. In about 61 A.H. (A.D. 680) “ the people of Kābul treacherously broke the compact and imprisoned Abū ‘Ubaydah ibn Ziyād.” The governor of Sijistān, Yazīd ibn Ziyād, proceeded against them in Junzah, but he and many of those with him were killed and the rest put to flight. Among those who were martyred were Zayd ibn ‘Abd Ullāh and Ṣilah ibn Ashtam Abu’ṣ-Ṣabhā.

v1.c12.65.3

After this defeat the Arabs “ransomed Abu-‘Ubayda for 500,000 dirhams.” The cities of Sijistān, being “ aided and abetted ” by Ratbīl, became for a time at least free from the control of the representatives of the Caliph. Balādhurī informs us that “when ‘Abd ul-‘Azīz ibn ‘Abd Ullāh ibn ‘Amir arrived as *Wāli* over Sijistān in the time of az-Zubair (c.A.H. 64=683 A.D.), he was compelled to stop in the city of Zaranj because Ratbīl was at war with him.” But soon after “ *abu-‘Afrā’ ‘Umair al-Māzini killed Ratbīl and the polytheists were put to rout.*” But the war did not end with the death of this prince. In about A.H. 73 (A.D. 692) ‘Abd Ullāh was appointed to rule over Sijistān. “ He made war on Ratbīl (the successor as king to the former Ratbīl, who had been killed). He stood in awe of the Moslems,” and when ‘Abd Ullāh arrived at Bust, he offered to make peace for a sum of 1,000,000 dirhams, but the treaty fell through, for the Arab general wanted his tent to be filled with gold. Fighting was therefore resumed. “Ratbīl did not oppose his advance into the land until he had penetrated deep into it, when he seized the mountain paths and passes against him, asking the Moslems to cease hostilities and offering to refrain from despoiling them.

v1.c12.65.4

This was refused, and Ratbīl said, ‘Well, then take 300,000 dirhams for a treaty, and put it in writing for me, agreeing not to raid our land while you are *Wāli*, nor to burn nor lay waste.’” ‘Abd Ullāh did this, and when the Caliph ‘Abd ul-Malik (685-705 A.D.) learned of it, he dismissed him. Later, when al-Ḥajjāj (*c.* 694-713 A.D.) was governor of ‘Irāq, ‘Ubayd Ullāh ibn Abi Bakrah was sent to Sijistān. He carried on the war against Ratbīl, and advancing by way of ar-Rukhkhaj encamped “in the neighbourhood of Kābul, stopping at a mountain path. The enemy blocked it against him and Ratbīl joined them. So ‘Ubayd Ullāh made peace with them on condition that they should give him 500,000 dirhams and he should send him three of his sons Nahar, al-Ḥajjāj and Abu Bakrah as hostages, and he should make a treaty with them that he shall not fight as long as he was governor.”¹ This humiliating peace caused serious disaffection in the Arab camp, for it was felt that the action would seriously weaken Islam on this frontier. As a result of this, hostilities were again commenced. Shuraiḥ, who was mainly instrumental in the rejection of the peace “made a charge but was killed. The army fought their way along the desert of Bust.

v1.c12.65.5

Many of them perished of thirst and hunger, and Ubayd Ullāh died of grief for what he had brought upon his men and the fate that had overtaken them.” Soon after this disastrous Arab expedition “Ḥajjāj made peace with Ratbīl agreeing not to make war upon him for seven years (others say nine years), on condition that he pays thereafter every year 900,000 dirhams in kind.” This peace was respected by Ḥajjāj with scrupulous care, and he dismissed an officer who was disposed to deal “harshly with Ratbīl in regard to the goods which he paid.” In the reign of Caliph Walīd (705-715 A.D.) an attempt was made to exact the “tribute from Ratbīl in coined money.” In 710 A.D. Qutayba, the governor of Khurāsān, undertook a campaign against this “formidable foe” who had made Sijistān “an ill-omened frontier.”¹ The expedition was abortive, and the Arabs were compelled to continue accepting ‘payment in kind.’ In the reign of Caliph Sulaymān (715-17 A.D.) Ratbīl ceased to pay any tribute at all. Balādhuri informs us that “thereafter he did not pay any tribute to any of the *‘āmils* of the Umaiyads or of Abu-Muslim over Sijistān.” It was not till the reign of the Abbasid Caliph al Manṣūr (754-75 A.D.) that active steps were again taken against this prince.

