Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c17: Chapter XI. The Imperial Pratīhāras (Continued)

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c17

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XI. The Imperial Pratīhāras (Continued)

Bhoja II

c17.s1.1

It is difficult to fix the exact date of Mahendrapāla’s death, but as his last known date is 907-08 A. D., we may tentatively accept the year 910 A. D. as a close approximation to the event. According to the so-called Asiatic Society’s plate of Vināyakapāla, he was succeeded by his son Bhoja, usually designated Bhoja II, whose mother was queen Dehanāgā-Devī. The Asni inscription on the other hand makes no mention of him, and represents his half-brother Mahīpāla, born of Mahīdevī,¹ as having come after Mahendrapāla. This omission may therefore be explained either by the extreme shortness of Bhoja’s reign, or by the assumption that there was a war of succession and at first the victorious claimant did not think it prudent to recall on stone the existence of one whom he had overthrown. But when with the lapse of time his memory had faded away, he felt no scruples in mentioning the name of his rival in the genealogical list. Probably the latter hypothesis finds some support from the following passage in the Bilhari inscription : "Having conquered the whole earth, he (Kokalladeva I) set up two unprecedented columns of his fame,—in the quarter of the pitcher-born (Agastya) (i.c., in the south) that well-known Kṛṣṇarāja, and in the quarter of Kuvera (i.e., in the north) Bhojadeva, a store of fortune.”¹ This statement is further corroborated in the Benares grant of Karṇadeva, dated (Cedi) year 973 or 1042 A. D., which says that Kokalla “granted freedom from fear to Bhoja and others.”² The Bhoja referred to in these inscriptions must be identified with Bhoja II, as it seems out of the question that Bhoja I, who was a mighty monarch holding wide sway, could have owed or retained his position owing to the protecting hand of Kokalla I. It appears therefore that in his attempt to gain the throne Bhoja II invoked the aid of Kokalla, possibly on the strength of some matrimonial relations with the Kalacuri family, and succeeded in ousting his rival brother. Mahīpāla, however, did not despair at this initial defeat, and as we shall see below, the tide soon turned in his favour.³

c17.s1.2

¹ Mahādevī according to the Partabgarh inscription, *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, pp. 178, 183.

c17.s1.3

¹ Ibid., I, pp. 256, 264, verse 17.

c17.s1.4

² Cf. “Yasya asīt abhayadaḥ pāṇiḥ” (Ep. Ind., I, p. 306, verse 7).

c17.s1.5

³ Mr. Niharranjan Ray tries to identify Bhoja II with Mahīpāla on the ground that, like the earlier Vikramāditya, Bhoja was the title adopted by the Pratihāra rulers (Ind. Ant., Oct., 1928, p. 232). It is, however, difficult to appreciate the force of this identification, as there is no justification to regard this epithet as a common feature of the Pratihāra names.

Mahīpāla

c17.s2.1

The enthronement of his step-brother Bhoja II was naturally unacceptable to Mahīpāla; he therefore sought the support of the Candella king Harṣadeva as a counterpoise to the alliance between his rival and the Cedi ruler Kokalla I. The Candella chief, who probably still recognised the supremacy of Kanauj, at once took up his cause, and according to the Khajuraho inscription No. I signalised his intervention in imperial affairs by placing Kṣitipāla on the throne, which thus increased the power and prestige of his own house.¹ This Kṣitipāla has been identified on all hands with Mahīpāla, and the fact that the two terms Kṣiti and Mahī are synonymous no doubt goes far to confirm this identification. But it appears from a comparison of the Siyadoni and Khajuraho inscriptions that Mahīpāla was known by other names as well. In the former Kṣitipāla is said to have had a son named Devapāla, who was ruling in 948-49 A. D., while in the latter we are told that the Candella Yaśovarman received an image of Vaikuṇṭha from one Devapāla, son of Herambapāla. As Yaśovarman’s reign closed about the year 954 A.D., it is reasonable to hold that the two Devapālas were identical, and consequently in all likelihood the names of their fathers Kṣitipāla and Herambapāla also refer to one and the same person.² Mahāmahopādhyāya Pandit Gaurī-shankar Ojha, on the other hand, does not accept the identity of the two Devapālas, as in the Khajuraho inscription Devapāla is given the epithet of Hayapati, and it was “never the accepted title of the Pratīhāra kings of Mahodaya, and is not met with in their inscriptions.”¹ This need not, however, be an insuperable objection in view of the fact that the Pratīhāras of Kanauj were then widely noted for their cavalry. Thus, Sulaiman, the Arab traveller, referring to Bhoja says that “no other prince has so fine a cavalry”.² Again, according to the Cātsū inscription Harṣarāja presented horses to Bhoja, perhaps because of the latter’s fondness for them. Similarly the Gwalior epigraph speaks of the “best cavalry” in charge of the feudatories of Rāmabhadra. The occurrence of the term *Hayapati* in an inscription of another dynasty, therefore, probably indicates that the Pratīhāras continued to enjoy among their contemporaries a reputation for maintaining an excellent cavalry, and as such were regarded “lords of horses” *par excellence*, although they did not, like the Gāhaḍavālas who used the epithet *Aśvapati*, adopt it as an official title in their records. Another name of Mahīpāla seems to have been Vināyakapāla, which is used in the Bengal Asiatic Society’s plate.³ The identity of the two is probable on the ground that the two terms Vināyaka and Heramba are synonymous, both being names of Gaṇapati,⁴ and also because the record describes Vināyakapāla as “begotten on Mahīdevī and who meditated on the feet of his father Mahendrapāla and his brother Bhojadeva.” If, however, we assume that the names Vināyakapāla and Mahīpāla represent two distinct persons, there is nothing in the absence of any evidence regarding a fratricidal war to explain the circumstance why the plate mentions one brother and omits all reference to another. Further, it need not militate against the above identification that in the earlier inscriptions and in the writings of Rājaśekhara the name Mahīpāla is uniformly given, whereas Vināyakapāla occurs for the first time in a late inscription of the year 931 A. D. There is no such overlapping even in the known dates of Mahīpāla and Kṣitipāla, but this does not prevent scholars from accepting that the two names denoted the same person. Thus Mahīpāla may be regarded as having borne at least three other names—Kṣitipāla, Vināyakapāla, and Herambapāla;¹ this multiplicity of nomenclature was obviously due to the Hindu love for synonyms, which, as well remarked by Colonel Tod, “in the east is very destructive to history.”²

c17.s2.2

¹ Cf. “Punar yena Śrī-Kṣitipāla-devanṛpatiḥ siṃhāsane sthātsāditārātiśakti-kīrti-vibhūṣaṇaḥ” (Ep. Ind., I, p. 122, line 10). The word “punaḥ” has so far been taken by scholars in the sense of “again;” and they think that it alludes to Mahīpāla’s “replacement” after a temporary loss of kingly dignity. In my opinion, however, “punaḥ” here means “further,” “besides,” or “now” (cf. Monier Williams’ Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 581), and is used simply to introduce further details about the achievements of the Candella king who has been identified by Hoernle with Yaśovarman (J. R. A. S., 1904, p. 654). But it seems more correct to identify him with Harṣadeva Candella, for according to the Khajuraho inscription No. II, Yaśovarman was a contemporary of Mahīpāla’s son, Devapāla (Ep. Ind., I, pp. 129, 134, verse 43), and the above incident relates to the beginning of the career of Mahīpāla.

