Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s6: Note 2—Do the Rathods or Gāhadavālas Belong to the Deccan?

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c34.s6

Language
English

Contents

Note 2—Do the Rathods or Gāhadavālas Belong to the Deccan?

v3.c34.s6.1

The Rathods of Jodhpur and Bikaner are, according to our view, distinct from the Rāshṭrakūṭas of Malkhed described in Volume II, as they in their inscriptions describe themselves as Chandravamśī, being descended from Sātyaki. But the Rathods of Jodhpur-Bikaner and also the Gāhadavālas of Kanauj are Suryavamśī from their records and inscriptions. If they, therefore, came from the Deccan, they must have belonged to a separate clan bearing the same official name Rāshṭrakūṭa. Did they, however, come from the Deccan as is generally believed? We will discuss this question in this note from bardic records as also from the Rambhā-manjarī Nāṭikā in which Jaichand is the hero.

v3.c34.s6.2

The Gāhadavālas in their inscriptions do not say that they came from the Deccan as the Senas of Bengal in their inscriptions distinctly say that they came from Karṇāṭa and call themselves Karṇāṭa-Kshatriyas. But non-mention is not conclusive unless the mention is necessary. The official bardic record book in the Bikaner State Library states that the Rathods originally belonged to Ayodhyā and a king thence went direct to Kanauj and took possession of it. This is, however, not quite reliable, as Kanauj is known, in historic times from about 400 A. D. to the 11th century A. D., to have been in the possession of the Maukharis, the Vardhanas, the Varmās and the Pratihāras (see Vol. I and II). Moreover, this record mentions Jaichand and his father Bijepāl, but not Govindachandra and his ancestors. The bardic record at Jodhpur does not also give Govindachandra and his predecessors. In one bardic book at Jodhpur, no reference is made to the Deccan as at Bikaner, but in another it is stated that a king named Nandapāla son of Vipula became king of Karṇāṭaka and his descendants came to Kanauj and Jaichand son of Bijepāl is given as the last. Bijepāl's father's name is given as Abhaichand (which may be another name of Govindachandra). His father's name is given as Brahma and Chandra is stated in inscriptions to be an incarnation of Brahmā. This tradition, therefore, may be taken to indicate that the Gāhadavālas came from the Deccan Karṇāṭaka. But the name of Kalyan city is not mentioned even in this record.

v3.c34.s6.3

In the corresponding record with the Rājapurohita, the heading of the whole record is given as "Ayodhyā, then Konkana Deśa, Gada Kalyāṇa Karṇāṭaka deśa, then Kanauj". This is again ambiguous; for there is a Kalyan both in the Konkan as also in Karṇāṭaka. The latter Kalyan was, however, founded by Someśvara Chālukya about the latter half of the 11th century and the Gāhadavālas could not have come from there. It may, however, be that they first went to Konkan, and thence to Karṇāṭaka, and finally thence to Kanauj.

v3.c34.s6.4

Notwithstanding this ambiguity, there are indications that the Rathods alias Gāhadavālas came from the Deccan. In the first place, the word Rāshṭrakūṭa as the name of an officer is found in southern inscriptions only. In fact the word Rāṣṭra as denoting a kingdom or province is found in the Deccan only (see the Malla Rāṣṭra, Gopa Rāṣṭra and Pandu Rāṣṭra of the Mahābhārata and Rāṣṭrika of Aśoka inscriptions). Secondly, the tradition at Jodhpur is that the family goddess idol was brought from the Deccan by a Rathod prince named Khes (ancestor of the Jodhpur family) and is called by the Deccani name Nāganechi. Thirdly, it is strange to discover a Marathi passage in the Rambhā-manjarī Nātikā of Nayachandra Sūri who wrote this drama about 200 years after Jaichand who is the hero. The customary eulogy of Vaitālikas in the beginning of the first act in which the praises of Jaichand are sung is, strangely enough, in Marathi, though nearly the whole of the drama is in the courtly Mahārāṣṭri or Śauraseni Prakrit. This passage is worth quoting and we do it below.* It may indicate that Nayachandra was a Jain pandit from the Deccan; but it is more indicative of the probability that the family bards of Jaichand must have belonged to the Deccan and that it was customary to sing these praises in Marathi. The Gāhadavāla family thus seems to have come from the Deccan and the tradition was still current in Nayachandra Sūri's time. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Kshatriyas of the south and north were not differentiated and the Deccan Gāhadavālas were indeed looked upon as best Rajputs, as the very first epithet of Jaichand in this drama proves. This Deccan Rāṣṭrakūta clan seems to have spread over the whole of Northern India from Badaun to Mithila as inscriptions of the 11th century A. D. prove, and one branch of it which conquered Kanauj was called Gāhadavāla. We must indeed state here that these Rāṣṭrakūtas of the Deccan must have come there from the north originally, as all Kshatriyas or Aryans came to the Deccan from the north-west. We even find the name Rāṣṭrika in the north in an edict of Aśoka, and the Rāṣṭrakūtas must have come to the Deccan from the Panjab originally.

v3.c34.s6.5

Before concluding we may draw the attention of the reader to two important facts which appear from this drama though we have noticed them elsewhere. The very first epithet is that the Gāhadavālas were considered the forehead-ornament of the 36 royal clans, thus showing that the Gāhadavālas, if they had been a separate clan, ought to have found a mention in the old lists of the 36 royal families. Secondly, Jaichand addresses his chief queen as Kāśyapa-kula-nandinī in this drama. As among the Rajputs queens are distinguished by their parent's family names, such as Chauhani, etc., even in modern times, this indicates that the queen's father belonged to the Kāśyapa gotra and that, therefore, the gotra of the Gāhadavālas could not have been Kāśyapa or Śāndilya.

