The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c33: Chapter XVII. The Tomaras (Tuars) of Delhi

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c33

Language: English

Chapter XVII. The Tomaras (Tuars) of Delhi

v2.c33.2

The Tomaras¹ are recognised as one of the 36 celebrated Rajput tribes. According to the bardic tradition, ‘Anangpal Tuar’ founded Delhi in V.S. 792 (A.D. 736)² and established the Tomara dynasty, which came to an end when the 20th prince, another Anangapāla, abdicated in favour of his grandchild the Cauhān Pṛthvīrāja (*c.* 1182-92 A.D.).³ It is difficult to estimate the element of truth in this tradition. But the statement that Delhi passed under Cāhamāna control in the reign of Pṛthvīrāja is certainly wrong. The Delhi Siwalik pillar-inscriptions of Vīsaladeva-Vigraharāja IV of Sākambharī show that Delhi was already under the rule of the Cāhamānas in 1164 A.D.⁴ It is however likely that the Tomaras were in control of the region round Delhi before Vīsaladeva conquered it in the middle of the 12th century. A Delhi Museum inscription dated in 1328 A.D. in the reign of Muḥammad Tughluq⁵ (1325-51 A.D.), tells us:

v2.c33.3

¹ Also known as *Tuar* and *Tonwar*; see *AR*, Vol. I, p. 104.

v2.c33.4

² *CMI*, p. 81; Tod gives the date as S. 848 (A.D. 792). See *AR*, Vol. I, p. 104. According to Ibn Baṭūṭa ‘Delhi is the old city built by idolators’: *Elliot*, Vol. III, p. 589.

v2.c33.5

³ *AR*, Vol. I, pp. 88, 104 ff.

v2.c33.6

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XIX, p. 218. See also *DHNI*, Vol. II, *supra*, p. 1076.

v2.c33.7

⁵ Edited by Eggeling, *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 93-95.

v2.c33.8

“There is a country called Hariyāna,⁶ a very heaven on earth: there lies the city called Dhillikā⁷ built by the Tomaras.

v2.c33.9

⁶ Identified by Kielhorn with mod. Hariyana in the Hissar district of the Punjab.

v2.c33.10

⁷ Mod. Delhi. Dhillī-pura ‘“was renowned under the name of Yoginīpura,” see *JASB*, Vol. XLIII, Part I, pp. 106 and 109; also *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 1094. But see *EI*, XXI, 281.

v2.c33.11

Wherein, subsequent to the Tomaras, the Cāhamāna kings intent on protecting their subjects established a kingdom, in which all enemies of public order were struck down.

v2.c33.12

Thereupon the *mleccha* Sahāvadīna,¹ having burnt down the forest of hostile tribes by the fire of his valour, seized that city by force."

v2.c33.13

¹ Shihāb ud-Dīn Ghūrī (died March 15, 1206 A.D.).

v2.c33.14

The Palam Baoli² inscription dated in V.S. 1337 (*c.* 1280) in the reign of Balban (1266-87 A.D.) also says:

v2.c33.15

² From the village of ‘Boher’ in the Rohtak district, Punjab. Hence sometimes called *Boher Palam Baoli inscription*.

v2.c33.16

“The land of Hariyānaka was first enjoyed by the Tomaras and then by the Cauhāṇas. It is now ruled by the Śaka kings.

First came Sāhavadīna, then came Khuduvadīna,³ then Asamasadīna,⁴ then Pheruja-sāhi,⁵ became king.”⁶

v2.c33.17

³ Quṭb ud-Dīn Aibak (1206-1210 A.D.)

v2.c33.18

⁴ Shams ud-Dīn Iltutmish (1211-36 A.D.).

v2.c33.19

⁵ Rukn ud-Dīn Fīrūz (1236 A.D.).

v2.c33.20

⁶ Edited by R. L. Mitra, *JASB*, Vol. XLIII, pp. 104-10; see also *EI*, Vol V, Appendix, p. 34, No. 238.

