[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921) › v3.c33 # History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33: Book VI. History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [v3.c33.s1 (B) Founding of the Kingdom of Ghazni.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1) — 16 parts - [v3.c33.s2 Note—Mohyal Brahmins.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s2) — 29 parts - [v3.c33.s3 Note.—Bhatia.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s3) — 59 parts - [v3.c33.s4 Note 2—The Shahi Kings with Revised Dates and Their Coins.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s4) — 46 parts - [v3.c33.s5 Note—Somnath.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s5) — 21 parts - [v3.c33.s6 Note.—Was Mahmud or Shivaji a Bandit?](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s6) — 36 parts - [v3.c33.s7 Note—Mahābhārata on the Laxity of Religious Feeling in the Panjab.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s7) — 24 parts - [v3.c33.s8 Note 1:—Coins of the Ghaznavi Kings.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s8) — 3 parts - [v3.c33.s9 Note 2 :—Spelling and Meaning of Some Mahomedan Names.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s9) — 2 parts ### Book VI. ### [v3.c33.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.1) POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY OF INDIA, (ABOUT 1030 A. D.) ### [v3.c33.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.2) \*from Al-Beruni.\* ### [v3.c33.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.3) We have a detailed and authentic account of India in the ‘India’ of this famous writer which is invaluable for the history of the sub-period (1000-1200) treated of in this volume. It is as important for this period as that of Hiuen Tsang was for the first sub-period (600-800). For both Al-Beruni and Hiuen Tsang are foreigners and both had studied Sanskrit, the language of the wise men of India. Both had a critical acumen worthy of a historian. And Al-Beruni is in one respect the better of the two, as he shows an unbiassed mind. Mahomedan though he was, he did not look down with contempt upon the Indians, their religion and their philosophy, their science and their art. Like Hiuen Tsang he obtained knowledge about India and its science and philosophy on the spot, studying them under Indian Pandits at Multan and Peshawar, and collected and carefully sifted information obtainable from Hindu and Moslem travellers. He was a native of Khwarism and when Mahmud of Ghazni conquered that country, he brought him to Ghazni among the prisoners of that kingdom. Beruni was a learned man already, being a mathematician especially. He had studied astronomy including astrology as it was known to the Arabs from Greek sources, and he particularly studied Hindu astronomy and astrology which were equally advanced, if not more, at that time. We will chiefly rely upon his work ‘India’ in taking a general survey of the condition of India in this volume. But we here begin with describing India as it was divided politically at this time, from the chapter on the geography of India in this work (chap. 18, Vol. I p. 196 and following-Sachau). Al-Beruni had probably Indian works of geography also before him, perhaps among them a work of Rājaśekhara, court poet at Kanauj, for guidance which we will notice in a note. Al-Beruni gives distances also as ascertained from travellers; but these distances, though often correct, cannot be relied upon as they are given in ‘farsakhs,’ a measure (which is said to be nearly four English miles) not altogether free from doubt. With these introductory remarks we proceed to give the information recorded by Al-Beruni in the chapter above noted. Al-Beruni wrote about 1030 A. D. when Mahmud was just dead. ### [v3.c33.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.4) India to the Arab writers was always divided into Sind and Hind. Sind already conquered and turned into a Mahomedan kingdom was separate from Hind. The chief part of Hind was the middle land (Madhyadeśa as the Hindus called it), the country round Kanauj, which was not only the centre of Hind, geographically but politically also. “It was the capital and city of residence of the greatest king of India.” We have shown in Vol. I that the Pratihāra imperial family still ruled in Kanauj at the beginning of the eleventh century. Kanauj was the imperial capital of India from the days of Harsha and naturally became the centre of Hindu civilization, learning and art. Nearly four centuries of imperial importance had made Kanauj the centre of attraction for wealth, wisdom and valour. Naturally the geography of India is given by Al-Beruni by taking Kanauj as the centre. Rājaśekhara in his Kāvya-Mīmānsā indeed states that distances should be measured and directions given in reference to Kanauj, a remark borne out by Al-Beruni’s description. Antarvedi or the land between the Ganges and the Jumna was the central land of India and the natural starting point of description with the Āchāryas or ancient writers. But Kanauj was in the middle of Antarvedi and being the capital of the central empire and the place where Rājaśekhara resided, he gives the opinion:-“The territory between the Ganges and the Jumna to the east of Vinaśana and west of Prayāga is Antarvedi and with reference to it the directions should be given according to the Āchāryas. But Yāyāvara thinks that even in Antarvedi they should be given with reference to the city of Mahodaya."\* ### [v3.c33.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.5) Al-Beruni begins by remarking that if you have to go to Sind you march from Sijistan, but in going to Hind you go via Kabul. In the mountains on the frontier of India "there are tribes of Hindus, or people akin to them, which are rebellious and savage races." It seems clear that they had not yet been converted to Mahomedanism. Coming to Hind and its capital Kanauj he says that it was situated on the west of the Ganges. "But the town is now deserted (owing to Mahmud's invasion) and Bari is the present capital east of the Ganges, distant about 4 days' journey (50 miles)". This town has not yet been identified. Starting from Kanauj and going south, you come to Jajjamau and other places and lastly to the Prayāga tree at the confluence of the Ganges and the Jumna. This (Pīpala) tree of Prayāga from which devout Hindus wishing to end their lives threw themselves into the river was still famous, still doing its duty (at present we have a stem of the tree shown in the fort of Allabadad). From Prayāga, Al-Beruni takes us southwards to the sea-coast and at once mentions the Jaur (Chola) king who was then in possession of Daraur (Dravida), Kanji (Kānchi), Malaya and Kunk which is the last of Jaur's possessions in this direction. The power of the Cholas was undoubtedly supreme at this time in the territory comprised at present in the Madras presidency and represented then by three or four countries. ### [v3.c33.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.6) Then Al-Beruni mentions cities eastwards of Bari, viz:—Ayodhyā and Benares, Pātaliputra and Mungiri (Mudgagiri) or Monghyr capital of the Pālas of Bengal who were still supreme), Janpa (Champā), Dugampur (?) and Gāngāsāgara where the Ganges falls into the ocean. ### [v3.c33.