The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c20.132

v1.c20.132

Another problem that is solved is the question about the causes that induced Maḥmūd to invade India about 410 A.H. On the authority of Niẓām ud-Dīn it was assumed by V. A. Smith that Rājyapāla was killed by an ‘alliance’ of Hindu states for submitting to Maḥmūd. The latter says he "was furious when he heard at Ghazni of the punishment inflicted upon the prince whom he regarded as a feudatory, and resolved to take a speedy vengeance on the audacious confederates."¹ Smith disregarded 'Utbī, who assigned no other reason for this expedition except ambition and love of plunder. Nowhere again does 'Utbī say that Rājyapāla after he escaped from Kanauj submitted to Maḥmūd. Now Ibn ul-Athīr makes it clear that the attack on Rājyapāla by Vidyādhara was to punish the former for his flight and surrender of his territories to the ravages of the Muḥammadans, and not for becoming a feudatory of the Yamīnīs. He also makes it evident that the cause of that expedition of Maḥmūd was not Vidyādhara's attack on the Kanauj prince but because of the Candella prince's intention of attacking the territory conquered and annexed by Maḥmūd in India. The third point that appears to be solved is the question of the identification of Barūjaybāl. I have already pointed out that 'Utbī represents him to be a prince who ruled synchronously with Rājyapāla. Thus though there was no inherent objection, so far as the name Trilocanapāla was concerned, in identifying him with Barūjaybāl, this fact appears to present an insurmountable difficulty. Another difficulty is added by Ibn ul-Athīr, according to whom Parūjaypāl was killed during the expedition of Maḥmūd undertaken in 409 A.H. (410 A.H. ?), (1019 A.D). If this is accepted Parūjaypāl cannot be the same as Trilocanapāla, who in the Jhusi inscription, dated in V.S. 1048 (A.D. 1027) 'meditated on the feet' of Rājyapāla. As Ibn ul-Athīr tells us that Parūjaypāl was killed after the death of Rājyapāla it seems that there is left no other alternative but to regard him as a prince of a separate dynasty. I would however in conclusion draw the attention of scholars to one significant fact. After referring to the death of Parūjaypāl, Ibn ul-Athīr says: "After this event Yamīn ud-Daulah started towards the city of Bārī, which is one of the strongest fortresses; and he found it deserted by its inhabitants and razed to the ground. He ordered its (complete) destruction......'"¹ Now we have already shown that certain scholars basing themselves on the statement of Bīrūnī, held that Rājyapāla after escaping from Kanauj set up his capital at Bārī. Though neither Bīrūnī, 'Utbī, Ibn ul-Athīr, nor any other later authority distinctly says that Bārī was the capital of either Rājyapāla or of Barūjaybāl, yet from the way Ibn ul-Athīr mentions the city of Bārī it is possible to connect him with that city. Possession of the city would tend to indicate relationship with the line of Rājyapāla. This may drive us to assume the existence of another prince between Rājyapāla and Trilocanapāla. The epithet *tat-pādānudhyāta* does not necessarily indicate immediate succession. Barūjaybāl may have been either a rival brother or an usurper belonging to the same family, who for a time captured the capital by taking advantage of the confusion which was then prevailing in the Gurjara-Pratīhāra kingdom.