c17.s2.3

² Ep. Ind., I, pp. 134, 171.

c17.s2.4

¹ *Ibid.*, XIV, p. 180.

c17.s2.5

² *Elliot, History of India*, Vol. I, p. 4.

c17.s2.6

³ *Ind. Ant.*, XV, p. 140.

c17.s2.7

⁴ *J. B. B. R. A. S.*, XXI, pp. 406-07.

c17.s2.8

¹ See also *Jour. Dep. Lett.*, X, pp. 59-62; *Dy. Hist. North. Ind.*, vol. I, pp. 572-75. ² *Rājasthāna* (Crooke’s edition) Vol. I, p. 50. ³ *Ind. Ant.* XII, p. 195. ⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, VII, pp. 38, 43, verse 19.

c17.s2.9

We do not know when Mahīpāla effected his *Coup d'etat*, but as the Haddala grant of his feudatory Dharaṇīvarāha³ mentions him as ruling in Śaka *saṃvat* 836 or 914 A. D., his accession may be approximately fixed in the year 912 A. D. At the very beginning of his career Mahīpāla was seriously menaced by the war-fever of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, the hereditary enemies of his house; and the effects of their renewed activity seem to have been for the time disastrous to the prosperity of Kanauj, for we are told in the Cambay plates of Govinda IV that Indra III “completely devastated (nirmmūlam unmūlitam) that hostile city of Mahodaya, which is even today greatly renowned among men by the name of Kuśasthala.”⁴ A close perusal of the record further reveals that the invader’s line of march lay through Ujjain where “the courtyard (of the temple of the god) Kālapriya (became) uneven by the strokes of the tusks of his rutting elephants,” and across the valley of the “unfathomable Jumnā which rivals the sea.”¹ Thus if the region of Ujjain continued to remain under Kanauj during the disturbed reign of Bhoja II—and there is nothing to prove that it did not—this campaign must have caused its loss, although, as we shall see below, it was only temporary. In his expedition against Kanauj, Indra III was probably accompanied by his feudatory chief Narasimha Cālukya, who, according to the *Vikramārjunavijaya* or *Pampabhārata* written by the Kanarese poet Pampa under the patronage of Arikeśarin Cālukya, is said to have “plucked from the Ghūrjararāja’s arms the goddess of victory, whom, though desirous of keeping he had held too loosely. Mahīpāla fled as if struck by thunder-bolts, staying neither to eat, nor rest, nor pick himself up; while Narasimha pursuing bathed his horses at the junction of the Ganges.”² The reference to the confluence of the Ganges shows that the army overran the greater part of modern United Provinces, and advanced as far east as Prayāga. Some scholars on the other hand take the junction of the Ganges to be with the sea and not with the Jumnā, but this view is obviously wrong, for Mahīpāla’s dominions did not extend upto the seashore, and there is no evidence that Indra III’s expedition brought him into conflict with his Pāla contemporary, Rājyapāla. Was its success, therefore, due to the unsettled state of Kanauj, as a result of the troubles which had culminated in Mahīpāla’s accession? At any rate the date of the raid raises a strong presumption in favour of this hypothesis. The Nausari grant specifies 915 A. D. as the year of Indra III’s coronation,³ and his successor is known from the Daṇḍapur (Dhārwāḍ district) inscription to have been ruling in 918 A. D.¹ Hence we may feel certain that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa attack must have taken place sometime between the years 916 and 917 A. D. i.e., just a few years after the civil turmoil in Kanauj. As regards the results of the conflict, Dr. R. C. Majumdar is of opinion that “Mahīpāla fled from his capital, hotly pursued by his enemies,” and that later on Harṣadeva Candella assisted the Imperial ruler “to re-establish his authority over the shattered kingdom.”² For the latter part of the statement, however, I am unable to find any evidence, since the passage in the Khajuraho inscription discussed above, on which the learned Professor evidently bases his conclusion, does not refer to Mahīpāla’s restoration, but merely to his accession to the throne with the help of the Candella prince. Besides, we even know from the Asni inscription that Mahīpāla was ruling in (Vikrama) year 974 = 917 A. D., and his authority was recognised so far from the capital as the modern district of Fatehpur.³

c17.s2.10

¹ *Ibid.* The god Kālapriya in the above passage refers to the temple of Mahākāla in Ujjayinī.

c17.s2.11

² Ed. Lewis Rice (Bangalore, 1898), pp. 3-4; *Karṇāṭaka Śabdānuśasana*, p. 26; J. R. A. S., N. S., Vol. XIV (1882), p. 20; *Bom. Gaz.*, Vol. I, pt. II, p. 380.

c17.s2.12

³ Fleet, *Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts*, p. 415.

c17.s2.13

¹ Ibid., p. 417; Ind. Ant., XII, pp. 222-23; Ep. Ind., VI, pp. 176, 177.

c17.s2.14

² Jour. Dept. Lett., X, pp. 66, 68. The effects of this invasion have been greatly exaggerated. Thus says Dr. R. C. Majumdar: “But the prestige of the Pratihāras suffered a severe blow from which they never completely recovered” (Ibid., p. 68). At another place, however, he affirms contrariwise: “It may be safely laid down that the Pratihāra empire remained intact and probably its boundaries were extended in Mahīpāla’s time” (Ibid., p. 64).

c17.s2.15

³ Ind. Ant., XVI, p. 174.

