Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c35.s22: 8 Kot Kangrā.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c35.s22

Language
English

8 Kot Kangrā.

v3.c35.s22.1

The kingdom of Jālandhara has been noticed already in Vol. I pp. 383-84, as subsisting from the most ancient times of Mahābhārata days when Suśarman the first known ancestor of the Katoch kings fought on the side of the Kauravas. His descendant in the direct line at present is the Maharaja Sir Jaichand of Lambagraon, Kangra District; a Rajput chief of great learning and influence among the Rajputs of Eastern Himalayas. Who the king of Trigarta which then included Jālandhara in the plains and Kangrā in the hills was at the time of Mahmud has not yet been ascertained from him. We have already stated that the king must have been a dependent ally of Ānandapāla, king of Kabul and the Panjab, and must have fought in his last battle with Mahmud. The Hindus were defeated and probably Mahmud suddenly made a raid on Kot Kangrā before the king could come back. The fort fell though defended for a time by the garrison and it was seized with all the immense treasure kept therein. As stated in the note on Kot Kangrā already given, the fort was impregnable and hence it was made the depository of treasure by Hindu kings. From the account given by Utbi, a contemporary historian of Mahmud, it appears that the garrison lost heart on seeing the immense force which invested the fort and capitulated soon without much resistance. They were, we think, a mercenary force and not a band of gallant defenders fighting for national independence. For Utbi states "They capitulated and consented to serve under the banners of the Sultan. Then they opened the gate and humbly offered their services" ( Utbi p. 341). Thus the impregnable fort with its immense riches fell into the hands of Mahmud who permanently occupied it and kept trusty guards there, when he retired. It appears that the Trigarta kings lost their kingdom in the plains henceforward, and they must have further retired into the hills. They, however, took back the fort, it is said, in 1044 A. D. at the suggestion of the kings of Delhi after a seige of 4 months. Utbi does not relate the throwing down of any temple or the destruction of any idol at Kangrā Kot as other historians do. But it is nowhere stated of what deity the idol was. From inquiries at Kangrā it appears to us that there was a famous temple of Devi Ambikā there, distinct, of course, from the Devi of Jwālāmukhī which is about 20 miles distant from Kot Kangrā. The Devi idol must have been, as already stated, destroyed by Mahmud and it was replaced by the Kangra king when he retook the fort.

v3.c35.s22.2

The later history of Kangrā kings upto 1200 A. D., the end of our period, is soon told. Kalhaṇa mentions king Indrachandra in 1040 A. D. and he must be the king who took the fort back. We do not find any mention of any later king in Kangra except for a reference to a king of Trigarta defeated by the Turks in Jonarāja's Rājataraṅgiṇī. He fled to Kashmir and with the help of Jayasinha about 1150 A. D. retook his kingdom after defeating the Turkish invader. It is not necessary to give mere names of kings from the Vamśāvali of Katoch kings which is undoubtedly one of the most reliable Vamaśāvalis in the Himalayan states down to the end of our period, as nothing particular can be related about these kings. We have already given a description of the fort of Kangrā and its temples in chapter X Book VI.

v3.c35.s22.3

The history of the life of this last Hindu chivalrous emperor of India has been given in great detail in the Rāsā supposed to be composed by Chand Bhāt, a contemporary of Prithvirāj. But as the present Rāsā has nearly wholly transformed the probable original nucleus and as many events and statements given therein have been proved untrue from trustworthy records, it is difficult to determine which part of its account is true. There are two historical poems, however, which will assist us, first, the Prithvirāja-Vijaya-kāvya composed by a Kashmiri court-poet of Prithvirāj himself, first brought to notice by Bühler and later by Mr. Harbilas Sarda of Ajmer (J. R. A. S. 1913) and second, Hammirkāvya published by J. S. Kirtane. The first is, however, incomplete and does not come down to the close of Prithvirāja's career; while the second devotes itself more to the glory of Hammira a descendant of Prithvirāj. We will try to construct an account of the life of this hero from all these sources, using the Rāsā account so far as it is probable and uncontradicted.

v3.c35.s22.4

In an inscription of Prithvirāj himself found at Madanapur and recorded by him in 1182 A. D. after defeating Paramardideva Chandella, we are told that Prithvirāj was son of Someśvara and grandson of Arṇorāja. Unfortunately, though the practice of inscriptions often is, the names of the mother of Prithvirāj and Someśvara are not given. The Rāsā makes a daughter of Anangapāla of Delli, mother of Prithvirāj; but the Hammira kāvya and Prithvirāja-Vijaya state that he was born of a Chedi Haihaya princess named Karpūradevi, which of course is the more reliable statement. Prithvirāj according to the Rāsā was born in Ananda St. 1115 or A. D. 1149 and when he died he was 43 years old, which gives correctly the year of his death viz. 1192 A. D. Tod gives the date of Prithvirāja's birth as St. 1215 or A. D. 1158 which makes his age at the time of his last battle, 34 years. Rai Bahadur Gaurishanker Ojha thinks that the date ought to be St. 1225 or A. D. 1168 which would make him 24 years old at the time of his death, which seems incredible.

