The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c28.97

v2.c28.97

To return to our discussion of the epithet, "equalled even the powerful *Hamvīra*." The known dates of Dhaṅga (V.S. 1011-1059, *c.* 954-1002 A.D.) show that he was a contemporary of the Yamīnī Sulṭāns Sabuk-tigīn (A.D. 976-97), Ismā‘īl (A.D. 997) and Maḥmūd (A.D. 998-1030). It has been usually assumed by scholars that the *Hamvīra* referred to above must be identified with Sabuk-tigīn. They further assume that the Kalinjar ruler who according to Firishta 'supplied troops and money' to the Śāhi ruler Jayapāla must have been the Candella ruler Dhaṅga.² I have elsewhere tried to show that there are reasons to suspect the veracity of Firishta on this point.³ The silence of ‘Utbī, Ibn ul-Athīr, and Niẓām ud-Dīn appears to me to be rather significant. I have already pointed out that the last known date of Dhaṅga is V. S. 1059, and the earliest known date of his successors is 410 A.H.,⁴ so his death must have occurred sometime between *c.* 1002 and 1019 A.D.⁵ As he lived for more than a 'hundred autumns' (*Śaradāṁ śataṁ*)¹ it is not unlikely that he may have lived up to 1008 A.D., which date practically saw the downfall of the Sāhis. The defeat of Ānandapāla threw open the Ganges-Jumna valley to the inroads of the Yamīnī Amīrs. The shadow of the *Haṁvīra* fell beyond the waters of the Sutlej. The achievements of Maḥmūd only served to heighten the prestige of his arms. Under the circumstances, to compare Dhaṅga's prowess to that of the terrible *Haṁvīra* may have appeared to a late *praśastikāra*, writing at least a hundred years after that prince's death,² to be deserving of the highest reward. If Dhaṅga really fought and was defeated by the *Haṁvīra*, we should expect a discreet silence from the poets living at the court of his successors.