v1.c12.65.6

Ma‘n ibn Zā’idah on his appointment as governor over Sijistān, wrote “to Ratbīl to bring tribute for which al-Ḥajjāj had stipulated.” On the receipt of this letter Ratbīl is said to have sent some “camels, Turkish tents, and slaves, reckoning each at double its value.” This aroused the anger of the Arab general, and war was resumed; but when Ma‘n came to ar-Rukhkhaj “he found that Ratbīl had withdrawn from that place and had gone to Zābulistān to spend the summer there.” Ar-Rukhkhaj, we are told, fell to the Arabs, and Ma‘n secured some 30,000 slaves; but his success does not appear to have been of any substantial character. Balādhuri tells us that “Sijistān was never completely subjugated,”

v1.c12.66

¹ *LEC*, pp. 345-46.

v1.c12.67

² *KFB*, Part II, p. 144.

v1.c12.68

³ *LEC*, pp. 344 and 349. By Zābul or Zābulistān the Arabs meant "the whole of the great mountainous district of the upper waters of the Helmund and the Kandahār rivers." It was "a term of vague application but one which more particularly denoted the country round Ghaznah. On the other hand Kābulistān, was the Kābul country, more to the north on the frontier of Bāmiyān. Already in the 3rd century (9th century A.D.) Ya‘qūbī describes Kābul as much frequented by merchants. He says that the chief city was known as Jurwas, while Iṣṭakhrī in the next century gives the name as Ṭābān. Kābul, however, appears also to have been the name in common use, more especially for the district."

v1.c12.69

⁴ *KFB*, Part II, p. 144.

v1.c12.70

¹ Futūḥ *al-Buldān*, Text, Ed. by M. J. de Goeje, Brill, 1866, p. 399. I am indebted to Dr. Mirza of the University of Lucknow for the translation of this passage which differs from Murgotten's translation in one or two points. It is not very clear whose sons were given as hostages but as Ratbīl's father was a polytheist and there is no evidence that his son had accepted Islam and as the name of one of the hostages is the same as that of the father of 'Ubaid Ullah, I am disposed to consider them to be the sons of the Arab *Wāli*. If this was so it would appear that the hostages were given by the Arabs to Ratbīl.

v1.c12.71

¹ Gibb, *The Arab Conquests in Central Asia*, p. 41.

v1.c12.72

though “ the *‘āmils* of al-Mahdī (775-85 A.D.) and ar-Rashīd (786-80 A.D.) continued to collect tribute from Ratbīl as well as they could, and kept appointing their agents to rule over the regions to which Islam had reached.” The same authority tells us that when al-Ma’mūn, son of ar-Rashīd, was in Khurāsān (*c.* 808-818 A.D.), “double tribute was paid to him, and he subdued Kābul, whose king professed Islam, and promised obedience.”¹ That these expeditions of Ma’mūn had no lasting effect is proved by the fact that Ratbīl was still ruling in Kābul in *c.* 253 A.H. (A.D. 867) when the sons of Darhim, Naṣr and Ṣāliḥ, fled to him after the conquest of Sijistān by Ya‘qūb ibn Layth.² Ya‘qūb captured Herat in the same year, and in A H. 256 (A.D. 870), turning against Ratbīl, marched to Kābul and conquered it.³ But the Ṣaffārids were soon displaced by the Persian Samanids; and the latter, as we shall see further on, do not appear to have made any vigorous effort to extend their authority in the Kābul valley.