v3.c34.s6.6

* जरि पेखिला मस्तकावरि केशकलापु । तरि परिखलता मयुराचे पिच्छप्रतापु ॥
जरि मयनविषयु केला वेणीदण्डु । तरी साक्षाज्जाला अमरश्रेणीदण्डु ॥
जरी दृग्गोचरी आला विशाल भालु । तरी अर्द्धचन्द्रमण्डल भइल ऊर्णायुजालु ॥
अनङ्गल जापू द्वैर्हाकृत कन्दर्पचापु । नयननिर्जित सुजला खंजन निःप्रतापु ॥
मुखमण्डल जापू अशांकदेवताचे मण्डलु । सर्वांगसुन्दर मूर्तिमंत कामु । कल्पद्रुम जैसे
सर्वलोक आशा विश्रामु ॥

v3.c34.s6.7

We gave the history of the Pālas of Bengal during the second sub-period of our history in Vol. II Chap. IX ending with Mahīpāla I. The Pāla dynasty continued to rule throughout the third sub-period (1000-1200) also, a remarkable case of long-lived kingly line as Sir Vincent Smith rightly remarks. We may, however, divide it into two portions which curiously enough fall at Mahīpāla I about the beginning of this sub-period. It is a fact mentioned in most Pāla records that Mahīpāla or his father lost the kingdom about this time. It is usually stated that Mahīpāla won back the paternal kingdom which had been taken possession of by persons who were not entitled to it.* (See Sarnath inscription dated 1026 A. D. I. A. XIV p. 136). Sir Vincent Smith has given in I. A. 1906 a list of Pāla kings with detailed information of all their records found till then and has also given their genealogy as also probable dates of accession of the Pāla kings. We give at the end this genealogy from Mahīpāla I onwards with the dates of each king. Now the accession of Mahīpāla is placed by Smith in 980 A. D. as Mahīpāla is said to reigned long and in Insc. No. 17 the regnal year of this king is given as 48. If then we take Mahīpāla's accession as 980 A. D. we must also hold that his kingdom must have been seized by outsiders or false claimants about this time and not earlier. Unfortunately, no Pāla inscription mentions the nature of the usurpation or the name of the usurper. We made a surmise in the last volume (p. 141) that the shock given by Mahmud's invasions may have reached Bengal. Of course it is not possible that Mahomedan Turks came in those days so far east, but it is possible that dispossessed Rajputs of the Panjab or the North-western province may have sought for some territory to rule so far east, as dispossessed Rajput kings always did in Indian history (witness the Sisodias going to Nepal after being driven by Allauddin out of Chitor or the Rathods going to Marwad from Kanauj after Jaichand's defeat). Now the Dinajpur inscription published in J. R. A. S. Bengal 1911 mentions a Kāmboja king of Gauda building a temple of Śiva* in Dinajpur and it is suggested that its date Śaka 888 or 966 A. D. brings it near this event and that a Kamboja king (Kamboja is western Tibet) might have invaded Gauda and founded his power there. From this king or his successor Mahīpāla must have recovered the kingdom of Gauda belonging to his father. This, however, is too early; for this dispossession is not mentioned as taking place in the time of Vigrahapāla who ruled probably from 960 to 980. This inscription does not state that the Kamboja took possession of the kingdom of the Pālas, nor do the Pāla inscriptions mention that their kingdom was seized by a Kamboja king. It is further possible that some Gauda feudatory may have caused this trouble and he may eventually have been ousted by Mahīpāla.

v3.c34.s6.8

∗ अनधिकृतविलुप्तं राज्यमासाद्य विज्यम् ।

v3.c34.s6.9

Whatever the true account of this dispossession, Mahīpāla I began a new life of the Pāla dynasty and ruled justly and vigorously for 48 years and more. Of all the Pāla kings he is the best remembered and " songs in his honour are still to be heard in remote corners of Orissa and Kuch Bihar." His kindom extended to the west over Magadha and Bihar and included northern and eastern Bengal and even Orissa and Assam. His reign was marked by the revival of Buddhism and Dharmapāla and other holy men from Magadha went to Tibet in 1013 and did much to restore the religion of Gautama to honour in that country (Smith p. 400). Atiśa, another missionary from Vikramaśīla went to Tibet in the reign of Nayapāla the successor of Mahīpāla in 1042 A. D. Mahīpāla I reigned according to Smith from 980 to 1038 when his son Nayapāla succeeded him and he was succeeded by his son Vigrahapāla III in 1059 and he is credited with having defeated Karna of Chedi who was extending his power during the decline of the Pratihāra emperors to the east of Benares and particularly in Champāranya. His Āmagāchhi inscription has been noticed in Vol. II and has been thrice edited once by Kielhorn (I. A. XXI p. 97) correcting Dr.

v3.c34.s6.10

* काम्बोजान्वयजेन गौडपतिना तेनेन्दुमौलेरयं । प्रासादो निरमायि कुञ्जरघटावर्षे जगद्भूषणः ॥

v3.c34.s6.11

Hornle's edition (I. A. XIV p. 164) and lastly by R. D. Bannerji. In 1080 Vigrahapāla died and he was succeeded by his eldest son Mahīpāla II. The Pāla line in its second life had flourished for a hundred years and its power began to decline. Mahīpāla II imprisoned his brothers and began to rule oppressively. This led to a rebellion of the Kaivartas headed by one Divyoka. Mahīpāla was killed in this rebellion and he was succeeded for a short time by his younger brother Śurapāla. But the power of the Kaivartas in Varendra (North Bengal) was unbroken and Divyoka was succeeded there by his son Bhīma. But Rāmapāla who was the youngest son of Vigrahapāla III was a vigorous and capable king and succeeding Śurapāla made preparations to conquer Varendra (his seat of government was still probably Monghyr in Gauda or western Bengal). And assisted by his maternal uncle Mahana, feudatory king of Mithila, a Rāṣṭrakūṭa by clan and other feudatories and some allies one of whom was Devarakshita king of Pithī, Rāmapāla conquered Bhīma who was eventually killed and established his power in Varendra. These details are found from a poem every verse of which is double-meaning composed by Sandhyākara Nandi son of the minister for peace and war of Rāmapāla himself and thus almost a contemporary record. It is written from Paundravardhana capital of Varendra and it relates the story of Rāmapāla by one meaning and of Rāma the demigod and ruler of Ayodhyā by another meaning. There is a commentary on the poem which enables one to understand the first canto only. The other three cantos remain unexplored and Tārāprasād Shāstri who gives these details in his paper published in Proceedings R. A. S. Bengal 1900, on this Rāmacarita, is right when he observes that much historical information remains buried in these cantos of double-meaning verses (p. 73).