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.7) Going east via Bari (North-east) you come to Bihat and Tilwat (where people are black and flat-nosed like the Turks) and to Kamrup (Assam), and in the opposite direction (West) Nepal, beyond Bhūteśvara and the highest mountain. ### [v3.c33.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.8) ∗ गंगायमुनयोर्विंशनप्रयागयोरंतरमतर्वेदी । तदपेक्षया दिशो विभजेतेत्याचार्याः । तत्रापि महोदयमवधीकृत्यति यायावरीयः । ### [v3.c33.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.9) Going south-west from Kanauj you come to Jajāhūti capital of which is Khajuraha and which has the two hill forts Kalanjar and Gwalior. This is a correct description of the kingdom of Bundelkhand ruled by Chandella kings. Then southwards Dahàla (southern part of Bundelkhand) capital Tiauri (Tewari or Tripur) "of which Gāngeya is king now". This is also a correct description of the Chedi kingdom of the Haihayas and it seems that there was a great king Gāngeya was still alive. Al-Beruni mentions two great kings only of middle India viz. Gāngeya and Bhoja. ### [v3.c33.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.10) Again south (-west) from Kanauj "Asi, Sahanya, Jandrā, Rājauri and Bazan the capital of Gujarat". This town defies identification though Gujarat is recognised, from inscriptions, to be the country round modern Jaipur. The country was certainly part of what is modern Marwad, and Bazan, according to our view, may be Bhinmal which was once capital of Gujarat or Kuchalo of Hiuen Tsang. For Al-Beruni states that the town was in ruins and the people had gone to another place called Jadura. "Moslems called the town Naraina" which also may be explained by the fact that there was a temple of the sun (Nārāyaṇa) at Bhinmāl. Bhinmāl and Srīmāla are one and Srimali Brahmins and Banias are still well-known sub-castes. Al-Beruni adds that Mathura was as distant from Bazan as Kanauj was from Mathura. Probably he refers here to the Sambhar kingdom of the Chauhans. Al-Beruni does not mention Ajmer which was not yet founded nor made capital by the Chauhans. ### [v3.c33.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.11) From Mathura, Al-Beruni takes us southward to Ujjain via two or three towns not recognisable. But Bhāilsān (Bhailla-svāmin), or modern Bhelsa is mentioned and the important statement made that Bhaillasvāmin was the name of the idol there and the town was named after the idol. Bhaillasvāmin is mentioned in inscriptions (vide Vol. II p. 127) and this statement of Al-Beruni gives us for the first time the reason of the name of the town. Then again the word Svāmin shows that it was an idol of Viṣṇu and we further remember that there was a famous temple near Bhelsa of Viṣṇu on whose Garudastambha an inscription of a Yavana Buddhist king, as old as the first century B. C. has been found. In Sanskrit literature the name of the town, however, is Vidiśā. ### [v3.c33.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.12) From Bazan southwards you come to Mewad the capital of which is Jattaraur (Chitod). From thence you go to Dhar the capital of Malwa. Ujjain is east of Dhar, 7 farsakhs and Bhaillasvāmin is east of Ujjain 10 farsakhs. This is a correct description of Malwa with its important towns. ### [v3.c33.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.13) From Dhar south (-east) are given certain towns upto Mandagir on the Godavari as also Nemāvar on the Nerbudda, and south "Marāthadeśa and Kunkan the capital of which is Thana on the sea-coast". The name Marāthadeśa had come into use by this time even with foreigners and in Konkan was the northern Śilāhāra kingdom at this time, their capital being Thana. Its fame had reached even Kashmir as we shall see later on. ### [v3.c33.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.14) From Bazan southwest was Anhilvāra with Somnath on the sea-coast and south of Anhilvāra, Lārdeśa capital Bihruj and Rihanjur on the sea-coast. From Bazan west was Multan and Bhāti and southwest, Aror fifteen farsakhs from Bhāti, a town between two arms of the Sindh river, Bahmanwah, Al-Mansura and Loharani at the mouth of the Indus. These were towns in Sind which was under the Arabs. ### [v3.c33.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.15) Al-Beruni reverts to Kanauj and says N. N. W. of it are Shirsharaha and Pinjaur on the mountains, and opposite in the plain, the city of Thanesar, Dahamāla, capital of Jālandhar at the foot of the mountain, Ballāwar, westward Ladda, fortress Rājagiri, thence marching northward, Kashmir. ### [v3.c33.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.16) Again west (N. W.) Diyāmau, Kuti, Ānār, Meerut, Panipat, "between the two the Jumna flows", Kawital and Sunnām. Then going northwest we come to Adittahaur, Jajjanir, Mandahukur, capital of Lauhawar on the Ravi, Chandraha, the Bias and Jailam, Wahind capital of Kandhar west of the river Indus, Purshawar, Dunpur, Kabul and Ghazni. ### [v3.c33.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.17) Al-Beruni further describes Kashmir and says that there are no horses or elephants in Kashmir; people ride in palanquins. No one is admitted to Kashmir now except Jews. Even formerly accredited persons alone were admitted. He mentions Baramula on the Jhelum which, he says, rises in the same place as the Ganges where snow never melts. The Jhelum comes into Kashmir, the capital being on both sides of it, then gets into a swamp and through it into the gorge which is guarded. ### [v3.c33.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.18) The Sindh rises in the Kulārjak mountain where you reach through Gilgit where live the Bhatta Turks. Their king is called Bhatta Shah. (This shows that these Turks were Hindus still and Gilgit according to Sir Grierson still shows traces of Vedic civilization and language). Lahur and Rājagiri are south of it (Kashmir). "These are the strongest places I have seen. This is the northern boundary of India. On the western frontier live the Afgan tribes". ### [v3.c33.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.19) "The southern boundary of India is the ocean. After Munha small and great (mouths of the Indus) on the seacoast, come Cutch noted for Bawarij (pirates) and Somnath. The cities on the coast are Tawalleshar, Loharani, Kachha, Bároi, Somnāth, Kambayat, Asawil, Bihroj, Sandan, Sopara, Tana, thence to Lārān, city of which is Jimur, then to Vallabha, Kanji, Darvad and then Sarandib (Ceylon). Al-Beruni finally mentions Rameshwar on the junction of the western and eastern oceans with its ridge. He also mentions the Div islands "which appear and disappear (a phenomenon doubted by many)." ### [v3.c33.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.20) Al-Beruni states that there is no rain at Multan but near the mountains the rains last four months from Āshādha. In the mountains the rainy season extends over two and a half months from Śrāvaṇa. Beyond the mountains there is again no rain. In Kashmir snow falls in Māgha and there are some showers in Chaitra. Al-Beruni gives Hindu months which are immoveable through the seasons and not the Mahomedan months naturally enough and he is thoroughly conversant with Hindu astronomy. ### [v3.c33.