Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s3: Note.—Bhatia.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s3

Language
English

Note.—Bhatia.

v3.c33.s3.1

(1) The Bahawalpur Gazetteer looks upon Bhatinda as Bhatia (p. 32) and states "In 1004 A. D. Mahmud was engaged in the reduction of Bhatinda whose governor Raja Bijai Rai had revolted against the suzerain Anandapāla and had molested Mahmud’s deputies," "In the next campaign Mahmud advanced on Multan by way of Bhatinda." Both these statements do not seem to be probable from what Utbi has stated about the march of Mahmud. (2) The Imperial Gazetteer under Bhatnair (Hanumāngarh) Bikaner states states that it is believed that that was the place Mahmud attacked in 1004 A. D. but adds that this is doubtful. (3) The Bikaner Gazetteer makes the same remark and adds that the fort was taken by Timur from a Bhati chief named Raja Dulchand and was described as an extremely strong and fortified place "renowned throughout Hindustan" (p. 397). (4) The Jaisalmer Gazetteer gives the ancient tradition of the Bhatis as follows:—"They were descended from Jadu and after the dispersion of the Yādavas from Mathurā they went beyond the Indus and a king named Gaj founded the city of Gazni. They were subsequently defeated by a Khorasan chief and they recrossed the Indus and settled in the Panjab. They regained Ghazni but in the time of Baland, they were driven out of Ghazni. Baland’s son Bhati conquered many of the neighbouring chiefs. He was succeeded by his son Mangalrao, whose fortune was not equal to that of his father; and who on being attacked by the king of Ghazni abandoned his kingdom and fled across the Sutlej and found refuge in the Indian desert which has been ever since the home of his descendants." This tradition supports to some extent the existence of a town of Bhatis somewhere between the Indus and the Sutlej which was destroyed by the Turks and the Bhatis then crossed the Sutlej and entering the desert settled in Jaisalmere.

v3.c33.s3.2

EXPEDITION AGAINST MULTAN.

v3.c33.s3.3

Knowing that Mahmud was engaged in a distant war, Ilekkhan’s army invaded Mahmud’s territory in the west and he himself taking the aid of Kadir Khan of Chin crossed the Jihun (Oxus). Mahmud getting information returned like lightning to Ghazni and proceeded to Balkh. A terrible battle was fought with Ilekkhan who was signally defeated and he fled beyond the Oxus. In this battle, Utbi records, Mahmud’s army was composed of Turks, Khiljis, Afghans and Hindus and there were five hundred elephants which Mahmud posted in the centre and Mahmud himself rode a furious elephant, attacked the personal guard of Ilekkhan of five hundred select Turks and killed many of them by his own elephant. This shows that materials which, with incapable leaders, were of little avail could be used with effect by a capable commander. The same Hindu soldiers and elephants who could not secure victory to Jaipal were used by Mahmud with conspicuous efficiency against his own Turks.

v3.c33.s3.4

Mahmud returning to Ghazni resolved upon capturing Multan and driving away the heretic Mahomedan governor there. Multan was at this time an independent state, Mahomedan Sind being divided into two kingdoms, Multan in the north and Mansura in the south. The king of Multan was a Mahomedan but he belonged to the Karmatian sect. This sect was founded by one Abdulla bin Maimun, a Persian. He preached that the seventh Imam was the last Imam. He denied resurrection and believed in incarnation. This sect was driven out of Persia and coming to India found many adherents here. (Indeed these two doctrines were perhaps taken from Hindu philosophy). There were esoteric doctrines such as the sacredness of the numbers 7 and 12, stages of initiation, mystical interpretations and so on which are always catching with religious simple minds, especially in India. The governor and many people in Multan were Karmatians and Mahmud who was a staunch Mahomedan properly resolved to wipe out this heresy from India. Indeed it appears that the father of the governor of Multan had been driven out of Khorasan by Sabuktagin.

v3.c33.s3.5

Mahmud knew the difficulties and dangers of the direct route to Multan. While returning from Bhatia, as stated before, his army was harassed, his baggage was lost and even his life was in danger, how and where the discreet Utbi does not even mention much less describe. He was a court historian; he poetically describes at length Mahmud's victories but is very succinct in describing his reverses. Possibly the people in the country of Bhatia, exasperated at the tragic fate of their king and their capital, rose against Mahmud and harassed him as he returned. More probably still, the troublesome tribesmen who inhabited the valleys and mountain gorges on the frontier of the present N. W. Frontier Province, attacked Mahmud. Whatever the exact nature of the difficulties, Mahmud this time preferred a less troublesome though circuitous route to Multan and requested permission from Ānandapāla the king of the Panjab to pass through his territory. This proves that Ānandapāla was king in the Panjab at least and was an independent king. But he refused permission as the governor of Multan was his ally. It is said that the governor had even assisted Jaipal in his great battle with Sabuktagin. Mahmud, however, would not have a refusal and resolved first to attack Ānandapāla and then Multan. Ānandapāla was defeated and pursued till he fled into Kashmir. The place where this battle was fought is described as situate in the province of Peshawar by Elliot but Peshawar was already in the possession of Mahmud. It must have been some place in the Panjab on the east of the Indus. Utbi does not give the place at all. He simply says "So the king commanded his army to plunder and destroy and burn the villages and cities". "And they cast Ānandapāla from one strait into another until they expelled him into the province of Kashmir". "When Abdul Futah saw the fate of Ānandapāla he packed up his treasures and sent them on backs of camels to Serendib (Ceylon) and fled."

