Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s1: (B) Founding of the Kingdom of Ghazni.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s1

Language
English

(B) Founding of the Kingdom of Ghazni.

v3.c33.s1.1

The Turkish kingdom at Ghazni which later under Mahmud became so powerful as to engulf not only Khorasan and Khwarism in the west but the whole of the Panjab in the east was first founded, as stated above, by Alptagin, a Turkish general under Mansur king of Bokhara. The history of Mahmud resembles so completely the history of Shivaji that the similarity extends back even to the history of his father and grandfather. Like Maloji, the acquirer of the original Jaghir the centre of Bhosla power, Alptagin was the founder of the small principality of Ghazni. He was first the Hajib of Amir Abdul Malik, father of Mansur and subsequently governor of Khorasan. Having opposed the accession of Mansur, he had to leave the kingdom and he went towards India and seized Ghazni and established his rule there. His slave was Sabuktagin who filled the same position as his master at Bokhara and he gave him his daughter in marriage, Sabuktagin naturally acknowledged the soveriegnty of Mansur though Ghazni was his separate acquisition in the same way as Shahaji acknowledged the suzerainty of the Bijapur Darbar though his Jaghir of Poona and Supa was his own acquisition from the Nizamshahi now no more. Sabuktagin acquired great power and influence in the court of Bokhara in consequence of his efficient army composed of Turks, Afghans and others which he maintained in the same way as Shahaji whose army was always a valuable asset of the Bijapur Darbar. And Sabuktagin fought the battles of the Samanides against their enemies as Shahaji did those of Bijapur. Extensive additional territories were assigned to Sabuktagin as to Shahaji. Indeed they were both almost kings though nominally sardars of the suzerain power at Bokhara or Bijapur. Both laid the foundations and evolved the necessary ingredients of an independent kingdom, though they never aspired to independence in their own life and left that glory to their sons Mahmud and Shivaji.

v3.c33.s1.2

The ordinary title of Sabuktagin was Amir and he was invested with the further title of Nasiruddoula for his services in repelling the Turkish invasion by Nuh. Utbi, the historian of Mahmud, usually calls him Nasiruddin and gives instances of his great justice and strict discipline. Seeing some poultry in the hands of a Turkish soldier, he enquired how he had got it and when told that he had purchased it he called the alleged seller, a villager, who replied "A Turk never pays". The enraged king ordered the soldier's ears to be bored and the birds to be suspended from them and the soldier was paraded through the army, the birds flapping violently against the head of the guilty Turk. By such strict discipline Sabuktagin kept the turbulent Turks in control and advanced the prosperity of the country he ruled.

v3.c33.s1.3

It is natural that popular belief should invest such a man and father of Mahmud with illustrious pedigree. It was believed that though a slave of Alptagin he belonged to a Turkish family of chieftains who were descended from a daughter of Yezdgird the last emperor of the Persians. High pedigree is also assigned to Shahaji whose descent from the Udaipur Sisodia Rajput family was believed in even in his days. The story of Sabuktagin being descended from Yezdgird is said to have been told by Mahmud himself (Tabakat-i-Nasiri). It is not necessary that great men must have illustrious lineage, but popular sentiment is not satisfied unless an illustrious origin whether real or imaginary is assigned to the great men of the nation. Whatever the truth of the story, we may note the similarity of Shahaji and Sabuktagin in this respect also.

v3.c33.s1.4

Popular belief also assigns divine greatness to the birth of Mahmud as to the birth of Shivaji, Mahmud being as great a favourite, religiously considered, with the Mahomedans, as Shivaji is with the Hindus. It is related that Sabuktagin once while hunting seized a buck and taking it up on horseback turned homewards. Seeing the mother of the buck following him to a great distance, he was moved with compassion for the affliction of the mother and set down the buck to the delight of the female deer. Mahomet appeared to him in a dream and applauded his act of kindness and promised him a kingdom. It is also stated that when Mahmud was born, Sabuktagin had a dream, presaging the birth of the great king, in which he saw a tremendous tree grow suddenly from the fireplace in his house. As he was telling his dream, news came of Mahmud’s birth which fell on the same day as the day of the birth of the great prophet and Sabuktagin said “I name the child Mahmud”. Such stories about heroes naturally arise after they have achieved their greatness. A third story relates that, on the day Mahmud was born, the idol temple at Wahind fall in the same way as at the birth of the great prophet the fire temple in the palace of the Persian kings was destroyed by an earthquake. This presaged the relentless war which Mahmud was to wage against the idolatry of the Hindus. Mahmud was born on the 10th of Mohurrum in 361 H corresponding to 2nd October 971 (Tabakat-i-Nasiri and Elliot p. 69) but Firishta has given the 9th of Mohurrum 357 H (note ditto). This makes a difference of nearly four years. Sabuktagin ruled from 977 to 997 A. D. He extended his dominions in the south by conquering Kandahar and Bust the capital of Zabulistan and he tried to extend the same towards the east where the kingdoms of India lay. His immediate neighbour on that side was Jaipal described variously as king of Hindustan, of Kabul and of Lahore. We must determine who this king was, as even so late as Sir Vincent Smith different views have been entertained on this subject.

