Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c37: Chapter XXI. (I) Ajmer and Delhi

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c37

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXI. (I) Ajmer and Delhi

v3.c37.2

When Prithvīrāja was defeated and killed in the second conflict, memorable as the first of the battles wherein Hindu independence was finally lost, Shihabuddin, like a consummate general, at once advanced upon Ajmer the chief capital of his enemy. It fell without resistance and so much booty was obtained that "you might have said that the secret depositories of seas and hills were revealed. While the Sultan remained at Ajmer, he destroyed the idol temples and built in their place mosques and colleges". We have already stated that the building now called Adhai Dinki Jhopdi was originally a Sanskrit college built by Vigraharāja III (Taj. p. 215). Having conquered and plundered Ajmer like a consummate general, Shihabuddin entrusted the government of Ajmer to Prithvīrāj's son, like a consummate politician: he did not at once annex the conquered kingdom but made Rainsi, son of Prithvīrāja, king of Ajmer, no doubt paying a yearly tribute as a dependent king. The Taj says that "in him were discovered indexes of wisdom and prognostications of goodness" which means that he was good and wise enough to see the situation and accept subjugation and tribute. This, to our mind, makes it further certain that Prithvīrāja was not beheaded in Ajmer but was killed in battle, as his son Rainsi would not, in the former case, have thought it fit to accept the kingdom.

v3.c37.3

Having secured Ajmer, the Sultan marched against Delhi, the second capital of the Chauhans, where "he saw a fortress which in height and strength had no equal in the whole of India," (E. II 26). "The fortress resisted and torrents of blood flowed on both sides"; but eventually the governor submitted, "placed his head upon the line of slavery and made firm the conditions of tribute, Malgujari and service.” “The Sultan then returned to Ghazni but the army remained outside Delhi at the Mouza of Inderpat.” It is always necessary to keep an army in a conquered country to enforce subjection and the payment of tribute.

v3.c37.4

The author of the Tabakat states that “the capital Ajmer and all the Siwalik hills and Hānsi, Sarsuti and other districts were the results of the victory which was gained in the year 588 H. (1192 A. D.)” Śiwalik hills mean here, as stated before, hills on the border of the Sapādalaksha or Ajmer kingdom. Kutubuddin was appointed governor and was placed in the fort of Kohram (?). Who was in Delhi at this time who first resisted and then submitted, cannot be determined. The Tabakat states that the governor of Delhi was killed in the final battle with Prithvīrāj; possibly there was another governor in Delhi in behalf of the Chauhans and he submitted seeing that Rainsi the king of Ajmer had accepted service.

v3.c37.5

But this respite was for a short time only. The stage of partial subjection was certain to be followed by final extinction and this next stage came on almost immediately. A chief named ‘Jatwan’ by the Taj (this is plainly a misreading or miswriting for Chauhan in Persian) attacked the fort of Hānsi and Kutubuddin at once marched to its relief. A fierce battle was fought “the armies attacked each other like two hills of steel and the battle-field became tulip-red with the blood of the warriors. Jatwan was killed and the Hindus were signally defeated. Hansi fort being relieved and repaired, Kutubuddin turned towards Meerut and conquered that fort. He finally attacked Delhi and captured that fort also”. “He entered the city which was then freed from idols and idol-worship and in the place of temples, mosques were raised.” What gave the occasion for attacking Delhi again is not mentioned by the Taj. The Tabakat also in brief states that from thence (Kohram) he took possession of Meerut in 1193 and in the same year from thence captured Delhi. But it may be imagined that Kutubuddin was in need of a strong and important place to reside in and Ajmer being given to a son of Prithvīrāj, Delhi was the next best place to make the seat of his power. No reason needed to be given or a plausible reason is always at hand and Delhi finally became annexed to the Mahomedan kingdom. It became the capital of India a few years later as we shall presently see.