v2.c33.21

On the basis of these inscriptions we may perhaps conclude that the Cāhamāna Vīsaladeva conquered Delhi from the Tomaras sometime before 1164 A.D. and that it was the Tomaras who really founded Delhi. The capture of Delhi by Vīsaladeva in the middle of the 12th century was probably the culmination of a series of struggles between the Tomaras and Cāhamānas. This is revealed by the Harṣa stone-inscription of Vigraharāja, dated in V.S. 1030 (A.D. 973).⁷ We are told that his great-grandfather Candana (*c.* 900 A.D.) secured the fortune of victory by slaying on the battlefield the proud Tomara lord (*Tomareśa*), king (*bhūpa*) *Rudrena*.⁸ The struggle between Tomara and Cāhamāna did not apparently cease with the death of Rudrena. For we are told further on in the same inscription that Siṁharāja (*c.* 950 A.D.) Vigraharāja's father, defeated another Tomara leader (*Tomara-nāyaka*).⁹

v2.c33.22

⁷ *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 116ff. See also *DHNI*, Vol. II, *supra*, pp. 1164-66.

v2.c33.23

⁸ *Rudrapāla*? See *EI*, Vol. V, p. 7, No. 44.

v2.c33.24

⁹ See *EI*, Vol. II, p. 121, fn. 34, and p. 127, V. 19. It must be clearly understood that my assumption of the connection of these Tomaras with Delhi is mere guess. There is no definite proof.

v2.c33.25

An earlier inscription which seems to show the settlement of Tomaras in the Karnal district of the Punjab is the undated Pehowa¹ *praśasti* of the Pratīhāra emperor Mahendrapāla (*c.* 893-907 A.D.).² Verses 6-19 of this record gives the following account of a local Tomara family who were apparently feudatories or officials of the Pratīhāra emperors. The pedigree of the family is given as follows:—

v2.c33.26

¹ Ancient Pṛthūdaka, in Kurukṣetra. It is situated in Lat. 29° 59'N and Long. 76° 35'E, in Kaithal *tahsil*, Karnal district, 16 miles west of Thaneswar; *IGI*, Vol. XX, p. 100.

v2.c33.27

² *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 242 ff.

v2.c33.28

In the exalted Tomara-vaṁśa.

*Rājā* Jāula (Vs. 6-8)
:
Vajraṭa = Maṅgaladevī (Vs. 9-10).
|
Nāyikā = Jajjuka = Candrā
(Vs. 11-13)
| |
. . . . . |
| | |
Pūrṇarāja Devarāja Gogga (V. 14)...*bhūnātha*.
(Vs. 15-16) (Vs. 17-19)

v2.c33.29

As Jāula is called a *rājā* and is said to have ‘obtained prosperity by looking after the affairs of a king,’ it is possible that he was either a petty feudatory chief or a high official, in the employment of some powerful king. The identity of this sovereign is very doubtful, as we do not know how many generations intervened between him and the next mentioned prince, Vajraṭa. But from the statement that his race continued to be the ‘home of joyful prospering intimates of princes’ we may perhaps conclude that the successors of Jāula continued to prosper. Vajraṭa, we are told, ‘gained a lofty exaltation through the most pure business transactions.’ It seems likely from the subsequent description of the record that Jajjuka with his three sons entered the military service of their sovereign. We are next told that Jajjuka’s three sons founded at Pṛthūdaka, on the bank of the Sarasvatī, a triple temple of Viṣṇu, in the reign of Mahendrapāla.

v2.c33.30

This inscription seems to show that these Tomaras were settled in the Karnal area and were in the employ of the Pratīhāra emperor Mahendrapāla. But, as Kielhorn noticed¹ long ago, it is impossible to be positive, "for Pṛthūdaka was a place of so great sanctity, that even pious men from distant countries may have built temples there; and if strangers did so, their inscriptions as a matter of course would mention the ruling king of the country." It is again impossible to venture any definite opinion about the relationship of these Tomaras with the Tomaras of Delhi who were defeated by the Cāhamānas. But in view of epigraphic fact and bardic tradition, which connect the Tomaras with Delhi, we may perhaps be allowed to guess that members of Jāula's family were residents of the area formerly known as the Delhi Division of the Punjab.

v2.c33.31

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 244.

v2.c33.32

From the above discussion we may conclude that the Tomaras were settled in the district round Delhi from at least the 9th century A.D. During the reign of Bhoja (*c.* 836-82 A.D.) and Mahendrapāla (*c.* 893-907 A.D.) they came into the orbit of the mighty Pratīhāra empire.² But soon after, about the beginning of the 10th century, as the Pratīhāra power began to decline, a section of the tribe probably founded an independent principality round Delhi.³ With the rise of the Cāhamānas of Sākambharī they soon came into conflict with them. The struggle practically ended with the capture of Delhi by Vīsaladeva some time before 1164 A.D.