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.21) Unfortunately Al-Beruni mentions no kingdoms nor kings, nor does he make any reference to the political events of which he has personal knowledge certainly. He does not mention any of Mahmud's expeditions. He does not tell us that Kanauj was abandoned owing to its being captured and plundered, nor does he say when he mentions Somnath that the place had recently been carried and the temple and the idol of Somnath broken by Mahmud. One would have thought that such statements could not have been avoided by any writer who is almost an eye-witness of the events. However, certain it is that he does not mention any political events. This silence may be of set purpose and therefore cannot be construed either for or against the truth of these events. We, however, think that his description affords us a complete and a good picture of the political condition of the country. There was the big Kanauj empire of the Pratihāras still in existence; east of it was the Pāla kingdom of Monghyr. Nepal and Kamarupa, Bhutan and Tirhut are also mentioned. In the south Cholas are alone mentioned and they were undoubtedly supreme in the Madras presidency at this time. The Chandella kingdom of Kalanjar and the Chedi kingdom of Tripura are mentioned, as also Chitor and Dhar, capitals of Mewad and Malwa. Naharwala, Lāta and Konkan kingdoms are well alluded to. Kachha and Sind are there. Bazan is, according to our view, a town of the Chauhan kingdom of Sambhar or Marwad. North of Kanauj and north-west are mentioned Meerut and Panipat, Thanesar and Kabithal. Properly enough, there is no mention here of Delhi. Delhi was an insignificant place in 1030 A. D. and the Tomaras there were petty kings. Lahore on the Ravi was the capital of a kingdom or a province and Jalandhar and Rajauri were separate kingdoms. Kashmir was of course a powerful kingdom at this time and is well described. Then we have Wahind, capital of Kandhar, on the west of the Indus and finally Kabul and Ghazni. This is a correct description of the political divisions of India obtaining at this time. We miss the country of Mahārāshtra and Kranāta, but they are, we think, alluded to by the words Marāthadeśa to the south of the Nerbudda and Vallabha occurring later on. ### [v3.c33.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.22) GEOGRAPHY OF INDIA AS GIVEN BY RĀJASEKHARA. ### [v3.c33.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.23) Rājaśekhara the well-known poet-laureate and also Guru of Mahīpāla (910-940 A.D.) of the Imperial Pratihāras of Kanauj has given in his Kāvya-Mīmānsā a detailed geography of India and it is very probable that this work or the work Bhuvanakośa of the same author to which it refers was before Al-Beruni when he wrote his India a hundred years later. One may wonder why geography of India is introduced in a work on poetics. But the occasion is taken to give this information in warning poets not to make geographical mistakes as they offend the sense of the hearer or reader; for instance he should not describe Kāñchī as situate in the east of India or even give a wrong complexion to the various peoples inhabiting this country. (It is allowable, we suppose, to make historical mistakes and to mention Kṛṣṇa, as Kalidāsa does in Raghu VIII. in a speech of the companion of Indumatī who married at a Svayamvara Aja, ancestor of Rāma, for ordinary people are not expected to be so conversant with ancient history). Whatever the propriety, this geographical chapter in Kāvyamīmānsā is important for the history of this period, as the Skanda Purāṇa geographical chapter was important for the history of the last period (Vol. I. p. 41) or the Varāha Mihira geography was important for the first period (Vol. I. p. 143). Of course we must note that Indian authors are not as scrupulous as Al-Beruni, as they introduce names of countries which are traditional though these countries may not exist in their time. With these remarks we give below the geography of India sketched by Rājaśekhara in his work Kāvya-Mīmānsā chapter 17. ### [v3.c33.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.24) "He who conquers Bharata Khaṇḍa from the Himalayas to the southern sea is called a Samrāṭ while he who conquers the country from Kumārīpura to Bindusara (lake) is called Chakravartin. ### [v3.c33.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.25) There are seven mountain ranges, Malaya and others. The country between the eastern and western seas and the Himalaya and Vinddhya mountains is called Āryāvarta (this definition extends the usual limit and includes Bengal); from here good conduct (religiously considered) proceeds. ### [v3.c33.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.26) In this the country to the east of Benares is called the eastern country. The peoples therein are Aṅga, Kaliṅga, Kośala, Tosala, Utkala, Magadha, Muḍgara, Videha, Nepāla, Pauṇḍra, Prāgjyotiṣa, Tāmralipta, Malada, Malla, Vartaka, Sumha, Brahmottara &c. The big rivers (Nada) are Soṇa and Lauhitya and lesser rivers (Nadis) are Gayā, Karatoyā, Kapiśā &c. The products are Lavali, Granthaparṇika, Aguru, Drākṣa, Kastūrī and others. ### [v3.c33.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.27) To the south of Māhiṣmatī is the Dakṣiṇāpatha (or southern path). The people are Mahārāṣṭra, Māhiṣaka, Aśmaka, Vidarbha, Kuntala, Krathakaiśika, Śūrpāraka, Kāñchī, Kerala, Kāvera, Murala, Vanavāsaka, Sinhala, Choḍa, Daṇḍaka, Pāṇḍya, Pallava, Gaṅga, Nāsikya, Koṅkaṇa, Kollagiri, Vallara &c. The rivers are Narmadā, Tāpī, Payoṣṇī, Godāvarī, Kaverī, Bhaimarathi, Veṇā, Vanjarā, Tungabhadrā, Tāmraparṇī, Utpalāvatī, Rāvaṇa-gaṅgā and others. Products are Chandana and pearls. ### [v3.c33.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.28) "To the west of the Devasabhā river is the western country. The people are Devasabha, Surāṣṭra, Dāseraka, Travaṇa Bhrigukachha, Kachcha, Ānarta, Arbuda, Brahmaratha, and Yavana. Sarasvatī, Prabhāvatī, Vārtaghnī, Mahī, Hundirā and others are the rivers. The products are Karīra, Pīlu, Guggula, Kharjūra, and Karabha (camels). ### [v3.c33.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.29) "Beyond Pṛthūdaka is the Uttarāpatha or the northern path, where the peoples Śaka, Kekaya, Vokkara, Hūṇa, Vapāyuja, Kāmboja, Bāhika, Palhava, Limpāka, Kulūta, Kira, Tangaṇa, Tushāra, Turushka, Hārahuṇa, Hubūka, Sahuda, Hansamārga, Ramatha, Karakantha and others live. The rivers are Gaṅgā, Sindhu, Sarasvatī, Śatadru, Chandrabhāgā, Yamunā, Airāvatī, Vitastā, Vipāśā Kuhu and Devikā &c. The products are Sarala, Devadāru, Rudrāksha, Kunkuma (saffron), Chamara, Ajina, Sauvīra, Śrotonjana, Saindhava and horses. ### [v3.c33.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.30) "Within these four countries is the middle country" Strangely enough Rājaśekhara gives no information about this part, remarking that the peoples, the rivers and mountains and products of the middle country are well-known. Thus the most valuable information is withheld from future ages. ### [v3.c33.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.31) "The country between the Ganges and the Jumna and from Vinaśana to Prayāga is called Antarvedī. The ancient authors declare that the directions should be given in reference to this land. But I, Yāyāvarīya, opine that directions should be given measured from Mahodaya (Kanauj)." ### [v3.c33.