The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c20.31

Language: English

v1.c20.31.1

territory, penetrating as far south as Kerala. Such sudden raids by enemy kings were quite familiar features of Indian history up to comparatively recent times. The evidence of Rājaśekhara gains substantial support from the *Murūj ul-Zahab*, a work by the contemporary Arab traveller Mas‘ūdī (*c.* 890-956 A.D.).¹ The following relevant passages may be collected from his work. After referring to the Balharī kings of Mānkīr, he says; “one of the neighbouring kings of India, who is far from the sea, is Ba’ūrah, (بَوْرَة) who is lord of the city of Qanūj (قنوج). This is the title given to all the sovereigns of that kingdom. He has large armies in garrisons on the north and on the south, on the east and on the west, for he is surrounded on all sides by warlike kings.² After criticising Jāḥiẓ, who supposed that the river Mihrān (Indus) came from the Nile, Mas‘ūdī says that that author “did not know that Mihrān of Sind comes from well-known sources in the highlands of Sind, from the country belonging to Qanūj in the kingdom of Ba’ūrah and from Kashmīr, Kandahar, and aṭ-Ṭāfin……”³ Further on, in Chapter XVI, he tells us that “the king of Qanūj, who is one of the kings of Sind, is Ba’ūrah; this is the title common to all kings of Qanūj…This king has four armies according to the four quarters of the wind. Each of them numbers 700,000 or 900,000 men. The army of the north wars against the prince of Multan and with the Musulmāns his·subjects, on the frontier.

v1.c20.31.2

The army of the south fights against the Balharī, king of Mānkīr. The other two armies march to meet enemies in every direction.”⁴ It is clear from the passages quoted above that the territories of the king of Kanauj included some portions of the Punjab and Sind, and bordered on the dominions of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of the Deccan. As the date of Mas‘ūdī’s stay in India makes it almost certain that the king of Kanauj was Mahīpāla, his account gives us some idea of the power and prestige of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras during the period 912-16 A. D.¹ In waging a two-fold struggle with the Arabs of Sind and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of the Deccan, Mahīpāla was only carrying on the traditional policy of his family.² The evidence of Rājaśekhara and Mas‘ūdī is also corroborated by archaeological testimony. The find-spots of the Asni (in Fatehpur dist., U. P.), Haddala (in Eastern Kathiawar), Rakhetra (near Chanderi in Gwalior) and the Asiatic Society’s plate (which grants land in Vārāṇasī-*Viṣaya*) show that the dominions of Mahīpāla at least extended from Kathiawar to the borders of Bihar. Thus it is clear that Mahīpāla during the first part of his reign could with some exaggeration be called the *Āryāvarta-mahārājādhirāja*. By successive stages the Gurjara-Pratīhāras had succeeded in occupying an almost supreme position amongst the rulers of Northern India. But the position was no bed of roses.

v1.c20.31.3

The incipient hostility of the Pālas in the east and the powerful combination of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and the Arabs were perennial sources of danger. As Mas‘ūdī has pointed out, they had to maintain four mighty armies to meet “enemies in every direction.” The economic consequences of continuing such a struggle would have sapped the foundation of any empire, and the Gurjara empire was no exception to the operation of inexorable economic laws. The crash appears to have come soon after 915 A. D. Verse 19 of the Cambay plates of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Govinda IV contains the following passage about the northern expedition of Govinda’s father Indra III. “The courtyard (of the temple of the god) Kālapriya became uneven by the stroke of the tusks of his rutting elephants. His steeds crossed the unfathomable Yamunā, which rivals the sea (*Sindhu-prati-spardhinī*). He completely uprooted (*nirmmūlaṁ unmūlitam*) the hostile city of Mahodaya, which is even to-day greatly renowned among men by the name Kuśasthala.”¹ As “the god Kālapriya is generally identified with Mahākāla” of Ujjayinī, the passage suggests that Indra III proceeded in his northern expedition by way of Malwa. The statement of this inscription is further supported by some passages of the *Vikramārjuna-vijaya* of the Kanarese poet Pampa usually known as *Pampa-Bhārata*. This poem was composed in about *Śaka* 863 (941 A. D.) under the patronage of the Cālukya chief Arikesarin, a feudatory of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Govinda IV.