v3.c34.s6.12

But fortunately for us, these facts are confirmed by the very important Sarnāth inscription of Kumāradevi queen of Govindchandra published in E. I. IX (p. 319). This inscription is extremely important as it furnishes valuable information about three Rajput families, the Pālas, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and the Gāhadavālas. We will give it in detail in respect of these kingly families beginning with the Pālas. It is stated that Rāmapāla’s prosperity was secured by his maternal uncle Mathana, king (feudatory lord) of Anga, by conquering Devarakshita king of Pithī who had troubled him.* Where this Pithī was cannot be decided though Stein Konow who publishes this inscription thinks it is Pithāpura in Vengi country. Mahana is described as a fearless warrior in Gauda and therefore was a feudatory of Rāmapāla, king of Gauda and is also called Angapa or ruler of Anga or Mithila. Now he had a daughter named Śankaradevi whom he gave to Devarakshita after defeating him in the usual Rajput manner. From them was born the famous queen Kumāradevi who founded the Bauddha Vihāra commemorated by the inscription. It seems, therefore, that Devarakshita was a Buddhist and his daughter Kumāradevi was also Baudha. She was married to Govindachandra, though a staunch Hindu, whose family is described as Gāhadavāla family and whose father was Madanachandra and grand-father Chandra.† The word Kshatravamśa applied to the Gāhadavālas shows that they were then considered as good Kshatriyas. Similarly Mahana is also described as crest-jewel of Kshatriyas and hence was also a Rajput. In the Rāmacharita above noted he is stated to be a Rāshtrakūta or Rathod. His sister was Rāmapāla’s mother which shows that Rāmapāla was also a Kshatriya. Devarakshita to whom Mahana’s daughter was married must also have been a Rajput. It will be noted that this relation does not contradict the theory propounded by us that Rāshtrakūtas and Gāhadavālas were one clan; for here Devarakshita’s daughter by a Rāshtrakūta-born princess married a Gāhadavāla i. e. the daughter’s daughter of a Rāshtrakūta married a Gāhadavāla and thus there was no inter-marriage between Rāshtrakūtas and Gāhadavālas. An important fact, though not connected with the Pālas, may be noted here about

v3.c34.s6.13

गौडेऽद्वैतमटः सकाण्डपटिकः क्षत्रचूडामणिः ।
प्रख्यातो महणोऽक्षपः क्षितिभुजांमान्योऽभवन्मातुलः ॥
तं जित्वा युधि देवरक्षितमधात् श्रीरामपालस्य यो ।
लक्ष्मीं निर्जितवैरिोधनतया देदीप्यमानोदयाम् ॥ ७ ॥
जगति गहडवाले क्षत्रवंशे प्रसिध्दे । ऽजनि नरपतिचन्द्रश्चन्द्रनामा नरेन्द्रः ॥

v3.c34.s6.14

Govindachandra who was in possession of Benares as we already know. In this inscription it is stated that he was an incarnation of Hari who was asked by Hara to protect Vārāṇasi defiled from Turushka soldiers.* Stein Konow thinks that this indicates that there were raids on Benares in the days of Govindachandra. But the sense of the above line may be taken as protecting Benares polluted (already) from Turkish soldiers. It would not be proper to connect "from Turkish soldiers" with the word protect; for the word polluted as applied to Benares would be unmeaning unless we take the above expression with the word 'polluted' and say that the pollution came from Turkish soldiers. This inscription no doubt confirms the fact that Benares was raided once by Turkish soldiers but it refers to past pollution and we may well take this as a reference to the raid by Ahmed Niatagin. In the translation given by Konow the word 'dushtām' or polluted seems to have been omitted by oversight (verse 16 p. 327).

v3.c34.s6.15

Although this inscription is not dated, the relations mentioned viz. that Rāmapāla was Mahana's sister's son and Kumāradevī queen of Govindachandra was his daughter's daughter make it clear that Rāmapāla preceded Govindachandra. His accession is placed by Smith in 1080 A. D. properly and he ruled vigorously over the whole of Bengal for a long time. His conquest of Mithila as also his fight with Bhīma are mentioned in the Kamauli inscription of Vaidyadeva (E. I. II, p. 350) wherein his son Kumārapāla is mentioned as the overlord of Kāmarūpa in a double-meaning verse stating that he like Rāma killed Rāvaṇa in the form of Bhīma and had also obtained the land (daughter) of Mithila.† This shows that the rebellious Bhīma was a very powerful chieftain and fighting him was as difficult as the crossing of the ocean by Rāma. This rebellion is also referred to in J. R. A. S. Bengal LXIX p. 68 to be noted further on in speaking of Kumārapāla.

v3.c34.s6.16

∗ वाराणसी भुवनरक्षणदक्ष एको । दुष्टां तुरुष्कसुभटादवितुं हरेण ।। उक्तो हरः स पुनरत्र बभूव तस्मात् । गोविन्दचन्द्र इति सुप्रथिताभिधानः ।।

v3.c34.s6.17

† तेने येन जगतत्रये जनकभूलाभायथा तयशो । क्षोणीनायकभीमरावणवधुयुद्धार्णवोल्लङ्घनात् ।।

v3.c34.s6.18

Rāmapāla was succeeded in 1130 by his son Kumārapāla referred to above in E. I. II and he was succeeded by his son Gopāla III in 1136 A. D. Nothing particular is found recorded of them and the name of the last has only been known recently from a record of Madanapāla (his uncle) who succeeded him in about 1140 A. D. A copperplate grant of his has been found and published in J. R. A. S. Bengal IXIX part I (p. 66) which makes the interesting statement that the village was granted as Dakshinā to a Brahmin for reading the whole Mahābhārata to his queen Chitramatikā; which shows that the king though a Buddhist was favourably inclined towards Brahmins and that his queen was a Hindu who heard the whole Mahābhārata recited to her by a Brahmin. We find that these Pāla grants are usually made in the Paundravardhana Bhukti or Varendra i.e. North Bengal where Sena grants are also made. The Sena kings enjoyed power chiefly in Eastern Bengal and probably divided power in Northern Bengal, West Bengal and Magadha with Bihar being probably under the Pālas. We do not know much of the political events in Madanapāla’s days, but it is probable that the power of the Pālas must have declined in his time. Madanapāla was succeeded by his son Govindapāla in 1161 A. D. definitely, as an inscription in V. S. 1232 in the 14th year of his reign has been found (Smith’s list J. A. 1909 No. 30). He was succeeded by a king named Mahindrapāla mentioned in inscriptions, the last one found being dated 1193 A. D. He is identified with the king Indradyumna of local tradition who is said to have been destroyed by the Mahomedan invader Mahammad Bakhtyar Khilji.