v3.c33.s1.5

Who was Jaipal king of Hindustan? He is evidently the king of Kabul belonging to the Brahmin dynasty founded by Lalliya and described in the previous volumes. (Vol. II. p. 157 and Vol. I. p. 201). But this obvious identification has not been accepted by the now almost authoritative Early History of India which states even in the third edition (1914) as follows "In those days a large kingdom comprising the upper valley of the Indus and most of the Panjab to the north of Sind extending westward to the mountain and eastward to the Hakra river was governed by a king named Jaipal whose capital was Bathinda (Bhatinda) situated s. s. w. of Lahore and westward from Patiala". This, though not expressly, clearly distinguishes this Jaipal from the Brahmin Jaipal king of Kabul. In the foot-note here (p. 382) Smith remarks that this summary statement has been given by him from Raverty, "differing as it does from current accounts". He gives greater details in his article on the Chandellas in I. A. XXXVII (1908) where he refers for Bathinda to a note in Raverty's translation of Tabakat-i-Nasiri and further observes in a note there that Miss Duff in her 'chronology' is wrong when she identifies this Jaipal with the Jaipal of Wahind. He further states in a note on p. 383 E. H. I. that "Elliot mixes up the dynasty of Bathinda commonly called the Shahis of Ohind with that of Kabul and so renders the whole story unintelligible". But after giving due consideration to the arguments advanced by Raverty in the aforementioned note and the whole evidence on this subject, it appears to us that Sir Vincent Smith is mistaken in setting up a distinct kingdom for this Jaipal and that the earlier view of Miss Duff and Elliot is correct. We proceed to examine this question at length.

v3.c33.s1.6

In the first place the reason why Raverty was led to suggest this new theory appears to be that Wamand was read in Nasiri for Wahind where the statement is made that "On the day Mahmud was born, an idol-temple in Wamand in Pershaur on the Indus fell." Raverty supposed that this temple was to the east of the Indus and he made an attempt to read the name Wamand in several ways. It may be noted that in Persian and probably even in Arabic writing, the absence of dots defeats the correct pronunciation of Indian names; as b, p, t, n as also v, and d, and h, ch and j are often not to be distinguished. And Col. Raverty finally fixed upon Bathinda as the proper pronunciation of the name and took hint for this from a Persian history of the Rajas of Jammu written by a Hindu author, wherein was found the statement that Jaipal's capital and place of residence was Bathinda. Now no reference is given to this history, nor is its date mentioned and it is possible that even here Bathinda is a misreading, or miswriting in the Persian copy, of an original Wahind. Nay more, since the Jammu chronicler appears to be a modern writer and not a contemporary of Mahmud, he must have taken this statement from some previous Persian history and himself read Bathinda wrongly for Ohind or Wahind. It is to be wondered how Col. Raverty was misled by this Jammu chronicle and it is still more to be wondered how Sir Vincent Smith was misled by this note of Col. Raverty. We proceed to give in detail the arguments which arise against this view.

v3.c33.s1.7

In the first place Al-Beruni, a contemporary of Mahmud and a well-informed writer, does not mention in his geography of India this capital of Jaipal. We have specially given this geographical chapter from Al-Beruni's 'India' in order that the reader may have a correct idea of the political divisions of India existing at the time of Mahmud. Al-Beruni mentions distinctly Wahind as the capital of Kandhar which is equivalent to Gāndhāra and places it on the west of the Indus and then gives Peshawar, Kabul, and Ghazni. He mentions Mandahukur as capital of Lohawar east of the Ravi. This town has not been identified but it can not be equated with Bathinda as it is not on the Ravi and on the east of it. (Perhaps this is a wrong translation for Lohawar capital of Mandahukur). It seems probable that the Brahmin kings of Kabul were at this time masters of the whole of the Panjab. The extent of the kingdom of Jaipal as given by Smith from Mahomedan historians is of course correct. From the mountains to the west of the Indus it extended over the Panjab to the river Ghaggar or Hakra of the Mahomedans. But the kingdom of Wahind and Kabul cannot be separated from this kingdom for these were one and the same kingdom.

