Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c31: Chronology of the Seventh Century

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c31

Language
English

Contents

Chronology of the Seventh Century

c31.1

| A. D. | EVENT. |
| 600 | Hiuen Tsang, Chinese pilgrim, born. |
| *c.* 600 | Persecution of Buddhism by Śaśāṅka. |
| 605 | Rājya-vardhana, Rāja of Thānēsar, *acc.* |
| 606 | Harsha-vardhana, Rāja of Thānēsar, *acc.* |
| 606–12 | Conquest of Northern India by Harsha. |
| 608 | Pulakeśin II Chalukya, *acc.* |
| 609 | Pulakeśin II Chalukya, crowned. |
| Oct. 612 | Harsha crowned; his era established, as from 606. |
| 615 | Kubja Vishṇu-vardhana (Vishamasiddhi), viceroy of Vengī. |
| 618 | Kao-tsu, first T'ang emperor of China, *acc.* |
| 619–20 | Ganjām inscription of Śaśāṅka. |
| *c.* 620 | Defeat of Harsha by Pulakeśin II Chalukya. |
| 622 | Muhammadan era of the Hijra or 'flight'. |
| 627 | T'ai Tsung, emperor of China, *acc.* |
| 628–9 | Banskhera inscription of Harsha. |
| 629 | Hiuen Tsang began his travels. |
| 629 | Accession of Srong-tsan-Gampo, king of Tibet. |
| 630–1 | Madhuban inscription of Harsha. |
| *c.* 635 | Conquest of Valabhī by Harsha. |
| 636 | Nestorian Christianity introduced into China by Alopen. |
| 641 | Harsha sent embassy to China; king Srong-tsan-Gampo of Tibet married Chinese princess Wen-cheng;¹ Sassanian king Yezdegird defeated by the Arabs at Nahavend; Arab conquest of Egypt. |
| 642 | Death of Pulakeśin II Chalukya. |
| 643 | Harsha's expedition to Ganjām; his meeting with Hiuen Tsang; Chinese mission of Li-I-piao and Wang-hiuen-t'se; Harsha's assemblies at Kanauj and Prayāga; Hiuen Tsang started on return journey. |
| 645 | Arrival of Hiuen Tsang in China. |
| 646 | Dispatch of second mission of Wang-hiuen-t'se. |
| 647 | Death of Harsha. |
| 647–8 | Usurpation of (?) Arjuna and his defeat by Chinese, Nepalese, and Tibetans; publication of Hiuen Tsang's *Travels*. |
| 649 | Death of T'ai Tsung, emperor of China; Kao-tsung, *acc.* |
| 657 | Third mission of Wang-hiuen-t'se. |
| 661–5 | Greatest extension of Chinese dominions. |
| 664 | Death of Hiuen Tsang. |
| 670 | Defeat of Chinese by Tibetans. |
| 671 | I-tsing, Chinese pilgrim, began his travels. |
| 675–85 | I-tsing resided at Nālandā. |
| 691 | I-tsing composed his *Record*. |
| 695 | I-tsing returned to China. |
| *c.* 698 | Death of Srong-tsan-Gampo, king of Tibet. |

c31.2

¹ Date of marriage according to Waddell and Sarat Chandra Dās.

c31.3

CHAPTER XIV

c31.4

THE MEDIAEVAL KINGDOMS OF THE NORTH

c31.5

FROM A.D. 647 TO 1200

I

c31.s1.1

*Relations with China and Tibet*

c31.s1.2

THE tenacity of the Chinese government in holding on to the most distant possessions of the empire has been exemplified in recent times by the recovery of Kāshgaria and Yunnan from Muhammadan powers, and of Kulja from the Russians. The history of the seventh and eighth centuries offers many illustrations of the same characteristic, and exhibits China as making the most determined efforts to exercise influence in, and assert suzerainty over, the countries on the northern frontier of India.

c31.s1.3

In the first half of the sixth century the power of China in the 'Western countries' had vanished, and the Ephthalites, or White Huns, ruled a vast empire, which included Kāshgaria—the 'Four Garrisons' of Chinese writers—Kashmīr,¹ and Gandhāra, the region near Peshāwar.

c31.s1.4

¹ Ki-pin, which term was usually understood to mean Kashmīr by Chinese writers of the sixth century, in the time of the Wei dynasty (Chavannes, *Song Yun*, p. 37).

c31.s1.5

About the year 565 ('between 563 and 567') the Ephthalite dominion passed into the hands of the Western Turks and Persians; but the grasp of the latter power on the provinces south of the Oxus soon relaxed, and the Turks became the heirs of the Ephthalites in the whole of their territory as far as the Indus. Accordingly, in A.D. 630, when Hiuen Tsang was on his way to India, his safety was assured by passports granted by Tong-she-hū, the 'Kazan', or supreme chief of the Western Turks, which guaranteed him protection as far as Kapisa.²

c31.s1.6

² Ki-pin, which ordinarily meant Kapiśa, the country to the north of the Kābul river, for Chinese writers of the seventh century, in the time of the T'ang dynasty.

c31.s1.7

In the same year the pilgrim’s powerful protector was assassinated, and the Chinese, under the guidance of the emperor T'ai-tsung, the second prince of the Tang dynasty, inflicted upon the Northern or Eastern Turks a defeat so decisive that the vanquished became slaves to the Chinese for fifty years.

c31.s1.8

When relieved from fear of the Northern Turks, the Chinese were able to turn their arms against the western tribes, and in the years 640–8 succeeded in occupying Turfān, Kara-shahr, and Kuchā, thus securing the northern road of communication between the East and West.