v3.c34.s6.19

It is a pity that Bengal was in the 12th century divided into two strong kingdoms opposing each other, that of Monghyr or West Bengal ruled by the Pālas and that of Gaur or Eastern Bengal ruled by the Senas. The division of authority in the same province, practically self-contained and united by race and language, led to the weakening of both and the difference of religion must have contributed to the same effect. That effect was the almost easy and bloodless conquest of both by a foreign power and of a different faith as we shall have to show later on.

v3.c34.s6.20

The chronology of the Pālas fortunately is not much in dispute and we give the genealogy of this second section of the Pāla line with dates of inscriptions found and probable dates of accession of each king suggested by Sir Vincent Smith (I. A. 1909). These dates will help us to tolerably settle the vexed chronology of the Sena kings of Eastern Bengal.

v3.c34.s6.21

GENEALOGY OF THE PĀLA KINGS OF BENGAL. (Sir V. Smith. I. A. 1909 p. 244).

v3.c34.s6.22

I Mahīpāla I ac 980 Ins. 1026

v3.c34.s6.23

II Nayapāla ac 1032 Ins. 1042

v3.c34.s6.24

III Vigrahapāla III. ac. 1057

v3.c34.s6.25

IV Mahīpāla II ac. 1080 V Śūrapāla ac. 1082 VI Rāmpāla Yakśapāla

v3.c34.s6.26

| | ac- 108 4

v3.c34.s6.27

VII Kumārapāla ac. 1130 IX Madanapāla ac. 1146

v3.c34.s6.28

| m. Chitramaṭikā

v3.c34.s6.29

VIII Gopāla III ac. 1136 | X Govindapāla ac. 1164 In 1175, 1178

v3.c34.s6.30

XI Mahendrapāla ac 1186 Insc. 1193 identified with Indradyumna of tradition.

v3.c34.s6.31

THE SENAS OF LAKHNAUTI (BENGAL).

v3.c34.s6.32

The Sena kings of Bengal, though only principally three, have been the subjects of much controversy; not only are the facts meagre and ambiguous, but historians and antequarians have also unfortunately looked at them with one bias or another. The Mahomedan historians have written with great exaggeration, perhaps in this case only, heightening the audacity of Mahammad Bakhtyar and the pusillanimity of Lakshmaṇasena of Bengal; while Hindu researchers have written about the Senas with a bias naturally in favour of this last Hindu king of Bengal. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar again with his usual bias in favour of the non-Aryan origin of Rajputs, looks upon these Senas as foreign Brahmins or priests turned into Kshatriyas, while the modern Senas of Bengal who are Vaidyas by caste (a sub-caste born of the mixture of Brahmins and Vaiśyas) look upon these Senas as Vaidyas. It is, therefore, necessary to discuss these points in detail giving first the history of the Sena family so far as is practicable in this state of divergence of views.

v3.c34.s6.33.1

The initial history of the Senas is given clearly in the Deopara stone inscription published in E. I. I (p. 300). The inscription states that a chief from the Deccan (a Dākshiṇātya) named Sāmantasena who was a feudatory under a Karṇāṭa king and who had fought with and killed there those who had come to plunder Karṇāṭa territory retired in old age to the banks of the Ganges and founded a small kingdom at Kāshipur in Eastern Bengal.* His son Hemantasena was a powerful king and from him and queen Yaśodevī was born Vijayasena the first powerful king of the dynasty. He is said in the inscription to have conquered the king of Gauda who had troubled the king of Kāmarūpa and also conquered the king of Kalinga. Gauda king here means the Pāla king of Monghyr in western Bengal and he and the king of Kalinga or Orissa were the really powerful kings opposed to the Senas. Vijayasena was an orthodox Hindu, while the Pāla kings were Buddhists and this establishment of Sena power may be looked upon as an assertion of Hinduism, a revival of Hindu orthodoxy in Bengal. Indeed the Deopara inscription relates that Vijayasena performed many sacrifices. Sir Vincent Smith rightly observes that Vijayasena was the first independent king of this line and that he wrested much territory from Pāla kings. But it may be said that Sir V. Smith may not be right in assigning 1119 A. D. as the date of his independence. It may have been earlier than this. 1119 A. D.

v3.c34.s6.33.2

is the initial date of the Lakshmaṇasena era, as Kielhorn has proved from several inscription dates given in that era and the Śaka era; and as Abul Fazal gives the starting year of the Sena era as 1041 Śaka. Kielhorn believes that the people of Tirhut are wrong in treating the Sena era as starting from 1028 Śaka (I. A. XIX p. 7). But though this point may be taken as settled, the question who started this era and when is one on which a great divergence of opinion prevails. Smith proposed the following dates for the commencement of the reigns of the three kings, Sâmanta 1080, Hemanta 1100 and Vijaya 1119 (E. H. I. 3rd Edn. p. 419) which means that he looks upon the Lakhshmaṇasena era as founded by him commencing from Vijayasena his grand-father's reign. Gaurishanker Ojha, however, states that the era was founded by his son Ballālasena on hearing of the birth of his son Lakshmaṇa when he had just conquered the Mithila country (Prachina lipimālā p. 42-45 and Hindi Tod p. 536). Mr. D. R. Bannerji in publishing in E. I. XIV (p. 159) a new grant found of Ballālasena thinks that the era was founded to commemorate the beginning of the reign of Lakshmaṇasena. The last opinion would seem to be the natural and proper interpretation of the starting of the era, and indeed Mahomedan evidence, almost contemporaneous, states (Tabakat-i-Nasiri) that Ballālasena died leaving his queen pregnant and Lakshmaṇasena was crowned even in the womb of his mother.

v3.c34.s6.33.3

This may be an absurdity like the other absurdities recorded by the Tabakat; but it is at least historically correct to say that Lakshmaṇasena was born in 1119 A. D. after the death of his father. And it is natural that he should have dated the era founded by him from his birth which was also the date of his coming to the throne. But a doubt arises when one takes into consideration the fact that Lakshmaṇasena makes a grant in the 7th year of his reign in which he calls himself Parama Vaiṣṇava (J. R. A. S. Bengal XLIV part. 1 p. 7). It may easily be supposed that as he reigned from birth, he might make a grant when a child of seven through his regent. But it cannot be explained how he could then be a Parama Vaiṣṇava as his father and grandfather appear to be Śaivas. The whole question must, we fear, remain unsolved owing to the absence of any Vikrama or Śaka date in the grants of almost all the Sena kings, as indeed of the Pāla kings, and the grants only give regnal year figures for the donor kings. The chronology of these kings can, therefore, be given only conjecturally in a double set and we give two series of dates as proposed by Sir V. Smith and by Mr. R. D. Bannerji. Some also have suggested that there were two Lakshmaṇasenas. But following the Mahomedan tradition we will take it that there was only one Lakshmaṇasena and that he died in 1199 A. D. when he was 80 years old.

