Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s7: Note—Mahābhārata on the Laxity of Religious Feeling in the Panjab.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s7

Language
English

Note—Mahābhārata on the Laxity of Religious Feeling in the Panjab.

v3.c33.s7.1

In the Karṇa Parva chapters 40 to 45 we have a spirited dialogue between Karṇa and Śalya, the former depicting the bad manners and the religious laxity of the people of the Panjab and the latter offering no defence practically. This shows that the people of Āryāvarta or modern U. P. and Delhi looked down upon the Hindus of the Panjab in the time of Alexander and succeeding centuries. "In their houses people laugh and dance eating beef and drinking wine eating also Saktu and fish. From the Madra country and in Gāndhāru (beyond the Indus) purity has disappeared. In the Mantra or charm against scorpion-bite they say 'I will not associate with a man from Madra country; this poison of thine is destroyed" (chap 43). In chapter 44 we have "One should not go to the Vāhika country in which the five rivers and the sixth Indus flow as it is unpurified by the Himalayas, by the Ganges, by the Jumna and the Sarasvati and as it is void of true religion and cleanliness. The eaters of beef with garlic and the drinkers of liquor prepared from rice jaugry are indeed void of good breeding. That country is called Aratta and is void of religion; one should not go there; it is the country of those who are Vrātya (without religious ceremonies and without the sacrifices). If you drink water in Yugandhara town or stay in Achyutasthala or bathe in the pond of Bhūtalavya, how will you go to heaven? An Arya should not reside for two days in the Aratta Vāhika country where a Brahmin becomes a Kshatriya and then a Vaiśya and then a Śudra and finally a barber and a Brahmin again". Śalya only replied that there were good and bad men in every country.

v3.c33.s7.2

CHAPTER XX.

v3.c33.s7.3

Although the Panjab with Kabul did not form part of Hindu India henceforward, we must give a short account of the kingdom of Ghazni during the reigns of Mahmud's successors, with such references to Hindu India as are found therein in detail. The history of the Ghaznavide kings is given in short by the Tabakat-i-Nasiri written by Minhaj-us-siraj a learned man who was Kazi of Delhi and its empire under several kings and lastly under Nasiruddin and Ghiya-suddin Balban (Elliot II p. 260), and who wrote this history and dedicated it to Nasiruddin about 1250 A. D. A detailed gossipping account of the reign of Masa'ud written by Baihaki who was almost an eye-witness of the events he describes and who wrote about 1050 A. D. is also available and is very informing. From these two we give below a short history of the Ghazna-vide kings, who followed Mahmud, with such references in detail to Hindu India as are found therein.

v3.c33.s7.4

Mahmud's two sons Masa'ud and Muhammad were born on the same day from different mothers. Masa'ud was so strong physically that his mace could not be wielded even by Mahmud but he was unruly and turbulent. Muhammad was, on the other hand, gentle and promising and therefore in the good graces of his father. Believing Masa'ud would oppress the people and the army, Mahmud had named Muhammad as his successor and the permission of the Khalifa to add his name in the Khutba had been obtained. When some officer expressed his condolence to Masa'ud privately, he in the usual Mahomedan spirit observed "The sword is a better guarantee of the throne than documents". And events actually happened as had been anticipated. Masa'ud was governor in Khorasan, like Mahmud himself, at the time of their father's death, and marched against his brother Muhammad who had meanwhile ascended the throne of Ghazni, in the same way as Mahmud had marched against his brother Ismail. But unlike Mahmud, Masa'ud blinded his defeated brother and always kept him a close prisoner. And when he became the master of the extensive empire of Mahmud he recovered all the sums Muhammad had distributed among his officers, even by torture. If Mahmud resembles Shivaji, his son Masa'ud resembles Sambhaji almost in every respect. The latter was as powerful physically as Masa'ud and he too after his father's death defeated Rajaram and killed his mother. He ruled vigorously for about ten years and was eventually seized by Aurangzeb and cruelly put to death. Masa'ud met a similar tragic end after reigning vigorously for about ten years. Both Sambhaji and Masa'ud were strong in their religious beliefs. Masa'ud persecuted heretics as Mahmud had done and also led some religious expeditions into Hindustan.