v3.c35.s22.5

From the Bijolia inscription (J. A. S. Bengal LV part 1 pp. 31-40) we are certain that Visaladev or Vigraha III conquered Delhi and this event from Visala's inscription on the Siwalik pillar at Delhi the exact date of which is 9th April 1164 (Kielhorn I. A. XIX p. 218) must have happened sometime about December 1163. The Bijolia inscription mentions Prithvirāja II as ruling after Visala and making a grant to a Jain temple and after him Someśvara as ruling and also making another grant to another Jain temple. The date of this Bijolia inscription is 1170 A. D. We have two inscriptions of Prithvibhata or Prithvirāj II dated 1167 and 1169 (E I. VIII Kielhorn). Thus we are certain that he came to the throne some time between 1164 and 1167 and ruled till the end of 1169, when Someśvara succeeded him. How long he ruled after 1170 is not clear. Gaurishanker thinks that he ruled till St. 1236 or 1179 A. D.; and at that time Prithvirāj was a minor, the government being carried on by his mother during his minority according to the Prithvirāja-Vijaya Kāvya. But in 1182 he was grown up and powerful enough to defeat Paramardideva. If we take him 21 years old at this time then his birth would be about 1161 A. D. and his age would be 18 at the time of Someśvara's death in the 1179 which would not make him for a Hindu prince a minor and this would contradict Prithvirāja-Vijaya. It is, therefore, probable that Someśvara did not rule so late as 1179 A. D. but ruled till about 1175 A. D. We thus have four uncertain dates for the birth of Prithvirāj viz. (1) 1149 A. D., Vaiśākha Badi 2 (May) according to the Rāsā (2) Prithvirāj-Vijaya gives the following date and positions of planets viz: Jyestha Badi 12, being after the end of bright Vaiśākha and Mars in Capricorn, Saturn in Aquarius, Jupiter in Pisces, Sun in Aries, Moon in Taurus and Mercury in Jemini, (this gives no clue to the year of his birth)*

v3.c35.s22.6

∗ For the curious we may state that the horoscope of Prithvirāja according to the Rāsā is different from the one which results from the positions given above. But even these are imaginary as it is impossible that on Jyestha Badi 12 the sun can be in Aries and the moon in Taurus. The Rāsā date of birth is Śaka 1071 Vaiśākha Vadya 2 (A.D. 1149); and the Vijaya date is Jyestha Vadya 12 (Purnimanta month); this miti may be believed though the year may be uncertain; taken to be 1159 A. D. or Śaka 1081.

v3.c35.s22.7

(3) 1158 according to Tod and (4) 1168 according to Gaurishanker. Someśvara at the time of the birth of Prithvīrāj was not king. It is related that during the rule of his brother Vigraha III he resided at the court of Jayasinha Sidharāja of Anhilwad whose daughter Kāñchanadevi was his mother. He came to Ajmer on the death of Prithvīrāj II. And he ruled there for some years, as is also proved by his copper coins found. The place of Prithvīrāj’s birth is given by the Rāsā as Delhi; but it must have been Anhilwad or Tripur the capital of the Chedis, the former being mentioned by Prithvīrāj-Vijaya (J. R. A. S. 9913 p. 276).

v3.c35.s22.8

Having discussed the date as also the place of birth of Prithvīrāj we will go on to speak of his marriages. He must have been certainly a precocious boy and according to the Rajput fashion of the day and indeed Hindu practice generally of the time, he must have married early. The Rāsā mentions many queens of his; but the first and notable of them was Inchhinī daughter of Jaita Paramāra of Abu. The Rāsā story of this marriage is, however, absurd. An elder daughter of the Paramāra chief of Abu was married to Chaulukya king Bhīma; who, learning of the great beauty of her younger sister, insisted on marrying that princess also. Her father, however, gave her in marriage to Prithvīrāj. The kingdom of Abu was invaded in consequence by Bhīma. Prithvīrāj moved against Bhīma who, thereupon, incited Shihabuddin to attack Prithvīrāj from the north while he himself attacked him from the south. Prithvīrāj and his general Kaimāsa, however, defeated them severally; Shihabuddin being even captured. (The Rāsā, by an amazing exaggeration, makes Prithvīrāj capture Shihabuddin several times releasing him each time through generosity). The story seems improbable, though we may believe that Prithvīrāj was married to Inchhinī a Paramāra princess and that he had a fight with Bhola Bhīma of Gujarat for some reason in which the latter was defeated.