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.32) "The complexions of the people are dark in the eastern country, black in the southern, whitish (Pāndu) in the western and white in the northern. In poetical descriptions there is not much difference between the dark and the black complexions and the fair and the white. But the speciality is that in the eastern country the complexion of Rājput women and others may be fair or white; so also in the southern". ### [v3.c33.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.33) These remarks about the complexion of the people are very interesting. They show clearly that predominant people in the east and south were Dravidians of black complexion while those on the west and north were Āryans of fair complexion. But even in the east and the south, the higher classes, Rajputs and Brahmins, may be described as of a fair or even white complexion. ### [v3.c33.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.34) It is curious that in the north Kashmir and Kabul, the two most important Aryan peoples, are not mentioned, almost all those mentioned being Mlechchha people of mixed Aryan and Turanian races. The Yavanas are mentioned in the west and they are the Arabs of Sind. Kabul had not yet been conquered by the Turks in the beginning of the 10th century when Rājaśekhara wrote and Kabul probably had not yet extended its sway over the Panjab. But one expects that Kashmir should be mentioned as also Trigarta and Jālandhara. All the Panjab rivers even the Kubhā are mentioned and among the products saffron and salt peculiar to Kashmir and the Panjab are mentioned. ### [v3.c33.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.35) (A) THE SAMANIDES OF BOKHARA. ### [v3.c33.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.36) In order that one may understand correctly the power and the civilization of the Turkish kingdom of Ghazni, one must go back to the Samanide empire at Bokhara under which the kings of Ghazni rose and grew. Combining the history given by Utbi and others, a writer has given a short account of this empire in J. R. A. S. Bengal XV Part I from which we take the leading facts in the following summary. The founder was a converted Persian Zoroastrian king of Bokhara whose name was Asad (825 A. D.). His son Ahmad acquired the sovereignty of Samarcand, Bokhara and Ferghana. His son was Nasr whose son Ismail was the first great king of the Samanides and came to the throne in 903 A. D. He encouraged science and literature and raised Bokhara to eminence. The kings were called Amirs a title which was taken up by aspiring noblemen later on like Sabuktagin and from them it came to India in the form of Hammir. Historians have given each Amir from Ismail a distinctive epithet and this first illustrious king is called Amir Māzi. His son was Ahmad who is called Amir Shahid as he was killed in a religious war and his son was Nasr II who is styled Amir Sa'id (August). It was in the time of this king that a brave and ambitious brazier by name Yakub-i-lais collected turbulent spirits and made raids on India, first taking Herat in 301 H. (912 A. D.). India, it must be remembered, then included almost the whole of modern Afghanistan which was then divided into Zabulistan and Kabulistan or Zabul and Kabul. Kabul in the north was governed by the Brahmin dynasty founded by Lalliya or Kallar (Vol. I p. 201) and Zabul in the south was governed by Rajput or Kshatriya kings probably Bhattis. Yakub-i-lais not only took Zabul but also Kabul and it appears that the citadel of Kabul from that day remained in the possession of Mahomedans. ### [v3.c33.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.37) The Brahmin kings of Kabul regained possession of the town. But it seems that they from this time removed their capital to Wahind on the west bank of the Indus. Of this we shall speak again later on. Yakub-i-lais is said to have laid the foundations of the city of Ghazni by building a fort there. He conquered Zabulistan and drove away the Rajputs and these appear to have crossed the Indus and settled in the Panjab. This part of modern Afghan territory is known by the name of the land of Rahbuts, which is a misreading for Rajputs in Persian, in the Mahomedan histories of that period (see Raverty's Afghanistan). Yakub-i-lais was not able to supplant the Samanide power nor to found a kingly line but appeared and disappeared like a comet. ### [v3.c33.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.38) Nasr II was succeeded by Nuh who is called Amir-i-Hamid (laudable) in 334 H. (942 A. D.). In his reign Turkish slaves began to acquire power in the kingdom. These Turkish slaves were kept as guards by the Samanide kings. Turks from beyond the frontier (Jaxartes) were entertained in the army also. They were often bought as slaves when young and being bold and courageous were often given military commands. The employment of foreigners as guards has throughout eastern history led to the destruction of the power of the employer. The Turks thus supplanted the Persians at Bokhara and founded a kingdom at Ghazni. Ghazni in its turn was supplanted by the Afghans, the Afghans by the Moguls, the Moguls by the Marathas and the Marathas at Poona by the English. A nation or a kingly dynasty which entrusts the protection of its country to an army of foreigners, however small, must naturally enough be overtaken by this fate. ### [v3.c33.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.39) It would interest the reader to recount here how a just but strict minister of Nuh met his death at the hands of disaffected noblemen. Indeed ministers under Mahomedan governments usually ended their lives in strange fashions. There were two cedar trees at the palace gate and they were forcibly bent down and tied to the two legs of this obnoxious servant of the state and then were let go, hoisting up the unfortunate man and tearing him into two pieces. The historian remarks pithily "The fame of being too just was as dangerous at Bokhara as at Athens". ### [v3.c33.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.40) Nuh was succeeded by Abdul Malik styled Amir-i-Rashid (orthodox) in 343 H and he was followed by Mansur called Amir Sadid (steadfast) in 350 H. Powerful Turkish officers began to form independent principalities and Alptagin who was first Hajib or doorkeeper to the king Abdul Malik established such an independent principality at Ghazni. His slave was Sabuktagin who was also in the beginning Hajib or doorkeeper to the Samanide king at Bokhara. ### [v3.c33.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.41) Mansur was succeeded by Nuh II who reigned from 986 to 1008 A. D. The daring and intrepid Sabuktagin, known for his justice also, was already elected king at Ghazni by Turkish officers there after the death of Alptagin in place of his incapable son. The power of Sabuktagin was acknowledged by Nuh who sought his aid when Ilekkhan the Turkish ruler of Kashgar invaded Bokhara and Sabuktagin went in person to relieve his master with a large army and 300 elephants obtained from Indian kings as we shall presently relate. In the battle fought Mahmud son of Sabuktagin was present and received his first lesson in fighting. The battle was won and Sabuktagin was awarded the title of Nasir-ud-doula or supporter of the realm and Mahmud was given the title Saif-ud-doula or sword of the realm. ### [v3.c33.