v3.c34.s6.34

∗ Kāsiari in Mayurbhauj territory, Smith). M. M Harprashad Sastri believes that the Senas were settled in Birbhum and Guswa and from these they spread (Law).

v3.c34.s6.35

Barring dates which we give in the genealogy, the history of the Sena kings so far as it is undisputed may be given in brief as follows. Vijayasena was the first independent king who ruled over a large portion of Eastern Bengal, the Pālas ruling over Western Bengal. His son Ballālasena was a still more powerful king. He conquered Mithila and further reduced the power of the Pāla kings of Bengal by conquering the Kaivartas who had rebelled against them and had imprisoned the Pāla king Mahīpāla II or Rāmapāla. He was an orthodox Hindu king and like other Rajput kings of his time he was a learned man himself and a patron of learned men. He wrote the work named Dānasāgara and commenced another work which his son Lakshmaṇasena finished. In old age he retired with his queen to Prayāga and there drowned himself in the sacred confluence of the two rivers (Gaurishanker).

v3.c34.s6.36

He was succeeded by Lakshmaṇasena who was as great a king as his father. The capital of the Senas was Gaura a town in the present Malda district in Bengal (which is indeed an ancient town). But Lakshmaṇasena built another town outside its wall and named it Lakshmaṇāvatī in the same way as other great kings in this sub-period founded towns after their names viz: Karṇa of Chedi founded Karṇāvatī and Vikramāṅka of Kalyāṇa founded Vikramapura, both near their former capitals Tripura and Kalyāṇa. Lakshmaṇasena was powerful enough to found an era of his own like Vikrama of Kalyan or Jaisimha of Anhilwad. The starting year of this era is 1119 A. D. as settled by Kielhorn and the era, unlike the other two eras, is still prevalent in Tirhut.

v3.c34.s6.37

Like his father, Lakshmaṇasena was himself a learned man and a patron of learned men. Noted Sanskrit pandits whose works still survive, floating on the surface of the ocean of time, sat in his court such as Halāyudha, Umāpatidhara, Śaraṇa Govardhanāchārya, Dhoyī, Jayadeva (author of Gītagovinda) and Srīdharadāsa. The king was a Vaiṣṇava as he distinctly calls himself so in his records while his ancestors were Śaivas and the modern poets who sing the praises of Hari in Bengal perhaps go back to his time. He was the pioneer of the worship of Hari in Bengal as his father was the rehabilitator of the Varṇāśrama Dharma as also the founder of the curious system of Kulīna marriages, both of which facts we shall have to notice in our general survey of the country in this sub-period. "Lakshmaṇasena was a monarch of exceptional personal qualities. Trustworthy persons affirm that no one, great or small, suffered injustice at his hands and his generosity was proverbial" (E. H. I. p. 400, Smith.)

v3.c34.s6.38

About the end of this king we will speak in another chapter; but the Sena power as the overlords of the whole of Bengal came to an end with him, the country being mostly conquered by the Mahomedans. But Sena kings continued to rule in further Bengal till about the end of the thirteenth century. Mādhavasena, Keśavasena and Viśvarūpa Sena, three sons of Lakshmaṇasena ruled in Vikramapura and grants of Keśava and Viśvarupa have been found. It appears from the Tabakat that when Nasiruddin invaded Lakhnauti, the Khilji rebellious governor had gone eastwards against the Rajas of Bang or Eastern Bengal (who could have been none but Sena kings). Pandit Gaurishanker states (Hindi Tod p. 438) that Danujamādhava who perhaps for the above cause had left Vikramapura and settled in Chandradvipa assisted Balban to punish the rebellious governor of Lakhnauti by preventing his escape by water, and that four kings ruled in succession after Danujamādhava in Chandrapur, the last being Jayadeva with whom the Sena dynasty ended.

v3.c34.s6.39

Having given this short sketch of the Sena kings so far as their history has been made out, we will conclude with noticing the disputed question as to who these kings were by caste. The other disputed question as to how Lakhnauti fell we will, as stated before, discuss in our last chapter. It is maintained by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar that these Sena kings belonged to the Brahmakshatra caste which is even now found all over India. But it is clear that these Sena kings were Aryan Kshatriyas belonging to the lunar race. They were neither Brahmakshatra by caste as Dr. Bhandarkar maintains nor Vaidya as the modern Vaidyas of Bengal believe. For the Deopara inscription noted above distinctly begins with the statement that Sāmantasena was born in the lunar vaṃśa. Now this statement can only be made about a Rajput, for neither Brahmakshatras nor Vaidyas have any solar race or lunar race distinction. Dr. R. Bhandarkar, obsessed with the bias noted in the beginning, directs his attention only to the word ‘Brahmakshatriyāṇam’ in the verse about Sāmantasena and omits to notice that in the very preceding verse, these kings are said to be born in the lunar race. The word Brahmakshatriyāṇām requires to be construed consistent with the above statement so as only to apply to Rajputs. We have already noted in Vol. II that the word is often used in connection with Rajputs of the orthodox faith and mode of living. It is true that the translation given by Kielhorn is wrong as Brahmins cannot be brought into this epithet which really means “the head garland of the families (not of Brahmins and Kshatriyas but of Kshatriyas alone) who are endowed with Brahma or Vedic greatness (Brahmopeta-Kshatriyāṇām). In fact the epithet ‘Brahmavādin’ in the preceding line applied to Sāmantasena leads to the same meaning. The orthodox Kshatriyas, as opposed to the Buddhists or other Kshatriyas, often prided themselves upon being called Brahma-Kshatriya.

v3.c34.s6.40

There is no reference to any caste in this epithet as the caste is settled by the preceding verse which states that they were born in the lunar race and therefore could be none else but Rajputs.