v3.c33.s3.6

Mahmud entered Multan and finding the citizens involved in heresy fined them a heavy sum. "The account of this stand for religion passed to all cities and even went to Egypt and the main source of infidelity and heresy in these parts was cut off." (Utbi p. 328-329). It appears that along with Karmatian heresy, there was also the schism about the Khilafat. While some followed the Khalifa of Baghdad as the true Khalifa, others followed the Khalifa of Egypt whose name was read in the Khutba. Mahmud was of course the champion of the Khalifas of Baghdad and had even declined to accept a robe of honour sent by the Khalifa of Egypt.

v3.c33.s3.7

By what route Mahmud went and returned from Multan is not clearly stated by Utbi. But it seems possible that he did not go via Bhatinda as stated by some later historians; and Elliot properly holds that he must have gone by the road of Bhera i. e. from the north (Elliot II p. 432). In what year this expedition was undertaken is also not clear. Some historians place it after the defeat of Ilekkhan while others place it before that event. Elliot inclines to the latter view, following Utbi. But Utbi's dates are not always consecutive and he does not give the year of this event. We have, however, given it before this expedition to Multan in order to fit in the very important account of Ānandapāla's letter given by Al-Beruni (Vol. II p. 10), already quoted in Vol. I of our history (p. 199.) "I learn the Turks have rebelled against you. If you wish, I shall come myself or send my son with a force of 500 horse, 1000 soldiers and 100 elephants. I have been conquered by you and wish that another man should not conquer you." This chivalrous offer could not have been made by Ānandapāla after he had been causelessly attacked and defeated by Mahmud when the latter proceeded through his country to attack Multan. Internationally speaking, Ānandapāla's refusal to allow Mahmud to pass through his territory to attack a friendly state like Multan or even a neutral one was proper and just, and indeed his conduct had generally been even according to Al-Beruni. But strong powers disregard such obstacles; as Germany did when Belgium refused her permission in the recent European War to pass through her territory to attack France and drew the attack of Germany on herself first. And Mahmud acted like Germany and first dealt with and punished Ānandapāla. After this plainly unfair conduct of Mahmud, Ānandapāla could not have written the above letter. He, in fact, became a stern enemy of Mahmud as Al-Beruni himself tells us; but the cause he assigns is different. "The same prince Ānandapāla cherished opposite feelings when his son was made a prisoner; but this Trilochanapāla was the opposite of his father". i. e. was on friendly terms with the Mahomedans and had love and respect for them. When Trilochanapāla was made a prisoner cannot be determined. He might have fallen into Mahmud's hands even in this expedition against Multan; and subsequently released with honour which may have made him of a different frame of mind. No doubt Al-Beruni, when giving the above substance of Ānandapāla's letter, adds the remark 'that their relations were strained' when the letter was written. But this expression can not cover an actual attack by Mahmud on Ānandapāla and his pursuit from place to place till he fled into Kashmir, and may refer to previous ordinary relations which were never friendly.

v3.c33.s3.8

Mahmud while returning from Multan does not appear to have seized any territory of Ānandapāla though, as stated before, he had plundered and devastated it. When Mahmud retired beyond the Indus, Ānandapāla must have returned to his territory feeling his defeat bitterly and, as we shall presently relate, resolved to make a desperate effort to crush the power of the Ghaznavide ruler.

v3.c33.s3.9

(A) FINAL FIGHT OF THE COMBINED HINDUS.

v3.c33.s3.10

Anandapāla called to his aid the several kings of India and Firishta gives a very exaggerated account of this final effort of combined Hindus to crush the growing danger to their religion and independence. But Utbi does not give any such general aspect to this effort. As usual, the truth lies between the two. Marathi Bakhars, we know well, exaggerate incidents as time rolls on, each later Bakhar adding to the marvellous. Indeed this is also true of even the ancient history of India, each later edition of the Rāmāyaṇa or the Mahābhārata adding to the marvellous element in the story. Mahomedan historians are not an exception and cannot resist the natural temptation to add to the marvellous. Thus Firishta states (Elliot II p. 446):—

v3.c33.s3.11

"In the year 399 H (1008 A.D.), Mahmud having collected his forces determined to invade Hindustan and punish Anandapāla who had shown much insolence during the late invasion of Multan. Anandapāla invited the aid of other Hindu kings who now considered the expulsion of the Mahomedans from India as a sacred duty. Accordingly, Rajas of Ujjain, Gwalior, Kalanjar, Kanauj, Delhi and Ajmer entered into a confederacy and collected an army greater than ever had marched against Sabuktagin. Anandapāla himself took command and advanced against Mahmud. The two armies met on the plains of Peshawar and encamped facing each other. They remained so for 40 days, neither side showing any eagerness to come to action. The troops of the idolators daily increased. The infidel Gakkhars also joined them in great strength. The Hindu females sold their jewels and sent the proceeds from distant parts to supply their husbands with necessaries. Those who were poor contributed from their earnings by spinning cotton and other labour".

v3.c33.s3.12

This is certainly an exaggerated account when we compare it with what the contemporary Utbi states about this fight. "When the Sultan arrived on the bank of the Wamand Wabal-bin-Abdbal came to confront him with a numerous army. And from morning to evening the fire of battle burnt. And it had nearly happened that the army of the Sultan was worsted and the infidels had obtained the high hand. However, the promise respecting victory to the word of Islam was fulfilled and the Sultan with his own guards made a charge under which the feet of the rebels were unable to stand (Utbi p. 340—41).