v3.c35.s22.9

We need not describe the other queens of Prithvīrāj mentioned by the Rāsā; but we must notice his last queen viz: Sanyogitā daughter of Jaichand Gāhadavāla king of Kanauj. The Rāsā makes a most poetical story of this marriage. It represents Jaichand holding a svayamvara of his daughter and Prithvīrāj being his enemy was not only not invited, but in derision, an image of his in the dress of a Bhāldar or mace-bearer was placed at the entrance of the marriage hall. Sanyogitā who had already been married to Prithvirāj in a dream by the god Kali threw the garland of marriage round the neck of his image. The chivalrous Prithvirāj seized the princess and carried her off, fighting through the army of Jaichand. This story is too enchanting to be true; but it is difficult to reject it altogether as some do and we believe that Prithvirāj to whom Sanyogitā must have communicated her love like Juliet, by a sudden raid on Kanauj must have carried her off. Svayamvaras were obsolete at this time, though described by Chand in the Rāsā and by Bilhaṇa in Vikramānkacharitra, a little earlier (1125 A. D.). This love story has, however, immortalized the name of Prithvirāj as much as his defeat of Shihabuddin Ghori. Sir Vincent Smith places this marriage in 1175 A. D. following probably the Rāsā (E. H. I. p. 387 3rd Ed); but if we believe that Prithvirāj was born in 1158 according to Tod, he would be only 17 years old in 1175 A. D; (according to the Rāsā he would be 26 years old) and further the fall of Prithvirāj would come 17 years after this marriage. But the Rāsā represents the fall as coming soon after the marriage and it is probable, therefore, that this event happened at least 10 years later i.e. about 1185 A. D. which date indeed, we find, is given in the Rāsā and not 1175 A. D.

v3.c35.s22.10

We need not mention the many incidents in the life of of Prithvirāj described by the Rāsā such as the destruction of Kaimāsa, his most able minister and general. It is sufficient if we mention the probable wars which Prithvirāj must have waged beside his war with Mahomedans. The most important and powerful kingdoms in Northern India then were those of Gujarat, Bundelkhand and Pānchāla or Kanauj, ruled by Chālukyas, Chandellas and Gāhadavālas. And the kings in these at this time were also able and powerful viz. Bhima, Paramardideva and Jaichand. With each one of them Prithviraj fought and established his superiority over them. Each of these wars is full of chivalrous incidents which it would be out of place here to detail, such as the story of Alha and Udhalha of the Banāphara clan, two heroes who had been driven away by Paramardideva but who by the entreaty of their mother and for the sake of their mother-land came back to Mahoba to fight with Prithvirāj when he attacked it and died fighting with him. The whole poem of Chand is full of such daring incidents, so dear to the chivalrous Rajputs and thus deserves the vast popularity it enjoys in Rajputana. The historian, however, is unable to accept these stories as historical in the absence of corroborating epigraphic or other reliable evidence. The war with Paramardideva was waged in 1182 A. D. and the latter was conquered; as appears from Prithvirāja's inscription recorded at Madanpura in Chandella territory already mentioned.

v3.c35.s22.11

The summary of Prithvirāja-Vijaya-Kāvya given by Mr. Harbilas Sarda in J. R. A. S. 1913 contains no details either about Prithvirāja's marriages or his wars. It mentions two ministers Kadambavāsa and Bhuvanika-Malla who were great warriors; but even their achievements are not mentioned. However it introduces at the end a messenger from Gujarat announcing its victory over Shihabuddin. This was after Prithvirāja was major and himself ruling. The battle as stated in Gujarat history was fought in 1179 A. D. and Prithvirāja appears then to have been major at this date. His minority must have lasted for a short time only.

v3.c35.s22.12

On the disastrous results of these wars with the neighbouring kingdoms we will speak later on; but they established the fame of Prithvirāja and he has rightly been called emperor of Northern India. He was king of Ajmer and Delhi and emperor or Chakravartin of Northern India (like George V, king of England and Emperor of India). This position of a chakravartin was the bone of contention among Rajput kings: and each powerful king tried to assert it; even the kings of Konkan, as we have seen, called themselves Konkana-Chakravartin. The competitor of Prithvirāj to Imperial dignity was Jaichand of Kanauj whose grand-father Govindachandra was really emperor over the whole of Northern India; that position was wrested from his son by Visaladeva in about 1160 A.D. and the conquest and annexation of Delhi added to the power of the Chauhans. This contest between Prithvirāja and Jaichand weakened their power to resist the Mahomedans under Ghori. How it finally led to the conquest of both, we go on to describe.