c31.s1.9

At this time Tibet was under the rule of the famous king, Srong-tsan-Gampo (acc. A. D. 629), who founded Lhāsa in A. D. 639, introduced Buddhism into his country, and, with the help of Indian scholars, devised the Tibetan alphabet.¹ While still very young he married Bhrikuti, a daughter of the king of Nepāl, and two years later, in A. D. 641, he succeeded with much difficulty in winning by his victories the hand of the princess Wen-cheng, daughter of the Chinese emperor, T'ai-tsung. Both these ladies being zealous Buddhists, converted their young husband, and so determined the whole course of Tibetan history. The Church has not been slow to recognize the merit of its patrons. The king has been deified as an incarnation of Buddha, Avalokitesvara, the Saviour, while his Nepalese consort is revered as the ‘Green Tārā’ and the Chinese princess as the ‘White Tārā’. The Chinese marriage secured the maintenance of friendly relations between Tibet and China during the life of Srong-tsan-Gampo, which ended, according to most authorities, in or about A. D. 698, but may possibly have come to a close several years earlier. In consequence, the Chinese envoys, in the years 643–5, when on their way to the court of Harsha, were able to pass through Tibet and its dependency Nepāl as allied countries, and both those kingdoms willingly sent troops to rescue Wang-Hiuen-tse from the troubles into which he fell after Harsha’s death.¹

c31.s1.10

¹ The Tibetan alphabet really is that of Khotan, learned by Thon-mi Sambhota in Kashmir from a learned Brahman of Khotan (*Ep. Ind.*, xi, 266; Hoernle, *Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature from E. Turkestan*, Clarendon Press, 1916, p. xvii). According to tradition, Khotan came under Tibetan rule in the seventh century.

c31.s1.11

¹ Sarat Chandra Dās (*J.A.S.B.*, vol. i, pt. i (1881), pp. 217–22); Waddell, *The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism* (1895), pp. 20–4. The dates of the Tibetan historians for the birth of Srong-tsan Gampo range from A. D. 600 to 617, but the latter date seems to be correct, and is accepted by M. L. de Milloué. That author states that Srong-tsan Gampo married both the Nepalese and Chinese princesses between A. D. 628 and 631. Waddell and Sarat Chandra Dās agree on the date 641 (L. de Milloué, *Bod-Youl ou Tibet*, Paris, 1906, pp. 139, 164–6). The Chinese pretend that they defeated the Tibetans, but the emperor would never have given the princess in marriage to a defeated enemy. Chinese authors habitually represent defeats as victories. There is a good sketch of Tibetan history by Sir R. Temple in *Ind. Ant.*, 1916, pp. 38–41, 47, being part of an article ‘Outlines of Indo-Chinese History’, which is important.

c31.s1.12

The work of subduing the Turks, begun by the emperor T‘ai-tsung, was continued by his successor Kao-tsung (649–83), and, by the year 659, China was nominally mistress of the entire territory of the Western Turks, which was then formally annexed. In 661–5 China enjoyed unparalleled prestige, and had reached a height of glory never again attained. Kapisa (Ki-pin) was a province of the empire, and the imperial retinue included ambassadors from Udyāna, or the Suwāt valley, and from all the countries extending from Persia to Korea.

c31.s1.13

But this magnificent extension of the empire did not last long. A terrible defeat inflicted by the Tibetans in 670 deprived China of Kāshgaria, or the ‘Four Garrisons’, which remained in the hands of the victors until A. D. 692, when the province was recovered by the Chinese.

c31.s1.14

Between 682 and 691 the Northern Turks had regained a good deal of the power which had been shattered by the defeat of 630, and even exercised a certain amount of control over the western tribes. But internal dissension was at all times the bane of the Central Asian nations, and the Chinese well knew how to take advantage of the national failing. They intervened in the tribal quarrels, with the support of the Uigurs and Karluks, with such effect that in 744 the Uigurs established themselves on the Orkhon in the eastern part of the Turkish territory; while, on the west, the Karluks gradually occupied the country of the Ten Tribes, and took possession of Tokmak and Talas, the former residences of the Turkish chiefs, to the west of Lake Issyk-kūl.

c31.s1.15

Between 665 and 715 the government of China was unable to interfere effectually in the affairs of the countries between the Jaxartes (Syr Daryā) and the Indus ; the southern route to the west through Kāshgaria having been closed by the Tibetans, and the roads over the Hindū Kush blocked by the conquests of Kotaiba, the Arab general, who was busily engaged in spreading the religion of the Prophet throughout Central Asia.

c31.s1.16

The accession of the emperor Hiuen-tsung, in 713, marks a revival of Chinese activity ; and determined efforts were made by means of both diplomacy and arms to keep open the Pāmīr passes, and to check the ambition of the Arabs and Tibetans, who sometimes combined. In 719, Samarkand and other kingdoms invoked the aid of China against the armies of Islam ; while the Arab leaders sought to obtain the co-operation of the minor states on the Indian borderland. The chiefs of Udyāna (Suwāt), Khottal (west of Badakshān), and Chitrāl, having refused to listen to Muslim blandishments, were rewarded by the emperor of China with letters patent conferring on each the title of king ; and a similar honour was bestowed upon the rulers of Yasin (Little Po-lu), Zabulistan (Ghaznī), Kapisa, and Kashmīr. China made every effort to organize these frontier kingdoms, so as to form an effective barrier against both Arabs and Tibetans. Chandrāpīda, king of Kashmīr, received investiture as king from the emperor in 720, and his brother Muktāpīda-Lalitāditya was similarly honoured in 733.

c31.s1.17

A few years later—in 744 and 747—Chinese influence had been so far extended that the emperor granted titles to the king of Tabaristān, south of the Caspian. In the latter year a Chinese army crossed the Pāmīrs, in spite of all difficulties, and reduced the king of Yasin to subjection.

c31.s1.18

But, as in the seventh century, so in the eighth, the Chinese dominion over the western countries was short-lived, and was shattered by a disastrous defeat inflicted in 751 on the Chinese general Sien-chi by the Arabs, who were aided by the Karluk tribes. Indirectly this disaster had an important consequence for European civilization. The art of making paper, up to that time a monopoly of remote China, was introduced into Samarkand by Chinese prisoners, and so became known to Europe, with results familiar to all.¹

c31.s1.19

¹ [^1] The foregoing account of the relations of China with the states on the northern frontier of India is chiefly derived from the learned and valuable work by Professor Chavannes, *Documents sur les Toukiue (Turcs) Occidentaux*, St. Pétersbourg, 1903. For the geography, see the map in that work, or Stanford's map appended to vol. ii of Watters, *On Yuan Chwang*. Sir M. A. Stein also treats of the relations of China with the frontier countries of India in the early chapters of *Ancient Khotan*, 1907.