v3.c33.s3.13

The statement of Firishta that ladies contributed to the expenses of the soldiers by selling their ornaments and by receipts from spinning and other labour is simply an exaggeration. The kings of India were rich enough to support their soldiers and contributions from merchants and from rich temples could have been taken if necessary. The coming together again of contingents from several Hindu kingdoms may be believed in, though not mentioned by Utbi, as the force gathered was evidently so large as to make the result of the fight tremble in the balance for a time. Moreover, Indian epigraphic evidence is in support of some kings coming to assist Ānandapāla. But, as before, the names of the states given by Firishta are mentioned from imagination working on the basis of later history. Ujjain does not appear to have taken part though Bhoja was then ruling Malwa and was strong enough to send a contingent. As will be stated in Paramāra history, Bhoja is said in an inscription to have fought with the Turks but is said to have conquered them. Kalanjar certainly took part in this conflict, the king being Ganda, following the example of his father Dhanga who had taken part in the previous combined effort against Sabuktagin. Kanauj of course must have sent a contingent as it was the Imperial power of Northern India. Gwalior was subordinate to Kalanjar and there was a feudatory powerful king belonging to the Kachhapa-ghāta (modern Kachhwaha) clan and a contingent from Gwalior might have taken part though inscriptions yet found do not mention the fact. Delhi and Ajmer were either not yet founded or were not able to take any part in the conflict. Many Panjab chiefs, however, subordinate to Ānandapāla may have joined him. Firishta does not mention Kashmir and the Rājatarangiṇī also does not allude to any contingent being sent to assist Ānandapāla on this occasion. However, it seems undoubted that a formidable force was collected by Ānandapāla for this heroic effort to protect Hindustan from the new power at Ghazni which threatened to destroy its independence and its religion.

v3.c33.s3.14

Firishta places this decisive battle in the plain of Peshawar, but Elliot does not think this probable. Utbi has not mentioned the site of the engagement. But as Wahind and the territory to the west of the Indus was already under Mahmud, he might have taken steps to meet the enemy in his own land, like a consummate commander. Utbi mentions the bank of the Wamand (p. 340) but what river it is cannot be determined. He also does not mention whether the river was crossed and if so by whom. The Gazetteer of the Attock district places this battle in the plain of Chhachh lying in that district between Attock and Hazro, and the Rawalpindi Gazetteer reiterates the statement. Both opine that the battle was fought between Mahmud and Ānandapāla Shahi Kabul king who was also master of the Panjab. The king's name as read in Utbi is Wabal-bin-Abdbal, but this is certainly a misreading; the last name is no doubt Ānandapāla; Wabal may have been the name of one of his sons.

v3.c33.s3.15

The manner and course of the fight described by Firishta so completely resembles the course of the fight between the Hindus and the Mahomedans in 1761 at the battle of Panipat that one might have been tempted to suggest that the description of Firishta was copied from the description of the fight between Sadashiv Bhau and Aḥmadshah Abdali. But Firishta wrote more than two hundred years before the latter battle was fought. We are, therefore, simply reminded here of the maxim history repeats itself. On the plain of Chhachh, in 1008 A. D., the Hindu and Moslem armies lay in front of each other in entrenched camps for forty days, being equally balanced, each watching for an opportunity to gain advantage over the other, like two powerful wrestlers in touch with each other yet motionless for a time. The Gakkhars whose number 30,000 seems to be exaggerated, wild, bareheaded, half-civilized men who had come to the assistance of the Hindus, however, began the fight by rushing the entrenched Ghazni camp and slaying a few thousand Mahomedan soldiers in a few minutes. The two armies now became grappled in conflict and until midday the advantage was with the Hindus as even Utbi admits. The tide, however, turned, by what accident Utbi does not relate, but Firishta states "that the Sultan seeing the fury of the Gakkhars* withdrew himself from the thick of the fight that he might stop the battle for that day. But it so happened that the elephant which Ānandapāla rode became unruly from the effects of naptha-balls and arrows hurled at him, turned and fled. And the Hindus believing that this was a signal for flight on the part of their general all gave way and fled. Abdulla Tai pursued them and 8000 Hindus were cut to pieces". This account is not given by Utbi but he states another fact which is more important viz. that the Sultan with his own guards made a charge "under which the feet of the infidels could not stand". All this was exactly like what happened in the battle of Panipat between the Marathas and the Afghans. Till noon the tide was in favour of the Marathas, under the execution of the guns of the battalions of Ibrahimkhan and the charge of the Huzurat horse. Suddenly a ball struck Vishvasrao dead on his elephant and the news spreading that the general was dead, the army gave way. At this advantageous moment, Ahmadshah Abdali like Mahmud made a furious attack with a force of Afghans which he had kept in reserve and the Maratha army broke and fled. Probably Ānandapāla like the brave but unfortunate Bhaosaheb rushed into the thick of the fight on foot and embraced death on the battle-field. For we do not know what became of both after the battle nor do we hear that they were found dead or alive. Such was the momentous battle fought in 1008 A. D. between the Hindus and the Mahomedans, a precursor of the struggle seven and a half centuries later. The Hindus after this battle no doubt continued in strength in the Panjab for a time as after Panipat, but the blow was severe. Indeed both battles put an end to the dream of the Hindus to drive the Mahomedans out of India.

v3.c33.s3.16

∗ The Gakkhars are now Mahomedans and inhabit chiefly the Rāwalpindi District Raja Jahāndād Khan a Gakkhar chief states that Firishta wrongly gives the name of Gakkhars for Khokkars who really attacked Mahmud. Khokkars are a different wild tribe which is also Mahomedan now.