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.42) But the days of the Samanide empire were numbered. Turks who were in service and Turks who were invaders brought the kingdom soon to an end. The final stages of the catastrophe are interesting. Nuh was succeeded by Mansur who was blinded by his own officers who raised Abdul Malik an infant to the throne of Bokhara. But Ilekkhan the Turk invaded Bokhara and capturing it imprisoned every Samanide claimant. One claimant Muntasir, however, escaped from custody in the dress of a female. He made gallant efforts to regain power; but being unfortunate like Dara Shikoh was opposed by the officers of even Mahmud. He had to fly from place to place till at last he took refuge in an Arab camp. The chief of the Arab camp fell upon him at night and killed him. Mahmud of Ghazni had so much respect for his once superior lord that he seized the perpetrator and put him to a cruel death. ### [v3.c33.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.43) The civilization of the Samanides and their empire was inherited by the Turkish kingdom at Ghazni. The empire was extensive and included Khorasan and Mawar-ul-nahar and other territories such as Sistan, Karman, Jurjan, Ray, and Tabaristan. The duration of its rule from Ismail was one hundred and two years and sixteen days as given by Utbi in Tarikh-i-Yamini (Utbi gives the names of the kings and their periods of rule by days even), i. e. from 903 to 1005 A. D. Mahmud conquered and annexed many of their provinces especially Khorasan and Khwarism which were the centres of the civilization of this modern Persian empire. The Persian language was cultivated by the learned of these provinces which were to Persia what the provinces of Antarvedi and Kashmir in Mediæval and Deccan in modern history were to India and learned men from these two provinces always came to the court of the kings of Ghazni and even to that of the Mahomedan kings at Delhi. Persian was the ordinary language of official business at Ghazni and Delhi and Arabic was used for religious and select state records. The form of administration and names of officers were naturally borrowed from Bokhara. Curiously enough this presents an aspect much like Mediæval Hindu India where Sanskrit was tha language of state documents, Prakrit the language of the learned and a mixed jargon the language of the common people. We find in Ghazni also three languages being used, Arabic for religion, Persian for literary discourse and Turki for slaves and the army. Even Mahmud speaks in Turki to his servants (see Baihaki) whenever he has something private to say. ### (B) Founding of the Kingdom of Ghazni. ### [v3.c33.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.1) The Turkish kingdom at Ghazni which later under Mahmud became so powerful as to engulf not only Khorasan and Khwarism in the west but the whole of the Panjab in the east was first founded, as stated above, by Alptagin, a Turkish general under Mansur king of Bokhara. The history of Mahmud resembles so completely the history of Shivaji that the similarity extends back even to the history of his father and grandfather. Like Maloji, the acquirer of the original Jaghir the centre of Bhosla power, Alptagin was the founder of the small principality of Ghazni. He was first the Hajib of Amir Abdul Malik, father of Mansur and subsequently governor of Khorasan. Having opposed the accession of Mansur, he had to leave the kingdom and he went towards India and seized Ghazni and established his rule there. His slave was Sabuktagin who filled the same position as his master at Bokhara and he gave him his daughter in marriage, Sabuktagin naturally acknowledged the soveriegnty of Mansur though Ghazni was his separate acquisition in the same way as Shahaji acknowledged the suzerainty of the Bijapur Darbar though his Jaghir of Poona and Supa was his own acquisition from the Nizamshahi now no more. Sabuktagin acquired great power and influence in the court of Bokhara in consequence of his efficient army composed of Turks, Afghans and others which he maintained in the same way as Shahaji whose army was always a valuable asset of the Bijapur Darbar. And Sabuktagin fought the battles of the Samanides against their enemies as Shahaji did those of Bijapur. Extensive additional territories were assigned to Sabuktagin as to Shahaji. Indeed they were both almost kings though nominally sardars of the suzerain power at Bokhara or Bijapur. Both laid the foundations and evolved the necessary ingredients of an independent kingdom, though they never aspired to independence in their own life and left that glory to their sons Mahmud and Shivaji. ### [v3.c33.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.2) The ordinary title of Sabuktagin was Amir and he was invested with the further title of Nasiruddoula for his services in repelling the Turkish invasion by Nuh. Utbi, the historian of Mahmud, usually calls him Nasiruddin and gives instances of his great justice and strict discipline. Seeing some poultry in the hands of a Turkish soldier, he enquired how he had got it and when told that he had purchased it he called the alleged seller, a villager, who replied "A Turk never pays". The enraged king ordered the soldier's ears to be bored and the birds to be suspended from them and the soldier was paraded through the army, the birds flapping violently against the head of the guilty Turk. By such strict discipline Sabuktagin kept the turbulent Turks in control and advanced the prosperity of the country he ruled. ### [v3.c33.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.3) It is natural that popular belief should invest such a man and father of Mahmud with illustrious pedigree. It was believed that though a slave of Alptagin he belonged to a Turkish family of chieftains who were descended from a daughter of Yezdgird the last emperor of the Persians. High pedigree is also assigned to Shahaji whose descent from the Udaipur Sisodia Rajput family was believed in even in his days. The story of Sabuktagin being descended from Yezdgird is said to have been told by Mahmud himself (Tabakat-i-Nasiri). It is not necessary that great men must have illustrious lineage, but popular sentiment is not satisfied unless an illustrious origin whether real or imaginary is assigned to the great men of the nation. Whatever the truth of the story, we may note the similarity of Shahaji and Sabuktagin in this respect also. ### [v3.c33.