v1.c12.73

¹ This account of Arab advance towards the Kābul valley is mainly taken from Balādhuri. *KFB*, Part II, pp. 139-55.

v1.c12.74

² TN, 1881, Vol. I, p. 22, fn. 5.

v1.c12.75

³ *Ibid*, p. 22; *The Encyclopaedia of Islam*, Fasciculus A, 1921, p. 55; also *Jāmi‘ ul-Hikāyat*, in *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 172.

v1.c12.76

The above is a meagre account of the struggles of the Arabs for about two hundred years (*c.* 650-860 A.D.) with the Indian princes of the Helmund and the Kābul valleys. Though Balādhuri once refers to a *Kābul-Shāh*,⁴ yet he makes it quite clear that the line of princes designated by him as Ratbīl held sovereign power over the whole region indicated above. We find these princes sometimes not only preventing the Arabs from advancing beyond Zaranj, but also successfully negotiating alliances with the representatives of the Caliph “for his own country and the land of Kābul.” It is thus likely that the *Satrap* on the Helmund as well as the *Kābul-Shāh* were subordinate to this powerful line of princes.⁵ That they were Hindus seems to be hinted at by the description of the image of Zūr and the epithet 'polytheists' applied to them and their soldiers. But it is uncertain what the word Ratbīl actually means. There is no doubt that it was a *title* and not a personal name, for it is assumed by successive princes from father to son. Scholars are agreed that the word is not Arabic, and may possibly be Turkish.¹ In that case the identification of this line of princes with the descendants of the *Śāhis* who ruled south of the Hindukush from about the middle of the fifth century onwards is probable. Whether these princes are further to be identified with the princes of Kia-pi-shi, noticed by Yuan Chwang must remain in the present state of our knowledge uncertain. But the fact that the Ratbīls are found ruling in the Kābul valley in the middle of the 9th century A.D., the period which, according to al-Bīrūnī and Kalhaṇa,² saw the extinction of the *Turki Śāhis*, seems to favour such an identification. In that case we can explain why the kings of Kia-pi-shi, who formerly lived in Und³ gradually shifted their sphere of activity further to the west and south. The rise of the Kārkoṭas in Kashmir, who conquered Ta-ch'a-shi-lo (Takṣaśilā) from them effectively blocked their advance towards the east while the lofty Hindukush range was a barrier in the north and the northwest. Thus it was only in the south and the south-west, along the valley of the Helmund that they could extend their power; and it is interesting to note that it was here, and not across the Hindukush, that the Arabs first came into conflict with them. The position of the *Śāhis*, during this period, threatened as they were by powerful enemies from the north and the south, was critical. But the raids of the Arabs on the southern dominions of Kashmir,¹ must have soon convinced the Kārkoṭas of the common danger threatening the Indian states; and this had probably something to do with the policy pursued by Lalitāditya Muktāpīḍa (*c.* 713-750 A.D.), who conferred high offices on the *Śāhi* princes in his court.² But, as we shall see further on, this wise policy was not followed by his successors.

v1.c12.77

⁴ *KFB*, Part II, p. 147.

v1.c12.78

⁵ Gibb, *Chinese Records of the Arabs in Central Asia* in the *Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, London Institution*, Vol. II, 1921-23, pp. 613-22.

v1.c12.79

¹ On this word see J. Marquart, *Erānsahr, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse*, Neue Folge, Band III, No. 2, pp. 248 ff. Review of the same by Nöldeke in *ZDMG*, 1902, Band LVI, p. 432; Barthold, *Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion*, 1928, pp. 216 ff.; De Goeje in *Vienna Oriental Journal*, 1902, Vol. XVI, pp. 192-95.

v1.c12.80

² See *infra*, pp. 72 and 75-76.

v1.c12.81

³ *Life*, p. 192.

v1.c12.82

¹ *KFB*, Part II, pp. 230-31.

