History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s3.7

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.