v3.c34.s6.41

But even granting that this epithet indicates the particular caste Brahmakshastra, as Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar believes, what ground is there for the further observation which he makes and which is quoted by Sir Vincent Smith with approval (E. A. I. 3rd Edn. p. 420) viz: "In my opinion, as stated elsewhere, these were Brahmins of new tribes afterwards turned Kshatriyas before their final mergence into the Hindu society"? The suggestion is wholly gratuitous and has no basis. It is impossible to argue that because they were called Brahma-kshatriya and were a separate caste, therefore, they belonged to new and foreign tribes and were originally Brahmins who subsequently became Kshatriyas and this change took place before they were recognised finally as Brahmakshatras. We have already discussed this question at length in Vol. II and can only say that this inference arises from bias and Sir Vincent Smith has also accepted it from the same bias in favour of the theory of the foreign origin of many Rajput families.

v3.c34.s6.42

The matter is not left to mere inference from the lunar vaṃśa mentioned of these Senas, but is settled by the express word Kshatriya used in the Mādharinagar grant of Lakṣmaṇasena published in Proceedings Bengal R. A. S. Vol. V. p. 467 where the birth of Sāmantasena is stated to be in the Karṇātakshatriya family of Virasena. Whether Virasena the founder of the family was a Dākṣiṇātya or Karṇāṭa is not of much moment. Dākṣiṇātya, the word used in the earlier Vijayasena record of Deopārā, means usually a Maratha-country Brahmin or Kshatriya. But the distinction between a Maratha and a Karṇāṭa Kshatriya is illusory. And in those days even the distinction between a northern and southern Kshatriya had not become acute as intermarriages continued to take place between these Kshatriyas. And when these Kshatriyas went to Bengal, they became for all practical purposes Bengali; for they not only married with northern Kshatriyas but their servants and officers were entirely drawn from Bengal. A Karṇāṭaka or Maratha Kshatriya founding a kingdom in Bengal in those days was vastly different from a Maratha chief like Scindia in modern days founding a kingdom in northern India which is principally governed by men from the Deccan with which their marriage relations still continue. The Sena kings, therefore, were completely Bengalis though they preserved the memory of their having come from the Deccan. Curiously enough, two noted northern Kshatriya families preserve the tradition of their having come from the Deccan-Karnāṭaka especially from Kalyāṇa. This is, however, of no moment as Kshatriyas then all over India were one and we may conclude by reiterating that the Sena kings of Lakhnauti were Rajputs and Kshatriyas* by caste and not of the modern Brahmakshatra nor of the Vaidya caste. The word Brahmakshatra applied to them indicates their orthodoxy. Indeed Sir Vincent Smith himself states that "his (Lakshmaṇasena's) family, we are told, was respected by all the chiefs of Hindustan and he was considered to hold the rank of hereditary Khalif or spiritual head of the country."

v3.c34.s6.43

*The Senas are thought to be Dravidians and probably Cholas but Dravidas are entirely distinct from Karṇāṭakas and they cannot have been descended from the Cholas.

v3.c34.s6.44

NOTE:—CHRONOLOGY OF THE SENAS.

v3.c34.s6.45

The question of the dates of the Sena kings, three only in importance, bristles with so many difficulties that one almost despairs at arriving at truth in connection with the dates of kings who ruled only eight hundred years ago. We have, therefore, decided to give the chronology of these kings in a double set of dates as follows.

v3.c34.s6.46

GENEALOGY OF SENA KINGS.

v3.c34.s6.47

| | According to Sir V. Smith. | According to Mr. R. D. Bannerji. |
| | Sāmantasena | |
| | \| | |
| | Hemantasena | |
| | \| | |
| 1 | Vijayasena | Ac. 1119 A. D. | Ac. 1080 A. D. |
| | \| | |
| 2 | Ballālasena | ” 1159 ” | ” 1100 ” |
| | \| | |
| 3 | Lakshmaṇasena | ” 1170 ” | ” 1119 ” |
| | \| | |
| 4 | Mādhavasena | 5 Keśavasena | 6 Viśvarūpasena |
| | Ac. 1205 (?) | Ac. 1205. | Ac. 1220. |
| | | \| | |
| | | 7 Śuddhasena | |
| | | ac. 1225 | |
| | | \| | |
| | | 8 Lakshmaṇasena | |
| | | ac. 1243. | |

v3.c34.s6.48

The name of the last king we take from Aīn-i-Akbarī which gives the traditional catalogue of Sena kings as it was accepted in the days of Akbar (1556-1605) i. e, about three hundred years after the last king. It gives the years of the rule of each king and to Suddhasena it assigns 18 years and to Lakshmaṇiyā the last three years. Now the Tabakat was written about 1250 A. D. i. e. some years after the death of this second Lakshmaṇasena. It is, therefore, possible that there were two Lakshmaṇasenas and in the oral exaggerated account which the author of the Tabakat heard from two illiterate Afghan soldiers in the army of Mahammad Bakhtyar, the two Lakshmaṇasenas were jumbled. The existence of two Lakshmaṇasenas has been questioned and we incline to the belief that there was only one king of that name; especially as Pandit Gaurishanker does not give this name but gives the name Danujamādhava. But if we believe that there was another Lakshmaṇasena, a great-grandson of the first and that he started the era known as Lakshmaṇasena era, many of the difficulties which otherwise appear are removed. Of course we must grant that he started the era not from his own coronation but from the establishment of the Sena power by Vijayasena as taken by Sir Vincent Smith. This is not a new suggestion and it solves, according to our view, many problems connected with the disputed chronology of Sena kings. The era was started by the last king or by Danuja-Mādhava and named after the greatest king of the Sena line.