v1.c12.83

² *Rājataraṅgiṇī* of Kalhaṇa, IV, 142-43; see also Stein's Eng. Trans., Vol. I, p. 90.

v1.c12.84

The necessity of this twofold struggle must have been a terrible strain on the *Śāhis*, and probably largely contributed to bring about the revolution which is described by al-Bīrūnī.³ The last *Turki Śāhi* prince Lagatūrmān was imprisoned by his Brahman Vazīr, Kallār, who founded an independent dynasty which may be conveniently called the *Hindu Śāhis*.⁴ According to al-Bīrūnī, after him "ruled the Brahman kings Sāmand (Sāmanta), Kamalū, Bhīm (Bhīma), Jaypāl (Jayapāla), Ānandapāla, Tarojanapāla (Trilocanapāla). The latter was killed in A.H. 412 (A.D. 1021) and his son Bhīmapāla five years later (A.D. 1026)."⁵ Though al-Bīrūnī makes it clear that the dynasty was destroyed in the first quarter of the 11th century, as a result of the invasion of the Yamīnīs of Ghazna, he does not supply any details about the history of the *Hindu Śāhis*. For this we have to depend mainly on other Muhammadan chroniclers and the *Rājataraṅgiṇī* of Kalhaṇa. The following verses from the latter source which describe the victories of the Kashmirian prince Śaṅkaravarman (*c.* 883-902) appears to have an important bearing on the history of these later *Śāhis*:

v1.c12.85

³ See *supra*, pp. 62-63.

v1.c12.86

⁴ Some call them *Brahman Śāhis*.

v1.c12.87

⁵ *KH*, Eng. Trans. by Sachau, Vol. II, p. 13.

v1.c12.88

"The firmly rooted fortune of *Alakhāna*, king of *Gūrjara*, he uprooted in battle in a moment, and made a long grief rise (in its place).

v1.c12.89

The ruler of Gūrjara gave up to him humbly the *Ṭakka*-land preserving (hereby) his own country as (if he had saved) his own body (at the sacrifice) of a finger.

v1.c12.90

He caused the sovereign power, which the superior king *Bhoja* had seized, to be given up to the scion of the *Thakkiya* family, who had become his servant in the office of Chamberlain.

v1.c12.91

*Alakhāna's* support, the illustrious Lalliya Sāhi—who, (placed) between the rulers of the *Darads*, and *Turuṣkas* as between a lion and a boar, resembled *Āryāvarta* (as it lies) between the *Himālaya* and *Vindhya* (mountains), in whose town of *Udabhāṇḍa* (other) kings found safety, just as the mountains in the ocean, when threatened by the danger of having their wings cut (by Indra); whose mighty glory (outshone) the kings in the north, just as the sun-disc (outshines) the stars in heaven,—he was not received into service by (Śaṅkaravarman), who desired to remove him from his sovereign position.''¹

v1.c12.92

¹ Stein's Eng. Trans., Vol. I, pp. 205-06 ; verses 149-55 of Book V.

v1.c12.93

In describing the achievements of Prabhākaradeva, the minister of Gopālavarman (c. 902-04 A.D.) and the paramour of the queen-mother Sugandhā, Kalhaṇa further adds :

v1.c12.94

“ As superintendent of treasury (*Kośādhyakṣa*), he plundered the riches of the amorous (queen) and vanquished the *Śāhi* kingdom at *Udabhāṇḍapura*.

v1.c12.95

He bestowed the kingdom of the rebellious *Śāhi* upon *Toramāṇa*, *Lalliya's* son, and gave him the new name *Kamaluka*.''²

v1.c12.96

² Ibid, p. 217, V. 232-33.

