Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c38.s3.5

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c38.s3.5

Language
English

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.