v3.c34.s6.49

This first explains why no Sena grant uses this era. We find that even Lakshmaṇasena's grants do not use this era but that they use regnal years. Nay even the Bakerganj grant of Keśavasena does not use this era. Secondly, Lakshmaṇasena died in the 80th year of this era and was, therefore, supposed by Mahomedan informers that he was 80 years old when he died and that he was crowned even when he was in the womb. Thirdly, the expression श्रीमल्लक्ष्मणसेनदेवपादानामतीतराज्ये सं. ७४ occurring in a Buddha Gayā inscription noted by Kielhorn in I. A. XIX (p. 2) is well explained. Kielhorn treats this date as given in Lakshmaṇasena era. We may note here that this is the earliest date supposed to be given in this era. But what seems to us proper is that the word atīta would not have been used in this sense. The wording would have been merely लक्ष्मणसेन संवत् if it referred to an established era (the words श्रीमत् and देवपादानाम् need not have been used). If the figure was intended to refer to regnal years, the words ‘Rājyavarsha’ or ‘Vardhamāna Rājya’ would have been used. The expression means, as some have well-contended, that 74 years had elapsed since the death of the illustrious or revered, prosperous Lakshmaṇasena. Lakshmaṇasena's rule was, as we have already said, prosperous and blessed and he was remembered throughout Bengal. Hence it was natural for people to assign dates from the end of his rule as that was the end of Swarājya in Bengal. The date would thus be in our view 1273 A. D. This of course does not take cognisance of the Lakshmaṇa era started by his descendant and counted from 1119. A. D. It is probable that this document in Gayā takes no cognisance of an era started in a distant part of eastern Bengal. Fourthly and lastly, we have no record to show specifically that Lakshmaṇasena the elder started this era; and if so in what year of his reign. Jayasinha of Gujarat started an era after himself and it was called Sinha Samvat. Lakshmaṇasena's grant published in Ep. Ind. XII (p. 8) mentions at the end only Sam. 3. and not Lakshmaṇa Sam. 3.

v3.c34.s6.50

Even if, however, it is supposed that the second and insignificant Lakshmaṇasena started the era from a previous king's reign, the question still remains whether the initial year of the era was taken from the date of Vijayasena's accession or that of the illustrious Lakshmaṇasena. There is unfortunately no definite data to settle the dispute. The Sena records give no Saka or Vikrama date; and only contain regnal years as do Pāla records. The Saka year given in Dānasāgara, a work written by Ballālasena is given by some as 1019 and by others as 1091 (शशिनवदशमिते शाके); i. e. some take it as 1091. A. D. while others take it as 1168 A. D. Sir Vincent Smith thinks that Ballāla was alive on this date and hence takes Lakṣmaṇasena as commencing to rule in 1170 A. D. My R. D. Bannerji believes that Ballāla ruled upto 1119 from 1100; and Lakṣmaṇasena ruling from 1119 A. D. from whence his era counted, probably finished the Dānasāgara in 1168 A.D. How Dr. Smith takes 1159 as the initial year of Ballāla's reign is not quite clear. There is, however, one argument which favours the chronology adopted by Smith viz. that the victories of Ballāla and even of Vijayasena in Mithila could not have taken place in the days of Rāmapāla, a victorious and powerful king of the Pāla line of Bengal who began his rule in 1084 (see p. 228). Secondly, it appears from Kumār's paper on Lakṣmaṇasena era (I. A. 1913 p. 187) that Lakṣmaṇasena must have come to the throne at about the age of 22, as he is said to have fought as Yuvarāja with Kalinga in the Mādharinagar copperplate (J. A. S. B. 1910). If Lakṣmaṇasena's accession in 1119 is accepted his death in 1199 being certain, he must have come to the throne wnhe quite a child. Indeed his inscription of Sam. 3 or 7 would have to be assigned to his childhood and as said before, he could not have been described as Parama Vaiṣṇava. As learned Bengali researchers are still not unanimous on this subject we leave this subject as undecided yet.

v3.c34.s6.51

We may take this occasion to mention a few more facts which may perhaps help us in fixing the dates of these kings. In Bengal J. R. A. S. XXXIV (p. 134) we find Halāyudha, a descendant of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa author of the well-known drama Veṇisaṃhāra was the Dharmādhikāri of Lakṣmaṇasena. He was a son of Dhananjaya of the Vatsa gotra. His brother Paśupati wrote a treatise on Śrāddhas and also Ānhikapaddhati or the daily duties of Brahmins. In the Brāhmaṇasarvasva are mentioned kings Vijaya, Ballāla, Lakṣmaṇa, Mādhava, Keśava and Lakṣmaṇeya.

v3.c34.s6.52

From Proceedings Bengal V (p. 467) we find that Ballāla conquered Benares as also Kāmarūpa which is aslo mentioned in Madanapārā inscription of Viśvarūpasena. Ballāla appears to be alive in 1169 A. D. or Śaka 1091 which is the date of Dānasāgara and in the end of this treatise Ballāla is said to have conquered Kāmarūpa by his prowess (विक्रमवशीकृतकाम-स्थापनिमंडल).

v3.c34.s6.53

It may finally be added that the Deopārā inscription found in Varendra (Rājashāhi Disluct) is undated but it is believed to be recorded from its appearance about the end of the 11th century A. D. Vijayasena is therein said to have conquered a king of Gauda who had troubled a king of Kāmarūpa (the epithet अपाकृतकामरूपनृपस्य should be taken with Gaudendra and can not be appied to Vijayasena himself). This would suggest that Virasena defeated a Pāla king before the end of the 11th century.

v3.c34.s6.54

The reader will have a sufficient idea of the difficulties in settling decisively Sena chronology from the above facts.

v3.c34.s6.55

THE ŚILĀHĀRAS OF THANA.

v3.c34.s6.56

Of the kingdoms of Southern India we will speak about the kingdom of the Śilāhāras of Thana first which in this sub-period of Hindu Indian history (1000-1200 A. D.) rose to greater importance and enjoyed practical independence. Theirs was an ancient country known as "Aparānta" in Mahābhārata days and Sopārā (Śurpāraka) its capital was a well-known place to which Buddha had sent his disciple Pūrṇa to preach his religion of peace and where in pre-Christian days Arab and Greek ships came to export and import goods and ideas. The kingly line of the Śilāhāras was also very old, the stone records of which begin with a king Kapardin who was a feudatory of Amoghavarsha Rāshṭrakūṭa and who made donations to Buddhist monks and recorded them (Śaka 765 or 843 A. D.) in the famous Kanheri (Kṛishṇagiri) caves of the Thana District, wherein Buddhist records are to be found from the days of the Śātavāhanas and Buddhist monks lived from about 100 B. C. down to about 1500 A. D., the days of the Portugese. This Śilāhāra line ruled for about five hundred years from roughly 800 to 1300 A. D., first as feudatories of the Rāshṭrakūṭas and then as independent kings from the time of Aparājita whose inscription dated 997 A. D. has been found and published (Bhadan charter E. I. III p. 257). In this document Aparājita still calls himself Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara and gives the whole of the Rāshṭrakūṭa kingly line, his overlords, and states that the last king Kakkala was destroyed by Chālukya Tailapa. We quoted in Vol. II from an unpublished grant of the same king dated four years before (993 A. D.), a passage wherein the Rāshṭrakūṭa line is given with the same fullness and with an expression of sorrow over the fall of the Rāshṭrakūṭa kings Probably Aparājita assumed independence hereafter though he used the title Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara from habit and from respect for the past, much as the Vaziers of Oudh or the Nizams of Hyderabad or the Peshwas of Poona continued their old titles indicative of subordination even after they became independent. Aparājita is given other titles in later records of the family such as Mṛgāṅka and Birudankarāma and he is said to have sumptuously received king Goma (?), fought with Aiyapadeva (?) and assisted Bhillama (of Sèundesa). It thus appears that he ruled like an independent king. The country was called Koṅkaṇa with fourteen hundred (villages), capital Purī. The old extent and the old capital are here mentioned though a larger country including both the present Thana and Kolaba districts and even a part of the Ratnagiri district including Chiplun and the hilly territory above the ghats called Mawal appears to be under his sway from the yet unpublished grant referred to above. This territory at present contains certainly more villages than 1400 and we believe that the number 1400 was an old traditional number attached to the name Purī which was the former capital of Konkan and the extent of territory under the later Śilāhāras was much greater, using the same name Koṅkaṇa but with capital at Thana or Sthānaka. Under these Śilāhāras the country was also very prosperous as an Arab writer (976 A. D.) had recorded that "the country from Cambaya to Saimur, the villages lie close to one another and there is much land under cultivation" (Vol. II p. 166).