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.4) Popular belief also assigns divine greatness to the birth of Mahmud as to the birth of Shivaji, Mahmud being as great a favourite, religiously considered, with the Mahomedans, as Shivaji is with the Hindus. It is related that Sabuktagin once while hunting seized a buck and taking it up on horseback turned homewards. Seeing the mother of the buck following him to a great distance, he was moved with compassion for the affliction of the mother and set down the buck to the delight of the female deer. Mahomet appeared to him in a dream and applauded his act of kindness and promised him a kingdom. It is also stated that when Mahmud was born, Sabuktagin had a dream, presaging the birth of the great king, in which he saw a tremendous tree grow suddenly from the fireplace in his house. As he was telling his dream, news came of Mahmud’s birth which fell on the same day as the day of the birth of the great prophet and Sabuktagin said “I name the child Mahmud”. Such stories about heroes naturally arise after they have achieved their greatness. A third story relates that, on the day Mahmud was born, the idol temple at Wahind fall in the same way as at the birth of the great prophet the fire temple in the palace of the Persian kings was destroyed by an earthquake. This presaged the relentless war which Mahmud was to wage against the idolatry of the Hindus. Mahmud was born on the 10th of Mohurrum in 361 H corresponding to 2nd October 971 (Tabakat-i-Nasiri and Elliot p. 69) but Firishta has given the 9th of Mohurrum 357 H (note ditto). This makes a difference of nearly four years. Sabuktagin ruled from 977 to 997 A. D. He extended his dominions in the south by conquering Kandahar and Bust the capital of Zabulistan and he tried to extend the same towards the east where the kingdoms of India lay. His immediate neighbour on that side was Jaipal described variously as king of Hindustan, of Kabul and of Lahore. We must determine who this king was, as even so late as Sir Vincent Smith different views have been entertained on this subject. ### [v3.c33.s1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.5) Who was Jaipal king of Hindustan? He is evidently the king of Kabul belonging to the Brahmin dynasty founded by Lalliya and described in the previous volumes. (Vol. II. p. 157 and Vol. I. p. 201). But this obvious identification has not been accepted by the now almost authoritative Early History of India which states even in the third edition (1914) as follows "In those days a large kingdom comprising the upper valley of the Indus and most of the Panjab to the north of Sind extending westward to the mountain and eastward to the Hakra river was governed by a king named Jaipal whose capital was Bathinda (Bhatinda) situated s. s. w. of Lahore and westward from Patiala". This, though not expressly, clearly distinguishes this Jaipal from the Brahmin Jaipal king of Kabul. In the foot-note here (p. 382) Smith remarks that this summary statement has been given by him from Raverty, "differing as it does from current accounts". He gives greater details in his article on the Chandellas in I. A. XXXVII (1908) where he refers for Bathinda to a note in Raverty's translation of Tabakat-i-Nasiri and further observes in a note there that Miss Duff in her 'chronology' is wrong when she identifies this Jaipal with the Jaipal of Wahind. He further states in a note on p. 383 E. H. I. that "Elliot mixes up the dynasty of Bathinda commonly called the Shahis of Ohind with that of Kabul and so renders the whole story unintelligible". But after giving due consideration to the arguments advanced by Raverty in the aforementioned note and the whole evidence on this subject, it appears to us that Sir Vincent Smith is mistaken in setting up a distinct kingdom for this Jaipal and that the earlier view of Miss Duff and Elliot is correct. We proceed to examine this question at length. ### [v3.c33.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.6) In the first place the reason why Raverty was led to suggest this new theory appears to be that Wamand was read in Nasiri for Wahind where the statement is made that "On the day Mahmud was born, an idol-temple in Wamand in Pershaur on the Indus fell." Raverty supposed that this temple was to the east of the Indus and he made an attempt to read the name Wamand in several ways. It may be noted that in Persian and probably even in Arabic writing, the absence of dots defeats the correct pronunciation of Indian names; as b, p, t, n as also v, and d, and h, ch and j are often not to be distinguished. And Col. Raverty finally fixed upon Bathinda as the proper pronunciation of the name and took hint for this from a Persian history of the Rajas of Jammu written by a Hindu author, wherein was found the statement that Jaipal's capital and place of residence was Bathinda. Now no reference is given to this history, nor is its date mentioned and it is possible that even here Bathinda is a misreading, or miswriting in the Persian copy, of an original Wahind. Nay more, since the Jammu chronicler appears to be a modern writer and not a contemporary of Mahmud, he must have taken this statement from some previous Persian history and himself read Bathinda wrongly for Ohind or Wahind. It is to be wondered how Col. Raverty was misled by this Jammu chronicle and it is still more to be wondered how Sir Vincent Smith was misled by this note of Col. Raverty. We proceed to give in detail the arguments which arise against this view. ### [v3.c33.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.7) In the first place Al-Beruni, a contemporary of Mahmud and a well-informed writer, does not mention in his geography of India this capital of Jaipal. We have specially given this geographical chapter from Al-Beruni's 'India' in order that the reader may have a correct idea of the political divisions of India existing at the time of Mahmud. Al-Beruni mentions distinctly Wahind as the capital of Kandhar which is equivalent to Gāndhāra and places it on the west of the Indus and then gives Peshawar, Kabul, and Ghazni. He mentions Mandahukur as capital of Lohawar east of the Ravi. This town has not been identified but it can not be equated with Bathinda as it is not on the Ravi and on the east of it. (Perhaps this is a wrong translation for Lohawar capital of Mandahukur). It seems probable that the Brahmin kings of Kabul were at this time masters of the whole of the Panjab. The extent of the kingdom of Jaipal as given by Smith from Mahomedan historians is of course correct. From the mountains to the west of the Indus it extended over the Panjab to the river Ghaggar or Hakra of the Mahomedans. But the kingdom of Wahind and Kabul cannot be separated from this kingdom for these were one and the same kingdom. ### [v3.c33.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.8) Al-Idrisi again writing some years after Al-Beruni distinctly states that Atrasa on the Ganges was a frontier fortress of the Kanauj kingdom the limits of which extend \*as far as Kabul and Lohawar\*. He distinctly makes Kabul and Lohawar one kingdom conterminous with the kingdom of Kanauj. The state of political divisions in India in the beginning of the eleventh century clearly shows that there was no separate kingdom of the Panjab. The same thing appears from the statements of Al-Masudi who wrote about 953 A. D. that the Indus comes from the uplands of Sind, Kanauj, Kashmir, Kandhar and Tafan. Only four kingdoms are here mentioned; Kandhar being the kingdom of Gāndhāra of which Pershawar (Peshawar formerly Purushapur) was the ancient capital. Lastly even in the Tabakat-i-Nasiri the idol temple is said to be in Wamand or Wahind in Pershaur which plainly means "In the province of Peshawar." ### [v3.c33.