v3.c33.s1.8

Al-Idrisi again writing some years after Al-Beruni distinctly states that Atrasa on the Ganges was a frontier fortress of the Kanauj kingdom the limits of which extend *as far as Kabul and Lohawar*. He distinctly makes Kabul and Lohawar one kingdom conterminous with the kingdom of Kanauj. The state of political divisions in India in the beginning of the eleventh century clearly shows that there was no separate kingdom of the Panjab. The same thing appears from the statements of Al-Masudi who wrote about 953 A. D. that the Indus comes from the uplands of Sind, Kanauj, Kashmir, Kandhar and Tafan. Only four kingdoms are here mentioned; Kandhar being the kingdom of Gāndhāra of which Pershawar (Peshawar formerly Purushapur) was the ancient capital. Lastly even in the Tabakat-i-Nasiri the idol temple is said to be in Wamand or Wahind in Pershaur which plainly means "In the province of Peshawar."

v3.c33.s1.9

Historical considerations as well as geographical point to the same conclusion. First the names of the three kings mentioned are identical and come in the same order. Jaipal was succeeded by Ānandapāla and he by Trilochanpāla both in the kingdom of Kabul and in this supposed kingdom of Bathinda. In his article in I. A. XXXVII Smith gives the name of the last king as Brāhmaṇapāla but this is again a misreading for Trilochanpāla t being mistaken for b and ch being mistaken for h. Any person conversant with Persian orthography can see how Brāhmaṇapāla may be read for an original Trilochanpāla. The name is in fact read by some as Tirojanpal. Brāhmaṇapāla is not a name which can be taken to be a Hindu name and is certainly a misreading for Trilochanapāla which was long ago suggested as the proper reading even by noted European scholars. The identity of the three names and their identical order would go far in favour of the two kingdoms being one.

v3.c33.s1.10

Further, these ‘kings of Hindustan’ are everywhere described as Brahmin kings and we know that the kings of Kabul were Brahmins. We find Brahmin kings at this time in Kabul only and this also shows that the two kingdoms must be the same. Again the great glory of the Shahi kings of Wahind or Udabhānda described and deplored by Kalhaṇa in the Rājatarangiṇī can only be explained by holding that their kingdom extended over nearly the whole of the Panjab. It could not have been confined to Kabul and Wahind only. Lastly when it is stated that Mahmud after conquering Jaipal in the battle fought near Peshawar went and attacked the capital of Jaipal, we are nearly certain that this capital was Wahind in the vicinity of Peshawar on the west of the Indus and could not have been Bhatinda so very distant as to require Mahmud to cross all the rivers of the Panjab and come as far as Patiala on the south of the Sutlej. It is, therefore, almost certain that the capital of Jaipal king of Hindustan was Wahind.

v3.c33.s1.11

It would be interesting to explain how Jaipal is called king of Hindustan as also of Kabul and often of Lahore. It is clear that before the 10th century the whole country east of the Helmand was Hindustan. Even Ghazni when it was first taken by Yakub-i-lais was in India and so was Kabul (See Vol. I p. 191) and Kandahar which was in the country of Rajputs (Al-Masudi, 953 A. D.). When the Ghazni kingdom was founded, it was bounded east, south and north and even west by Hindustan and Sabuktagin conquered the adjacent parts of India gradually and included them in the kingdom of Ghazni. Jaipal was king to the east and north of Ghazni; this country was still properly called Hindustan, the people being still Hindus. The Brahmin dynasty founded by Lalliya ruled originally in Kabul. When Yakub-i-lais conquered Kabul and the citadel was taken and retained by the Mahomedans, it appears probable that the Brahmin kings removed their capital to Wahind though they still retained possession of the town of Kabul. The surroundiug country was also in their possession. That they did not dislodge the Mahomedans from the citadel of Kabul seems strange; but the fact of its being in the hands of the Mahomedans seems certain from its being clearly mentioned in Mahomedan writings. Possibly the Brahmin dynasty for a time acknowledged the supremacy of the Mahomedans (See Vol. I p. 193). One Kabul Shah even offered to assist his suzerain Mahomedan king of Ghazni against the invading Turks (See ditto). Whatever the reason, a Mahomedan garrison remained in the citadel of Kabul and the Brahmin kings of Kabul must have found it convenient to shift to Wahind or Udabhānda on the west bank of the Indus.