v3.c33.s3.17

We must pause here a little before proceeding with our narrative and consider the causes of the defeat of the Hindus. As at Panipat, so at Chhachh they were not handicapped for want of sufficient numbers. If at all, they had the advantage of number on their side. They were again not less brave than the Moslems. Here as at Panipat the Hindus fought bravely and even desperately. Thirdly there was no superiority of arms on the side of the Mahomedans in either battle. At Panipat both had artillery and if at all the artillery on the side of the Hindus was more efficient. In the battle near Hazro neither side had any fire-arms. They were not known then. Both used the same weapons viz. swords and lances. And Hindu swords and lances were as sharp and strong, if not sharper and stronger, as those of the Mahomedans. For one thing it may be said fate favoured the Mahomedans at Hazro as at Panipat. Those who deny fate as one of the factors leading to success properly maintain that fate is the cause overspreading every event in this human world. But when fate is said to be favourable or unfavourable, the word is usually used in the sense that certain accidents which are outside the control of man occur to help the winning side and to discomfit the losing one. In the previous fight of the Hindus beyond the Indus with Sabuktagin, we saw that a sudden snowstorm arose to harass the Hindus who being residents of the plains of India were unaccustomed to such cold weather. At this battle the elephant of Anandapala under arrows and naptha-balls became unruly and turned and fled. But we must remember that war elephants were always trained to encounter such missiles. Arrows and naptha-balls were not new or strange weapons, for the first time used in this battle. This accident was exactly like the accident which happened at Panipat by which Vishvasrao was killed. At this distance of time we, not at all conversant with the modes of elephant fighting, are tempted to observe that it is indeed strange that in such fights commanders, especially when kings in person assume the command, should ride elephants and become easy targets for naptha-balls, arrows and especially gun bullets.

v3.c33.s3.18

But when we find that Mahmud himself rode an elephant when he fought with Ilekkhan near Balkh, we cannot suppose that Ānandapāla committed a blunder in riding an elephant, though we may hold that Vishvasrao's riding an elephant and exposing himself to bullets was a serious blunder at Panipat. There were no guns in the days of Ānandapāla and the only missiles that could be thrown against him were arrows and naptha-balls against which his armour and that of the elephant were a sufficient protection.

v3.c33.s3.19

But the historian cannot but observe that Hindus have always failed to exhibit that grip, that resourcefulness which brave and strong men are expected to exhibit when an adverse accident befalls them. We have already noted this defect in Vol. II (p. 246) and have tried to explain the strange behaviour of Indian armies which, often unbeaten, fly when an accident happens to the commanding king, by the fact that Indian soldiers in consequence of the absence of all feeling of nationality have no sense of patriotic self-interest in the success of the fighting. All the same, we may note this defect in Indian character (Hindu and perhaps even Mahomedan) viz. that Indians do not possess that doggedness of fight under adverse circumstances which distinguishes the western and notably the British soldier. There is no doubt that Mahmud possessed this quality so necessary in a commander. Like Shivaji he never was despondent when fortune seemed unfavourable and fought on stubbornly. Moreover, Mahmud clearly was a great general. Like Ahmadshah Abdali he had a reserve force of resolute and brave body-guards which the Ghaznavide kings and Mahmud particularly, maintained at a high level of efficiency and at great cost. Mahmud himself with this guard led the final attack at the proper moment like Ahmadshah Abdali and gained eventual success in this memorable battle which practically sealed the fate of the Panjab, if not of the whole of India.

v3.c33.s3.20

NOTE:—THE SITE OF THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE.

v3.c33.s3.21

As stated above, Firishta places this battle near Peshawar and some native writers even state that it was fought between Peshawar and Jamrud where is a plain extensive enough for a fight between armies numbering at least a lakh on either side. The Attock and Rawalpindi Gazetteers, however, place it in the plain of Chhachh on the east side of the Indus near Hazro. Indeed the geography primer for Attok District now taught in Vernacular schools therein states distinctly that the battle was fought near Hazro. We personally saw this plain and the town of Hazro and we think that this surmise of the Gazetteers may be accepted. On what authority this statement is based cannot be ascertained. Utbi mentions a river Wamand at which the Sultan arrived. As there is no river of this name in Peshawar district, we may read here river (Indus) near Wahind. The similarity between this battle and the battle of Panipat in 1761 A. D. which has been already noticed suggests that Mahmud crossed the river Indus himself as Abdali did the Jumna lower down while Bhausaheb was thinking of crossing the Jumna higher up and meeting Abdali in Antarbed. Probably Anandpala advanced from the south as far as Hazro and wished to cross the Indus himself at Wahind. The sketch map, given here, of the

v3.c33.s3.22

SKETCH MAP OF THE PLAIN OF CHHACHH.

v3.c33.s3.23

position will explain the movements of the armies. Mahmud entrenched himself seeing the superior force or position of the enemy. Why Anandpala did not oppose Mahmud's crossing the river may be explained on the supposition that Anandpala did not think that Mahmud would cross the Indus; or that he wished to fight with him on the east of the Indus; or that he did not get information in time. As Chacha is known to have opposed Kasim when the latter crossed the Indus in Sind, we have no mention of Anandpala opposing Mahmud when he crossed the Indus. Perhaps Mahmud was already to the east of the Indus when Anandpala advanced against the reader may realize the enormous quantity of plunder which Mahmud obtained in his raids and in order that such descriptions may not be repeated. It may also be pointed out that Mahmud like Shivaji kept a detailed account of all the treasures he obtained by plunder and that the same was duly appraised and certain rules must have been observed by which the share of the state was reserved and the rest distributed among the soldiers. We know that Arab expeditions in the beginning of the spread of the new religion were conducted under strict rules of division of plunder between the state or Khalifa and the commander with the soldiers. In short as under Shivaji the plundering was systematic as also the division of the spoil.

v3.c33.s3.24

“The impassable waters which surrounded Nagarkot” were according to Elliot, “the Bāṇagaṅgā and the Biyāhī rivers. The town of Bhīma was on the spot now called Bhawani (goddess) about a mile from the fort” (Elliot Vol. II p. 445). This raid on Nagarkot must have immediately followed the defeat of the confederate Hindu forces near Hazro as Utbi clearly seems to convey by the introductory words ‘And then’; but some historians place it in the following year viz. 1009 A.D.