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.9) Historical considerations as well as geographical point to the same conclusion. First the names of the three kings mentioned are identical and come in the same order. Jaipal was succeeded by Ānandapāla and he by Trilochanpāla both in the kingdom of Kabul and in this supposed kingdom of Bathinda. In his article in I. A. XXXVII Smith gives the name of the last king as Brāhmaṇapāla but this is again a misreading for Trilochanpāla t being mistaken for b and ch being mistaken for h. Any person conversant with Persian orthography can see how Brāhmaṇapāla may be read for an original Trilochanpāla. The name is in fact read by some as Tirojanpal. Brāhmaṇapāla is not a name which can be taken to be a Hindu name and is certainly a misreading for Trilochanapāla which was long ago suggested as the proper reading even by noted European scholars. The identity of the three names and their identical order would go far in favour of the two kingdoms being one. ### [v3.c33.s1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.10) Further, these ‘kings of Hindustan’ are everywhere described as Brahmin kings and we know that the kings of Kabul were Brahmins. We find Brahmin kings at this time in Kabul only and this also shows that the two kingdoms must be the same. Again the great glory of the Shahi kings of Wahind or Udabhānda described and deplored by Kalhaṇa in the Rājatarangiṇī can only be explained by holding that their kingdom extended over nearly the whole of the Panjab. It could not have been confined to Kabul and Wahind only. Lastly when it is stated that Mahmud after conquering Jaipal in the battle fought near Peshawar went and attacked the capital of Jaipal, we are nearly certain that this capital was Wahind in the vicinity of Peshawar on the west of the Indus and could not have been Bhatinda so very distant as to require Mahmud to cross all the rivers of the Panjab and come as far as Patiala on the south of the Sutlej. It is, therefore, almost certain that the capital of Jaipal king of Hindustan was Wahind. ### [v3.c33.s1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.11) It would be interesting to explain how Jaipal is called king of Hindustan as also of Kabul and often of Lahore. It is clear that before the 10th century the whole country east of the Helmand was Hindustan. Even Ghazni when it was first taken by Yakub-i-lais was in India and so was Kabul (See Vol. I p. 191) and Kandahar which was in the country of Rajputs (Al-Masudi, 953 A. D.). When the Ghazni kingdom was founded, it was bounded east, south and north and even west by Hindustan and Sabuktagin conquered the adjacent parts of India gradually and included them in the kingdom of Ghazni. Jaipal was king to the east and north of Ghazni; this country was still properly called Hindustan, the people being still Hindus. The Brahmin dynasty founded by Lalliya ruled originally in Kabul. When Yakub-i-lais conquered Kabul and the citadel was taken and retained by the Mahomedans, it appears probable that the Brahmin kings removed their capital to Wahind though they still retained possession of the town of Kabul. The surroundiug country was also in their possession. That they did not dislodge the Mahomedans from the citadel of Kabul seems strange; but the fact of its being in the hands of the Mahomedans seems certain from its being clearly mentioned in Mahomedan writings. Possibly the Brahmin dynasty for a time acknowledged the supremacy of the Mahomedans (See Vol. I p. 193). One Kabul Shah even offered to assist his suzerain Mahomedan king of Ghazni against the invading Turks (See ditto). Whatever the reason, a Mahomedan garrison remained in the citadel of Kabul and the Brahmin kings of Kabul must have found it convenient to shift to Wahind or Udabhānda on the west bank of the Indus. ### [v3.c33.s1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.12) But they retained possession of the town of Kabul and always respected it as their original capital. Writers have stated that every king of this family had to be crowned in Kabul; "otherwise the people would not acknowledge him king" (Vol. I p. 201). The Brahmin kings though they resided in Wahind went to Kabul for their coronation. Such action can well be conceived when we remember that in modern history the Peshwas residing in Poona had to go to Satara and be invested with the robe of Peshwa or minister at the hands of the titular king. The Brahmin kings of Kabul were similarly originally commanders-in-chief (or Sphalapati) of the Kshatriya kings of Kabul and people would insist on their assuming their dignity in Kabul. The above remark of the Mahomedan writers becomes easily understandable when we remember that Kabul was the original capital and Wahind the new capital of these Brahmin Shahi kings. ### [v3.c33.s1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.13) The kings of Kabul and Wahind appear to have extended their dominion to the Panjab some time in the 10th century and not before. We know that Lalliya the founder was conquered by a Kashmirian king and Kabul itself was held in subjection for a time by Kashmir. In the Panjab then ruled some Tekka king and Kashmir kings and even the kings of Kanauj and Multan held territories in the Panjab adjacent to their kingdoms. But in the 10th century the evidence of Al-Masudi\* and Al-Idrisi show that the Kabul or Gāndhāra kings held the Panjab as far as Lahore so that their territory was conterminous with that of Kanauj. Lahore was their capital in the Panjab. Who founded this city does not appear. It was called Lohapura and popular tradition says it was founded by Lava son of Rāma, (Lahore Gazetteer); but historically speaking, as Hiuen Tsang does not mention it, we may safely hold that the city was founded or at least it came to importance in the days of these Brahmin kings who are thus described variously as kings of Hindustan, of Kabul, of Wahind and of Lahore. Lahore is written usually in early Mahomedan writings as Lohāwur, or even Lohur which in Sanskrit would be Lohapura. ### [v3.c33.s1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.14) ∗ Translation by Aloys Sprenger Vol. I, has the following sentence 'the Hindu nation extends from the mountain of Khorasan to that of Tibet.' ### [v3.c33.s1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.15) Rao Bahadur Dayaram Sahani has noted in the annual report for 1917 (p. 20) three inscriptions belonging to these kings described by him properly enough as kings of Kabul and the Panjab, now lying in the Lahore museum. The first belongs to Bhīma described in the inscription as king of kings, Bhīmadeva with the mace son of Kalaka (ma) lavarman. The other two short inscriptions belong to Jayapāladeva who is described as son of Bhīmadeva. Rao Bahadur Sahani thinks that the title varman given to Kamala makes it certain that he was a Kshatriya and not a Brahmin "as Al-Beruni and those that follow him believe". But it is impossible to ignore the statement of such a critical and contemporaneous writer as Al-Beruni. There is no reason why he should wrongly describe these kings as Brahmins. The name-ending suffix whether varman, gupta or dāsa is again not conclusive as to caste as we find all these three originally applicable to Kshatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śudras\*respectively, taken by Brahmins. But further the dynasty of Kamalu was for all practical purposes Kshatriya and it is no wonder if Kamala who was actually a king is called Kamalavarman. It may, therefore we think, still be believed that these kings were Brahmins by caste though their marriage relations were made with Kshatriya ruling families. Chandanadāsa Vaiśya, Nārāyaṇadas Brahmin and Bhagwāndas Rajput are other instances. ### [v3.c33.s1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s1.16) ∗ It may be mentioned that Mahīdāsa Aitareya the author of the Aitareya Rigveda Brahmana is treated in legend a son of a Śudra woman but even then according to caste rules then obtaining he would be a Brhamin like Vyāsa. Sudāsa similarly of the Vedas is wrongly treated from name ending by some as a Śudra king. But Sudāsa is a Kshatriya name in both the solar and lunar genealogies. Vishnugupta author of the Panchatantra was a Brahmin. ### Note—Mohyal Brahmins. ### [v3.c33.