v3.c33.s1.12

But they retained possession of the town of Kabul and always respected it as their original capital. Writers have stated that every king of this family had to be crowned in Kabul; "otherwise the people would not acknowledge him king" (Vol. I p. 201). The Brahmin kings though they resided in Wahind went to Kabul for their coronation. Such action can well be conceived when we remember that in modern history the Peshwas residing in Poona had to go to Satara and be invested with the robe of Peshwa or minister at the hands of the titular king. The Brahmin kings of Kabul were similarly originally commanders-in-chief (or Sphalapati) of the Kshatriya kings of Kabul and people would insist on their assuming their dignity in Kabul. The above remark of the Mahomedan writers becomes easily understandable when we remember that Kabul was the original capital and Wahind the new capital of these Brahmin Shahi kings.

v3.c33.s1.13

The kings of Kabul and Wahind appear to have extended their dominion to the Panjab some time in the 10th century and not before. We know that Lalliya the founder was conquered by a Kashmirian king and Kabul itself was held in subjection for a time by Kashmir. In the Panjab then ruled some Tekka king and Kashmir kings and even the kings of Kanauj and Multan held territories in the Panjab adjacent to their kingdoms. But in the 10th century the evidence of Al-Masudi* and Al-Idrisi show that the Kabul or Gāndhāra kings held the Panjab as far as Lahore so that their territory was conterminous with that of Kanauj. Lahore was their capital in the Panjab. Who founded this city does not appear. It was called Lohapura and popular tradition says it was founded by Lava son of Rāma, (Lahore Gazetteer); but historically speaking, as Hiuen Tsang does not mention it, we may safely hold that the city was founded or at least it came to importance in the days of these Brahmin kings who are thus described variously as kings of Hindustan, of Kabul, of Wahind and of Lahore. Lahore is written usually in early Mahomedan writings as Lohāwur, or even Lohur which in Sanskrit would be Lohapura.

v3.c33.s1.14

∗ Translation by Aloys Sprenger Vol. I, has the following sentence 'the Hindu nation extends from the mountain of Khorasan to that of Tibet.'

v3.c33.s1.15

Rao Bahadur Dayaram Sahani has noted in the annual report for 1917 (p. 20) three inscriptions belonging to these kings described by him properly enough as kings of Kabul and the Panjab, now lying in the Lahore museum. The first belongs to Bhīma described in the inscription as king of kings, Bhīmadeva with the mace son of Kalaka (ma) lavarman. The other two short inscriptions belong to Jayapāladeva who is described as son of Bhīmadeva. Rao Bahadur Sahani thinks that the title varman given to Kamala makes it certain that he was a Kshatriya and not a Brahmin "as Al-Beruni and those that follow him believe". But it is impossible to ignore the statement of such a critical and contemporaneous writer as Al-Beruni. There is no reason why he should wrongly describe these kings as Brahmins. The name-ending suffix whether varman, gupta or dāsa is again not conclusive as to caste as we find all these three originally applicable to Kshatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śudras*respectively, taken by Brahmins. But further the dynasty of Kamalu was for all practical purposes Kshatriya and it is no wonder if Kamala who was actually a king is called Kamalavarman. It may, therefore we think, still be believed that these kings were Brahmins by caste though their marriage relations were made with Kshatriya ruling families. Chandanadāsa Vaiśya, Nārāyaṇadas Brahmin and Bhagwāndas Rajput are other instances.

v3.c33.s1.16

∗ It may be mentioned that Mahīdāsa Aitareya the author of the Aitareya Rigveda Brahmana is treated in legend a son of a Śudra woman but even then according to caste rules then obtaining he would be a Brhamin like Vyāsa. Sudāsa similarly of the Vedas is wrongly treated from name ending by some as a Śudra king. But Sudāsa is a Kshatriya name in both the solar and lunar genealogies. Vishnugupta author of the Panchatantra was a Brahmin.

Linked texts (5)