c17.s2.16

But in the east the Pālas, who had already reoccupied Uddaṇḍapura or Bihar probably in the confusion following the fratricidal struggle for the throne,⁴ seem to have taken advantage of this temporary shock to the fortunes of the Pratīhāra family, and they recovered some of their ancestral possessions upto the eastern banks of the river Son. This is evident from the Baragaon (Patna district) pillar inscription of the 24th year of Rājyapāla¹, and two other Pāla inscriptions that refer to the time of Gopāla II, and are incised on pedestals of images. One of them was discovered in the ruins of Nalanda in the Patna district, and records that an individual did honour to the image of the goddess Vāgīśvarī by covering it with gold leaf in the first year of Gopāla II's reign². The other was discovered in the ruins of Mahābodhi temple at Bodhgaya; it is undated and commemorates the installation of an image of the Buddha by Dharmabhīma³. These inscriptions no doubt belong to a period about two decades after the invasion of Indra III, but the re-assertion of Pāla power in Magadha cannot be far removed from this event, as the subsequent career of Mahīpāla appears to have been a glorious one.

c17.s2.17

⁴ Cf. the Bihar image inscription of Nārāyaṇapāla’s reign, dated year 54, recording the dedication of Thāruka, son of Rānaka Ucha (Utsa). Ind. Ant., XLVII (1918), p. 110.

c17.s2.18

¹ Ibid., p. 111.

c17.s2.19

² Arch. Surv. Ind. Rep., Vol. I (1862-65), p. 36.

c17.s2.20

³ Ind. Ant., XXXVIII, p. 237.

c17.s2.21.1

Thus although there were some secessions in the outlying parts of the kingdom, in the home provinces themselves Indra III's campaign meant in effect no more than a successful raid, and it left no traces behind save the horrid marks of sanguinary war. Kanauj soon revived, and we have even indications that Mahīpāla resumed his predecessors' schemes of conquest. For the court-poet Rājaśekhara, who must have lived in the early part of Mahīpāla's reign, not only speaks of him as the "pearl-jewel of the race of Raghu," and the "Mahārājādhirāja of Āryāvarta," but also in a magniloquent verse in the introduction to the *Pracaṇḍa Pāṇḍava* of *Bāla-Bhārata* attributes to him the following victories in distant lands : "And in that (lineage of Raghu) there was born the glorious Mahīpāladeva who has bowed down the locks of hair on the tops of the heads of the Muralas; who has caused the Mekhalas to suppurate; who has driven the Kalingas before him in war; who has spoilt the pastime of (the king who is) the moon of the Keralas; who has conquered the Kulūtas; who is a very axe to the Kuntalas; and who by violence has appropriated the fortunes of the Ramaṭhas"¹. It is difficult to identify Murala in this passage; possibly it stands for the Narbada and the Muralas were consequently those who inhabited its banks. Some scholars on the other hand take it to signify the country watered by the river Muralā in or around the Kerala country (*Raghuvamśa*, IV, 55).

c17.s2.21.2

Mekhala is another name for the Amarkantak hills, where the Narbada rises, and so the Mekhalas may be the people living in that region. The Kalingas were certainly the natives of the coast of Orissa, perhaps extending as far south as the Ganjam district. The Keralas or Ceras are the well-known kingdom in the south between the Western Ghats and the sea-coast. The Kulūtas, of course, were a people who dwelt in the Kangra district of the Panjab on the banks of the Bias river². The name Kulūta is probably represented by the modern Kullu. The Kuntalas lived in the western part of the Deccan. Indeed, Kuntala denoted more or less the old Cālukya kingdom in the highlands of the Western Ghats.³ The Ramaṭhas were, according to the *Kāvyamīmāṃsā* (ch. XVII, p. 94) of Rājaśekhara, a people who dwelt beyond the Pṛthūdaka in the north, and are mentioned with the Kulūtas and Kiras etc. Taking the passage literally, it would appear that Mahīpāla’s arms penetrated remote regions extending from the upper course of the river Bias in the north-west to Kalinga or Orissa in the south-east;

c17.s2.21.3

and from the Himālayas to the Kerala or Cera country in the far south.¹ But as we have no epigraphic evidence to corroborate these claims of victories, it is more reasonable to hold that by attributing to him this conventional area of “world-conquest” the poet primarily intended to show in a general way that his patron was a mighty monarch, who undertook many warlike expeditions in Āryāvarta or Northern India, and struck terror into the hearts of his contemporary rulers. That Mahīpāla must have overrun the territories as far as the lower course of the Narbadā seems also evident from the Partabgarh inscription, which informs us that in the year 946 A. D. Ujjain was being ruled by a governor of his son Mahendrapāla II. Now the latter is nowhere credited with any achievements, and we have seen above that Ujjain was occupied by the Rāṣṭrakūṭas during the northern campaigns of Indra III. There can therefore be no doubt that the recovery of the Ujjain region was the work of Mahīpāla himself. Support for this conclusion is also lent by the Kahla plate, according to which Bhāmāna is said to have gained fame by conquering Dhārā.² This Bhāmāna must have been a contemporary and vassal of Mahīpāla, being the successor of Ullabha, who was preceded by Guṇāmbodhideva. the feudatory of Mahipāla’s grandfather Bhoja I.

c17.s2.21.4

As it is unlikely that a minor prince like Bhāmāna would by himself lead an expedition from Gorakhpur District, where this Kalacuri family was settled, to distant Ujjain, we may reasonably suppose that he accompanied his suzerain Mahīpāla in his southern campaigns and helped him in his victories. Another chief who rendered him similar assistance was perhaps his Guhila contemporary, Bhaṭṭa, who is represented in the Cātsū inscription as having defeated the armies of the kings of the south at the behest of his overlord.¹ Presumably the progress of Mahīpāla’s arms was facilitated by the then moribund condition of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa monarchy, for we are told in the Karhad plates that Indra III’s successor, Govinda IV, instead of looking to the affairs of the state, had taken to “vicious courses” and had thus “with his intelligence caught in the noose of the eyes of women displeased all beings.”² The weakness of Govinda IV’s rule is also apparent from the fact that according to the *Vikramārjunavijaya* of the Kanarese poet Pampa he was defeated by one of his feudatories, Arikeśarin II of Puligere.³ This event must have occurred soon after Śaka 851 or 930 A. D., the date of the Kalas inscription, which bestows conventional praises on Govinda IV.⁴

c17.s2.22

¹ See I, 7. Carl Cappeller's edition (1885), p. 2. Cf. "Namita-Murala-mauliḥ pākalo Mekalānāṁ, Raṇa-kalita-Kaliṅgaḥ keli taṭa Keral-endoḥ, Ajani jita Kulūtaḥ Kuntalānāṁ kuṭhāraḥ, Haṭha-hrita-Ramaṭha-śrīḥ śri-Mahīpāladevaḥ."

c17.s2.23

² *Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind.*, 1907-08, p. 260.

c17.s2.24

³ See also *Arch. Surv. W. Ind.*, Vol. IV, pp. 126, 127; *Ind. Ant.*, XXII, p. 182.