c31.s1.20

During the long reign of Thi-(or Khri-)srong-de-tsan (*A.D.* 743–789)² the development of Buddhism in Tibet was encouraged with a zeal which did not shrink from persecution of the adherents of the rival indigenous Bon (or Pon) religion. The Indian sages, Sānta-rakshita and Padma-sambhava, were invited to court, and with their aid a system of clerical government was instituted, which survives to this day as Lamaism. The work of Thi-srong-de-tsan was continued and carried further by King Ralpachan (*A. D.* 816–38), but his successor, Langdarma, hated Buddhism, and did his best to extirpate it. A Lama avenged the wrongs of his co-religionists by assassinating the king, *A. D.* 842. During the eleventh century (*A.D.* 1013 and 1038), Buddhist missionaries from Magadha securely re-established Buddhism as the official and predominant religion of Tibet.³

c31.s1.21

² [^2] The dates in the text are those given by Sarat Chandra Dās and Waddell (*Encycl. Brit.*, 11th ed.). M. de Milloué (pp. 165, 166) gives 740–86.

c31.s1.22

³ [^3] Sarat Chandra Dās (*J.A.S.B.*, vol. l, part i (1881), pp. 224–38); Waddell, *The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism*, p. 24; Lévi, *Le Népal*, II, 177, 178. The dates in the text are those of Lévi. M. de Milloué differs widely, assigning the reign of Langdarma to the years 899–902 (*op. cit.*, pp. 170, 171).

c31.s1.23

In the reign of Ralpachan a severe struggle with China took place, which was terminated by a peace recorded (822) in bilingual inscriptions at Lhāsa. In subsequent ages Tibetan relations with the Chinese empire varied much from time to time, but whatever they might be, they did not concern India. The final attainment of supremacy by China over Tibet was deferred until 1751. Since that date the Chinese government has always endeavoured to keep Europeans out of Tibet, and has generally succeeded in doing so. Tibetan affairs, consequently, long remained completely apart from Indian history. Contact between the politics of India and those of China had ceased in the eighth century,¹ owing to the growth of Tibetan power at that time. It was not renewed until the conquest of Upper Burma in 1885, which made the Indian and Chinese empires conterminous. In these latter days, Tibet, which had been a dependency of China in greater or less degree for several centuries, has again come within the purview of the Indian government, and its affairs have been the subject of Anglo-Chinese diplomacy.²

c31.s1.24

¹ 'Vers 760, la perte du pays de Ko-long sépare définitivement les Chinois de l'Inde' (Lévi, *Le Népal*, ii, 175).

c31.s1.25

² 'The strange story of our dealings with Tibet and its ruler ends with the offer of the Dalai Lama to send us assistance in the Great War of 1914' (*A Historical Geography of the British Dependencies*, vol. vii, India, pt. ii, by P. E. Roberts, Clarendon Press, 1920, p. 575).

II. Nepāl

c31.s2.2

The kingdom of Nepāl, as at present constituted, is a considerable self-governed state extending from Sikkim on the east to Kumāon on the west, for a distance of about 500 miles along the northern frontier of Tirhūt, Oudh, and the Agra Province. Except for a narrow strip of lowlands known as the Tarāi, the whole country is a maze of mountains and valleys. Strictly speaking, the name Nepāl should be restricted, and was confined in ancient times to the enclosed valley, about 20 miles in length by 15 in breadth, within which Kāthmandū, the capital, and many other towns and villages are situated. The policy of the existing government rigorously excludes Europeans from almost every part of the state except that valley, and consequently very little is known about the rest.

c31.s2.3

The earliest definite historical information concerning Nepāl, meaning the valley, is the statement in Samudragupta's great Allāhābād inscription of the fourth century after Christ, that, like Kāmarūpa or Assam, it was an autonomous frontier state, paying tribute and yielding obedience to the paramount Gupta power. The tribute probably was little more than nominal and the obedience intermittent. At the present day the Nepālese Government, although practically independent, sends presents or tribute to the Emperor of China, and recognizes in a vague way the suzerainty of that potentate, while receiving a British Resident and subordinating its foreign policy to the direction of the Government of India.

c31.s2.4

Local tradition affirms that long before the time of Samudragupta, in the days of Asoka, in the third century b.c., the valley was under his control, and this tradition is confirmed by the existence at the town of Pātan of monuments attributed to him and his daughter, and by inscriptions which prove that the lowlands at the foot of the hills were an integral part of his empire.¹ The distance from Pātaliputra to the valley of Nepāl not being great, it is probable that that territory formed part of the home provinces and was administered directly from the Maurya capital.

c31.s2.5

¹ Pātan, 3 miles south of Khātmandū, and Bhatgaon, 9 miles east of it, were each the capital of a separate principality for a long time before 1768, the date of the Gurkha conquest of Nepāl.

c31.s2.6

It is impossible to say exactly what happened between the time of Asoka and that of Samudragupta. The local annals, which exist in abundance, do not bear strict criticism, and give little information of value. The ruling dynasty during the sixth and the early part of the seventh century was a Lichchhavi family, but its exact connexion with the Lichchhavis of Vaisāli is not ascertainable. The Nepālese Lichchhavis are described by Hiuen Tsang as being eminent scholars and believing Buddhists, ranking as Kshatriyas.²

c31.s2.7

² Watters, ii, 84. Probably the pilgrim did not visit Nepāl.

c31.s2.8

During the seventh century Nepāl occupied the position of a buffer state between Tibet on the north, then a great power in Asia, and the empire of Harsha of Kanauj on the south. King Amsuvarman, founder of the Thākuri dynasty, who died about a.d. 642, was in close touch with Tibet by reason of his daughter’s marriage to Srong-tsan-Gampo, the monarch of that country, who was strong enough to compel the emperor of China to give him the princess Wen-cheng as second consort in 641.¹ After Harsha’s death Tibetan and Nepālese troops acted together in support of Wang-hiuentse, the Chinese envoy, and against the usurper of Harsha’s throne (*ante*, p. 366). It is also certain that at the beginning of the eighth century Nepāl was still dependent on Tibet, and continued in that position until a. d. 703, when it, together with Tirhūt, shook off dependence on Tibet. The Tibetan king was killed in the course of the war.² The reason for the introduction of a new Nepālese era dating from October, a. d. 879, is not known. Chinese relations with Nepāl and India had come to an end soon after the middle of the eighth century. In recent times wars between China and Nepāl have resulted in a complimentary recognition by the smaller state of the suzerainty of the greater.

c31.s2.9

¹ Between a. d. 628 and 631, according to M. de Milloué (*op. cit.*, p. 164).

c31.s2.10

² See E. H. Parker, ‘China, Nepaul, Bhutan, and Sikkim’, in *J. Manchester Oriental Soc.*, 1911, pp. 129–52.

