The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c20.115

Language: English

v1.c20.115.1

But there are some strong objections to the supposition that all these names refer to one and the same person, *viz.*, Trilocanapāla. The name Barū-jaybāl first occurs in ‘Utbī’s account in connection with the description of Maḥmūd’s first expedition into the Ganges valley in 409 A. H.⁴ After describing the flight of Rājyapāla from Kanauj, he proceeds to give us the account of Maḥmūd’s subsequent conflicts in the same expedition with the other neighbouring princes. One of these was Chand Rāī and between him and Barū-jaybāl, we are told “there had been constant fights in which many men and warriors had fallen in the field;...at last they consented to peace, in order to save further bloodshed and invasion of their respective borders. Barū-jaybāl sought his old enemy’s daughter, that he might give her in marriage to his son Bhīmpāl, thus cementing the peace between them for ever, and preserving their swords within their sheaths. He sent his son to obtain the bride from Chand Rāī who imprisoned the son and demanded retribution for the losses which had been inflicted by the father.’¹ Now the author was here describing incidents which occurred before 410 A.H., and already by this time this Barū-jaybāl was to all appearances an independent prince and a contemporary of Rājyapāla with sons of marriageable age. This difficulty was probably present in the minds of S.

v1.c20.115.2

de Sacy and Elliot when they assumed this Barū-jaybāl to be identical with Rājaybāl or Rājyapāla.² The difference of the two names of course remains an obstacle in accepting the identification. But in Arabic ر is often written in MSS. as د and can readily be mistaken for a ب. It is not impossible that the initial ب was originally the Arabic preposition meaning ‘to, at or with,’ which was wrongly thought by the scribe to be a part of the name. The mistake thus started may have been perpetuated in all subsequent spellings of the name.³ In any case if we accept ‘Utbī’s account as real history it seems impossible that Barū-jaybāl should be identified with the son and successor of Rājyapāla though it is not impossible that he may have been a contemporary ruler of some other dynasty. But there is another objection. The Dubkhund stone-inscription of the Kacchapaghāta Vikramasiṁha dated in V.S. 1145 (A.D. 1188) tells us that his great-grandfather Arjuna, being “anxious to serve the illustrious Vidyādhara deva had fiercely slain in a great battle the illustrious Rājyapāla……”⁴ A Candella inscription from Mahoba tells us that Vidyādhara “caused the destruction of the king of Kanauj."'¹ These two inscriptions when jointly read leave us in no doubt that this Rājyapāla was the Gurjara-Pratīhāra king of Kanauj and the same ruler whose name is spelt by the Arab writer as Rājaybāl.

v1.c20.115.3

Thus Rājyapāla was a contemporary of the Candella Vidyādhara and the Kacchapaghāta Arjuna, and therefore alive at the time of Maḥmūd's second expedition against Kanauj when Nanda (Gaṇḍa ?), the father of Vidyādhara was still the Candella king.² So far as facts were available at the time, Prof. R. C. Mazumdar, I think, was right in describing as "gratuitous" the attempt to harmonise Niẓām ud-Dīn's account with the epigraphic evidence, by supposing Vidyādhara the destroyer of Rājyapāla to be the crown prince of Nanda (Gaṇḍa ?). But since he wrote I have come across the following account of these incidents in the Arabic history *Ta'rīkh ul-Kāmil* of Ibn ul-Athīr (died A.D. 1234): "In this year, 409,³ Yamīn ud-Daulah started on an expedition towards India, and he made larger preparations than he had done before. The reason of all this preparation was that when he had conquered Kanauj and its ruler, called the Rāy, had fled away ....and Maḥmūd returned to Ghazna, Bīdā (بيدا) the accursed, who was the greatest of the rulers of India in territory and had the largest armies, and whose territory was named Kajurāha (کجوراهه), sent messengers to the Rāy of Kanauj, who was named Rājaypāl (راجیپال) rebuking him for his flight and the surrender of his territories to the Musalmans. A long quarrel ensued between them, which resulted in hostilities;

v1.c20.115.4

and as each of them prepared to fight the other, they marched out and met and fought, and Rājaypāl was killed,⁴ and most of his soldiers also perished; and this success added to the mischief and refractoriness of Bīdā, and his fame spread throughout India. Then one of the rulers of India whose territory had been conquered by Yamīn ud-Daulah, and whose armies had been routed, went to Bīdā and entered his service and sought his protection. He (Bīdā) promised to restore to him his country and to protect him, but he made the coming of winter and the continuous fall of the rains an excuse. Now when this news reached Yamīn ud-Daulah he was disturbed and prepared for fight"...... [On his way from Ghazni he chastised the Afghans, passed through the narrow passes in their country, and gradually reached the Ganges and crossed it.] "After that he hastened on and on his way he heard about a king of India called Parūjaypāl (پوروجیپال). He fled before him and sought the shelter of Bīdā, so that the latter might protect him. Mahmūd traversed stages after stages and overtook Parūjaypāl and his followers on the 14th of Shaban; between him and the Hindus there was a deep river.¹ Some of his followers crossed the river and reached the enemy, and engaged him in battle.

v1.c20.115.5

Then he himself with the remainder of his army also crossed over, and they fought for the greater part of the day, and Parūjaypāl and his followers were defeated, a large number being slain and captured ......Their king fled, wounded, and he did not know what to do. So he sent a message to Yamīn ud-Daulah requesting peace. But Mahmūd refused and did not agree to any conditions except Islām, and slew innumerable of his soldiers. Barūjaypāl started to meet Bīdā, but some of the Hindus surprised him and killed him (Barūjaypāl)."²