c17.s2.25

¹ *Jour. Dept. Lett.*, X, p. 64; Wilson, *Theatre of the Hindus*, II, p. 361.

c17.s2.26

² *Ep. Ind.*, VII, pp. 89-90, verse 13. Cf. “...... nija vijayi pa (do) ddhāra Dhārāvanīśa (hrisya) t-senajaya-śrī-haṭha-haraṇa-kalā-dhāma Bhāmāna-devaḥ.”

c17.s2.27

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XII, pp. 12, 16, verse 26.

c17.s2.28

² *Ibid.*, IV, pp. 283, 288, verse 20.

c17.s2.29

³ *Ibid.*, XIII, pp. 328-329.

c17.s2.30

⁴ *Ibid.* The fact that in some records Govinda IV is described as being served by the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā in his palace need not be taken to mean that he retained possession of the Doab. As shown above, Indra III’s invasion did not produce any lasting results, and Govinda IV was far too busy with sensual pleasures to think of foreign affairs.

c17.s2.31

As regards the Ramaṭhas and the Kulūtas of the Panjab of whom Rājaśekhara expressly states that they were “conquered” and their “fortunes appropriated by violence,” there is nothing improbable in the view that they were actually compelled to accept the suzerainty of Mahīpāla. This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that the district of Karnal was included within the Pratihāra kingdom since the days of Bhoja I, and Mas‘udī records that “the Mihran of Sindh comes from well-known sources in the highlands of Sindh, from the country belonging to Kanauj in the kingdom of Baüüra and from Kashmir......,”¹ which clearly shows that parts of the Panjab continued to be under Kanauj. The south-western limit of Mahīpāla’s jurisdiction is of course fixed by the Haddala plates dated Śaka 836 or 914 A. D., from which we learn that at the beginning of his reign eastern Saurāṣṭra was being governed by his feudatory (Mahā-sāmantādhipati) Dharaṇivarāha, who granted to Maheśvarācārya on the day of the winter solstice the village named Vimkala.² Bühler on the other hand identified the Mahīpāla of the Haddala grant with one of the Cūḍāsamas of Girnar-Junāgaḍh,³ but considering the fact that the Unā grant mentions Avanivarman II Yoga, the feudatory of Mahendrapāla, as an opponent of a Dharaṇivarāha, identified with the Mahāsāmantādhipati of the Haddala record, it seems more reasonable to suppose that the latter eventually came under the Pratihāra yoke and that the name Mahīpāla refers to his Kanauj suzerain. It has sometimes been assumed that Saurāṣṭra, which had been connected with the Pratihāras since the reign of Nāgabhata II, must have slipped away from their hands after the raid of Indra III, but there is no evidence of any such rupture until the rise of Mūlarāja Cālukya. A powerful monarch like Mahīpāla must certainly have made his authority felt there, and even after him we may well believe that for a time the local chiefs of Kāthiāwād continued to make a show of submission, as the Nawabs of Oudh found it profitable to do during the declining days of the Great Moghul at Delhi. Towards the east, however, after the Pālas had recovered some of their lost territories, the Pratīhāra kingdom does not seem to have extended much beyond the western borders of Bihar. The Bengal Asiatic Society’s plate, issued from Mahodaya, which records the grant in V. E. 988 or 931 A. D. to Bhaṭṭa Bhullāka of a village named Tikkarigrāma in the Vārāṇasi-viṣaya of the Pratiṣṭhāna-bhukti, at any rate shows that the Benares region was still under Kanauj¹.

c17.s2.32

¹ Elliot, History of India, I, p. 21.

c17.s2.33

² Ind. Ant., XVIII, pp. 90-91; Ep. Ind., IX, p. 4.

c17.s2.34

³ Ind. Ant., XII, p. 192.

c17.s2.35

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, XV, pp. 140, 141.

c17.s2.36

There are indications that the closing years of Mahīpāla were again disturbed by a renewal of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa attacks on northern India. For the Deoli and Karhad plates of Kṛṣṇa III, while eulogising his achievements in the usual style of inflated panegyric specifically inform us that “on hearing of the conquest of all the strongholds in the southern regions simply by means of his angry glance, the hope about Kālañjara and Citrakūṭa vanished from the heart of the Gurjara.”[²] A critical study of the Deoli plates shows that Kṛṣṇa III undertook these expeditions sometime before Śaka 862 or 940 A. D., the date of the inscription, and while he was still a mere crown-prince or Kumāra. Accordingly we can be certain that the term Gurjara in this passage signifies Mahīpāla. It has been suggested that Kṛṣṇa III was successful in occupying Kālañjara and Citrakūṭa. This may perhaps be true, although all we learn from our Rāṣṭrakūṭa version of the incursion is that hearing of the triumphant progress of Kṛṣṇa III’s arms, the Gurjara ruler became so panic-stricken as to lose all hopes of the defence and safety of two of his most strategic strongholds. That Kṛṣṇa III’s claims of conquests in northern India are not a mere vaunt is no doubt clear from the discovery of a Kanarese praśasti inscribed on a stone slab at Jura in the Maihar state of the Baghelkhand Agency.¹ But it is significant that he assumes the full imperial titles of Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja, and Parameśvara in this record, and the suspicion cannot, therefore, be entirely avoided that the credit for actual occupation of any territory in the north belongs to the subsequent career of Kṛṣṇa III, who, as king, may have led a second expedition when the power of the Pratihāras was distinctly on the wane.

c17.s2.37

² *Ep. Ind.*, IV, pp. 284, 289, v. 30; V, p. 194, verse 25. Cf. “Dakṣiṇadig-durga vijayaṁ-ākarnya, Galita Gūrjara-hṛdayāt Kālañjara-Citrakūṭa-āśā.”

c17.s2.38

¹ Ibid., XIX, pp. 287-90.