v1.c20.31.4

Pampa gives us the following information about the military achievements of Narasiṁha, the father of Arikesarin, who must have been a contemporary of Indra III. We are told that “when preparing for victory he captured the champion elephants which marched in front, and penetrating and putting to flight the army of the Ghūrjjara-rāja, secured the victory and eclipsed Vijaya (or Arjuna),—this Narasiṁha. Terrified at the army of this Naraga, which fell like a thunderbolt, Mahīpāla fled in consternation, not stopping to eat or sleep or rest. His own horse he bathed at the junction of the Ganges and the sea (*Gaṅgā-vārdhiyoḷ*), thus becoming celebrated; and by his own friend destroying the qualities and character of (?) Saṅga, established with pride the victory of his arm.”² Though the meaning and reference in the latter part of this passage are not clear, yet it is evident that the poet was apparently referring to the achievements of his patron's father, who must have accompanied his sovereign Indra III when the latter overran northern India. The exact date of this victory of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas cannot be settled; but it appears to have happened some time between 915 and 918 A.D. For the Nausari grant of Indra III which is dated in 915 A.D., contains no reference to these victories; and the Daṇḍapur stone inscription of his son Govinda IV shows that he was dead sometime before 23rd December, 918.¹ The defeat of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras appears to have been complete;

v1.c20.31.5

but the Rāṣṭrakūṭas could not take full advantage of their victory because of the confusion in which they were involved after the death of Indra III. Amoghavarṣa II, who succeeded his father, was probably killed and dethroned by his younger brother Govinda IV, and the latter in his turn, "being caught in the chains of the eyes of women," took to "vicious courses" and met his destruction.² It is however likely that Govinda IV retained some hold on the Gaṅgā-Yamunā valley till about the 10th May, 930 A.D., the date of his Cambay plates. For in verse 28 of that inscription "the Gaṅgā and Yamunā are mentioned as doing service in the palace of Govinda IV." But there is unquestioned epigraphic evidence to show that the Gurjara-Pratīhāras recovered a substantial portion of their dominions, probably by taking advantage of this weakness of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa power. The Asiatic Society's plate of Vināyakapāla (*alias* Mahīpāla ?), which was issued from Mahodaya, shows that *Vārāṇasī-Viṣaya* in the *Pratiṣṭhāna-Bhukti*, was still under the Gurjaras in 988 V.S. (931 A.D.). The Rakhetra stone inscription of the same prince shows that the Gwalior region was under him in V.S. 999-1000 (A.D. 942-43). In his attempts to recover his dominions Mahīpāla appears to have been helped by a number of his feudatories.

v1.c20.31.6

One of the Candella fragmentary stone inscriptions of Khajuraho claims that either Harṣa or his son Yaśovarman placed Kṣitipāla on the throne.¹ The Guhila prince Bhaṭṭa, who appears to have been a contemporary of Mahīpāla, is credited in V. 26 of the Chatsu inscription of Bālāditya with having defeated the armies of the kings of the south at the behest of his overlord.² It is not unlikely, as has been suggested, that "the kings of the south were no other than the chiefs of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa army by defeating whom king Mahīpāla regained his territories."³ There is therefore some incontestable evidence that Mahīpāla succeeded in recovering a portion of his dominions with the assistance of his feudatories. There is nothing to shew what the limits of his revived empire were. But there is every reason to believe that the blow inflicted by the Rāṣṭrakūṭas helped to bring about a new relationship between the imperial government and its vassals which in the end proved fatal to it. Thus, though many of the subordinate kings still acknowledged the supremacy of the imperial power in their official documents, they resisted by physical force every attempt of the sovereign to exert any real authority over them. The best example of this state of things is found in the records of the Candellas. Though Dhaṅga retains the name of Vināyakapāla, apparently a Gurjara king, in his inscription even as late as A.D.

v1.c20.31.7

954, he none the less described his father Yaśovarman as having been "a scorching fire to the Gurjaras."⁴