v3.c33.s3.25

NOTE—KANGRA, ITS FORT AND TEMPLES.

v3.c33.s3.26

Kangra is a most fertile plateau in the Himalayas with a snow-clad range at its back and with perennial streams running through it into three or four khuds or rivers. It must have come under Aryan civilization in most ancient times and we have seen that lunar race Rajput kings now called Katoch ruled there from the days of the Mahābhārata. The fort of Kangra which had usually been their strong place for retirement is also an ancient fort and was indeed impregnable in those days when cannon was not known. The fort stands on an eminence at the confluence of two deep khuds or rivers named the Bāṇagaṅgā and the Manūnī, only a narrow strip of land dividing the two deep basins. The steep sides of the fort along the rivers are almost perpendicular rising about 300 feet. In the neck of the narrow strip between the rivers a deep moat has been dug and the entrance to the fort is beyond this artificial chasm. The fort can easily be defended on this narrow neck by a small garrison. There was a famous temple in this fort according to Mahomedan historians which was destroyed by Mahmud. What temple it was we will now try to determine from local information as well as from the Arch. S. R. for 1905 wherein we find much information about Kangra temples which existed before the earthquake of 1905.

v3.c33.s3.27

The history of the fort is thus given in this report (P. 11): "The fort was taken by the irresistible Mahmud in 1009. In 1337 it was again taken by Muhammad Tughlaq and also in 1351 by his successor Firozshah. It permanently fell into the hands of the Mahomedans when conquered by Jahangir in 1621. When Mogul power declined it was taken back by Raja Samsarchand II in 1786 ( or by his father Ghamandchand according to Col. Janakchand member of Council, Jammu and Kashmir, and himself a Katoch ). It was handed over, however, to Ranjitsing in 1809. The Sikhs handed it over to the British in 1846 and it was garrisoned by British troops till 1900". At present of course it is in ruins.

v3.c33.s3.28

"The most important monuments in the fort were the temples of Lakshmī-Nārāyaṇa and Śitalā; both of them have fallen in the last catastrophe. We may safely assume that they were posterior to the sack of the fort by Mahmud".

v3.c33.s3.29

"The temple of Ambikā still used for worship is a plain structure and has not been damaged by the earthquake. The features of the construction of the temple indicate that it happened during the Mahomedan occupation".

v3.c33.s3.30

"To the south of the Ambikā temple there are two Jain statues, one a pedestal and the other a seated statue of Adinātha with a partly obliterated inscription dated according to Cunningham St. 1523 i. e. 1466 A. D. in the reign of Samsārchand I" (p. 15.)

v3.c33.s3.31

"Plate III shows the temple of Indreśvara in Kangra town. It is ascribed to Rājā Indrachandra and is a Śiva temple. If he is identified with Indrachandra mentioned by Kalhaṇa as a contemporary of Anantadeva (A. D. 1028-63) it shows that this temple dates from the 11th century. There are two Jain images on both sides of the temple on one of which is the date 30 of Lokakāla. It was supposed to be contemporaneous with the praśasti on the Baijanāth temple and hence as old as 854 A. D. But as the date of the Baijanath inscription has been recently read as 1204 St. the image may be 1154 A. D old. The four pillared pavilion has been levelled to the ground in the earthquake, but the rest of the building is safe with the two Jain images" (p. 16).

v3.c33.s3.32

"But the most celebrated sanctuary of Kangra District was the temple of Vajreśvarī in Bhavan, a suburb of Kangra town. From a remote age the spot was sacred but the temple which fell down in the earthquake was not an old one. An inscription preserved in the porch says it was built in the time of Śrī Mahammad (identified by Cunningham with Mahammad Sayyad who ruled at Delhi from 1533 to 1546). At the time of its foundation Raja Samsārchand was the king of Kangra." This temple has now been built again by the Hindu community.

v3.c33.s3.33

The above information will show to us that neither the Lakshmīnārāyaṇa and Śitalā temples in the fort nor the Indreśvara temple in the town could be the temple thrown down by Mahmud, as they are all later constructions. The only temples that remain are the Ambikā temple in the fort and the Vajreśvarī temple in Bhavan. Now the Hindu community in rebuilding this Vajreśvarī temple in Bhavan, in their printed prospectus, state that this temple was destroyed by Mahmud in 1009 and was rebuilt by a Kangra king in 1043. It was again destroyed by Muhammad Tughlaq in 1337, again rebuilt by the Hindus and again thrown down in 1360 by Feroz. It was rebuilt by Samsārchand I in 1440. It was thrown down again by Khawas Khan, general of Sher Shah, in 1540 and rebuilt by Raja Dharamchand in Akbar's days. The present Maharaja of Guler who is indeed a very learned and well informed person and of urbane manners told us that in his opinion the temple thrown down by Mahmud was the Vajreśvarī temple in Bhavan and that there was once a wall round Bhavan. This opinion is also entertained by many persons. But it seems to us that the Vajreśvarī temple was first built in the days of Samsārchand I. We will give our reasons for this view. In all descriptions of Mahomedan writers, Mahmud is said to have taken the fort of Kangra and destroyed a temple there. The Vajreśvarī temple is not in the fort but is in Bhavan a suburb at a distance of about two miles from Kot Kangra or town Nagar Kot. In order that the reader may understand the situation we

v3.c33.s3.34

SKETCH MAP OF KOT KANGRA

v3.c33.s3.35

give here a sketch of the position of Kot Kangra, Nagar Kot and Bhavan. If there was a wall around Bhavan, it could not have been a strong one and it could not have been as difficult to take it as Kot Kangra. Then again the temple with idol thrown down by Tughlaq appears also to have been in the fort which he took. The Katoch kings retook the fort and rebuilt the temple in the fort which was again taken by Firoj Tughlaq. It appears that after these repeated disasters, the Hindus moved down the temple to Bhavan in the days of Samsārchand I.