Arab testimony

c17.s2.t1.1

The Arab traveller Al Mas‘ūdī,² who visited the valley of the Indus in Hijri 303-04 or 915-16 A. D. at the beginning of Mahīpāla’s reign and wrote an account of his travels in 332 H = 943-44 A. D.,³ bears eloquent testimony to the power and prestige of the king of Kanauj. He informs us in his Murūj-ul-Zahāb that “one of the neighbouring kings of India who is far from the sea, is the Baūūra, who is lord of the city of Kanauj. This title is given to all the sovereigns of that kingdom.” Evidently the term Baūūra is an Arabic corruption of the term Pratihāra or its Prakrit equivalent Paḍihāra, and the description of being “far from the sea” also answers well to the position of Kanauj. The Arab chronicler then testifies to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa-Pratihāra struggle that was the characteristic feature of this epoch.

c17.s2.t1.2

² Elliot, History of India, Vol. I, pp. 21-23.

c17.s2.t1.3

³ Ibid., p. 454.

c17.s2.t1.4

He says : “This Baüüra who is the king of Kanauj is an enemy of the Balhara, the king of India.” Further he gives a rough indication of the dimensions of the kingdom of Kanauj, which according to him extended about one hundred and twenty square parasangas of Sindh, each parasang being equal to eight miles of this country. We are also told that the king of Kanauj maintained a large army both for aggression and defence. “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.” In another passage Mas‘ūdī gives the huge numbers of the army : “The king has four armies according to the four quarters of the wind. Each of them numbers 700,000 or 900,000 men.” Lastly, the traveller indicates the political disposition of the times, and mentions some of the powers that had relations with Kanauj. “The army of the north wars against the prince of Multan, and with the Musulmans, his subjects, on the frontier. The army of the south fights against the Balhara, king of Mankir. The other two armies march to meet enemies in every direction.” From these brief references it is clear that to an observant foreigner Kanauj appeared as the leading state of northern India, whose western limits extended upto Sindh, and whose ruler kept other kingdoms in awe and subjection by his vigilant forces.¹

c17.s2.t1.5

¹ See J. A. S. B., N. S. XVI (1920), p. 84, also pl. XII, No. 1, for certain gold coins which have been attributed by Mr. R. D. Banerji to Mahīpāla Pratihāra. On the obverse the king's name appears in three lines and on the reverse there is the seated goddess of the Gupta type. The form of ha no doubt shows that the coins are earlier than the 12th century A. D., but their ascription is rather doubtful.

Mahendrapāla II

c17.s3.1

The name of this shadowy monarch was brought to light a few years ago by the discovery of a long inscription at Partabgarh, the capital of a state of the same name in southern Rajputana.¹ He is therein described as the son of Vināyakapāla (Mahīpāla) by queen Prasādhanādevī of the Devathāddhi family, and must have come to the throne shortly before the year 1003 or 946 A. D., when this inscription was issued from Mahodaya. It says that at the request of one Dhanasūra Mahendrapāla II bestowed the village of Kharpara-padraka, in the holding of Talavargika Hariṣaḍa, and situated in the vicinity of Ghoṇtā-varṣikā in the western pathaka of Dasapura (Mandasor), upon the goddess Vaṭa-Yakṣiṇī Devī, whose shrine was connected with the *maṭha* of Hari Riśīśvara. The chief point to be noticed is that even during Mahendrapāla II’s reign the kingdom of Kanauj extended so far south as Ujjain, where Mādhava, son of Dāmodara, was acting as the “great feudatory, great governor, and *charge d’affaires* (Tantra-pāla, Mahāsāmanta, Mahādaṇḍanāyaka), and his Commander-in-chief (Balādhikrita), Śrī-Śarman, was carrying on the affairs of state at Maṇḍapikā or Māṇḍū. The record adds that on the *Mīna Saṃkrānti* day Mādhava, having bathed and paid devotions at the sanctuary of Mahākāla, granted at the request of the Cāhamāna feudatory, Mahāsāmanta Indrarāja, the village of Dhārā-padraka for the worship of the idol, and repairs of the temple, of Taruṇāditya-deva. In my opinion this important document alone is sufficient to shatter the current theories that date the downfall of the Pratīhāra empire from the time of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Indra III’s invasion of Kanauj.² And luckily we have got epigraphic evidence to prove the continued inclusion of the intervening regions of Gwalior also, for the Rakhetra stone inscription,¹ discovered in the village of that name, near Canderi in Gwalior, says that Vināyakapāla constructed certain water-works there at an immense cost in the year (Vikrama) 999-1000 or 942-43 A. D. i.e., just one or two years before Mahendrapāla II ascended the throne.

c17.s3.2

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, pp. 176-186.

c17.s3.3

² See e.g., R. D. Banerji, *J. B. O. R. S.*, Dec., 1928, p. 486.

c17.s3.4

¹ *Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind.*, 1924-25, p. 168. ² *Ep. Ind.*, I, p. 170 f. ³ *Ibid.*, p. 132, verse 23; p. 133, verse 31. ⁴ See *Ante*.

Devapāla

c17.s4.1

Mahendrapāla II's reign must have terminated sometime before the (Vikrama) year 1005 or 948 A. D., when according to the Siyadoni inscription another son of Kṣitipāla alias Mahīpāla named Devapāla was ruling in Kanauj². This record describes him as the immediate successor of his father, and we may therefore explain the omission of Mahendrapāla II's name by the extreme shortness of his reign, or by the assumption that their relations were unfriendly. The reign of Devapāla appears to have been marked by the rise of the Candellas to virtual independent power, for we are told in a Khajurāho inscription that Yaśovarman Candella was "a scorching fire to the Gurjaras," and that he "easily conquered the fort of Kālañjara"³, which, as we have seen above from the Barah copper plate, was subject to the authority of Kanauj. But if we admit that it was taken by Kṛṣṇa III from the Pratīhāras before the Deoli plates were issued in 940 A. D.⁴, then evidently Yaśovarman must have reconquered Kālañjara from the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, although it is significant they are not mentioned in the Khajurāho inscription among the peoples defeated by the Candella ruler. Whatever be the fact regarding the capture of this important stronghold, it was probably because of his growing strength and independence that Yaśovarman compelled Devapāla to surrender to him a celebrated image of Vaikuṇṭha, which was subsequently set up in a temple built by the former himself. It is interesting to note that Devapāla had obtained this image for a force of elephants and horses from Sāhī, the king of Kira,¹ who in his turn had received it as a token of friendship from the lord of Bhoṭa,² and the latter again is said to have acquired it in the Kailāśa mountains.³ Such a transaction by a quondam feudatory was doubtless a great blow to the prestige of the Pratihāras, and from this time onward the decline sets in, and the empire reared by the genius of Bhoja I and Mahendrapāla I begins to crumble to pieces.

c17.s4.2

¹ The Kiras have been identified with the Kashmiras by some, but it seems more plausible to locate them in the Kangra valley of the Panjab. For an account of the Kira kingdom, see *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, IX (March, 1933), pp. 11-17.

c17.s4.3

² Lassen identifies Bhoṭa with modern Tibet (*Ep. Ind.*, I, p. 124).

c17.s4.4

³ *Ibid.*, p. 134, verse 43.