v3.c33.s7.5

The ordered nature of government inherited from Mahmud appears from the interesting details given by Baihaki as to how ministers were appointed with the most elaborate ceremonies, how the Sultan consulted the minister in every matter and how correspondence passed between them through the private secretary and how regularly written orders were passed. The Indian province was administered through a Kazi and a commander-in-chief both of whom resided at Lahore. "The Kazi was the head of the civil administration and collected taxes and dispensed justice while the commander-in-chief made war, took tribute, seized upon elephants and chastised refractory Hindu chiefs" (Elliot II p. 118). When Ahmad Nialtagin was appointed commander-in-chief of Hindustan, he received a royal Khillat, "royal verbal orders and a written out diploma. Then an oath was given to him and he put his signature to his bond that he would serve faithfully and these papers after being shown to the king were given into the charge of the record keeper" (Elliot II p. 119). It is interesting to note that some refractory troops and slaves, liberated with letters of freedom, were handed over to Nialtagin for safe keeping and employment, but they were not to be sent beyond the Chandrabhaga river or mix with the Lahore army. Probably if they went to Lahore they would create mischief in that capital and perhaps going beyond it into Hindu independent territory they would create more trouble.

v3.c33.s7.6

One of the duties of the commander was to make raids into Hindustan and to collect tribute from Thakurs, the refractory turbulent zemindars already described who belonged to the Kshatriya caste. And Nialtagin made a raid into Hindustan going as far as Benares where Baihaki states that even Mahmud had not gone. This makes it certain that Mahmud went as far as Bari only when he conquered Rājyapāla on the Rahib which must be some river in Oudh (Ghaggar or Gomati). There was a quarrel between Nialtagin and the Kazi (the civil and the military powers in India under the British too sometimes were at variance and caused loss and finally the constitution of India placed the military authority under the Governor-general). The minister had told Nialtagin that "he was the generalissimo of Hindustan and the Kazi had no control over him" (Elliot II. p. 128). And Nialtagin quarrelled with the Kazi and led an expedition into Hindustan with the consent of Masa'ud who had sided with Ahmad in his quarrel.

v3.c33.s7.7

The expedition is thus described by Baihaki: "He crossed the Ganges and marched by the left bank. He suddenly appeared before Benares which belonged to the territory of Ganga. The city was two parsangs square and contained plenty of water. The army could only remain there from morning till midday because of the peril. The markets of the drapers, perfumers and jewellers were plundered. The people of the army became very rich and carried off gold, silver, perfumes and jewels and got back in safety". This evidence coming from almost an eye-witness and unquestionably a contemporary, places the raid in 1033 A. D. It shows that the city was in the possession of Gāngeyadeva Kalachūri of Tripura a powerful king whose army was probably near and who was much feared as he was known to be a powerful king. The bazar contained shops of drapers, perfumers, and jewellers which trades are still thriving in Benares. And the statement that Benares had plenty of water means that well-water and pond-water was plentiful in the city which is situated on a high bank of the Ganges or in the country round Benares away from the river.

v3.c33.s7.8

This successful raid of Nialtagin turned his head and he began to form schemes of founding an independent kingdom and to engage Turkoman soldiers direct from Turkey. The Kazi, however, reported the matter to Masa'ud, who dismissed Nialtagin and sent a Hindu commander to arrest him alive if possible. Eventually Nialtagin was defeated and pursued by some Jats on the Indus and killed. This and other events show how powerful generals and slaves become as dangerous to the master as to the enemy.

v3.c33.s7.9

The employment of Hindu soldiers and generals, even on occasions of trust, shows that Hindus had already risen to posts of responsibility under the Moslem rulers of Ghazni. Their great bravery is extolled even by Moslem writers. This employment of Hindu soldiers began in the days of Mahmud himself. Indeed Jaipal maintained a force of 2000 Hindus at Ghazni for some years and Elliot himself thought it curious that Hindu soldiers should serve as mercenaries under their bitterest persecutors ( E. II. p. 448 ). But considering the religious and political apathy of the Hindus described before, one need not wonder that Hindus have always accepted service under foreign governments and have always sought and obtained distinction by loyalty and efficiency. This early credit gained by the Hindus is noted by Elliot who mentions several instances of their employment by their bitterest persecutors such as that of Sawandrai employed by Masa'ud against the nobles who opposed his accession ( Sawand with his soldiers was killed in the battle ) or Bijai Rai, a general employed even by Mahmud and called again by Masa'ud's successors ( Elliot II. p. 60 ). This instance of Jats killing Nialtagin shows the loyal service performed by Jat subjects for their king.