v3.c33.s3.36

It must be mentioned, further, that the idol in the Vajreśvarī temple is not fashioned by the hand but is a svayambhū idol viz. a natural stone coming out of the earth, having some appearance of a head, at least eyes. This is the only svayambhū idol of Devī which we have seen. The legend is that the deity was discovered by a cultivator who, while ploughing his field, accidently struck the deity with the iron-head of the plough and brought out blood. This is, of course, the usual story of the discovery of a swayambhū deity. It seems probable that as at Benares or at Ujjain (Mahākāla) the Mahomedans even under Mahomedan rule allowed the Hindus to have a temple of the same god in the vicinity of the old temple thrown down, so in Kangra the fort remaining in the possession of Mahomedans, the Hindus were allowed to have a temple of the same deity in Bhavan. Samsārachandra the first erected the Vajreśvarī temple in 1440, and the iconoclastic Shershah again threw it down a hundred years later. The tolerant Akbar allowed the temple to be rebuilt by king Dharamchand.

v3.c33.s3.37

This interesting history, however, shows the strong Hindu spirit of the Katoch Rajas of Kangra and the temple of Dharamchand built about 1600 was standing till it was destroyed by the earthquake of 1905. Strong Hindu sentiment has again caused the temple to be built, the dome of which is being now adorned with gold.

v3.c33.s3.38

It is necessary, however, to add that the Ambikā temple in the fort is still the place where Katoch Rajputs go to worship. In fact we were told that every Katoch sends his hair cut in the godāna ceremony to be placed before the Ambikādevī in the fort. This fact along with the legend of the discovery of the Vajreśvarī idol, leads us to believe that the famous temple in Kangrā which was thrown down by Mahmud was the Ambikā temple in the fort* or it may have been the original Vajreśvarī temple in the fort. The idol in the present Ambikā temple is also an unfashioned one or swayambhū. In all such cases there are movable idols in the temples also and Utbi actually states that the people of India made the temple a treasury for their great idols.

v3.c33.s3.39

When Utbi relates that "he (Mahmud) came to the fort of Bahim Bagra" a castle in the midst of water high as a mountain and an inaccessible pit" (p. 341) he refers to this very fort at the confluence of the two rivers. Of course Bahim Bagra has to be read as Bhim Nagar and it is believed that Bhīmashah of Kabul founded the town Bhavan. The further description by Utbi cannot apply to Bhavan and Bhimnagar must be taken to mean the whole place including Nagarkot, Bhavan and Kot Kangra.

v3.c33.s3.40

∗ The present building of the temple is according to the A. S. Report later than Mahmud.

v3.c33.s3.41

SUBJUGATION OF THE PANJAB.

v3.c33.s3.42

The Sultan's attention, as stated before, was constantly divided between the east and the west and his far reaching and unceasing activities extended in both directions with equal vigilance. Having settled some disputes and troubles in Kirman and Kohistan in the west and the north, Mahmud again directed his attention to the settlement of the question of the Panjab. He had humbled the king of the Panjab and taken one of the strongholds of that kingdom, Kangrakot. He determined to capture Nardin another strong place on which probably the king relied. And he arrived in the provinces of India, and "began to devastate the land, to punish the infidels, to overturn the idols and to make an example of high and low. And as to the prince of those accursed ones, he sent him prostrate to hell. And when the king of Hind saw these wounds in the nearest and distant parts of his kingdom, he sent his kindred to offer submission" (Utbi p. 361). Such is the succinct account which Utbi gives of this expedition. Although he mentions Nardin as stormed in the heading of this chapter, he does not describe it. From later historians-Elliot thinks that there were two expeditions and not one, as some suggest, and that by Nardin Utbi means to refer to Naharwala the capital of Gujarat. The second expedition was against the fort of Nandan, as will be stated in the next chapter, and is described by Firishta and others. It indeed appears plain, even according to Utbi, that there were two expeditions and the second he describes later on. It is, however, difficult to identify Nardin with Naharwala as Mahmud could not have gone so far south, leaving the Panjab yet unsubjugated. We, therefore, take it that Nardin was some place in the Panjab itself and that Mahmud carried a devastating campaign which compelled the king of India to proffer submission. Who this king was is not mentioned; no doubt one chief is said to have been killed, and it is probable that Anandapala himself was killed in one of these combats.

v3.c33.s3.43

His son Trilochanapāla must have offered submission. We have already seen that Al-Beruni has recorded that Anandapāla had latterly become a deadly enemy of Mahmud but that Trilochanapāla his son was better disposed. We, therefore, take it that Anandapāla, instead of being killed in the battle of the confederate Hindus, was killed at this time (1009 or 1010) and Trilochanapāla offered terms of submission. Mahmud granted the terms and by these Panjab practically became a subordinate province of the Ghaznavide empire. The terms were as follows: "The king bound himself to tribute and fidelity and appointed sixty yokes (?) of elephants and a payment to be mutually fixed and sent by the nobles of the province and the people to the treasury. And by way of acting as viceroy the king was to keep two thousand men at his court and acknowledge fealty every day and month and year, and the succeeding rulers were to obey and follow the same law. The Sultan was content with these conditions and this secured tax became a fixed source of revenue in the book of the finance court of the Empire Thus the road for caravans and merchants between the districts of Khorasan and Hind became open". (p. 362).