v1.c12.97

The first thing that strikes us in the verses quoted above is the testimony of the historian of Kashmir to the strength of the illustrious Śāhi princes.³ Their dominions were placed between the *Darads* and the *Turuṣkas*. The seat of the Darads appears to have extended ‘from Citral and Yasin, across the Indus regions of Gilgit, Cilas, and Bunji to the Kisanganga valley in the immediate north of Kashmir.'¹ The *Turuṣkas* in the south were undoubtedly the Muhammadans, who were waging unceasing war against the Indian rulers of Afghanistan and Sīstān for more than two centuries. In spite of the vigorous resistance of the *Sāhis*, the Arabs, we have seen, had advanced step by step till Kābul itself fell in 870 A.D. Against this irresistible pressure, the *Sāhis* were gradually driven towards the Indian frontier, and again transferred their capital to *Udabhāṇḍapura*, the old capital of Kia-pi-shi. Already in the time of Kamalū the *Hindu Sāhis* were known as Rāis of Hindustan.²

v1.c12.98

³ See also *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, VII, 68-69; VIII, 3230.

v1.c12.99

¹ *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, Eng. Trans. by Stein, Vol. I, p. 47, footnote on Vs. 312-16 of Book I; Vol. II, p. 431; Drew, *Jummoo*, pp. 393 ff.

v1.c12.100

² *Life*, p. 192; see *Jāmi' 'ul-Hikāyāt*, Elliot, II, p. 172.

v1.c12.101

The next point that is interesting, is the relationship of the *Sāhis* with other Indian States. I have already referred to the wise policy of the *Kārkoṭa* king Lalitāditya who appears to have cultivated a policy of friendship with the *Sāhis*. The verses of Kalhaṇa quoted above seem to indicate that there was also an alliance between the Gurjara king Alakhāna and these princes. Alakhāna appears to have ruled over 'the upper portion of the flat Doab between the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, south of Dārvābhisāra, and probably also a part of the Punjab plain further east.'³ What relations this prince had with the *adhirāja* Bhoja are uncertain. But if the latter is to be identified with the Gūrjara-Pratīhāra emperor Bhoja, as seems not improbable,⁴ then it is not unlikely that the two Gūrjara kings⁵ were on terms of friendship with each other. Their hostility to a common enemy, namely the Utpalas might have brought them together. This fact taken together with the well-known hostility of the Gurjara and *Sāhi* kings towards the Arabs, may indicate some sort of *entente cordiale* between these powers for joint action against their common enemies. By reversing the policy of friendship towards the *Sāhis*, Śaṅkaravarman only made the task of the defence of the Indian frontier against Islam all the more difficult. But Kalhaṇa makes it quite clear that this Utpala prince could not make much headway against the *Sāhis*. His statement that the illustrious Lalliya Śāhi, "whose mighty glory outshone the kings of the north," was not received into service by Saṅkaravarman because the latter desired to remove him from his sovereign position, is only a politic way of saying that his efforts were fruitless. His violent death in the hills of Uraśā (modern Hazara district), not very far from the *Sāhi* capital, may not be entirely unconnected with the hidden hand of the *Śāhis*.

v1.c12.102

³ *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, Stein's Eng. Trans., Vol. I, p. 99.

v1.c12.103

⁴ *JASB*, 1922, N.S., Vol. XVIII, p. 268; *JL*, 1923, Vol. X, pp. 53-54; Stein's note on V. 151 of the *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, Eng. Trans., Vol. I, p. 206. *ASR*, Vol. II, p. 225; Vol. X, p. 101.

v1.c12.104

⁵ The epithets *Gūrjara-bhūbhuja* and *Gūrjar-ādhipa* probably indicate that Alakhāna was a 'Gūrjara' king ruling over the Punjab settlement of the 'Gūrjaras.'

