History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s6.3

v3.c33.s6.3

But it may be objected that Mahmud's later expeditions to Mathura and Kanauj and to Somnath were mere plundering expeditions undertaken with no desire of annexation or permanent occupation. Even this is not correct. Distant provinces like Antarbed or Oudh or Gujarat could not be at once occupied. It was necessary to gradually absorb them by the usual method of absorption viz. first exaction of tribute and then final overthrow, when the intervening territory was fully absorbed. Thus the British first absorbed Bengal, then Bihar, then Oudh, and then the Panjab. It must be remembered that when Rājyapāla first merely escaped, Mahmud reinvaded Oudh, conquered Bāri and finally subjected him to a tribute. It appears that this tribute was long paid by the Kanauj kingdom to Ghazni, for we have epigraphic evidence which shows that the charge of this tribute was distributed over the whole kingdom of Kanauj as a permanent tax in excess of the usual land tax. It is strange that scholars have not understood the real nature of the tax called "Turushkadanda" mentioned in the grants of this period coming from the territory of Kanauj only. The Jhusi grant of Trilochanapāla dated 1026 A. D. does not mention this Turushkadanda; but all later grants, even those of the Gāhadavālas, mention it, who though independent of Ghazni continued to exact this tax, as despotic kings rarely give up an impost which has become usual and of long standing, though the necessity of it no longer exists. In this Turushkadanda, we are reminded of the chauth of the Marathas, for the realisation of which they regularly maintained officers in the provinces of the Mogul empire. It is likely that Turkish soldiers and officers also remained in the country of Kanauj to collect this tribute and it is these Turks whom Bhoja or Karṇa drove away as we shall relate in their history. We have actually ascertained the fact that Turushkadanda is mentioned only in grants found in the Kanauj kingdom and not in any grants found in the Chedi or Bengal territory and certainly not in Paramāra or Solankhi territory viz. Malwa and Gujarat. We are, therefore, assured that Mahmud did subject Kanauj to a permanent tribute* which would naturally have led, in future years, to the annexation of that kingdom had the succeeding kings at Ghazni possessed his vigour and continued his policy in the manner in which British policy consistently worked throughout the nineteenth century. With regard to the raid on Somnath, even therein Mahmud had apparently an intention of permanent occupation in the distant future. Such raids, even if for plunder only, undermine the power of the plundered kingdom and make way for future annexation. We, therefore, think that it is unhistorical to look upon Mahmud as a mere plunderer without any design of permanent occupation. It is not only against human nature, but also against history, when we see that he annexed and permanently occupied the whole of the extensive territory of the Shahis from Kabul to Lahore in the east and extensive provinces of the Samanis in the west.