v3.c33.s7.10

The successful raid of Nialtagin shows the weak state to which the kingdom of Kanauj, no longer an empire, had been reduced. Rajyapala was already dead and was succeeded by Trilochanapala who made a grant at Prayaga in 1026 as already stated. But Prayaga must have, like Benares, gone subsequently into the possession of Gangeya, who, as will be stated in the history of the Kalachuri kings, died at Prayaga. We do not know how long Trilochanapala ruled and who succeeded him. A king Yasahpala is mentioned in a broken inscription published by Colebrooke in his essays ( II. p. 278 ) wherein he is described as Maharajadhiraja, but not Paramesvara. He made a grant in the Kausambi Mandala south of the Jumna and south-west of Prayāga. Kanauj held undoubted sway in Oudh but the Turks of Ghazni emboldened by the raid of Nialtagin made further raids into Oudh. The improbable story of Salar Masa'ud, Mahmud's sister's son, may at least suggest the certainty of many raids by the Turks especially in Oudh where the scene of Salar's story is laid. It is believed that Salar Masa'ud, had his head-quarters at Saraikh in the present Bara-Banki District of Oudh and from there made raids in several directions. Many districts in Oudh contain sacred places supposed to belong to that saint. These raids took place probably from 1038 to 1050. The story of Sālār is not wholly a fiction, as we find from a Rathod inscription found at Badaun (Ep. Ind. II pp. 64) that one of the kings Madanapāla made the raids of any Amir impossible. We will comment upon this inscription at great length elsewhere in another connection. The date of this inscription is not given and that of Madanapāla cannot, therefore, be fixed but we think this is a reference to the raids of Nialtagin or Sālār Masa'ud, who must have passed into Oudh via Badaun. The Hindu Rajput kings of India resented these raids on their sacred places particularly and, as we shall show later on, Bhoja of Malwa (1040 A. D.), Karṇa Kalachūri of Tripur and lastly Chandra Gāhadavāla drove out these Turks and others mentioned before from Upper India and "freed the country of its oppressors". The last king took Kanauj and established a powerful Hindu kingdom there, the effete Pratihāra line thus ending about 1080 A. D. These later Pratihāra kings, as shown already, were tributaries of Ghazni and levied an impost named Turushkadanda on the villages in their kingdom which under the Gāhadavālas continued to be realised though not paid to the Turks.

v3.c33.s7.11

This is a digression, though a necessary one, and we may resume our narrative of the Ghaznavide kings. Baihaki relates that one year a sudden flood of the Ghazni river did great havoc in the city and bodily carried away the bridge on it. The fort of Ghazni built by Yakub-i-lais and his brother, however, stood firm. Masa'ud, who was a mathematician himself built a new bridge over the river of one stupendous span. He also built several new palaces and splendid gardens.

v3.c33.s7.12

But inspite of good qualities he was endowed with, viz. personal strength and valour, learning and care for his people, Masa'ud was unfortunate and was destined to loose the greater part of his kingdom. "In what was Amir Masa'ud destitute?" asks Baihaki. "Servants, officers of State, lords of the sword and pen, an overwhelming treasury were all his, but destiny decided that he should live a reign of pain and vexation and that Khorasan, Khwarisan, Rè, and the Jabbal should depart from his hands" "The prince made exceeding exertions and collected large armies. He passed sleepless nights in contemplation of his schemes, yet his affairs were ruined" (Elliot II). Probably the cause may be found in his excessive independence of opinion and his refusing to accept advice. The trouble began in Khorasan where Mahmud himself had allowed some Turks to settle. Prince Maudud, Masa'ud's eldest son, was as usual appointed governor of Khorasan and Balkh, and in his time Seljukian Turks rebelled. The Ghazni army was defeated. The province was also invaded from the north and the minister and other officers advised Masa'ud to advance personally against the Turks. He, contrary to their advice, insisted on leading a holy expedition into Hindustan and went and invested the fort of Hānsī which lay to the south of the Sutlej and in the present district of Hissar. Masa'ud thus tried to extend his dominions beyond the Panjab. This invasion took place in 1037 A. D. It cannot be determined who was in possession of this fort and the district. The Hissar Gazetteer (p. 19) states that this fort of Hānsī, which is a very old place, was in possession of Anuraj son of Visaldeo Chāhamāna and Teshtapāla the son of Anuraj was driven out and he then founded the Hādā dynasty of Boondi.* But as we shall see in the history of the Chāhamānas later, their king at this time was Vākpati and Gaurishankar Ojha states that the Boondi Chauhan dynasty was descended from Asarāja, twelfth king of the Chauhan line of Nadul. Whatever the name of the person who held the fort, he was a Chāhamāna no doubt and he fought valiantly. Baihaki describes the siege as follows :- "Fights were constantly taking place in a manner that could not be exceeded in severity. The garrison made desperate defence. In the victorious (Moslem) army, the slaves of the household behaved very gallantly. At last mines were sprung in five places and the walls brought down and the fort was stormed on Monday ten days before the close of Rabiul-avval. The Brahmins and other high men were slain and their women and children carried into captivity. All the treasure that was found was divided amongst the army. This fort is known in Hindustan as the virgin fort. ". ( E. II. 140 ).