v2.c33.33

² The Delhi fragmentary stone-inscription of Bhoja was found incised on a small piece of stone built into the 9th step inside the *Pāṇḍavān-kā kilā* : *Rajputana Museum Report*, 1924, p. 3. In the opinion of some scholars this shows that the Tomoras ruled in Delhi after the Pratīhāras. I agree with them if they mean by 'rule,' rule as sovereigns.

v2.c33.34

³ According to an authority cited by Raverty in A. D. 993-4. But other dates are also recorded : *see* *OH*, 1923, p. 196, fn. 1.

v2.c33.35

If these conclusions are correct, it seems likely that before the middle of the 12th century the Tomaras had to dispute with the Muslim invaders the passage of the ‘Delhi gate.’ The king of Delhi who tried to prevent Maḥmūd of Ghazni's sack of Thanesar in A.D. 1014,¹ was very possibly a Tomara. Another occasion when the Tomaras appear to have come into conflict with the Yamīnīs was when Majdūd, the brother of Maudūd (1040-49 A.D.), captured Thanesar and was waiting about 1041-42 A.D. at Hansi for an opportunity to attack Delhi.²

v2.c33.36

¹ *TF*, Trans. by Briggs, Vol. 1, pp. 62ff.; see also *CHI*, Vol. III, p. 18. If there is any foundation in Firishta's statement that the prince of Delhi helped Ānandapāla against Maḥmūd in 1008 A.D. (*DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 91-92) that prince must also be assumed to be a Tomara: *TF*, *ibid*, p. 46.

v2.c33.37

² *CHI*, Vol. III, p. 32.

v2.c33.38

Before we conclude this meagre account of the Tomaras of Delhi we must take note of the following 5 kings whose names with approximate dates have been placed by Cunningham under the caption ‘Tomaras of Delhi and Kanauj:’

v2.c33.39

1. Sallakṣaṇapāla-deva (*c.* 978-1003 A.D.).
2. Ajayapāla-deva (*c.* 1003-19 A.D.).
3. Kumārapāla-deva (*c.* 1019-49 A.D.).
4. Anaṅgapāla-deva (*c.* 1049-79 A.D.).
5. Mahīpāla-deva (*c.* 1103-1128 A.D.).

v2.c33.40

Their names were all taken from legends of coins which are of the usual ‘Bull and horseman’ or the ‘Seated goddess’ type.³ I do not know the reason that led him to identify them with the Tomaras. His attempt to prove that the ‘Bauüra’ king of Kanauj mentioned by the Arab chroniclers were ‘Tovara or Tomara’ princes is hardly convincing.⁴ I have shewn elsewhere⁵ that ‘Bauüra’ probably was a corrupt form of the word ‘Pratīhāra,’ members of which dynasty ruled in Kanauj at the time of the visit of the Arab writers mentioned above.⁶ In support of the identification of one of these princes, named Anaṅgapāla, some feeble evidence seems to be contained in the bardic tradition about the three Tomara princes of that name¹ and the statement of Amīr Khusrau² that he "heard a story that in Delhi about five or six hundred years ago, there was a great *Rāī* called Anangpāl."³ Cunningham identified this Anangpāl of Amīr Khusrau with the traditional founder of Delhi, and the Anaṅgapāla of the coins with the second prince of that name in the bardic lists of the Rajputs.⁴

v2.c33.41

³ For these coins see *CMI*, p. 85; *CCIM*, pp. 256, 259-60.

v2.c33.42

⁴ *CMI*, p. 80.

v2.c33.43

⁵ See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, chapter on the Dynastic History of Sind, pp. 4, fn. 3, 15, *etc*.

v2.c33.44

⁶ Mas‘ūdī (943 A.D.); *Elliot*, Vol. I, pp. 22-23. Read with this the statement of Sulaimān (*c.* 916 A.D.) about the king of Jurz, *ibid*, pp. 4-5.

v2.c33.45

¹ *CMI*, p. 84.

v2.c33.46

² Died 1325 A.D.

v2.c33.47

³ *Elliot*, Vol. III, p. 565; Cunningham (*CMI*, p. 81) finds a verification of the date of Anaṅgapāla I given by the bards and Khusrau in the inscription on the Iron Pillar of Delhi: *(G ?) Sam 418 (A.D. 736) Raja Tunwar Ādi Anang*. But neither Kielhorn nor Bhandarkar refer to this inscription in their list of Northern inscriptions, *EI*, Vols. V, VIII and XX.

Linked texts (1)

Iron pillar of Delhi