c31.s2.11

The confused and bloodstained story of the various petty dynasties which ruled in Nepāl up to a.d. 1768 possesses no general interest. In that year the Gurkhas conquered the country, and established the dynasty which now rules Nepāl through the agency of powerful ministers who have taken over all the substantial functions of sovereignty, reducing the nominal monarchs to a position of absolute insignificance.

c31.s2.12

Buddhism, in its early pure form, was introduced into the valley by Asoka, whose daughter is believed to have erected sacred edifices near the capital, which are still pointed out. Little or nothing is known concerning the religious history of the country for many hundred years afterwards. In the seventh century the prevailing religion appears to have been a much modified Tantric variety of the ‘Great Vehicle’ Buddhist doctrine, allied so closely to the orthodox Hindu cult of Siva as to be distinguishable from it with difficulty.

c31.s2.13

In the course of ages the corruption of the church increased, and Nepāl now presents the strange spectacle of so-called monasteries swarming with the families of married 'monks' engaged in all sorts of secular occupations.¹ The spontaneous progress of the decay of Buddhism, which had been operating in Nepāl for centuries, has been much hastened by the action of the Gurkha Government, to which Buddhist rites are obnoxious; and there is good reason to believe that in the course of a few generations Nepālese Buddhism will be almost extinct.

c31.s2.14

¹ Married monks are allowed by certain Tibetan sects (de Milloué, p. 176), and used to be recognized by the Vajrayāna sect in Bengal and Eastern India (N. N. Vasu, *Modern Buddhism and its Followers in Orissa*, Calcutta, 1911, pp. 4, 13, 17).

c31.s2.15

The total disappearance of the Buddhist worship from India, the land of its birth, has been the subject of much discussion and some misconception. Until lately the assumption commonly was made that Buddhism had been extinguished by a storm of Brahman persecution. That is not the true explanation. Occasional active persecutions by Hindu kings, like Sasāṅka, which no doubt occurred, though rarely, formed a factor of minor importance in the movement which slowly restored India to the Brahmanical fold. The furious massacres perpetrated in many places by Musalman invaders were more efficacious than orthodox Hindu persecutions, and had a great deal to do with the disappearance of Buddhism in several provinces. But the main cause was the gradual, almost insensible, assimilation of Buddhism to Hinduism, which attained to such a point that often it is nearly impossible to draw a line between the mythology and images of the Buddhists and those of the Hindus. This process of assimilation is going on now before our eyes in Nepāl, and the chief interest which that country offers to some students is the opportunity presented by it for watching the manner in which the octopus of Hinduism is slowly strangling its Buddhist victim. The automatic compression of the dying cult by its elastic rival is aided by the action of the Government, which throws its influence and favour on the side of the Hindus, while abstaining from violent persecution of the Buddhists.¹

c31.s2.16

¹ Most books concerning Nepāl are superseded to a large extent by Sylvain Lévi's comprehensive treatise entitled *Le Népal*, t. i and ii, 1905; t. iii, 1908. Wright's *History of Nepāl* (Cambridge, 1877) gives a translation of one recension of the traditional annals. The coinage is described in *Catal. Coins I. M.*, vol. i, pp. 280-93, and more fully by E. H. Walsh, 'The Coinage of Nepal' (*J.R.A.S.*, 1908, pp. 669-760), with seven plates. Oldfield's *Sketches from Nipāl* is a good descriptive work.

III. Kāmarūpa or Assam

c31.s3.2

The ancient kingdom of Kāmarūpa, although roughly equivalent to Assam, generally occupied an area larger than that of the modern province, and extended westward to the Karatōya river,² thus including the Kūch Bihār State and the Rangpur District. The earliest notice of the kingdom which is of any use for the purposes of the historian is the statement in Samudragupta's inscription on the Allāhābād pillar, recorded about A. D. 360 or 370, that Kāmarūpa was then one of the frontier states outside the limits of the Gupta empire, but paying tribute and owing a certain amount of obedience to the paramount power.³

c31.s3.3

² Mr. Blochmann spells the name as Karataya; others write Karatōya, which seems to be correct.

c31.s3.4

³ *J. R. A. S.*, 1890, p. 879.

c31.s3.5

The next glimpse of this remote region is afforded by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang. When he was staying for the second time at the Nālandā monastery, early in A. D. 643, he was compelled, much against his will, to pay a visit to the king of Kāmarūpa, who insisted on making the acquaintance of the renowned scholar, and would not take a refusal. After a short stay at the capital of Kāmarūpa, Harsha Sīlāditya, the Kanauj sovereign, sent a message commanding that Hiuen Tsang should be sent to him. The king replied that Harsha might take his head if he could, but should not get his Chinese visitor. However, when Harsha sent a peremptory order to the effect that he would trouble the king to send back his head by the messenger, that potentate, on second thoughts, deemed it advisable to comply with the request of his suzerain, and hastened to meet Harsha, bringing the pilgrim with him.

c31.s3.6

This king was named Bhāskaravarman, and was also known as Kumāra. He belonged to a very ancient dynasty, which claimed to have existed for a thousand generations. Hiuen Tsang describes him as being a Brahman by caste, but the form of his name indicates that he considered himself to be a Kshatriya or Rājpūt, and it would seem that the pilgrim really meant that Bhāskaravarman was a Brahmanical Hindu in religion. He may have been a ‘Brahmakshatrī’, as the Sena kings were in later times. Buddhism was scarcely known in his country, which did not contain a single monastery.¹

c31.s3.7

¹ Beal, i, 215–17; ii, 195–8; Watters, i, 349; ii, 195–7; *Life of Hiuen Tsiang*, p. 172.

c31.s3.8

Practically nothing more is on record concerning the political history of Kāmarūpa for several centuries. The kingdom was included in the dominions of some of the Pāla kings of Bengal, and Kumārapāla, a member of that dynasty, in the twelfth century appointed his minister Vaidyadeva as ruler of the province with royal powers.²

c31.s3.9

² *Ep. Ind.*, ii, 355.

c31.s3.10

Early in the thirteenth century, about A. D. 1228, the invasions of the Shān tribe named Āhōm began. Gradually the Āhōm chiefs made themselves masters of the country, and established a dynasty which lasted until the British occupation in 1825.³ The dynastic history of Kāmarūpa, being only of local interest, need not be considered further.

c31.s3.11

³ *Catal. Coins I. M.*, vol. i, p. 294; J. Allan, ‘The Coinage of Assam’ (*Num. Chron.*, 1909, pp. 300–31, with three plates).

