The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c20.103

v1.c20.103

After the plunder and desecration of Kanauj, the city appears to have remained deserted by its inhabitants. Al-Bīrūnī, who wrote his *Indica* about 1030 A.D., describes it as "a very large town, but most of it is now in ruins and desolate, since the capital has been transferred thence to the city of Bārī, east of the Ganges. Between the two towns there is a distance of three to four days' marches."¹ It has been generally assumed from this that Rājyapāla after escaping from Kanauj established his capital at Bārī.² In any case Rājyapāla was not in Kanauj when in the following year Maḥmūd (410 A.H=1019 A.D)³ "turned again towards Hind with his bold warriors." We are told by 'Utbī that "he obtained a large amount of booty before he reached the river, known by the name of Rāhib (راهب)...... Barujaybāl (بروجيبال) was encamped on the other side of the river, as a measure of security in consequence of this sudden attack, with his warriors dusky as night, and his elephants all caparisoned. He showed a determination to resist the passage of the Sulṭān, but at night he was making preparations to escape down the river." The account then proceeds to say that at Maḥmūd's direction a detachment of his troops effected a landing on the opposite bank in spite of opposition. Encouraged by their success the rest of the army crossed the river, not without considerable difficulty, and put their enemy to flight. "Some of the infidels asked for mercy after being wounded, some were taken prisoners, some were killed, and the rest took to flight, and 270 gigantic elephants fell into the hands of the Musulmāns." There has been some difference of opinion about the identification of this Barūjaybāl. Niẓām ud-Dīn gives the name as Tarū-Jaypāl or Narū-Jaypāl, which seems to be clearly the same name as that given by 'Utbī.¹ *Barū* can very easily be transformed into *Tarū* or *Narū* in the Perso-Arabian script. It is difficult to say how the confusion first arose, but I think it is better to accept the contemporary text of 'Utbī. That Niẓām ud-Dīn was not free from mistakes is shown by the fact that he describes the battle as having taken place on the river Jūn (*i.e.*, Jumna), while 'Utbī clearly says that it was fought on the Rāhib.² The theory that Tarū-Jaypāl or Narū-Jaypāl must be differentiated from Barū-Jaybāl rests upon a statement of Niẓām ud-Dīn, who in giving Maḥmūd's reason for invading India in 410 A.H. writes: "It has been handed down, that when the Sulṭān heard that a *Rājā* of the name of Nandā ( نندا ) had slain the *Rājā* of Kannouj, because the latter had submitted and rendered allegiance to him he formed a strong resolution to destroy Nandā, and in the year 410 he again invaded Hindustan."³ Thus it is assumed that when Maḥmūd invaded India, the Kanauj king Rājyapāla,⁴ who ruled in 409 A.H., had been killed by Nandā whose name is taken to be a mistake for Gaṇḍa, the Candella ruler.¹ So the prince who opposed Maḥmūd on the Rāhib must have been his son Trilocanapāla.² Now so far as names are concerned the following table will, I hope, show that there is no inherent improbability that the name Trilocanapāla might be corrupted in Arabic script into Barū, Parū, Tarū, or Narū-Jaypāl: