<!-- Pramāṇa, a library of Indian primary sources · https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c19.s3.5 -->

[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937) › c19.s3.5

# History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c19.s3.5

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c19.s3.5

- **Language:** English

### [c19.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c19.s3.5)

Thus we learn from the combined testimony of these inscriptions that Hariścandra was nineteen years old, when his father was killed in battle, and that he ruled for at least three years after that event. But what was the nature of his authority? It is unthinkable that this boy-king could have maintained his independence, even within a circumscribed area, when many a war-worn veteran had fallen, and the Moslem army had reduced the kingdom as far east as Benares. It would, therefore, appear reasonable to hold that as “on a promise of punctual payment of a large tribute he (Sihābuddin) had delivered over the country of Ajmer to Gola or Kola, a natural son of Prithvīrāja,”² similarly Hariścandra was allowed to reign in a portion of his ancestral dominions after he had acknowledged himself a tributary of the newly-established Moslem power at Delhi.³ This hypothesis probably finds support from an inscription of Vikrama saṃvat 1253 or 1197 A. D., discovered at Belkhara (ancient Veḷasarā), a few miles to the south-east of Chunargarh (Chunar) in the Mirzapur district of United Provinces, which records the erection of a pillar when Rānaka Vijayakarṇa was the ruler of that region. The chief point to be noted, however, is that it does not mention the name of the king of Kanauj, but simply uses the phrase “Śrīmat Kānyakubja-vijayarā- jye.”¹ This indicates that although Vijayakarṇa had not made himself independent of Kanauj, the Moslem supremacy over the kingdom was perplexing or abhorrent to him, and so he discreetly omitted any specific reference to Hariścandra or his Moslem overlord.

- [Previous: c19.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c19.s3.4)
- [Next: c19.s3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c19.s3.6)
- [Up: c19.s3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c19.s3)

---
Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c19.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c19.s3.5) · Pramāṇa