v3.c37.6

The turn of Ajmer came next. The Taj first states that rebellion was raised by Hiraj brother of Pṛithvīrāj (this is plainly a mis-writing for Hari Rāja) against the dependent Chauhan king at Ranthambhor and Kutubuddin flew to its relief. Harirāj fled and the Taj records that the son of Pithaura was honoured with a robe and he in return sent abundant treasures and three golden melons which with extreme ingenuity had been cast in moulds." Thus supported by the Mahomedans, Rainsi ruled for a time in Ajmer. What became of him hereafter is not apparent. Probably he died soon and he was succeeded by Harirāj himself who is now called Rai of Ajmer by the Taj (E. 11 225). He of course did not brook subjection and raised the standard of revolt. "Jehtar (?) advanced even to the border of Delhi the people of which were suddenly caught in the darkness of oppression." Kutubuddin sent against him the largest portion of his forces and when Jitwan was defeated, he in hot season advanced against Ajmer itself. Jhitar (or Hariraj) retired within the fort which was invested. "Finally in despair he sacrificed himself in the flames of a pyre and the fort was then easily taken." "The country of Ajmer was restored to the honours of ancient times and religion was re-established." "The roads were freed from robbers and the oppressed subjects were delivered from their distresses." This clearly means that the country was annexed and ordered government was established. The subordinate Rais and Rāṇas (Zamindars) submitted and "the earth was rubbed by the foreheads of chiefs and celebrated men of Hind." After settling the affairs of Ajmer, Kutubuddin returned to Delhi. This event happened in 1194 A. D. and Ajmer henceforward always remained a province of the Mahomedan Empire.

v3.c37.7

These facts are corroborated by an inscription at Manglānā (Marwar) published in I. A. XLI (p. 87) dated Samvat 1272 or 1215 A. D., dedicating a step-well and imposing some cesses recorded by a feudatory Dāhimā prince. The inscription first records the name of the Mahomedan emperor then ruling as Shamsuddin Suratṛāṇa (Sultan), Hamir (Amir), King of Gor-Garjana (Ghazni and Ghor) under whom ruled at Ranthambhor Valaṇadeva. This shows that Ranthambhor was now the capital of the Chauhans and their king was Valaṇadeva whom the editor of this inscription Pandit Ramākarṇa of Jodhpur identifies with Vallana, grandson of Prithvīrāja through Govinda, from the Hammīra Kāvya. It seems probable that while Rainshi became king in Ajmer, he gave Ranthambhor to Govinda a brother of his and Harirāj being opposed to the Mahomedan rule first attacked Ranthambhor. He subsequently seized Ajmer itself on Rainshi's death and was eventually crushed by Kutubuddin.

(2) Fall of Kanauj and Benares.

v3.c37.s1.1

Ajmer and Delhi having fallen and the Chauhans having accepted subjection, Shihabuddin next turned his attention to the subjugation of the next powerful kingdom in Northern India, viz. that of the Gāhadavālas of Kanauj and Benares. It is commonly believed that Jaichand had in fact incited Shihabuddin to attack Prithvīrāj as he was his enemy; and he thus fell eventually a prey to the enemy he had himself called in. But so far as we have ascertained, there is no evidence to hold that Jaichand had ever called in the foreign foe. It may be that he did not assist Prithvīrāja when he collected a confederate army to oppose Ghori; probably Prithvīrāja did not call for such aid. The collection of a confederate army by Prithvīrāja is spoken of by the Tabakat as stated already. Who were the kings that joined Prithvīrāja, we have no historical record to determine. The story of the Rāsā that Samarasinha fought on the side of Prithvīrāja is belied by inscriptions which show that Samarasinha lived a hundred years later and we may even doubt if a Guhilot king (who must be Sāmantasinha and not Samarasinha) was among the allies. Whatever this may be, we have no evidence to hold that Jaichand had incited the attack. No Mahomedan historian mentions it and the Rāsā has no value as history of Prithvīrāj. Jayachand's turn came not as a punishment but as a natural next step in the conquest of Hindustan aspired to by the ambitious Muhammad Ghori.

v3.c37.s1.2

The rhapsodical Taj does not give any details of this conflict. It says simply that "the Sultan advanced from Ghazni with 50,000 horsemen clad in armour (E. II p. 222-23). The Rai of Benares, Jaichand, chief of idolatry, opposed him with an army countless as the particles of sand. The Rai who prided himself upon the number of his forces and war elephants, seated on a lofty howdah, received a deadly wound from an arrow and fell". "The impurities of idolatry were purged from that land and immense booty was obtained, such as the eye would be weary to look at." "The imperial army then took possession of the fort of Asni where the treasure of the Rai was deposited." The Tabakat dismisses this conflict with the short sentence (E. II. 297) that the Sultan came back from Ghazni in the year 590 H. (1193 A. D.) by way of Benares and Kanauj and defeated the Rai Jaichand in the neighbourhood of Chandanwah and captured over 300 elephants". It is a pity that the author of the Tabakat does not give a more detailed account of this conflict which he probably thought was of less importance than that with Prithvīrāj. But Jaichand was the most powerful monarch in India and he was a proud and brave Rathod who, unlike Rājyapāla, firmly opposed and bravely fought against the formidable foe of his religion and independence. It was, therefore, to be expected that greater details would be given of the memorable battle at Chandanwah which place is said to be somewhere between Kanauj and Etawa. Indian records do not also give us any details of this event; but tradition (Abul Fazal) tells us that Jaichand died by drowning in the Ganges while crossing the river on his elephant. Putting the contemporary Mahomedan evidence and this tradition together, we may believe that Jaichand was wounded in battle and in order to avoid being captured led his elephant into the Ganges and like a devout and dauntless Hindu sought death by Jalasamādhi and drowned himself in the Ganges. The Tabakat says that search was made on the battle-field for Jaichand’s body but it was not found. It, however, adds that after a long search, a body was discovered which was believed to be Jaichand’s from his old age. (This is from some later account given in the Tabakat by Raverty p. 470-Note), But Jaichand could not have been an old man; he came to the throne in 1169 when young and died in 1193 after 24 years of reign.*