c31.s3.12

The claims which the province can fairly make on the respectful attention of the outer world rest on other grounds. It is a gate through which successive hordes of immigrants from the great hive of the Mongolian race in Western China have poured into the plains of India, and many of the resident tribes still are almost pure Mongolians. The religion of such tribes is of more than local concern, because it supplies the clue to the strange Tantric developments of both Buddhism and Hinduism which are so characteristic of mediaeval and modern Bengal. The temple of Kāmākhyā near Gauhātī is one of the most sacred shrines of the Sākta Hindus, the worshippers of the female forms of deity, while the whole country is renowned in Hindu legend as a land of magic and witchcraft. The old tribal beliefs are being abandoned gradually in favour of extreme, or even fanatical, Hindu orthodoxy, and the history of Assam offers many examples of the process by which Brahman priests have established their influence over non-Aryan chiefs step by step, and drawn them within the roomy fold of Hinduism. All the various methods of conversion and absorption enumerated by Sir Alfred Lyall and Sir H. Risley have been adopted from time to time.¹

c31.s3.13

¹ Gait, *History of Assam*, Calcutta, 1906; Sir Alfred Lyall, *Asiatic Studies*, First Series, ch. v; Risley, *Census of India, 1901*, Report, pt. i, pp. 519–21, 531.

c31.s3.14

Another good claim to notice is based upon the fact that Assam is one of the few Indian provinces the inhabitants of which successfully beat back the flowing tide of Muhammadan conquest, and maintained their independence in spite of repeated attempts to subvert it. The only Musalman invasion of Kāmarūpa which comes within the limits of the period treated in this volume is the expedition rashly undertaken in A. D. 1204–5 (A. H. 601) by the son of Bakhtyār, Muhammad, the conqueror of Bengal and Bihār. He advanced northwards along the bank of the Karatōya river, which then formed the western frontier of Kāmarūpa, and succeeded in penetrating into the mountains to the north of Darjeeling, but being unable to obtain any secure foothold, was obliged to retreat. His retirement was disastrous. The people of Kāmarūpa having broken down the great stone bridge of many arches, which was the only means by which he could cross the river in safety, nearly all his men were drowned. The leader of the expedition managed to swim across with about a hundred horsemen, and then fell ill from distress at his failure. Next year, A. D. 1205–6 (A. H. 602), he was assassinated.² Subsequent Muhammadan incursions were equally unsuccessful. The Muslim historian, who accompanied Mīr Jumla on his invasion of the country in 1662, expresses in striking phrases the horror with which the country and its people were regarded by strangers.¹ The kingdom retained its autonomy until 1816, when the Burmese appeared and occupied the country until 1824. They were expelled by British troops, and early in 1826 Assam became a province of the Indian empire.

c31.s3.15

² Raverty, transl. *Ṭabaḳāt-i-Nāṣirī*, pp. 560–73; *J. A. S. B.*, vol. xlv, pt. i (1876), pp. 330–3; Blochmann, ibid., vol. xliv, pt. i (1875), pp. 276–85. I accept Raverty's chronology.

c31.s3.16

¹ See Jadunath Sarkar, 'Assam and the Ahoms in A. D. 1660' (*J. B. & O. Res. Soc.*, vol. i, pp. 179-95).

IV. Kashmīr

c31.s4.2

A detailed account of the history of Kashmīr would fill a volume; in this place a brief notice of some of the leading passages will suffice. The valley had been included in the Maurya empire in the time of Asoka, and again in the Kushān dominion in the days of Kanishka and Huvishka. Harsha, although not strong enough to annex Kashmīr, was yet able to compel the king to surrender a cherished relic, an alleged tooth of Buddha, which was carried off to Kanauj. The authentic chronicles of the kingdom begin with the Karkota dynasty, which was founded by Durlabhavardhana during Harsha's lifetime. Hiuen Tsang spent two years in Kashmīr, from about May 631 to April 633, and was received with distinguished honour by the unnamed reigning king, presumably Durlabhavardhana. That prince and his son Durlabhaka are credited with long reigns.

c31.s4.3

The latter was succeeded by his three sons in order; the eldest of whom, Chandrāpīḍa, received investiture as king from the Emperor of China in 720; by whom the third son Muktāpīḍa, also known as Lalitāditya, was similarly honoured in 733. This prince, who is said to have reigned for thirty-six years, extended the power of Kashmīr far beyond its normal mountain limits, and about the year 740 inflicted a crushing defeat upon Yasovarman, king of Kanauj.² He also vanquished the Tibetans, Bhūtias, and the Turks on the Indus. His memory has been perpetuated by the famous Mārtānda temple of the Sun, built by him, and still existing. The acts of this king, and all that he did, with something more, are set forth at large in Kalhana’s chronicle.

c31.s4.4

² Between 736 and 747 (Lévi and Chavannes, 'Itinéraire d'Oukong,’ in *J. A.*, 1895, p. 353). See V. A. Smith, ‘The History of the City of Kanauj and of King Yaśovarman’ (*J. R. A. S.*, 1908, pp. 765–93).

c31.s4.5

THE MĀRTĀṆDA TEMPLE OF THE SUN, KASHMĪR

c31.s4.6

Jayāpīda, or Vinayāditya, the grandson of Muktāpīda, is credited with even more adventures than those ascribed to his grandfather. Probably it is true that he defeated and dethroned the king of Kanauj, apparently Vajrāyudha. But the romantic tale of his visit *incognito* to the capital of Paundravardhana in Bengal, the modern Rājshāhi District, then the seat of government of a king named Jayanta, unknown to sober history, seems to be purely imaginary. The legend of his expedition against a king of Nepāl, with the strange name Aramudi, of his capture and imprisonment in a stone castle, and of his marvellous escape, equally belongs to the domain of romance. The details of the acts of cruelty and oppression, due to avarice, which disgraced the later years of his reign, read like matters of fact, and unhappily are quite in accordance with the low moral standard of most of the rulers of Kashmīr. The chronicler closes his narrative with the following quaint comment :

c31.s4.7

‘Such was for thirty-one years the reign of this famous king, who could not restrain his will. Princes and fishes, when their thirst is excited by riches and impure water respectively, leave their place and follow evil ways, with such result that they are brought into the strong net of death—the former by changes which fate dictates, and the latter by troops of fishermen.’