v1.c12.105

The next question that confronts us is the identification of Lalliya. There is no prince of this name on the list of al-Bīrūnī. He was a contemporary of Śaṅkaravarman (883-902 A.D.), and was apparently dead in A.D. 902-04, when Gopālavarman was king of Kashmīr. His son Kamalū, as we shall see further on, was a contemporary of 'Amr ibn Laith (*c.* 879-900 A.D.). As al-Bīrūnī's account is confirmed whenever we can check it, it is unlikely that he would omit the name of such an important prince as Lalliya. Cunningham first suggested that Kallār of al-Bīrūnī is identical with Lalliya of Kalhaṇa.¹ Stein has pointed out that Kalhaṇa's description of Lalliya Śāhi's great power and repute, agrees singularly with what al-Bīrūnī has to tell us of the 'energetic founder of the *Hindu Shāhiya* dynasty.'² 'The proposed identification of Kallār with Lalliya finds further support in the convincing conjecture by which Prof. Ch. Seybold, in his remarks on the *Indica* of al-Bīrūnī, has explained the apparent difference of the names. Prof. Seybold sees in the form کلر of the single MS. which has preserved for us the text of the *Indica* a misread للى or لليه, and accounts for such a corruption by well-known palæographic peculiarities of Arabic manuscripts.'¹ Edward Thomas referred to this prince certain silver coins of the Bull-and-horseman type with the legend *Syālapatideva*. This identification, based on a possible mistake of the copyists, a ک for س, was rightly rejected by Elliot as unwarranted.² But there is no inherent impossibility in the guess of the latter authority that the subversion of the *Turki Sāhiyas* by Lalliya may have occurred about 850 A.D.³

v1.c12.106

¹ *ASR*, Vol. V, p. 83.

v1.c12.107

² *Rājātaraṅgiṇī*, Stein's Eng. Trans., Vol. II, p. 336.

v1.c12.108

¹ *Ibid, ZDMG*, 1894, Band XLVIII, pp. 699-700.

v1.c12.109

² *JRAS*, 1848, Vol. IX, p. 180; *Elliot*, Vol. I, p. 421.

v1.c12.110

³ *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 425.

v1.c12.111

The next prince in the list of al-Bīrūnī is Sāmand. This is probably the nameless *Sāhi* prince referred to as contemporary of Gopālavarman (*c.* 902-04 A.D.), who was overthrown by the Kashmirian minister Prabhākaradeva.⁴ His relationship with Kallār-Lalliya is not known, but he appears to have carried on the policy of hostility of his predecessor against the Utpalas which in the end cost him his throne. A large number of coins with the legend *Sāmantadeva* of the Bull-and-horseman type, which are found in large quantities, not only in Afghanistan, but throughout the Punjab and the whole of Northern India, have been attributed to this prince. One such coin was found "at a place called Obrzycko in the province of Posen, in company of 30 different kings of Europe and Asia."⁵ Mr. E. Thomas was of opinion that this profusion of coins with his legend is to be explained by 'his having called in the coins of his Buddhist predecessors in order to give prevalence to his own creed of Brahmanism by the substitution of the Bull-and-horseman type for that of the Elephant-and-lion, which is considered emblematic of Buddhism.' But as Elliot has pointed out this “supposition seems to be defeated by the fact of our finding Sāmanta coins with elephants also upon them.”¹ It is likely that Sāmanta became so celebrated that his type was imitated by later rulers.²

v1.c12.112

⁴ *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, V. 232-33.

v1.c12.113

⁵ *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 422; *JRAS*, 1848, Vol. IX, p. 178.

v1.c12.114

¹ *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 422; *JRAS*, 1848, Vol. IX, pp. 182-83 and 275.

v1.c12.115

² *JRAS*, 1848, Vol. IX, pp. 181-82, 275. *CHI*, Vol. I, pp. 561-62, 584 “Coinage bearing his (Hermaeus) name and his types was issued by his conquerors until a much later date, in the same way and for the same reasons that the East India Company continued for many years to strike rupees bearing the name of the Mughal Emperor, Shāh 'Alam.” *Rapson*.

