The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c12.224

v1.c12.224

² Muslim chroniclers mention Rāi-Jaypāl of Kanauj and his son prince Bhīmapāla, and Elliot has identified them with the princes of the *Sāhi* family known to them as Taro-Janpāl, Naro-Jaypāl or Jaypāl (II) and his son Nidar Bhīm. Elliot remarks that "Like as the reigning family was driven from Kabul to Bhera, and from Bhera to Lahore, so it seems now to have been driven from Lahore to Kanauj." But apart from the unlikelihood of the *Sāhi* dominions extending so far east, we have to take into account the last princes of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra dynasty of Kanauj. The Jhūsi copperplate of Trilocanapāla clearly shows that the princes of Kanauj during this period were Rājyapāla and Trilocanapāla; and it is likely that the Muslim chroniclers confused the former name with Rāi-Jaypāl of the *Sāhis* with which they were familiar. It is also significant that the last battle which destroyed the independence of the *Sāhis* should have been fought in the north of the Jhelum district, which is far removed from Kanauj. The Jhūsi plate only says that Trilocanapāla was the successor of Rājyapāla; that does not exclude the possibility of the latter having another son named Bhīmapāla. It should also be noted that Kalhaṇa, who shows such wide knowledge of the *Sāhis* during this period, does not mention the *Sāhi*, Bhīmapāla, and it is not impossible that al-Bīrūnī in describing him as a *Sāhi* prince may-have fallen into an error. In any case Nidar Bhīm (Bhīmapāla), son of Trilocanapāla, must be differentiated from Bhīmapāla, son (?) of Rājyapāla. See *IA*, Vol. XVIII, p. 34; *JRAS*, 1909, Part I, pp. 276-81; *EHI*, 1924, p. 398, fn. 1; Elliot, Vol. II, pp. 45, 47-49, 461-62. For further discussion about the relationship between Rājyapāla, and Bhīmapāla, see *infra*, chapter on the Gurjara-Pratīhāras.