c31.s4.8

The substantial existence of Jayāpīda is testified by the survival of multitudes of exceedingly barbarous coins inscribed with his title Vinayāditya.¹

c31.s4.9

¹ Stein, *transl. Rājatar.*, Bk. iv ; *Catal. Coins I. M.*, vol. i, pp. 266, 269.

c31.s4.10

The reign of Avantivarman, in the latter part of the ninth century, was notable for his enlightened patronage of literature, and for the beneficent schemes of drainage and irrigation carried out by Suyya, his minister of public works.¹

c31.s4.11

¹ Stein, *transl. Rājatar.*, Bk. v, vv. 2–126.

c31.s4.12

The next king, Saṅkaravarman, distinguished himself in war; but is chiefly remembered as the author of an ingenious system of fiscal oppression, and the plunderer of temple treasures. The details of his exactions are worth reading as proving the capacity for unlimited and ruthless extortion of an Oriental despot without a conscience.²

c31.s4.13

² Ibid., 128–227.

c31.s4.14

During his reign the last of the Turkī Shāhiya kings, the descendants of Kanishka, was overthrown by the Brahman Lalliya. The Turkī Shāhiya kings had ruled in Kābul until the capture of that city by the Arab general Yaḳūb-i-Lāis in A. D. 870 (A. H. 256).³ After that date the capital was shifted to Ohind, on the Indus. The dynasty founded by Lalliya, known as that of the Hindu Shāhiyas, lasted until A. D. 1021, when it was extirpated by the Muhammadans.⁴

c31.s4.15

³ Raverty, *Notes on Afghanis-tan*, pp. 63, 64.

c31.s4.16

⁴ Stein, *Zur Geschichte der Çāhis von Kābul* (Stuttgart, 1893).

c31.s4.17

In the reign of the child-king Pārtha and his father Paṅgu, the regent, an awful famine occurred in the year A. D. 917–18, thus described by the Brahman historian of a Hindu government:—

c31.s4.18

‘One could scarcely see the water in the Vitastā (Jihlam), entirely covered as the river was with corpses soaked and swollen by the water in which they had long been lying. The land became densely covered with bones in all directions, until it was like one great burial-ground, causing terror to all beings. The king’s ministers and the Tantrins (Praetorian guards) became wealthy, as they amassed riches by selling stores of rice at high prices. The king would take that person as minister who raised the sums due on the Tantrins’ bills, by selling the subjects in such a condition. As one might look from his hot bath-room upon all the people outside distressed by the wind and rain of a downpour in the forest, thus for a long time the wretched Paṅgu, keeping in his palace, praised his own comfort while he saw the people in misery.’⁵

c31.s4.19

⁵ Stein, *transl. Rājatar.*, Bk. v, vv. 271–7.

c31.s4.20

This gruesome picture may give cause for reflection to some critics of modern methods of famine relief.

c31.s4.21

Pārtha chastised his people with whips, but his son Unmattāvanti, 'who was worse than wicked,' chastised them with scorpions. 'With difficulty', sighs the chronicler, 'I get my song to proceed, since from fear of touching the evil of this king's story it keeps back like a frightened mare.' Parricide was one of his many crimes. The details of his brutalities are too disgusting for quotation. Happily his reign was short, and he died the victim of a painful disease in A. D. 939.¹

c31.s4.22

¹ Stein, *transl. Rājatar.*, Bk. v, vv. 414–48.

c31.s4.23

During the latter half of the tenth century, power was in the hands of an unscrupulous queen, named Diddā, the granddaughter of a Shāhiya king, who, first as a queen-consort, then as regent, and ultimately as sovereign for twenty-three years, misgoverned the unhappy state for half a century.

c31.s4.24

In the reign of her nephew, Saṅgrāma, the kingdom suffered an attack from Mahmūd of Ghaznī; and, although its troops were defeated by the invader, preserved its independence, which was protected by the inaccessibility of the mountain barriers.

c31.s4.25

During the second half of the eleventh century, Kashmīr, which has been generally unfortunate in its rulers, endured unspeakable miseries at the hands of the tyrants Kalasa and Harsha. The latter, who was evidently insane, imitated Saṅkaravarman in the practice of plundering temples, and rightly came to a miserable end. Few countries can rival the long Kashmīr list of kings and queens who gloried in shameless lust, fiendish cruelty, and pitiless misrule.

c31.s4.26

A local Muhammadan dynasty obtained power in 1339, and the religion of Islam gradually spread in the valley during the fourteenth century; but the natural defences of the kingdom effectually guarded it against the ambition of the sovereigns of India, until Akbar conquered it in 1587, and incorporated it in the Moghal empire.²

c31.s4.27

² Full details of Kashmīr history will be found in the text and commentary of Stein's translation of the *Rājātaraṅgiṇī*.

V

c31.s5.1

*The kingdoms of Kanauj (Pañchāla), the Panjāb, Ajmēr, Delhi, and Gwālior; Muhammadan conquest of Hindūstan.*

c31.s5.2

Before proceeding to discuss the history of the kingdom of Kanauj, it will be well to give some account of the famous capital city, which is now represented by a petty Muhammadan country town (N. lat. 27° 3′, E. long. 79° 56′) in the Farrukhābād District of the United Provinces. Kanauj was of high antiquity. It is mentioned in several passages of the *Mahābhārata*, and alluded to by Patanjali in the second century B.C. as a well-known place. It has been so completely destroyed that nothing beyond rubbish heaps remains to testify to the former existence of its gorgeous temples, monasteries, and palaces. Commentators usually take it for granted that Kanauj is mentioned twice, under the variant names of Kanagora and Kanogiza,¹ in Ptolemy's *Geography*, written about A.D. 140, but there is little reason to warrant the belief. The first certain mention of the city with any descriptive details is in the *Travels* of the Chinese pilgrim Fa-hien, who visited Kanauj about A.D. 405, during the reign of Chandra-gupta II, Vikramāditya. His remark that the city possessed only two Buddhist monasteries of the Hīnayāna school and one *stūpa* suggests that it was not of much importance at the beginning of the fifth century.² Probably it grew under the patronage of the Gupta kings, but the great development of the city clearly was due to its selection by Harsha for his capital. When Hiuen Tsang stayed there, in 636 and 643, a marked change had occurred since Fa-hien's time. The later pilgrim, instead of two monasteries, found upwards of a hundred such institutions, crowded by more than 10,000 brethren of both the great schools. Hinduism flourished as well as Buddhism, and could show more than two hundred temples, with thousands of worshippers. The city, which was strongly fortified, then extended along the east bank of the Ganges for about 4 miles, and was adorned with lovely gardens and clear tanks. The inhabitants were well-to-do, including some families of great wealth; they dressed in silk, and were skilled in learning and the arts.¹

c31.s5.3

¹ Bk. vii, ch. 1, sec. 52; ch. 2, sec. 22; transl. McCrindle, *Ind. Ant.*, xiii, 352, 380.