v3.c35.s22.13

NOTE:—1 RĀSĀ DATES IN PRITHĪRĀJA'S LIFE.

v3.c35.s22.14

The Rāsā gives five dates of events in the life of Prithvīrāj (Benares Edn. of the Rāsā p. 140). viz.

v3.c35.s22.15

| 1 | Birth | 1115 | Anand St. | =1149 | A. D. | =1205 V. E. |
| 2 | Adoption at Delhi. | 1122 | " | =1156 | " | =1213 " |
| 3 | Fight with Kaimāsa. | 1140 | " | =1174 | " | =1231 " |
| 4 | Kanauj expedition | 1157 | " | =1185 | " | =1242 " |
| 5 | Final fight and death. | 1158 | " | =1192 | " | =1249 " |

v3.c35.s22.16

NOTE:—2 THE OLD DELHI OF PRITHVĪRĀJA.

v3.c35.s22.17

From "the Seven Cities of Delhi" of Gordon and from ancient Mahomedan accounts and Indian records, as well as from a personal inspection of the locality, an idea may be formed and given of the old city of Delhi ruled by Prithvīrāja. Indraprastha appears, from Mahomedan records, to have existed separately in the time of Kutubuddin and at a distance from the Delhi of Prithvīrāja. This is probably the same place which is now known as Indrapat. To the south-west of it, at a distance of about two miles, Anangapāla Tomara built a fort called even then Lalkot, and founded a city which may be the same as the modern small town of Mehrauli. This Lalkot is the same place as where now stands Kutubuddin's mosque; the ancient iron pillar, believed to have been brought from Mathura and set up by Anangapāla, being in the centre of the court-yard of this mosque. At present the western wall of the Kutub mosque is not standing. In Anangapāla's fort, there must have been many Jain and Hindu temples. These were thrown down by Kutubuddin and their beautifully carved pillars were utilized by him for building the four sides of the court-yard of the mosque. That Kutubuddin preserved the carvings of these pillars and allowed the iron pillar to stand where it was set up, shows the greatness of that first Mahomedan Indian emperor. "How the iron pillar (dating probably from the 5th century A. C.) so long remains without rusting is a thing which manufacturers of the present day long to explain. It is a single shaft about 17 tons in weight. It was originally raised to Vishnu (by a king named Chandra as an inscription on it states) and probably had a Garuda upon it". "All honour is due to Kutubuddin for leaving it in front of the mosque (and taking it in the centre of its court-yard while the Moslem conquerors of Rhodes sold the Colossus there to a Jew for the brass," (Fergusson). "There are pillars of Jain temples of the same order as those on Mt. Abu"—(Fergusson) but "there are others of Hindu temples with carvings showing cow and calf and Krishna and his mother" (Fanshawe). There can be distinctly seen the head of Kirtimukha with rows of teeth clearly markable, who is a well-known servant of Śiva. The fort of Anangapāla was extensive enough apparently to contain many palaces and temples.

v3.c35.s22.19

This fort and city of Delhi was founded by Anangapāla Tomara in about 1052 A. D. in which year the pillar was set up there according to an inscription on the pillar itself. A hundred years later the Chāhamānas conquered it and annexed the Tomara kingdom. Prithvīrāja is said to have extended the city and built a wall round it. "The wall of Prithvīrāja can be traced round the Kutub mosque." There is still a portion of the wall standing, with bastion-towers, to the west of the mosque at a distance of some two furlongs, which may be the wall of a city or another circumvallating wall of the fort itself. We have to imagine a ground fort round about the present Kutub Minar "rising like a mountain" (Taj-ul-Ma'sir).

v3.c35.s22.20

The name of the new city and the fort appears to be really Dhillikā, a new name given by the Tomaras so far as we can see. The name in this form is used in two inscriptions already quoted, viz., the Bijolia inscription dated St. 1226 or 1169 A. D. and the well inscription of 1336 A. D. which distinctly states that the city was founded by the Tomaras and subsequently ruled by the Chāhamānas. Thus the name Delhi goes back to about 1050 A. D. What the name means is not clear as the original form Dhillikā is difficult to be converted into its Sanskrit equivalent. It is a Prakrit word meaning loose as the modern vernacular word means, and there may be some truth in the legend usually mentioned about the city's name.

Linked texts (6)