The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c12.184

Language: English

v1.c12.184.1

It is surprising however that the contemporary historian ‘Utbī gives not the slightest hint about this confederacy. He simply states that “ Ānandapāl came to confront him (Maḥmūd) with a numerous army.” Niẓām ud-Dīn is also silent on the point. Under the circumstances it is perhaps reasonable to doubt the accuracy of this historian of the 17th century. In later times Maḥmūd was regarded as a champion of Islam, and it is not impossible that Firishta has exaggerated the amount of opposition which faced Maḥmūd. At any rate there is no evidence outside Firishta that this common danger galvanized the Indian states of Northern India into common action. According to ‘Utbī the battle took place on the banks of the Wāhind (Und ; Indus). Firishta says that the two armies “arrived in sight of each other on a plain on the confines of the province of Peshawar.”¹ The same authority says that the two armies “remained encamped forty days without coming into action,” and “the troops of the idolaters daily increased in number.” The following account of the battle is taken from *Ta'rīkh-i-Firishta*: “Maḥmūd……ordered 6,000 archers to the front to endeavour to provoke the enemy to attack his entrenchments.

v1.c12.184.2

The archers were opposed by Gukkurs, who, in spite of the king's efforts and presence, repulsed his light troops and followed them so closely that no less than 30,000 Gukkurs with their heads and feet bare, and armed with various weapons, penetrated into the Muhammadan lines, where a dreadful carnage ensued, and in a few minutes 5,000 Muhammadans were slain. The enemy were at length checked, and being cut off as fast as they advanced, the attacks became fainter and fainter, till on a sudden, the elephant, upon which the prince who commanded the Hindus rode, becoming unruly from the effects of the naphtha balls, and the flights of arrows, turned and fled. This circumstance produced a panic amongst the Hindus, who seeing themselves deserted by their general, gave way and fled also.”² In the pursuit 20,000 Hindus are said to have been killed, but it is surprising that after such a victory the spoil that fell to the Sulṭān was only 30 elephants. This is also confirmed by Niẓām ud-Dīn ; but ‘Utbī gives the number as 60. The serious nature and obstinate character of the contest is however confirmed by the following extract from the last historian: "And from the time that the falcon of morning took his flight from the nest of the horizon, until the crow of darkness, closed her wing, the fire of battle burnt, and the pieces of men's bodies, hacked by the sword coloured the earth as if by anemones.

v1.c12.184.3

And it had nearly happened that the army (of the Sulṭān) were wounded (worsted), and that the infidels had obtained the high hand. However...the Sulṭān with his own guards made a charge, under which the feet of the infidels were unable to stand."¹ After this victory Maḥmūd raided and plundered the rich temple of Nagarkot² (A. H. 400=1009 A.D.) Soon after Maḥmūd again renewed his depredations on the *Śāhi* dominions, and virtually put an end to their independent power. 'Utbī informs us that "when the king of Hind witnessed the marks of the wound of the Sulṭān's standard in the nearest and most distant part of his kingdom, and ascertained his weakness in resisting the army of Islam, he sent the chiefs of his kindred and the flower of his guards on an embassy to offer submission to the Sulṭān, and humbled himself, and bound himself to tribute and fidelity, and appointed 60 yokes of elephants to be sent by him as a service to his beloved fortune, and assigned a payment to be mutually arranged, which should be sent yearly by the nobles of that province, and the people of that district to his treasury.

v1.c12.184.4

And that by way of acting as viceroy, he should keep 2,000 men at his court, and that at all recurring days, and returning months and years he should express fidelity to these conditions, and that the successors and the sons of every one, who should occupy royalty and obtain command in India should proceed upon this decree and should obey and follow this law.’”¹ The historian naively remarks: “thus the road for caravans and merchants between the districts of Khurāsān and Hind became open.” But more important still, India beyond the Sutlej became open to the rapacity of the Ghaznavid masquerading under the guise of religious zeal.

v1.c12.184.5

In 1011-12, Maḥmūd, disregarding the protests of Ānandapāla, plundered and desecrated the rich temple of of Jagarsom (*Cakrasvāmin*) at Thanesar.² “The soldiers ravaged and pillaged whatever they could lay their hands upon, broke the idols and carried Jagarsom to Ghaznīn.” According to Firishta, Ānandapāla was not only forced to make arrangements for the safe passage of Maḥmud’s army but “conducted himself with so much policy and hospitality towards Maḥmud, that he returned peaceably to Ghazni.” But he nevertheless records that Maḥmud did not penetrate further east from Thanesar from “apprehension of Ānandapāla, Raja of Lahore.” It was urged by his officers that it would be impossible to keep possession of the conquests in the Ganges-Jumna valley unless the *Sāhis* were completely destroyed.³ So in 1013-14 A.D., without any provocation on their part Maḥmud again marched against them.