History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c38.s3: 3 Lakhnauti.
History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c38.s3
- Language
- English
3 Lakhnauti.
v3.c38.s3.1
The third kingdom on the borders of Mahomedan rule now firmly established in Delhi, Kanauj and Benares was the kingdom of Bengal under the Senas; and the history of the fall of Bengal is the most marvellous that has been recorded by historians. The conquest was made by Mahammad son of Bakhtyar Khilji and not by Kutubuddin and the account of it is to be found not in the contemporaneous Taj-ul-Ma'sir but is given by the author of the Tabakat-i-Nisiri from admittedly hearsay reports.
v3.c38.s3.2
We give the account as given by the Tabakat with such comment as seems proper. Mahammad Bakhtyar was a Khilji (not Turk but Afghan) adventurer who sought employment and fortune under the expanding power of Shihabuddin Ghori. It is natural that when victorious people conquer countries far and wide, turbulent spirits from the home country come forward in numbers to advance their fortunes (as Maratha cavaliers did under Shivaji or Bajirao) and find employment as military administrators of newly conquered territories. Mahammad Bakhtyar Khilji was one such hair-brained adventurer who after some refusals obtained employment as governor of Mirzapur. Collecting an army of Turks and Afghans, he first attacked Bihar and conquered it, plundering town and country. He is said to have seized a Buddhist settlement described as a Vihāra (probably Vikramaśila) and massacred all the defenceless shaven-headed Brahmins (Buddhists) and thrown away their sacred books "which none was left to read or explain." This event probably happened in 1199 A. D. as Mahammad Bakhtyar is described by Taj-ul-Ma'sir as appearing before Kutubuddin with presents from the conquest of Oudh and Bihar (probably at Mahoba). He was honoured with a robe and again sent to Bihar.
v3.c38.s3.3
"He then planned the conquest of Bengal and secretly prepared an army and suddenly made a raid on Nadia the capital of Bengal. In his impetuosity he reached the city with only eighteen horsemen with him and entering it in an inoffensive manner, looking as if he were a dealer in horses, reached the palace and at once drawing swords attacked the guards. The palace was in consternation and none opposed him. The aged king Lakshmanasena heard the uproar as he was about to sit to dinner and knowing the reality fled by the back door. He escaped and went to Jagannath. The palace and the city were taken possession of by the army which soon arrived. It is needless to say that there was no resistance and the city was plundered and even destroyed. Mahammad Bakhtyar made Gaur or Lakhnauti his capital which was the principal capital of the Sena kings."
v3.c38.s3.4
Doubts have been expressed about the truth of this account. That the political government of Bengal should have been so lax and supine as not to know of the advance of an army over such a great distance (Vikramaśila to Nadia) or that there was no preparedness to resist the dangerous enemy, when the whole country has talking of the fall of Delhi and Kanauj or that there was actually not a single blow struck in defence of Nadia or the kingdom is indeed strange. This is, however, a sheer exaggeration of the Mahomedan informants of the author of the Tabakāt-i-Nasiri if not of the historian himself. The absurd story that the birth of king Lakhamana was delayed for the arrival of the fortunate moment of birth by tying up the feet of the pregnant queen which is told in the Tabakat is proof enough of the absurd nature of the whole story. This event is placed by the Tabakat in 1199, the 80th year of the Lakshmanasena era; but it probably happened after his death and in about 1202 A. D. The account tries to explain the entire absence of defence by Lakshmana by the supposed superstitions of the Brahmin counsellors of the old king who had told him long before that the kingdom was fated to be taken by a Turk according to the prognostications of astrology. It is even added that when the king enquired what the mark of the conqueror would be, it was stated by the learned astrologers that the conqueror would have long arms reaching below the knees. The king sent men to ascertain what Turk had that mark and Mahammad Bakhtyar was found to have such long arms. There may be some truth in the fact that the resistance of the Hindus was weakened to some extent by the foretelling of the Purāṇas that Bhāratavarsha was fated to be conquered by Mlechhas or the absurd and fearful prognostications of astrologers. But the above story is on the face of it too absurd to be true and we at once set down this account of the fall of Bengal as exaggerated and untrue and Bengal may be taken to have fallen after much resistance against Mahammad Bakhtyar and not all at once but gradually as in the case of Gujarat and Bundelkhand.