c31.s5.4

² *Travels*, ch. xviii.

c31.s5.5

¹ Watters, i, 340; Beal, i, 206.

c31.s5.6

Although Kanauj had been captured several times by hostile armies during the ninth and tenth centuries, it recovered quickly from its wounds, and when Mahmūd appeared before its walls, at the end of A. D. 1018, was still a great and stately city, defended by seven distinct forts or fortifications and reputed to contain 10,000 temples. The Sultan destroyed the temples, but seems to have spared the city. The removal of the capital of Panchāla to Bārī must have greatly reduced the population and importance of Kanauj, although it revived to some extent under the rule of the Gaharwār Rājas in the twelfth century. The subjugation of Rāja Jaichand’s territory, including the city, in A. D. 1194 (A. H. 590), by Shihāb-ud-dīn, reduced it to insignificance for ever. Its final destruction was the work of Shēr Shah, who built a new town close by, called Shēr Sūr, to commemorate his victory over Humāyūn in 1540. The Muhammadan historian who chronicles the event observes that he could not find any satisfactory reason for the destruction of the old city, and that the act was very unpopular.²

c31.s5.7

² Elliot, *Hist. of India*, iv, 419. The author, Abbās, wrote in the reign of Akbar, about 1580. For other particulars, see V. A. Smith, ‘A History of the City of Kanauj’ (*J. R. A. S.*, 1908, pp. 765–93). I was mistaken in asserting that the city was sacked by Shihāb-ud-dīn.

c31.s5.8

Kanauj, although it twice attained the dignity of being the capital of Northern India, for the first time under Harsha in the seventh century, and for the second time under Mihira Bhoja and Mahendrapāla in the ninth and tenth centuries, was primarily the capital of the kingdom of Panchāla. According to the story told in the *Mahābhārata*, Northern Panchāla, with its capital Ahichchhatra, fell to the share of Drona, while Southern Panchāla, with its capital Kāmpilya, became the kingdom of Drupada. Ahichchhatra, the modern Rāmnagar in the Barēli (Bareilly) District, was still a considerable town when visited by Hiuen Tsang in the seventh century. Little is known about the history of Kāmpilya, apparently the modern Kampil in the Farrukhābād District.¹ Both the ancient capitals were thrown into obscurity by the rapid development of Kanauj under Harsha's rule, and after his time that city was the undisputed capital of Panchāla.

c31.s5.9

¹ Cunningham, *Archaeol. S. Rep.*, xi, 11.

c31.s5.10

Harsha's death, in A.D. 647, was followed by a period of disturbance and anarchy throughout his wide dominions. We do not know what happened to the kingdom of Panchāla immediately after the suppression of the usurper, about A. D. 650, by the Chinese ambassador with the help of his Nepalese and Tibetan allies, as related in the thirteenth chapter.

c31.s5.11

After Harsha's death the earliest known king of Kanauj was Yasovarman, who sent an embassy to China in A.D. 731,² and nine or ten years later was dethroned and slain by Lalitāditya Muktāpīda of Kashmir.³ In the history of Sanskrit literature Yasovarman's name holds an honoured place as that of the patron of Bhavabhūti, the famous author of the *Mālatīmādhava*, and of Vākpatirāja, a less renowned author, who wrote in Prākrit. The next occupant of the throne of Kanauj apparently was Vajrāyudha, who, like his predecessor, suffered the fate of defeat and dethronement by Lalitāditya's son, Jayāpīda.⁴ Similar ill-luck attended his successor, Indrāyudha, who is known to have been reigning in A. D. 783, and was dethroned, about A. D. 810, by Dharmapāla, king of Bengal and Bihār. The eastern monarch, while probably insisting on a right to homage and tribute, did not keep the administration of Panchāla in his own hands, but entrusted it to Chakrāyudha, presumably a relative of the defeated rāja. The new ruler was consecrated with the consent of the kings of all the neighbouring states.¹ His fortune was no better than that of his predecessors. About a.d. 816 he was deprived of his throne by Nāgabhata, the ambitious king of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra kingdom in Rājputāna, the capital of which was at Bhilmāl.²

c31.s5.12

² Stein, transl. *Rājatar.*, Bk. iv, v. 134, note, with reference to Pauthier.

c31.s5.13

³ Stein, transl. *Rājatar.*, Bk. iv, vv. 133–46; Lévi and Chavannes, 'Itin. d'Oukong' (*J. A.*, 1895, p. 353). They fix the date as lying between A. D. 736 and 747.

c31.s5.14

⁴ Konow and Lanman, *Karpūramañjarī*, iii, 5², p. 266; 'to the capital of Vajrāyudha, the king of Panchāla, to Kanauj.' Stein, transl. *Rājatar.*, Bk. iv, 471, records the defeat and dethronement of the king of Kanauj by Jayāpīḍa. The king of Kanauj apparently must have been Vajrāyudha.

c31.s5.15

¹ a. d. 783, Jain *Harivamśa* in *Bomb. Gaz.* (1896), vol. i, pt. i, p. 197 note; Bhāgalpur copperplate (*Ind. Ant.*, xv, 304; xx, 188); Khālimpur copperplate (*Ep. Ind.*, iv, 252, note 3).

c31.s5.16

² Gwālior inscription, *Nachr. d. k. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. Göttingen*, 1905, ‘Epigr. Notes,’ No. 17; *Archaeol. S., Annual Rep.*, 1903–4, p. 277. A. M. T. Jackson, ‘Bhinmāl,’ *Bom. Gaz.* (1896), vol. i, pt. i, App. See Watters, *On Yuan Chwang*, ii, 250; D. R. Bhandarkar, *A. S. W. I., Prog. Rep.*, 1907–8, pp. 36–41; and J. Wilson, *Indian Caste* (1877), vol. i, p. 109.