Vijayapāla

c17.s5.1.1

Like his predecessors, Devapāla also appears to have enjoyed a very short reign, for we learn from the Rajor inscription that a king named Vijayapāla was in power in Kanauj early in the year 959 A. D. This epigraph represents him as meditating on the feet of Kṣitipāladeva—a phrase commonly used in inscriptions to signify the relation of father and son⁴—and consequently the inference may safely be drawn that Vijayapāla was a brother or half-brother of Devapāla. It has, however, been a matter of some controversy among scholars whether Vijayapāla was the immediate successor of Devapāla or there were other intervening kings. Recently the latter view has been advocated by Mr. Niharranjan Ray, who thinks that between Devapāla and Vijayapāla two more kings ruled viz., Vināyakapāla II, son of Mahendrapāla II (?) and Mahīpāla II, son of Devapāla (?).¹ Vināyakapāla II is introduced in the Pratihāra genealogy on the strength of the Khajuraho inscription dated V. E. 1011 = 954 A. D., the last line of which runs as follows : "While the illustrious Vināyaka (?) pāladeva is protecting the earth, the earth is not taken possession of by the enemies, who have been annihilated."² Now, the identification of this Vināyakapāla has been a puzzle to scholars.

c17.s5.1.2

Kielhorn, the editor of the inscription, was unable to offer any conjecture, and he felt even some doubts about the correctness of his reading.³ But the above description in terms suggestive of his suzerain power, and the form of the name, which is quite clear in the facsimile, make it almost certain that he can be no other than a Pratihāra monarch. Are we, therefore, to identify him with Vināyakapāla *alias* Mahīpāla, or take him as a separate ruler? Chronological considerations go against the first alternative, as the Khajurāho inscription is dated in 954 A. D., and we know it definitely that Vināyakapāla’s successor was already on the throne in the year 946 A. D. It has, no doubt, been sometimes supposed that the name of Vināyakapāla occurred in the original record of Yaśovarman, and after the latter’s death it was set up in 954 A. D. during the reign of his successor Dhanga with the addition of some verses at the end describing his martial exploits.⁴ This assumption, however, does not appear to be cogent, for why should the name of a monarch, who was dead and gone, be retained in the “subsequent modification” of an official document made in the time of Dhanga, when Vināyakapāla was no longer “protecting the earth”? Thus we are driven to recognise the existence of a second Vināyakapāla after Devapāla’s reign. As regards his connection with the Pratīhāra line, Mr. N.

c17.s5.1.3

Ray may be right in thinking that he was the son of Mahendrapāla II, for among Indian Royalty it is not unoften the practice to give to the grandson the same name as that of the grandfather.¹ But there is just one point which seems to militate against the view that Vināyakapāla II followed Devapāla. We have already noted that Yaśovarman is represented in the same Khajurāho inscription as a “scorching fire to the Gurjaras,” and is even credited with the easy conquest of Kālañjara. If, therefore, Yaśovarman had practically wrested the independence of the Candellas, how could his successor Dhanga continue to invoke the name of the Pratīhāra king as his overlord. Perhaps the explanation to this apparent anomaly is that like the Nizam of the Deccan and the Nawabs of Oudh, who were virtually independent and yet nominally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Great Moghul at Delhi, the Candel ruler also did not all at once break off formal relations with the effete imperial power at Kanauj, but for some time maintained an outward show of submission. Now, if Vināyakapāla II was an historical reality, as appears quite likely from the foregoing discussion, who was his successor? With regard to Mahīpāla II, we are rather on uncertain ground. He has been mentioned in a stone inscription, discovered at Bayana in the Bharatpur state, which records the erection of a temple of Viṣṇu by Citralekhā,² and the reasons of his identification as a Pratihāra monarch are twofold.

c17.s5.1.4

First, he is given the imperial title of Mahārājādhirāja; and secondly, the Bayana region must have been included within the kingdom of Kanauj, since it is known with certainty that Rajor, lying further to its northwest, continued to acknowledge the authority of Kanauj till afterwards. That Bayana formed part of the kingdom of Kanauj in Vikrama year 1012 = 955 A. D., the date of the epigraph, nobody would probably deny, but the question is how far are we justified in regarding Mahīpāla as a Pratihāra from the mere title of Mahārājādhirāja? The document does not mention any of the predecessors of Mahīpāla, which is almost an uncommon feature in the records of the dynasty. Besides, it is highly improbable, although by no means impossible, that within the short space of about a decade—948 to 959 A. D.—three kings viz., Devapāla, Vināyakapāla II, Mahīpāla II, ruled in close succession, and the fourth, Vijayapāla, also began his career. Presumably Mahīpāla was a vassal chief, and this supposition is doubtless to some extent strengthened by the evidence of the Rajor inscription, which shows that even the feudatories had then begun to adopt the so-called imperial titles of Parameśvara and Mahārājādhirāja on account of the decadent condition of the imperial government at Kanauj.¹ Similarly, we cannot include Vatsarāja into the dynastic list merely on the strength of a fragmentry stone inscription of the Vikrama year 1013 = 956 A.

c17.s5.1.5

D., discovered at Osia in the Jodhpur state.² It is indeed noteworthy that this record calls him a Pratihāra, but he may have been only a scion of some local branch of the family, or a gubernatorial representative over whom the control of Kanauj had become very loose¹. The truth of the whole matter is that although the historicity of a second Vināyakapāla may be accepted, there is nothing definite in our present state of knowledge to support the insertion of Mahīpāla II or Vatsarāja II into the Imperial line.

c17.s5.2

⁴ It may also sometimes denote the relation of brother.

c17.s5.3

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, Oct. 1928, pp. 230-34.

c17.s5.4

² *Ep. Ind.*, I, p. 135.

c17.s5.5

³ *Ibid.*, p. 124.

c17.s5.6

⁴ *Jour. Dep. Lett.*, X, p. 61.

c17.s5.7

¹ Ind. Ant., Oct., 1928, p. 233.

c17.s5.8

² Ann. Prog. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind., Western circle, 1919, pp. 43-44; Ep. Ind., XXII (July, 1933), pp. 120-27.

c17.s5.9

¹ See Infra.

c17.s5.10

² *Ann. Prog. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind.*, Western circle, 1907, p. 15. This record should not be confused with that of Nāgabhaṭa II's father.

c17.s5.11

¹ This suggestion perhaps receives some confirmation from the Rajor inscription, which represents another feudatory, Mathanadeva, as belonging to the Gurjara-Pratīhāra family.