v3.c33.s3.44

Such is the normal course of the successive steps in the fall of kingdoms. We are here reminded of the fall of the Maratha kingdom eight centuries later. There was a stubborn struggle in the beginning by the combined Marathas against the English in 1803. The Maratha confederacy was defeated in the battle of Assaye by the greatest general of the English, Wellesley, much as the great Hindu confederacy was defeated by the masterly tactics of Mahmud in 1008 near Hazro. Bajirao, like Trilochanapāla, submitted and consented to maintain a subsidiary force at Poona, of British regiments. This was the opposite of what was stipulated by Anandapāla's son. He, as the usual fashion then was with subordinate kings, promised to maintain at Ghazni a force of two thousand soldiers for the service of the Ghazni empire at his cost. The British method of compelling subordinate kingdoms to maintain a British force at their capital was more effective and efficient for accomplishing extinction and was tantamount to the imposition of a heavy tribute for the time being. That final extinction overtook Trilochanapāla soon enough (after about 4 years) as we shall presently see; but in the parallel case of Bajirao, it overtook him after the lapse of 15 years.

v3.c33.s3.45

This subjugation of the Panjab was necessary in order that Mahmud should securely direct his attention towards the troubles which often arose in the west. And one of these we will specially mention as it has an interest for the Indian reader. In the immediate vicinity of Ghazni towards the west was the small province of Ghor, a mountainous valley inhabited by an unruly tribe which constantly gave trouble to caravans and merchants under the very nose of Mahmud. "The infidelity and the insolance of these inhabitants of Ghor who levied heavy imposts on caravans and travellers on the strength of their appalling cliffs required to be corrected. And the Sultan ordered his army to attack them in their fastness and himself went with his body-guard and cutting his way through the passes, arrived before the stronghold-nest of the king of Ghor. After stubborn fighting, the Sultan ordered his men to turn their backs and to show as if they were yielding. These doomed ones were deluded and the Hindu no longer remained firm but fascinated by the desire to plunder came into the open plain. Upon this the Sultan wheeled round and laid them all on the couch of sweet sleep. He took the son of the chief as prisoner and carried away as booty, wealth and arms which chief after chief and infidel after infidel had accumulated" (Utbi p. 364-65). The inhabitants of the valley of Ghor were originally infidels and even Hindus. They were forcibly converted by Mahmud and in the course of about two hundred years, themselves becoming zealous Mahomedans they conquered the Hindus of India. Secondly, we find here Mahmud employing the same tactics in fighting as were employed by Shivaji and the Marathas (called in Marathi Bakhars the *ganīmī kāvā* or enemy deception). Thirdly, like a great ruler Mahmud always bestowed attention upon the safety of roads for the encouragement of commerce. He wished to see that caravans between Khorasan and Hind should safely travel. Mountain tribes in those days as in later times levied heavy imposts on them whenever the central government was weak. And Mahmud exhibited the same vigilance and power as is exhibited by the British Empire at the present day in this respect.

v3.c33.s3.46

BATTLE OF NAZIN AND THE ANNEXATION OF THE PANJAB.

v3.c33.s3.47

For four years Panjab remained unmolested. Probably Trilochanapāla quietly paid the stipulated tribute without demur, and Mahmud also appears to have been engaged in the west. A terrible famine is described by Utbi as raging in Khorasan and its capital Nishapur. He also mentions troubles with Ilekkhan the Turk who must have taken advantage of these difficulties. Utbi also describes the conquest of Garjistan (Georgia) which had belonged to the Samani empire and the Shar of which ("the king of Georgia was called Shar, as the king among Hindus was called Rai, among Turks Khan and among Greeks Cæsar"—Utbi p. 377) defied Mahmud, and Mahmud with his usual swiftness and completeness reduced him to subjection. Mahmud then found time to turn his attention to Hindustan. Human feelings would tempt Mahmud to finally annex the Panjab which had been only subjugated and the same would impel even Trilochanapāla to rebel and throw off the yoke imposed upon him. It is, therefore, probable that some pretext must have been found by one party or the other to begin the conflict again, as in the parallel case noted before viz: the Maratha war of 1818 wherein after the defeat of Bapu Gokhale Bajirao II finally lost his kingdom.

v3.c33.s3.48

Utbi describes this conflict thus (p. 389-392):—"The Sultan having in 400 H. (1009) reduced Hindustan and built mosques &c. wished to take possession of the remainder of the land of the infidels. Therefore, he summoned his victorious armies and covered them with great honour. When he arrived at those territories, much snow had fallen and hence he returned to Ghazni but returned again in spring. The king of India sat down under the protection of the mountain and took refuge in a pass and posted elephants in its narrowness. He summoned the cavalry and infantry of his kingdom. And a great army of infidels from Hindustan, Sind and all quarters raged like hornets in heat and heads were cast upon the battle-field like balls. And wherever the elephants came into the engagement, the Moslem army with swords and spears cut their throats and trunks. When the Sultan saw him (his lieutenant Abdulla Tai) in distress, he sent some stars from his special guard and the flame of battle blazed in this way until it was quenched by the water of victory. And at one blast of the good fortune of Mahmud all their affairs were scattered like dust. And they made prizes of their property and elephants. Thus this territory became exalted amongst the extent of Islam and this victory was entered in the register of expeditions".