c31.s5.17

Nāgabhata presumably transferred the head-quarters of his government to Kanauj, which certainly was the capital of his successors for many generations, and so again became for a considerable time the premier city of Northern India. During the reign of Nāgabhata the chronic warfare between the Gurjaras, descendants of foreign invaders, and the Rāshtrakūtas (Rāthōrs) of the Deccan, representing the indigenous ruling races, continued, and the southern king, Govinda III, claims to have won a victory over his northern rival early in the ninth century.³ Nothing particular is recorded about Nāgabhata’s successor, Rāmabhadra (Rāmadeva), who reigned from about a.d. 834 to 840.

c31.s5.18

³ Unpublished inscription in possession of Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (‘Gurjaras,’ p. 4, in *J. Bo. Br. As. Soc.*, vol. xx).

c31.s5.19

The next king, Rāmabhadra’s son Mihira, usually known by his title Bhoja, enjoyed a long reign of about half a century (*c.* 840–90), and beyond question was a very powerful monarch, whose dominions may be called an ‘empire’ without exaggeration. They certainly included the Cis-Sutlaj districts of the Panjāb, most of Rājputāna, the greater part, if not the whole, of the present United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, and the Gwālior territory. The next two kings being known to have held the remote province of Surāshtra, or Kāthiāwār, in the extreme west, the possession of which implies control over Gujarāt and Mālava or Avanti, it is highly probable that these distant regions also were subject to the sway of Bhoja. On the east his dominions abutted on the realm of Devapāla, king of Bengal and Bihār, which he invaded successfully; on the north-west his boundary probably was the Sutlaj river; on the west the lost Hakrā or Wahindah river separated his territories from those of his enemies, the Muhammadan chiefs of Sind; on the south-west his powerful Rāshtrakūta rival, the ally of the Muhammadans, kept his armies continually on the alert; while on the south his next neighbour was the growing Chandēl kingdom of Jejākabhukti, the modern Bundelkhand, which probably acknowledged his suzerainty.¹ Bhoja liked to pose as an incarnation of Vishnu, and therefore assumed the title of *Ādi Varāha*, 'the primaeval boar,' one of the incarnations of the god. Base silver coins inscribed with this title are exceedingly common in Northern India, and by their abundance attest the long duration and wide extension of Bhoja's rule.² Unfortunately no Megasthenes or Bāna has left a record of the nature of his internal government, and it is impossible to compare the polity of Bhoja with that of his great forerunners.

c31.s5.20

¹ These facts are collected from a series of inscriptions, Nos. 542, 544, 710 of Kielhorn's List (*Ep. Ind.*, vol. v, App.), and others. For the relations of the native powers with the Muhammadans see Al Masūdī in Elliot, i, 23–5; *Bom. Gaz.* (1896), vol. i, pt. i, pp. 506, 511, 526.

c31.s5.21

² *Catal. Coins I. M.*, vol. i, pp. 233, 241. The coins are rude degradations of the Sassanian type, such as the Huns issued, and suggest a connexion between the Gurjara-Pratīhāras and the Huns.

c31.s5.22

Bhoja's son and successor, Mahendrapāla (Mahendrāyudha) (*c.* A.D. 890–908) preserved unimpaired the extensive heritage received from his father, and ruled all Northern India, except the Panjāb and Indus valley, from the borders of Bihār (Magadha) to the shore of the Arabian sea. Inscriptions of his eighth and ninth years found at Gayā seem to prove that Magadha was included in the Parihār (Pratīhāra) dominions for some time. His teacher (*Guru*) was the celebrated poet Rājasekhara, author of the *Karpūra-mañjarī* play and other works, who continued to reside at the court of Mahendrapāla's younger son.³

c31.s5.23

³ Konow and Lanman, *Karpūra mañjarī*, p. 178. But the remark (op. cit., p. 179) that Mahendrapāla of Mahodaya must be distinguished from the king of that name in the Dighwa-Dubauli copperplate has been proved to be erroneous. Rājasekhara also wrote a treatise on the art of poetry (*Kāvyamīmāmsa*), published in the Gaekwar's Oriental Series.

c31.s5.24

The throne was occupied for two or three years by Bhoja II, elder son of Mahendrapāla, who died early, and was succeeded by his half-brother, Mahīpāla (*c.* A. D. 910–40).¹ The beginning of the decline and fall of the empire of Kanauj dates from his reign. In A. D. 916 the armies of the Rāshtrakūta king, Indra III, once more captured Kanauj, and gave a severe blow to the power of the Pratihāra dynasty.² Surāshtra, which was still subject to Mahīpāla in 914,³ probably was then lost along with other remote provinces, in consequence of the successes gained by the southern monarch. Indra III not being in a position to hold Kanauj, Mahīpāla recovered his capital with the aid of the Chandēl king, and probably other allies.⁴

c31.s5.25

¹ Inscription No. 544 of Kielhorn's *List*.

c31.s5.26

² Cambay plates (*Ep. Ind.* vii, 30, 43).

c31.s5.27

³ Inscription No. 353 in Kielhorn's *List*.

c31.s5.28

⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, i, 121.

c31.s5.29

The waning power of Kanauj and the waxing strength of Jejākabhukti are shown by the incident that king Devapāla of Kanauj (*c.* 940–55) was obliged to surrender a much-prized image of Vishnu to the Chandēl king, Yasovarman, who enshrined it in one of the finest temples at Khajurāho.⁵ Yasovarman had established his power by the occupation of the strong fortress of Kālanjar, and no doubt became absolutely independent of Kanauj. In the reign of Dhanga, the successor of Yasovarman, the Jumna is known to have formed the boundary between the territories of Panchāla and those of Jejākabhukti.

c31.s5.30

⁵ *Ibid.*, 134.

c31.s5.31

Devapāla was succeeded by his brother, Vijayapāla (*c.* A. D. 960–90),⁶ whose reign is marked by the loss of Gwālior, the ancient possession of his house, which was captured by a Kachchhwāha (Kachchhapaghāta) chief named Vajradāman,¹ the founder of a local dynasty which held the fortress until A.D. 1128. The establishment of the Solankī (Chaulukya) kingdom of Anhilwāra in Gujarāt by Mūlarāja, about the middle of the tenth century, shows that the king of Kanauj no longer had any concern with Western India.² The Gwālior chieftain became a feudatory of the Chandēl monarchy, which, under Dhanga (*c.* 1000–1050), evidently was stronger than its rival of Kanauj.

First 117 of 280 passages. Read on

Linked texts (19)