v3.c37.s1.3

After plundering Kanauj and Asni, Shihabuddin naturally pressed on to conquer and plunder Benares which was the second capital of the Gāhadavālas. The Taj thus describes this event. "The royal army proceeded to Benares and there one thousand temples were destroyed and mosques were raised on their foundations and the face of the Dinar and Dirham was adorned with the blessed name and titles of the king." This means that the country was annexed, Hindu coins of gold and silver being restruck with the name of Shihabuddin. "When the king had settled all the affairs of the city and its vicinity and the record of his celebrated holy war had been written in history and circulated throughout the world", he returned. He halted at Asni for some days "where the chiefs and elders all around hastened to offer submission and rarities as presents" This shows that the country itself offered no resistance and the people accepted readily and quietly the change of government, a fact on which we will comment later on. Shihabuddin returned to Ghazni leaving Kutubuddin as his viceroy.

Minor Operations.

v3.c37.s2.1

Kutubuddin whose life we shall presently relate was a most capable governor and administered justice with such impartiality that "The wolf and the sheep drank water out of the same pond." (Taj. E. II p. 225). This certainly assisted the pacification of the country but he also severely punished rebellious persons. "There was a certain tribe in the neighbourhood of Kol which gave great trouble and they were so completely slaughtered that three bastions were raised with their heads." The rebellion of Harirāj at Ajmer, as we have already noticed, was put down by Kutubuddin in 1195 A. D. In 1196 Shihabuddin again came to Hindustan and Kutubuddin joined him. They marched on Thanger which had a strong castle and the place was invested. Kunwar Pāla on finding it impossible to resist asked for pardon. "His life was spared but his kingdom was annexed." (Taj. E. II p. 227). This place cannot be identified; (Gaurishankar states that this Kunwar Pāla was a king of the Kerowli Yādava line and was driven out of Biyana at this time; Tod p. 346). It seems that the Sultan was bent on reducing the various strongholds of opposition in the conquered territory; and he next invested the fortress of Gwalior. The Taj states that Solankhapāla, its king, offered submission and tribute and was pardoned and even allowed to retain the fort. The Sultan then returned to Ghazni, leaving Kutubuddin again his viceroy, who continued the work of reducing refractory chieftains. He assisted Muhammad Ghori in reducing to subjection the troublesome Gakkhars. Muhammad Ghori was murdered, as stated before, by these Gakkhars on the left bank of the Indus in 1205 A. D.

v3.c37.s2.2

∗ We were told at Kanauj that there was a Persian Bakhar there giving details of the storming of the temple of Lakshmi called Sītā Rasoi temple (a place where Sītā had cooked food for Rāma) which has now been converted into a mosque, wherein the many pillars of the old temple are still retained. There was a most desperate fight at the storming of this temple in the fort and hundreds of Rajput and Mahomedan warriors were killed in the fight.

v3.c37.s2.3

Kutubuddin was elected Sultan and Emperor of India by the Turkish nobles and generals in Hindustan and this position was recognised by the king of Ghor, Shihabuddin’s brother, who had probably no ambition to rule both Ghazni and India. Thus began the independent Slave Turkish dynasty in India with Delhi as capital which Kutubuddin made his chief place of residence.