v1.c12.116

According to al-Bīrūnī the next king was Kamalū, presumably the same ruler, who is referred to in the *Jawāmi‘ ul-Hikāyāt* of Muḥammad ‘Aufī (*c.* 1212. A.D.) as Kamalū Rāy of Hindustan, the contemporary and opponent of the Ṣaffārid ruler ‘Amr ibn Layth (*c.* 879-900 A.D.).³ This synchronism helps us also to identify him with Toramāṇa, Lalliya’s son, who according to Kalhaṇa was given the dominions of the rebellious *Śāhi* (Sāmand) and upon whom was conferred the new name *Kamaluka* by the minister of the Utpala king Gopālavarman (*c.* A.D. 902-04).⁴ This invalidates Elliot’s suggestion that Kamalū’s reign commenced in 890 A.D.⁵ Both Kalhaṇa and the Muhammadan writers are silent about the relationship of Toramāṇa-Kamalū with his predecessor. Mr. E. Thomas proposed to identify this prince with the *Khvadavayaka* or *Khedavayaka* of the coins from the similarity of the metal and style of latter’s coinage with the other issues of the *Śāhis*. His attempt to justify his thesis by “mutations, blots, or intermixture of letters” was rightly rejected by Elliot as too fantastic.⁶

v1.c12.117

³ *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 172. This date for Kamalū involves a correction by a few years of the date of Gopālavarman (902-04 A.D.) as given by Kalhaṇa.

v1.c12.118

⁴ *Rājātaraṅgiṇī*, V. 232-33. The dates given here are taken from Stein and are to be regarded as only approximate.

v1.c12.119

⁵ *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 424.

v1.c12.120

⁶ *JRAS*, 1848, Vol. IX, p. 180; *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 423; *CMI*, p. 64.

v1.c12.121

The next ruler, according to al-Bīrūnī, was Bhīm, no doubt the same ruler who is mentioned by Kalhaṇa as the maternal grandfather of Diddā, the queen of the Kashmirian king Kṣemagupta (*c.* 950-58 A.D.).¹ Diddā was the daughter of king Simharāja, the lord of Lohara (modern valley of Lohᵃrin or *Loran* immediately to the south of Pīr Pantsal range, in the hill State of Punch)² and other strongholds, who had apparently married a daughter of Bhīma *Sāhi* of Udabhāṇḍapura. The influence and power enjoyed by the *Sāhis* in Kashmir during this period is illustrated by the fact that already during Kṣemagupta's lifetime Bhīma built a richly endowed temple of Viṣṇu called Bhīmakeśava in the adoptive country of his grand-daughter the remains of which have been traced by Stein in a Muhammadan Zirāt at Bumᵃzu³ near Mārtaṇḍa. Certain silver coins with the legend *Śrī-Bhīmadeva*, which are mainly found in Kābulistān, have been referred by numismatists to this ruler.⁴ From the facts detailed above it is certain that the birth of Bhīma cannot be pushed back beyond 920 A.D.⁵ He was certainly ruling in 950-58, but we do not know when he was succeeded by the next ruler, Jaypāl, who is well-known from Muslim chronicles as the opponent of the Yamīnī kings of Ghazni. Kalhaṇa is silent about this ruler, though he mentions the defeat of an otherwise unknown *Sāhi* prince named Thakkana in the reign of Abhimanyu (958-72 A.D.) the son of Diddā. Yaśodhara the Commander-in-chief, we are told, 'out of spite' rapidly invaded his country 'which is difficult of access on account of its streams and mountains' and capturing the *Sāhi* prince 'by force' compelled him to 'pay tribute and homage.'⁶ The fact that Thakkana does not occur in the list of al-Bīrūnī lends some strength to the suspicion that his list contains the names of only important rulers and is by no means to be taken as successive.¹ That Jayapāla is not the son of Bhīma appears to be indicated by Firishta, who gives Ishtpāl² (Iṣṭapāla?) as the name of Jayapāla's father; but we need not agree with Elliot that the "introduction of the term 'Pāl'" should indicate a change of dynasty. The same phenomenon appears in the history of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj, though there was no dynastic change.³

First 129 of 296 passages. Read on

Linked texts (4)