The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c28.75

Language: English

v2.c28.75.1

" 'While the illustrious Vināyakapāladeva is protecting the earth, the earth is not taken possession of by the enemies, who have been annihilated.'"² This statement undoubtedly shows that up to 954-55 A. D., the Candellas retained in their public documents a formal, if nominal, recognition of the imperial line at Kanauj. But it is significant that the names of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra rulers do not occur again in any Candella document after this date, indicating that after 954-55 Dhaṅga became a sovereign ruler *de facto* and *de jure*. The expression 'as far as Kālañjara' which occurs in the quotation cited above shows that up to the date of the inscription the capital of the Candellas was situated not in that hill-fort but in some other city. That this city was Khajraho is probably indicated by an epigraph of Dhaṅga which is dated "in (V.)S. 1059 at Śrī-Kharjjuravāhaka in the realm of Dhaṅga".¹ This is further supported by the *Kāmil* of Ibn ul-Athīr, which refers to Dhaṅga's grandson as ruler of Kajurāha.² It is also significant that the earliest inscriptions of the Candellas including those of Dhaṅga, came from Khajraho and not from Kālañjara³ or Mahoba. It should be noted however that as early as (V.) S. 1055 Dhaṅga is given the epithet *Kālañjarādhipati*.⁴ This may indicate that Kālañjara was regarded as a sort of second capital of the kingdom.

v2.c28.75.2

But it is more probable that the epithet simply indicates the possession of one of the strongest hill-forts of India,⁵ which in an age ignorant of artillery, made his position almost impregnable. The strategic importance of this hill was well-known in India at this time, and the Kalacuris, the Gurjara-Pratīhāras, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and the Candellas tried in succession to retain their hold on its fortifications. The possession of this fortress, as well as that of Gwalior must have consolidated the position of the Candellas in Central India and encouraged them to attempt the systematic conquest of portions of the Ganges valley. Yaśovarman is already said to have encamped his troops on the banks of the Ganges. The Nanyaura plate of Dhaṅga which was issued from Kāśikā (Benares), shows that this was no idle boast, and that in V.S. 1055 the Candellas were certainly on the Ganges.⁶ The possession of Prayāga (Allahabad) by Dhaṅga is probably indicated by the fact that he is reported to have 'entered into beatitude' by abandoning his body in the waters of the Jāhnavī, and the *Kālindī*.¹ It is not unlikely that from these bases Dhaṅga may have penetrated further eastward in the Ganges valley.

v2.c28.75.3

A Khajraho epigraph tells us that the wives of ‘the kings of Kāñcī, Andhra, Rāḍhā, and Aṅga lingered in his prisons.’² Another verse of the same inscription says that ‘he was so powerful that the rulers of Kośala, Kratha,³ Siṁhala and Kuntala humbly listened to his commands.’⁴ It is therefore possible that he may have even successfully raided some portions of peninsular India. In any case there is enough evidence to show that Dhaṅga had become one of the most powerful rulers of Central India during this period. One of the Candella inscriptions goes so far as to say that he, having defeated on the battlefield the *Kānyakubja-narendra*, obtained exalted sovereignty (or empire, *Sāmrājya*).⁵ If true, this statement shows that the hegemony which the rulers of Kanauj so long enjoyed in Northern India was at last taken away from them by the Candellas during the reign of Dhaṅga. But as ‘Utbī in 409 A.H. (1018 A.D.) describes the Kanauj ruler Rājyapāla as ‘the chief of all princes of India,’⁶ we must conclude that the halo of imperialism still lingered over the brow of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras for at least sometime after Dhaṅga’s death. The accepted interpretation of another statement about Dhaṅga also appears to me to be doubtful.

v2.c28.75.4

A fragmentary Candella inscription discovered at Mahoba thus describes his achievements: “……Dhaṅga, who caused the destruction of his enemies, and who by the strength of his arms equalled even the powerful Hamvīra, who had proved a heavy burden for the earth......”¹ The word *Haṃvīra* is apparently a corruption of the Arabic word Amīr (امير, Commander, leader), derived from the root Amr (امر, command). The word *Amīr* in this sense is found in Islamic history in the title *Amīr ul-mu'minīn*, *i.e.*, ‘lord of the faithful’ which became a regular title of the Caliphs since the days of ‘Umar.² The term gradually came to be applied to kings, and later on to any high official of the state. The coins of the Yamīnīs of Ghazni show that they were known by the title of *Amīr*.³ Stein has shown that the *Hammīra* of Kalhaṇa, who was a contemporary of Sāhi Trilocanapāla and the Kashmirian king Saṃgrāmarāja (1003-28 A.D.) must be identified with Mahmud of Ghazni.

v2.c28.75.5

Thus *Hammīra* appears to be another Indian corruption of the Arabic word *Amīr*.⁴ That this is the correct interpretation is proved by the Sanskrit legend on the reverse of some of the gold coins of Muhammad ibn Sām, which runs as follows:—*Śrīmad Hamīra Mahamad Sām*.⁵ From this time onwards up to the reign of Balban the epithet *Śrī-Hamīra* (*Śrī-Hamīra* or *Śrī-Hammīra*) occurs as the regular designation of the Ghūrī and Delhi Sulṭāns in their coins and inscriptions.⁶ The epithet also occurs on the coins of some of their provincial satraps.⁷ There is no doubt therefore that *Hammīra* *Hamīra*, or *Haṃvīra* was to the Indians the accepted title for a Muhammadan prince at least during the period *c.* 1000-1300 A.D. But this word may have even a longer history. It is not unlikely that it came to acquire this meaning from the middle of the 9th century A.D., when the Arab chiefs of Sind became practically independent and assumed the title of *Amīr*.¹