Note—'Kutub Minar'.

v3.c37.s3.1

Whether the Kutub Minar is by design and construction Mahomedan from the beginning or whether it is a conversion of a pre-existing Kirtisambba into a Minar by Kutub-ud-din and Altamash is a question which has engaged the attention of researchers from General Cunningham down to R. B. Dayaram Sahani, Archaeological Superintendent, Panjab Circle. The theory that it was a pre-existing Kirtistambha was ably put forward some years ago by Mr. Kanwar Sain, M. A. (then Principal Law College, Lahore, now Chief Justice Kashmir State) and is still maintained by him though he accepts the reading of Samvat 1704, instead of 1204, in a Sanskrit inscription on the Minar, now given by Mr. Sahani. It must be noted that besides Arabic texts from the Koran inscribed on the outer surface of the first storey of the Minar, and certain Persian inscriptions mentioning the name of Shihab-ud-din, Ghiyas-ud-din, Qutub-ud-din and Altmash, there are strangely enough some Sanskrit inscriptions and Hindi too, in the several storeys of the Minar; but these are all of later date than 1193 A. D. and need not be much discussed as the only inscription supposed by Mr. Kanwar Sain to be Samvat 1204 old is also now accepted by him to be dated in Samvat 1704.

v3.c37.s3.2

But the chief arguments advanced by Mr. Kanwar Sain still remain. That the Minar is not a Ma'azina or prayer-call tower is accepted by all and is clear as the Minar has no connection with the Kutub mosque. Secondly, there is no Persian or Arabic inscription on the Minar recording its erection by Kutub-ud-din or Altamash though their names merely appear. Thirdly, the Arabic texts appear to have been subsequently inscribed on the outer surface of the lower storey, if critically examined. The original stones appear to have been taken out and replaced as Mr. Beglar, Archaeological Assistant of General Cunningham actually found. There are other indications also that these bands of inscriptions were subsequently put up.

v3.c37.s3.3

It is not possible to give in this note all the pros and cons of this theory, or notice the several inscriptions in Arabic, Persian and Nāgarī and explain them. Dr. Harovitz has published all the Arabic and Persian inscriptions and Gordon Sanderson avoided going into the controversy which he says "is still going on whether the Minar is of Hindu or Mahomedan origin." He remarks, however, that the only claim, on the architectural ground, that the Minar has a Hindu origin viz: that its starlike plan resembles the form of certain old Hindu temples, is weakened by the existence of Minars on a similar plan believed to exist at Ghazni" .........The Sanskrit and Nāgarī inscriptions have not yet all been studied and examined and R. B. Dayaram Sahani is not yet positive about his view. Under the circumstances the question is still not settled.

v3.c37.s3.4

It is, however, necessary to point out that the architectural argument advanced by Mr. Kanwar Sain is based not only on the starlike plan, but on the position of the bands of Arabic letters as also on Mr. Beglar's statement that the stones appear to have been replaced.

v3.c37.s3.5

We may lastly point out that the practice of raising Kirtistambhas is very old in India (vide Raghu canto XII verse*) and we find in a Sena inscription that Lakshmaṇa Sena of Lakhnauti raised (three) Kirtistambhas in Allahabad, Benares and Jagannāth. It is probable that this Kirtistambha upto the first storey was built by Visaladeva Chauhan whose conquest of the whole of Northern India and whose driving out of Mlechhas from Āryāvarta and making it real Āryāvarta (verse already quoted) was memorable and is commemorated on the Siwalik Pillar of Delhi. It is possible that Visala after his arduous conquest of Delhi ("fatigued in the capture of Delhi"-Bijoliya Insc.) raised a column of victory in the Lalkot of Anangapāla. Visala is nearly contemporaneous with Lakshmaṇasena and both were emperors, the firs in the west and the second in the east of Northern India. The latter is recorded, as stated above, to have raised victory pillars and it is plausible to hold that Visala raised a column at Delhi.

v3.c37.s3.6

We have already shown in Chauhan chapter that Visala built the college at Ajmer which was converted by order of Shihabuddin into the present mosque (called Adhai-Dinki-Jhopadi); Visala's inclination to build memorable structures is thus apparent. It is likely, however, that sKirtistambha remained at the finishing of the first storey as he died soon after his conquest. His successor Prithvīrāja II had also a short reign as also Someśvara. Perhaps they might have continued the building even in the days of Prithvīrāja III. After the conquest of Delhi by Kutubuddin he built a mosque by throwing down temples and utilizing their columns. It is natural that he should convert the Kirtistambha of Visala into a Mahomedan Minar and Altamash built the third and fourth storeys and completed it.

v3.c37.s3.7

Whoever the original author was, there is no doubt, we think, on architectural grounds, that the present Minar is an old Kirtistambha converted into a Mahomedan Minar.

v3.c37.s3.8

∗ कीर्तिस्तम्भद्वयमिव तटे दक्षिणे गोचरे च ॥

Linked texts (6)