History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c38.s3.4

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.