v3.c38.s3.5
For, this account of the Tabakat written about 1250 A. D., distorted as it must be from the natural desire of the bragging adventurers who accompanied Mahammad Bakhtyar to exaggerate the courage of the conquerors and the cowardice of the conquered, as also from the inaptitude of foreigners coming suddenly into the midst of a strange people to understand their feelings and their ideas, and thirdly probably from a wish to have a hit at the Hindu belief in astrology, this foreign account must be tested and equated with the evidence of a contemporaneous Indian record, viz. the Bakerganj inscription of Keśavasena (J. R. A. S. Bengal Vol. VII pp. 40-50). This inscription no doubt exaggerates the prowess both of Lakshmaṇasena and his son, the grantor Keśavasena, and thus errs on the other side. But it makes no mention whatever of this ignominious defeat of Lakshmaṇasena. It may be urged that its omission was natural as inscriptions rarely record the defeats of the inscriptor; though disastrous fights with Turushkas are mentioned even in inscriptions as in Gujarat and Bundelkhand; but we may at least take into account the fact that Lakshmaṇasena is herein rightly praised as a valiant king who had raised three victory columns at Allahabad, Benares and Jagannath. It is impossible to believe that the valiant Lakshmaṇasena fled without striking a blow. Secondly we must admit that Keśavasena was still a powerful king ruling in Eastern Bengal. It is, therefore, certain that the descendants of Lakshmaṇasena ruled in Eastern Bengal for a long time after this event. It is also possible that Nadia may have been attacked after the death of Lakshmaṇasena during Mādhavasena's reign whose name appears to have been erased from this Bakerganj copper-plate (ditto p. 42). We, therefore, think that if we put the two opposite accounts together, we can only believe that Bengal fell after much resistance and not all at once, as already stated.
v3.c38.s3.6
But even if it be conceded that the account given by the Tabakat represents facts, these are not as dishonourable as is usually supposed. In the first place it must be noted that Nadia was not the chief capital of the Senas. It was a Brahmin settlement newly made, which was almost a Brahmin vihāra, in an island of the Ganges and Lakshamaṇasena only occasionally resided there. The guards at the palace must have been few and the army in the city only nominal. Secondly, a sudden raid on such a place is not impracticable.* Indeed such raids are recorded in history. Allauddin made such a sudden and wily raid on Devagiri in the Deccan a hundred years after this event. Nay only five years after this event, Shihabuddin Ghori the conqueror of Hindustan was surprised in his tent pitched on the eastern bank of the Indus by a few Gakkhars who eluding guards reached the place through water and murdered Shihabuddin. Thirdly, to escape from such an attack and start fresh resistance from a new capital was not at all dishonourable but on the contrary proper and creditable. This was what Rājyapāla of Kanauj or Bhīma of Gujarat did against Mahmud or Rajaram did in Maratha history against Aurangjeb and this is what even modern governments do. They give up the capital attacked and making another town the capital, carry on resistance from there. This is exactly what Lakshmaṇasena and his descendants appear to have done. They established themselves at Vikrampur which was an important town to the east of Nadia (a grant issued from Vikrampur by Lakshmaṇasena has been found) and ruled for nearly a century more in Eastern Bengal, continuing their resistance to the Mahomedans, as in Gujarat or in Bundelkhand. The Tabakat-i-Nasiri records that when Nasiruddin marched on Lakhnauti, the Khilji had marched his forces from Lakhnauti "with the intention of entering the territory of Bang," i. e. against the Sena king (Raverty p. 629). Why such resistance eventually failed to re-establish Hindu power not only in Bengal but in the other parts of Northern India also, is the real question and the cause of this failure we will discuss at length later on.
v3.c38.s3.7
Kutubuddin conquered or humbled the strong kingdoms on the borders of his Mahomedan empire. The work of destroying kingdoms a little more remote was carried out by his successor Altamash who was an equally brave and fortunate Sultan. Altamash was like Kutubuddin a slave but his valour was noted by Shihabuddin and he was given his deed of freedom and preferred from place to place by him as also by Kutubuddin who gave his daughter in marriage to him, having originally purchased him at Delhi as the Sultan had forbidden his sale and purchase at Ghazni (Tabakat, E. II 322). When Kutubuddin died at Lohur (Lahore), the commander-in-chief of Delhi with the consent of nobles invited Shamsuddin Altamash from Badaun where he was governor and elected him Sultan. Some officers and governors like Kubacha opposed the election but they were defeated; "by divine favour every one who opposed or rebelled was subdued and all territories belonging to Delhi Badaun, Oudh, Benares and the Siwalik hills came into his possession." Even Lahore was taken from Yildus and Sind and Bakkhar from Kubacha in 1217 A. D. (E. II 324). Altamash subdued Bengal under Ghiyasuddin Baktyar who acknowledged him suzerain and paid him tribute (1225).
v3.c38.s3.8
∗ The coming of Mahomedan dealers in horses was again a common thing at that time, at capitals of kings. Arab and Persians horses were prized by Hindu kings who paid high prices for them and Mahomedan dealers in horses constantly visited Hindu camps in these days and it was a common incident exciting no suspicion at all.