v3.c33.s3.49

From this description it may be inferred that Trilochanapāla made a third attempt to collect the forces of many Hindu states for his final fight with Mahmud; and a stubborn and terrible battle was fought which was gained by the Mahomedans through Mahmud's good fortune and the bravery of his bodyguard. This battle was fought in 404 H. or 1014 according to Elliot who quotes Utbi himself for this date though, as above stated, in some copies the year 400 H is given, and other historians also give the same date. The place where this battle was fought is also in dispute. Utbi mentions, in the heading of his chapter, Nardin; others call the place Ninduna. It is suggested by some that the battle was fought near the mountains of Jud and the hill of Bālnāth overhanging the Jhelum. Elliot, however, thinks that the pass referred to by Utbi is the Margalla pass (Elliot II p. 451). Elliot gives the following further account of the battle from a fuller description of it by Nizamuddin Ahmad:—

v3.c33.s3.50

"In 404 H. the Sultan marched his army against the fort of Ninduna, situated in the mountain of Bālnāth. Puru-Jaipal left veteran troops for its protection while he himself passed into one of the valleys of Kashmir. Having taken the fort by mining and other operations, the Sultan went against Puru-Jaipal but he fled further. The Sultan obtained great spoil and many slaves. Having converted many infidels and spread Islam, the Sultan returned to Ghazni". Elliot thinks that the chief who fought at Ninduna was Bhima son of Jaipal. In fact he refers to Utbi for this name given as Nidar Bhim. We do not find that name in the translation we have used of Utbi.

v3.c33.s3.51

Possibly there are variations in the available copies of Utbi. But strangely enough Elliot does not go on to explain who Puru Jaipal was. We plainly see here a misreading of the name Trilochanapāla who was the king at this time and that name may easily be read in Persian or Arabic as Puru Jaipal. Jaipal and even Ānandapāla were already dead and Trilochanapāla was on the throne of the Shahis in the Panjab. His son was Bhima and it is probable that Trilochanapāla retired into Kashmir leaving his fearless son (Nidar Bhim) to fight this battle. The battle was lost and the further account of Utbi may be construed as showing that the Panjab or at least its largest part was annexed to the kingdom of Ghazni. As Al-Beruni has stated that Trilochanapāla died after this date, having lived upto 1021, the other account may also be accepted and it may be believed that he and even Bhīma escaped into Kashmir and for about seven years more reigned in the hilly submontane districts of the Panjab at the base of the Himalayas.

v3.c33.s3.52

But Stein the editor of the Rājatarangiṇī thinks that the important battle fought between Trilochanapāla and Mahmud on the Tauśi river which falls into the Jhelum from the west in the Hazara District which is conterminous with Kashmir and so vividly described by Kalhaṇa in that history of Kashmir was fought at this time (404 H. or 1013). In this battle Trilochanapāla was assisted by a strong contingent from Kashmir under Tunga. Trilochanapāla advised him to fight a cautious battle with the wily Turks by taking the support of the hills. But Mahmud used his usual stratagem, and sent a contingent beyond the Tauśi river which being attacked and defeated by Tunga fled back across the river. Tunga was emboldened and came into the open and joined battle with Mahmud* (Raj. VII 47). The battle was hotly contested, many Kashmir officers fell in battle and Trilochanapāla himself performed deeds of valour. The cause of the Hindus was, however, destined to be lost and Mahmud was victorious. Trilochanapāla escaped into Kashmir never to return. And Kalhaṇa utters a painful lamentation here over the final destruction of the Shahi kingdom of Kabul which we have already quoted in our first volume. If we reconcile this account with the statement of Al-Beruni that Trilochanapāla ruled till 1021 and Bhima ruled for five years after him, we have either to postpone this battle to 1021 A. D. or to believe that Trilochanapāla lived and ruled till 1021 some other insignifitant portion of the hilly submontane part of the Panjab or went to Kanauj and there again fought with Mahmud.

v3.c33.s3.53

∗ तुरुष्कसमरे यावन्न यूयं कृतबुद्धयः । आलस्यविभवास्तावत्तिष्ठतास्मिन्निरेस्तटे ॥ हम्मीरेण तदा सैन्यं जिज्ञासार्थं विसर्जितम् । तौषीपारे ततस्तीर्त्वा मितप्रायैर्धधैर्बलैः ॥ ततस्तेनाहितोत्सेकमपि शाहिः पुनः पुनः । जगादाहषतवज्ञः पूर्वा तामेव संविदम् ॥ सर्वाभिसारेणागच्छच्छलाहवविशारदः । प्रातस्ततः स्वयं कोपान्तुरुष्कानीकनायकः ॥

v3.c33.s3.54

Lastly, it would be interesting to note that the Jhelum Gazetteer identifies Ninduna with Nandana a hill fort in the Salt Range where there are some remains of ancient buildings belonging to Kashmir rule. At page 62 it states that the district was once in the possession of Kashmir and then went under the Shahis of Kabul, “Ānandapāla and Jaipal described by Mahomedan historians as kings of Lahore being really Shahi kings of Kabul”. But when the Gazetteer quotes Firishta as placing the capture of Nandana in 1008, it may be noted that this is very probably a mistake, the year 400 being a misprint for 404 H. The conversion of the Rajputs of the Salt Range dates according to the Gazetteer from the days of Shihabuddin Ghori. “Though it may be that Rajputs and Jats and others were forcibly converted by Mahmud, yet they must have returned to Hinduism as soon as his back was turned.” But we have to remember that this district remained in the possession of Mahmud and his successors at Ghazni ever since this conquest. The Mahomedan Rajputs of the Salt Range, the Janjuas, are believed to be the most ancient inhabitants of the Panjab being descended from Anu the fifth son of Yayāti and it is even thought that Jaipal of Lahore was himself a Janjua (Jhelum Gazetteer).

v3.c33.s3.55

Utbi relates that a stone was brought out of the temple the writing on which declared that the building was forty thousand years old. “What a folly” the Sultan observed “when the learned of the world have agreed that the world is itself not more than seven thousand years old!!!” To us in the twentieth century, both the statement on the stone and its criticism appear equally absurd. Probably this was a very ancient inscription dating from the time of Aśoka and the people in the neighbourhood not knowing its exact date assigned it a fabulous age. Nandana in the Salt Range is undoubtedly an ancient place as its remains indicate.

First 55 of 60 passages. Read on

Linked texts (9)