c17.s5.12

To turn to Vijayapāla, it is difficult to ascertain the exact limits of his reign, but we know that he must have come to the throne about 959 A. D., and ceased to rule long before 1019 A. D., when his successor Rājyapāla was killed in battle. Thus the period between 959 and 1019 A. D. covers two reigns; and if we, therefore, assign thirty years to each—leaving a slight margin for error—the date of Vijayapāla’s death would fall sometime about the year 988-89 A. D. The gradual process of decline, which began in the time of Devapāla with the rise of the Candellas, continued steadily under Vijayapāla’s rule, so that when the sceptre dropped from his hand, the mighty kingdom of the Pratīhāras had become a ghost of its former self, and on its ruins new states had appeared. Among the earliest defections was that of the south-western province of Saurāṣṭra (Kāthiāwāḍ), which along with Gujarat came under the Solanki or Caulukya dynasty founded by Mūlarāja at Anhilwāḍ (Anhilla-pāṭaka) about the middle of the tenth century A. D.² The Kādi plates³ and the Gujarat chronicles describe him as a son of Mahārājādhirāja Rāji, and we may, therefore, suppose that Mūlarāja was not a mere upstart adventurer, but belonged to some notable family.¹ The Kādi inscription also states that he acquired the Sāraswata-maṇḍala by the prowess of his arms.² The Vaḍnagar praśasti³ further informs us that Mūlarāja “made the fortune of the kingdom of the Cāpoṭkaṭa princes, whom he took captive at will, an object of enjoyment for the multitude of the learned, of his relatives” etc., which shows that he must have aggrandised himself in southern Rajputana—the homelands of the opponents named. In northern Rajputana also the authority of the Pratīhāras must have been only nominal, for Mathanadeva, son of Sāvaṭa of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra lineage (Gurjara-Pratīhārānvayaḥ), adopts the imperial titles of Mahārājādhirāja and Parameśvara in the Rajor inscription discovered among the ruins of Parnagar in the Alwar state, while in the same breath he represents himself as a feudatory of Vijayapāla.⁴

c17.s5.13

² According to Merutunga’s *Vicāraśreṇī*, Mūlarāja ascended the throne in V. E. 1017 = A. D. 961 (*Bom. Gaz.*, vol. I, pt. I, p. 156). But the Sambhar inscription gives the Vikrama date 998 or 941 A. D. for the event (*Ind. Ant.*, 1929, pp. 235, 236, verse 8).

c17.s5.14

³ *Ind. Ant.*, VI, pp. 191, 192.

c17.s5.15

¹ Ibid., p. 181 f; Bom. Gaz., Vol. I, pt. I, p. 156 f.

c17.s5.16

² Ind. Ant., VI, p. 191, line 7.

c17.s5.17

³ Ep. Ind., I, pp. 296, 301, verse 5; Ibid., X, p. 77.

c17.s5.18

⁴ Ep. Ind., III, p. 266.

c17.s5.19

The kingdom of Jejākabhukti rapidly grew in power and saw its palmy days under Dhanga (circa 950-1000 A. D.), who is alleged in the Mhow inscription to have attained to “supreme lordship after inflicting a defeat over the king of Kānyakubja.”⁵ The success of the Candellas against the Pratīhāras is further confirmed by a Khajurāho inscription, wherein we are told that Dhanga ruled the earth “playfully acquired by the action of his long and strong arms, as far as Kālañjara, and as far as Bhāsvat situated (?) on the banks of the river Mālava; from here to the banks of the river Kālindī (Jumnā), and from here also to the frontiers of the Cedi country, and even as far as that mountain called Gopa (Gopādri), which is the unique abode of marvel.”¹ The Sāsbahū inscription, however, attributes the conquest of Gwalior to the Kacchapaghāta prince Vajradāman, who is said to have “put down the rising valour of the ruler of Gādhinagara, and his proclamation drum ... resounded in the fort of Gopādri.”² As his only known date 977 A. D.³ falls within the limits of Dhanga’s reign, we may assume that Vajradāman was a local feudatory chief of the Candella ruler, whom he assisted in the conquest of Gwalior. The loss of this ancient possession must have dealt a severe blow to the strength of the Pratihāras, as thereby the Candellas got hold of a strategic position, which they could well use as a base for further encroachments. Indeed, it is likely that towards the close of his reign Dhanga carried his arms as far as Benares, since a copper plate of (Vikrama) year 1055 = 998 A. D. records that he made a grant of the village of Yulli (?) situated in the Uṣāravāha to the Bhaṭṭa Yaśodhara at Kāśikā or Benares.⁴

c17.s5.20

⁵ Ibid., I, pp. 197, 203, verse 3. Cf. “yaḥ Kānyakubjaṁ narendraṁ samara bhuvi vijitya prāpa sāmrājyaṁ-uccaiḥ.”

c17.s5.21

¹ Ibid., I, pp. 124, 134, verse 45.

c17.s5.22

² Ind. Ant., XV, pp. 36, 41.

c17.s5.23

³ J. A. S. B., XXXI, p. 393.

c17.s5.24

⁴ Ind. Ant., XVI, pp. 203, 206.

c17.s5.25

Next, the Cedis, who occupied the country between the Candellas and the Cālukya territories, appear to have given some trouble to the decadent power at Kanauj, for the Goharwa plates of the year 1047 A. D. affirm that the Cedi king, Lakṣamanarājadeva, who must have flourished sometime in the latter half of the tenth century being three generations anterior to the issuer of the grant, defeated the kings of Vangāla, Kasmīra, and Gurjara etc.⁵ The Cedis had also intervened in Imperial affairs previously, when Kokalla I espoused the cause of Bhoja II, and so we may be sure that Gurjara here refers to the Pratihāra monarch.

c17.s5.26

⁵ Ep. Ind., XI, p. 142, v. 8.

c17.s5.27

As regards Malwa, it was governed between the years V. E. 1005 = A. D. 949 and V. E. 1029 = A. D. 973 by Sīyaka-Harṣa of the Paramāra dynasty,¹ who, according to the Udepur inscription, “took away in battle the wealth of Khoṭṭiga,”² rightly identified by Bühler with his Rāṣṭrakuṭa namesake (circa 955-970), successor of Kṛṣṇa III (c. 940-955 A. D.). Sīyaka-Harṣa was followed by another powerful ruler named Muñja alias Vākpati whose kown dates range from 974 to 994 A. D. He is credited in the same Udepur *praśasti* with many notable victories over the Karṇāṭas, Lāṭas, Keralas, Colas and Cedis³; we may, therefore, safely assume that he was, like his predecessor, free from any foreign control. Malwa must have overthrown the Pratīhāra authority and declared its independence soon after the death of Mahendrapāla II, for we know from the Indore plates that even as early as V. E. 1031 = 974 A. D. the three immediate predecessors of Muñja⁴ are given the usual titles of Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja, and Parameśvara generally signifying sovereign status.

