History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s4.36

v3.c33.s4.36

NOTE:—It seems to us that Sir Vincent Smith implicitly following Nizamuddin has given a different and probably mistaken account of these events in his article on the Chandellas in Indian Antiquary XXXVII (p. 142). He observes "In the course of the 12th expedition in Jan. 1019 Rājyapāla submitted and promised an indemnity of one million dirhems and 30 elephants. For this submission Rājyapāla was killed by Ganda's son in May 1019. Mahmud invaded again and an ally of Ganda whose identity is obscured by the imperfection of the Persian alphabet but who was almost certainly Trilochanapāla son of Rājyapāla opposed Mahmud's passage of the Jumna but failed. Mahmud crossed the river and captured and sacked the town of Bari and then marched southwards to chastise Ganda in his own territory. He collected a force in accordance with the usual Hindu custom comprising 36,000 horse, 115000 foot and 640 elephants. The Sultan felt uneasy and reconnitred the army from an eminence In the night Ganda fled. The Sultan carefully attacked the deserted camp lest there might be a ruse and got immense booty. The cowardice and the immense plunder again induced the Sultan to invade his territory via Gwalior in 1023 A. D. Mahmud invested Kalanjar. Ganda gave him 300 elephants and immense presents and accepted back Kalanjar and 15 forts from Mahmud. Notwithstanding the success gained so easily by Mahmud, the Chandel kingdom was not again attacked by Mahomedans until 180 years had elapsed and Ganda's successors were left free to manage their own affairs". This account is full of apparent incongruities owing to Smith's following Nizamuddin implicitly as stated above. Nizamuddin gives two expeditions against Kalanjar instead of one and places both after the defeat and death of Rājyapāla at the hands of the Chandellas. In this case the second expedition becomes an unnecessary expedition as undertaken merely for plunder and via Gwalior for no reason. Secondly, Ganda's running away at night when he had such an overwhelming force is on the face of it unbelievable. Utbi never describes such scenes; but later Mahomedan writers are tempted to imagine such encounters wherein overwhelming forces are assigned to the Hindu king and he is shown to have run away without fighting. Even Utbi has described Ganda as an independent king full of pride and courage. This is a plainly imaginary scene invented by Nizamuddin. For even on his own showing, if this expedition had been undertaken by Mahmud to punish Kalanjar for killing Rājyapāla, there was no necessity to cross the Jumna and go against Kanauj. It does not seem likely that Trilochanapāla would oppose Mahmud to whom his father had submitted. Lastly Utbi does not relate that Mahmud went against Nanda after the battle of the Rahib where the eight men crossed the turbulent river in face of opposition as stated by Nizamuddin himself. The proper explanation is that Nizamuddin is wrong in describing the march against Nanda at this time and also placing the event of the Raja of Kanauj being attacked and killed by Nanda before the battle of the Rahib. The course of event, according to our view was this. In the 12th expedition against Kanauj (1019) Rājyapāla did not submit but fled to Bari. In the 13th expedition Mahmud led an army against Rājyapāla and Bari and conquering him in the battle of the Rahib accepted his submission on condition of payment of tribute (1021 March). In May Rājyapāla was attacked and killed by Nanda assisted by Gwalior which Mahmud learnt at Lahore in 1022 March and he led an expedition in 1022 Dec, against Gwalior and Kalanjar and exacted submission from both in Jan. 1023. In this view Ganda does not appear to be craven-hearted as he is made to appear.