v3.c33.s7.13

∗ It is difficult to know whence this statement is taken.

v3.c33.s7.14

The above description brings out two new facts. First the mining of the walls; when we hold that gunpowder was not known in those days, it could only have been carried out with some other explosive; but what that was it is difficult to say. Secondly the slaughter of Brahmins was an advance on the severity of Mahomedan fighting in the days of Mahmud (Utbi never mentions it in his detailed account, possibly by oversight). The Rajputs of Northern India were men of a different spirit than the Kshatriyas of the Panjab. They were accustomed to rule and never to be ruled. It appears that the fort and the district was retaken by the Tomars of Delhi, who were then rising to power under the Chauhans, in 1043 A. D. as Firishta has related ( Hissar Gazetteer p. 20. ).

v3.c33.s7.15

Masa'ud, on returning to Ghazni, found that he had committed a mistake. While trying to extend his dominions south-east, he had lost the most important province of Khorasan in the north-west. It was Mahmud alone who could vigilantly watch both east and west. The Seljukian Turks taking advantage of Masa'ud's forces being engaged in the distant Hindustan attacked and seized Khorasan. They were even preparing now to advance on Ghazni and Masa'ud was perturbed. He resolved upon retiring into Hindustan with all his family and treasure and gave orders accordingly. Frantic remonstances were addressed to him by his nobles, generals and officers and even by his mother. But Masa'ud as usual was inexorable and unamenable to advice. It is strange to find that this decision of the brave king was based on astrology. Curiously enough the Turks and even the Arabs were strong believers in astrology* like the Hindus, though Mahomet had strictly forbidden consulting the stars. “The prime minister wisely remonstrated that if his lord went into Hindustan with his ladies and his treasure, when the news would be known among friends and enemies, everybody being desirous of increasing his power, calamity would befall him”. But the ill-fated Masa'ud exclaimed “This dotard does not know what he says. That is right which I have determined. I am ready to acknowledge that you have written through affection for me. You must wait for further orders; for that which I see you cannot see. He handed over the city and the fort of Ghazni to the Kotwal Bu-Ali and remarked “My son Maudud, the minister and a large army will be away. Whatever may happen, in the spring I will settle the matter in another way. The astrologers have declared that my star is not propitious during winter.” The Kotwal urged that the ladies and the treasure should be secured in strong forts, but the Sultan replied that he had determined that they would remain with him and prayed to God to grant him peace and welfare in his journey to Hindustan (Baihak E. II. p. 52).

v3.c33.s7.16

∗ Al-Beruni himself was an astrologer as well as astronomer.

v3.c33.s7.17

The Sultan wished to avoid the evil influence of his star by going into Hindustan, which then still included, as it includes even now, the warmer country to the west of the Indus with the cities of Wahind, Mārminārā (?) Bershaur and Kiril (?) (E. II. p. 150); but the evil star destroyed Masa'ud even in Hindustan. The Tabakat-i-Nasiri relates that Masa'ud was seized by his own rebellious Moslem and Hindu slaves as he was going through the Margilan pass (in the hills between Rawalpindi and Attock, a few miles to the west of Hasan Abdal) and imprisoned. They liberated the blind Muhammad who was in custody and placed him on the throne. Masa'ud was taken to the fortress of Gur and there murdered. This tragic end of Masa'ud reminds us of the tragic end of Sambhaji who too like Masa'ud lost the large Mahārāshtra territory acquired by his father and had left to him a distant province Karnatic for refuge as Hindustan was left to the kings of Ghazni. Both though endowed with great courage and learning and strong in religious zeal came to grief by their obstinacy and unamenability to good advice. The unfortunate end of both shows how immense resources are of no avail without the capacity to use them; and the greatness of Mahmud, as that of Shivaji, appears in the fact that he achieved greatness even without any great resources in the beginning.

v3.c33.s7.18

We have given the history of Masa'ud at some length because it brings out the greatness of Mahmud by relief and because the two important expeditions* into Hindustan took place in his time, one to Benares and the other to Hansi resulting in further acquisition of territory for some time. We will now go on to the history of the remaining kings of Ghazni which we give in the briefest manner, with such references in detail to India as occur therein.