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s2.1) The Mohyals who are a subset of the Sārasvata Brahmins and who are found all over the Panjab, the North-Western Frontier Province and even Afghanistan claim with justice and propriety that Jaipal and Ānanda-pāla were Mohyal Brahmins. The Mohyal Brahmins throughout Mahomedan, Sikh and British times have undoubtedly distinguished themselves as great generals and soldiers. Indeed these Brahmins hold that begging or trading is prohibited to them. They believe that they are descended from Aśvatthāmā and other Brahmin heroes of the Mahābhārata. Whatever this may be, it is probable that this Brahmin subcaste became Kshatriya or military caste and attained to fame in the days of the Shahi Brahmin kings of Kabul. Indeed their case is similar to the case, in later times, of the Chitpawan Brahmins. From the days of Balaji Vishwanath, first Peshwa, the Chitpawans became a military caste and in the time of the Peshwas they were employed both as military and civil officers. Under the British they are employed only in civil services naturally enough. ### [v3.c33.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s2.2) The Mohyals are divided into seven exogamous families; Datta, Vaid, Bāli, Chhibbar, Mohan, Bamwal and Lawa. Jaipal is said by Mohyals to be a Datta with Bhāradvāja gotra. It may be mentioned that Rambhuj Datta Chowdhari of Amritsar was a Mohyal Datta and the revenue minister to the late Amir of Afghanistan, Dewan Narayandas of Bhera now aged 90, is a Mohyal Chhibbar. It is not necessary here to mention the noted Mohyal commanders who distinguished themselves in Mahomedan, Sikh and British times. ### [v3.c33.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s2.3) SABUKTAGIN AND JAIPAL. ### [v3.c33.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s2.4) The history of the conflicts of Turks and Hindus and especially of the invasions of India by Mahmud has been written in detail by Mahomedan historians from Al-Utbi a contemporary of Mahmud to Firishta who lived about 1500 A. D. in the Deccan and by European writers from gifted Gibbon down to Elliot, Elphinstone &c. and Lane-Poole and Smith, as also by noted German and French writers. Dr. Vincent Smith further has brought to bear upon this history his extensive knowledge of Indian epigraphic and numismatic evidence. Yet the history requires to be sifted and reconsidered from the Indian point of view and in the light of modern Indian research. It requires to be examined in the crucible of historical probabilities and tested by the fire of historical criticism. It is no doubt impossible to add many new facts but it is possible to reject some absurd stories and ideas. We shall try to do this in the succeeding chapters, as far as can be done by bringing to bear upon this history the light derived from modern Indian research and by looking at it from the view-point of the Hindus. It may be pointed out that even contemporary historians like Utbi who are more to be relied upon than any later writers have to be subjected to the usual criticism; much more so later writers like Firishta. ### [v3.c33.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33.s2.5) Sabuktagin having established himself in the principality of Ghazni naturally tried to extend his dominion. This small principality was like a drop of oil on the surface of the expanse of Hindu waters. But the oil expanded on all sides till it spread, in the days of his son, over the whole expanse of Afghanistan and the Panjab. Sabuktagin first conquered Kandahar and Bust, capital of the Rajput country, as stated before. He also conquered and annexed Al-Rukhaj or Arachosia of the Greeks which was called "White India" by the Parthians (Vol. I. p. 191). Conquering Kasdar the capital and its king he made him a tributary using the coin and name of Sabuktagin (Utbi p. 33). Having thus secured his rear, Sabuktagin aspired to conquer east and north and naturally came into conflict with Jaipal king of Kabul and Wahind. _First 64 of 298 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33)_ ## Linked texts (21) - [Rājataraṅgiṇī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.kashmir.rajatarangini.7.47) — Kalhaṇa, Sanskrit - [Tārīkh-i Firishta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.general.tarikh-i-firishta) — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian - [Kāvyamīmāṃsā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.alamkara.kavisiksa.kavyamimamsa) — Rājaśekhara, Sanskrit - [Ἰνδική](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.gr.roman.arrian.indica) — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek - [Aitareyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.aitreya) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [تحقيق ما للهند من مقولة مقبولة في العقل أو مرذولة](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.isl.ar.biruni.tahqiq-ma-lil-hind) — Arabic - [Archaeological Survey of India Reports (1862–1887)](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.archaeology.asr) - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Pañcatantra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.short_stories.pancatantra) — Viṣṇuśarman, Sanskrit - [Raghuvaṃśa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.rama.raghuvamsa) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg) — Sanskrit - [Indian Antiquary](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.ia) - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Skandapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.skanda) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Sitala temple](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.monument.sitala-temple) - [Gaya](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.gaya) - [Lakshminarayana Temple](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.monument.lakshminarayana-temple) - [Baijnath Temple](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.monument.baijnath-temple) - [Godavari](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.godavari) - [Mahishmati](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mahishmati) - [Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri) — Minhāj al-Dīn Jūzjānī --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.vaidya-1921.v3.c33) · Pramāṇa