v3.c34.s6.57

Commencing from Aparājita, therefore, the Śilāhāras became independent and more prosperous and began to be counted among the important ruling families of India. The family grew to greater renown still during the reign of succeeding kings ending with Aparāditya II, two inscriptions of whom dated 1185 and 1187 are found (J. R. A. S. Bombay XII p. 333). The latter calls himself, as others before him, Koṅkaṇa Chakravartin, a high sounding title indicative of independence and power. There were 11 kings from Aparājita to Aparāditya as shown in their genealogy and a period of about two hundred and ten years (990 to 1200 A. D.) roughly which gives the usual average of twenty years per king. Using this average generally, but keeping in view the dates of the known inscriptions of particular kings, we will assign probable dates for the reign of each (see the genealogy given at the end). The first king Aparājita thus we take to have ruled from 990 to 1010 A. D. He was succeeded by his elder son Vajjada and the latter was succeeded by his brother Arikesarin whose inscription (Thana plates A. R. I. p. 357 and Kielhorn’s genealogies) has been found and is dated 1017 A. D. We may, therefore, assign a short reign to Vajjada from 1010 to 1015. We have also to assign a short reign to Arikesarin in whose reign we may place the defeat of Konkan by Bhoja Paramāra mentioned in a grant of his dated 1020 A. D. (Vol. II p. 123 and E. I. XI p. 81), as his successor Chhittarāja, son of Vajjada, has left an inscription dated 1028 A. D., the well-known Bhandup inscription (I. A. V. p. 277). We, therefore, assign to Arikesarin a reign of ten years from 1015 to 1025 and to Chhittarāja a reign of twenty years from 1025 to 1045. The Bhandup grant of Chhittarāja is important in many respects which we will notice later on. His brother Nāgārjuna reigned after him and we assign a reign of ten years to him and to his successor his younger brother named Māmvāni a reign of 30 years from 1055 A. D. to 1085 A. D. An inscription of his time dated 1060 A. D. has been found in the well-known temple of Āmranātha (now pronounced Ambernath) near the G. I. P. station of that name about 6 miles from Kalyan. The king’s name is given as Mahāmvāni (sometimes given as Mamvani or Mammuni) and the record states that the temple was built of stone, in place of an old temple, by the Rājaguru or royal preceptor (Bombay J. R. A. S. IX p. 219). And there is another inscription found near the temple which records the erection of a building near it by a local officer (J. R. A. S. Bombay XII p. 329). This inscription is also of the same date viz. 1060 A. D.

v3.c34.s6.58

Māmvānirāja was succeeded by his nephew Anantadeva (son of Nāgārjuna) who appears to have been a great king as we find him first calling himself Konkan Chakravartin in his inscription dated 1094 A. D. This grant (Kharepātan plates I. A. IX p. 33) was published by the well-known Sanskrit scholar K. T. Telang, who has given the genealogy of these Śilāhāra kings with further remarks from records found till then. This grant remits customs duty on ships of a certain minister Śreshṭi (merchant) coming into the ports of Konkan. This king who is sometimes called Anantapāla may be taken to have reigned long from 1085 A. D. to 1125 A. D. His son Aparāditya I was the well-known king who sent an ambassador to a congress of pandits held in Kashmir as mentioned by Mankha in his Śrīkanthābharana to be shortly noticed. He may be taken to have ruled from 1125 A. D. to 1145 A. D. His son Harapāla has left inscriptions so late as 1149 A. D., 1150 A. D. and 1153 A. D. We, therefore, allot forty years to Anantapāla, twenty years to Aparāditya and ten years to Harapāla.

v3.c34.s6.59

Harapāla ruled from 1145 to 1155. The dates for Harapāla are found in stone records which are not now available to us for inspection but they are referred to in the history of Konkan given in Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I part I which first gives the available information about the Śilāhāras in a connected form. This account mentions that there were many civil strifes in the country in the reign of Anantapāla which harassed gods and Brahmins. It is difficult to understand what these disputes were and whether they proceeded from Mahomedans who were apparently settled in large numbers in this part of the country, the Rāshtrakūtas being friendly to the Arabs and not at all intolerant like the northern kings (see Vol. II. 166). There were Arab settlements in almost every sea-coast town from Somnath-Patan and Kambāya down to Cheul (Saimur) and they had even built mosques in each town. We have indeed mention of a dispute between fire-worshippers viz. Parsis and Moslems whose prayer time was loudly announced from a mosque at Cambay. The dispute was taken to king Jayasinha in Anhilwad and he is said to have personally gone to Cambay to inspect the demolished mosque and to have built it at his own expense (E. II p. 163). This dispute, however, appears to have been between the king and some of his relatives as appears from the inscriptions (I. A.IX p. 17) and Mahomedans allying themselves with the latter must have oppressed gods and Brahmins as they were then doing in the north. But the king Anantapāla was successful and suppressed the rebellion, sternly punishing his opposing relatives and the oppressors of gods and Brahmins. Konkan remained Hindu for two centuries more.

First 61 of 83 passages. Read on

Linked texts (18)