v3.c33.s7.19

Muhammad was king only for six months; for Maudud, son of Masa'ud flew from Balkh, where he was governor, to avenge his father's death. Taking possession of Afghanistan he went on to Hindustan, defeated his uncle and took him and all his children prisoner. They were all killed as also the Turkish and Hindu slaves who had seized his father. He returned to Ghazni and ruled for nine years. His sons were incapable and the officers and nobles raised one of them Mahmud and his uncle Ali together to the throne. But both being incapable, complete disorder prevailed. After two months they were sent to a fortress and Abdul Rashid, a son of Mahmud, was raised to the throne in 444 H. (1050 A. D.). Alp-Arslan, the Seljuk king of Iran and Khorasan advanced against Ghazni but was defeated by Tugril, a fearless slave disciplined under Mahmud, who was placed at the head of the Ghazni forces. When he returned victorious, he killed the Sultan Abdul Rashid and ascended the throne himself. He killed eleven other princes and ruled tyrannically. After forty days of misrule, he was killed by a Turkish silahdar or arm-bearer (a term of general use in later Indian history) on the throne itself.

v3.c33.s7.20

Only two princes remained imprisoned in a fort and Tugril had sent a messenger ordering their dispatch also. The seneschal at the fort cautiously delayed the execution of the order for one day only and a pigeon-carrier brought the news of Tugril's murder. The lives of these princes were thus fortunately saved and both became Sultans in succession viz. Faruhjad and Ibrahim. Both ruled justly and kindly. Ibrahim was a very religious man and translated the Koran into Persian. He had forty daughters and thirty six sons: so that the royal family was again full. These daughters were given in marriage to learned persons by the Sultan and one of them was married to the grandfather of the author of Nasiri. Ibrahim was like Shahu and ruled long (42 years) dying in 492 H. (1100) after a peaceful and prosperous reign. His son Masa'ud reigned even more justly and liberally. He abolished exhorbitant taxes throughout Mahmudi dominions and Zabulistan and remitted all tolls and imposts throughout the empire. In his reign a religious expedition into Hindustan was led by his Hajib who crossed the Ganges and "penetrated to a place where none except Mahmud had gone". The year and the place are not mentioned. But this makes the raid of Salar Masa'ud improbable for Mahmud did not go beyond Bari in Oudh. This king died after 17 years of reign in 509 H. (1118). This makes the raid into Oudh the last under an Amir and probably this is the raid referred to in the Badaun inscription.

v3.c33.s7.21

∗ A third is mentioned in which Ma'aud is said to have taken a fort on the Sarasvati in Kashmir. But Baihaki does not mention it and we do not think there is any Sarasvati river in Kashmir nor does the Taragini mention this invasion.

v3.c33.s7.22

Arslan his elder son succeeded him but was driven away by his younger brother Behram by the aid of Sultan Sanjar who was his maternal uncle. But his reign though long (41 years) was unhappy. The governor of Hindustan twice rebelled and he had twice to attack him, once near Multan and another time in the Siwalic hills. The rebel was, however, eventually destroyed. The Ghori chiefs in his absence became powerful and took Ghazni which they destroyed by fire as will be related later in Ghori history. Bahram retired into Hindustan but when the Ghoris departed from Ghazni he returned. His son Khusru succeeded him in 552 H. (1159 A. D). As the Ghori chiefs had shaken the Ghazni kingdom to the foundation and as Khusru was a weak king, a horde of Gozz Turks attacked and captured Ghazni and retained it for twelve years, when they were driven out by Ghiasuddin Ghori. Khusru as usual retired to Lahore and ruled there for seven years. His son Khusru the mild ruled in Lahore for some time but he was taken prisoner by Muhammud Ghori in 587 H. (1191) and eventually put to death with his son by order of Ghiasuddin Ghori in 598 (1206 A. D), when the line of Mahmud ended.

v3.c33.s7.23

The history of the Ghaznavide kings forcibly exhibits the great evils to which despotic systems of government are exposed where there is no national sentiment to check them. There is always a rule of succession recognised in every country and in the west there are formal acts of succession. But when ambitious and unscrupulous persons are not prevented by the strong national sentiment of the people from doing mischief, murders of kings and sometimes of possible claimants to the throne are often committed in such frightful manner and number that birth in a royal family becomes indeed a calamity. In the history of Hindu kingdoms such scenes are rarely met with though national sentiment was absent in them also because probably the Hindu nature is, for well known reasons, less evil and more law-observing.

v3.c33.s7.24

We here close this book and will give a detailed account of the Ghori kings who supplanted the Ghaznavi line, when we come to the history of Prithvirâja in the last book as they overthrew him and finally conquered India. It is further necessary to add that there must have been many raids by Turkish adventurers into Hindustan, besides the one described above, as will appear from the history of the several Rajput kingdoms given in the following book though they are not mentioned by Mahomedan historians.

Linked texts (3)