c17.s5.28

¹ See the Harasola grant (*Ep. Ind.*, XIX, p. 226 f.) for the former date and Dhanapāla’s *Pāiya-lacchi*, v. 198, for the latter.

c17.s5.29

² *Ep. Ind.*, I, pp. 235, 237, v. 12.

c17.s5.30

³ *Ibid.*, v. 14.

c17.s5.31

⁴ *Ind. Ant.*, VI, p. 51. The Udepur *praśasti* gives a longer genealogy by duplicating names, but Dr. Hoernle remarks it is mythical (*J. R. A. S.*, 1904, p. 657, note 1; see also C. V. Vaidya, H.M.H.I., Vol. II, pp. 118, 123; D. B. Diskalkar, Proc. & Trans. 3rd Or. Conf. (Madras, 1924), p. 303 f. See, however, D. C. Ganguly, *History of the Paramāra Dynasty* (Dacca, 1933), pp. 29-30 and note; Dr. H. C. Ray, *Dy. Hist. North. Ind.*, II, p. 844 f. for the contrary view).

c17.s5.32

The Cāhamānas of Sākambharī or Sambhar, originally feudatories of the Pratīhāras⁵, also took advantage of the prevailing confusion and made themselves supreme in Central Rajputana. This is evident from the Harṣa stone inscription, which gives us the Vikrama year 1030 = 973 A. D. for Vigraharāja II,¹ and represents him as having "rescued both the fortune of his family and the fortune of victory from the distress which had befallen them."² Indeed, if the "universal sovereign of the earth in Ragu's race" (Raghukula-bhu-cakravarti) mentioned in verse 19 of the above record, is identical with one of the later Pratīhāra monarchs, as supposed by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar³ on the authority of Rājaśekhara, the power and prestige of the Cāhamānas must have grown considerably even during the time of Vigraharāja's predecessor, Simharāja, for otherwise how are we to explain the unique circumstance of the suzerain personally visiting his feudatory in order to secure the release of the princes captured by the latter in his war against the Tomara chief Salavaṇa.

c17.s5.33

⁵ See *ante* under Nāgabhaṭa II.

c17.s5.34

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, II, pp. 124, 129.

c17.s5.35

² *Ibid.*, pp. 122, 127, verse 20; *Ind. Ant.*, XLII (1913), p. 62, v. 20.

c17.s5.36

³ *Ind. Ant.*, XLII (1913), pp. 59, 62; see also Dr. H. C. Ray, *Dy. Hist. North. Ind.*, Vol. II, p. 1064. Kielhorn, however, thinks that the reference is to Rāma or Viṣṇu and the taking away of Simharāja to heaven (*Ep. Ind.*, II, p. 127 and note).

c17.s5.37

Perhaps the Guhilas (Guhilots) also broke off all relations with the Pratīhāras not long after the Vikrama year 1003 or 946 A. D., the date of the Partabgarh inscription, for we learn from the Atpur inscription that Mahārājādhirāja Bhaṭṛipaṭṭa II, who is recorded in the former epigraph to have made a perpetual land grant to the deity Indrarājāditya-deva of Ghoṇṭāvarṣikā in V. E. 999 = 943 A. D., married a Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess,⁴ which clearly indicates that he had formed an alliance with their traditional rivals. Lastly, the kingdom of Bhatinda¹ came into prominence in the Panjab, and gradually extended “in length from Sirhind to Lumghan and in breadth from the kingdom of Kashmir to Mooltan.”² Thus within the course of half a century the disintegration of the Pratihāra empire was almost complete, and once more Northern India presented its normal aspect of a group of independent and mutually warring states.

c17.s5.38

⁴ *Ind. Ant.* 1910, p. 191, verse 4.

c17.s5.39

¹ At first the Śāhis had their capital at Uda-bhāṇḍapur or Waihind, but probably owing to the pressure of the advancing Moslems it was shifted to Bhatinda.

c17.s5.40

² Briggs, Firishta (*History of the Rise of the Mohamedan Power*), Vol. I, p. 15.

Rājyapāla

c17.s6.1.1

When Rājyapāla came to the throne, he was in no position to make any attempt to retrieve the fallen fortunes of his family, for not only were the frontiers of his attenuated kingdom hemmed in on all sides by powerful principalities, but the political situation had become further complicated by the aggressions of the Moslems of Ghazni, who now directed all their “thoughts to the conquest of the infidels.” We must, therefore, turn to trace the course of their progress eastward in order to understand the circumstances of the ultimate overthrow of the Pratihāra power in Kanauj. The rumblings of the coming storm were naturally first heard in the north-west, when Jayapāla, the ruler of Udabhāṇḍapur, driven to desperation by the gradual diminution of his ancestral kingdom, determined to retaliate and check the further advance of the Moslems by organising a counter-invasion of their territory. But the effete Hindu soldiers were no match for the hardy hosts of Sultan Sabuktigin, and Jayapāla was soon compelled to retreat after concluding a humiliating agreement.¹ In the safety of his capital, however, he repudiated the terms of the compact and imprisoned the Amir’s officers, which provoked the latter to such an extent that he at once marched like a “foaming torrent” to punish Jayapāla for his treachery.

c17.s6.1.2

The latter, despairing of success, invited the prominent Hindu states to help him in resisting the alien invader, to which the “neighbouring kings, particularly those of Delhi, Ajmer, Kālañjara, and Kanauj” readily responded with men and money². Jayapāla advanced to meet his adversary on the confines of Lamghan,³ but the ponderous forces consisting of 100,000 cavalry, “many elephants” (Nizamuddin), and “an innumerable host of foot” (Firishta), at his command soon gave way before the masterly manœuvres of Sabuktigin’s army with the result that the conqueror obtained immense booty, besides 200 elephants of war, and “the best things in Jayapāla’s most distant provinces.” The king of Kanauj whose contingent shared in this defeat was probably Rājyapāla, although we have no evidence that he himself took any active part in the battle. The next attack was made by Sultan Mahmud, the son and successor of Sabuktigin, in the year 392 Hijri or 1001 A. D. Here again the issues were decidedly against Jayapāla, who, being unable to bear the ignominy of another defeat, handed over the cares of the kingdom to his son, Ānandapāla, and then immolated himself by fire.¹ But Mahmud’s insatiable thirst for harrying the “idolaters” would not allow Ānandapāla to have a peaceful reign, and in the spring of the year 399 or 1008 A. D. the Sultan again formed plans to punish him for having lent his aid to Da’ud of Multan in his treasonable designs.

First 105 of 160 passages. Read on

Linked texts (25)