Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India c14: X. Saknāt-Saṅkāt-Saṅknāt

Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India c14

Language
English

X. Saknāt-Saṅkāt-Saṅknāt

c14.2

There is a confusion regarding the identification of the geographical name variously given as Saknāt, Sankāt and Sanknāt in the manuscripts of the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* by Minhājuddīn of Sirāj in his account of Muḥammad Bakhtyār’s conquest of Nūdia (Nava-dvīpa, i.e. Nadīā on the Bhāgīrathī in South-West Bengal) in the dominions of the Sena king Lakṣmaṇa-sena of Bengal. The text of Minhājuddīn’s work was published in Calcutta in 1864 and was translated by Raverty in 1881. A translation of parts of the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* was also incorporated in Elliot’s and Dowson’s *History of India as told by its own Historians*, Vol. II, pp. 259 ff.

c14.3

Minhājuddīn says that, on the eve of Bakhtyār’s invasion, many people of Nūdia ‘went away to the country of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt, and to the cities of Bang and Kām-rūp; but Rāi Lakhmaṇa did not like to leave his territory’.¹ In Raverty’s translation, the passage in question runs as follows: ‘Most of the Brāhmaṇas and inhabitants of that place retired into the province of Sankanāt-Saknāt, the cities and towns of Bang, and towards Kām-rūp; but to begin to abandon his country was not agreeable to Lakhmaṇa.’² On the fall of Nūdia, ‘Rāi Lakhmaṇa went towards Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt and Bang, where he died. His sons are to this day rulers of the territory of Barg.’³ In Raverty’s translation we have, ‘Lakhmaṇa got away towards Sankanāt-Saknāt and Bang, and there the period of his reign shortly came to a termination. His descendants up to this time are rulers in the country of Bang.’⁴

c14.4

¹ Elliot and Dowson, *op. cit.*, p. 308.

c14.5

² *Op. cit.*, p. 558.

c14.6

³ Elliot and Dowson, *op. cit.*, p. 309.

c14.7

⁴ Cf. N. G. Majumdar, *Ins. Beng.*, Vol. III, p. 107.

c14.8

Stewart in his *History of Bengal* took Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt to be identical with Jagannāth (Jagannātha-pūrī), i.e. modern Purī in Orissa, and Dowson drew the attention of scholars to this view. But Minhājuddīn makes it clear that Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt was the name of a country or province and not a city like Purī and that it was adjacent to Bang (Vaṅga having in this age its headquarters at Vikramapura in the Dacca District of East Bengal) or at least lay in the direction of Bang from the Nadīā side. It appears moreover that, with the loss of the Nadīā-Lakhnautī (Gaur) region, i.e. the western part of the Sena kingdom, Lakṣmaṇasena took shelter in the eastern part of his dominions. It is impossible to infer from Minhājuddīn’s evidence that the Sena king left his dominions and took shelter at the court of the contemporary Gaṅga king of Orissa, who was one of his enemies.

c14.9

Commenting on the passages quoted from Elliot’s and Dowson’s work in his *Studies in Indo-Muslim History*, Hodivala says, “Dowson notes that Sanknāt is also written Sankāt and Saknāt and he asks if it is not Jagannāth. But Minhāj states a few lines lower down that Lakhmaṇa himself fled to Sanknāt and Bang and that ‘his sons are to this day rulers in the territory of Bang’. Now Vaṅga or Baṅga is the specific name of Eastern Bengal and we possess epigraphic evidence of Lakṣmaṇasena’s descendants having ruled for at least three generations (sic.) at Vikrampur near Sonārgāon in Dacca. Sanknāt may be a mistake for Sonārgāon or Songāon. A still nearer phonetic approach (sic.) would be Satgāon (sic. Sātgāon) and it is possible that Minhāj who knew little or nothing of Bengal geography has confused the two names. Hooghly district in which Satgāon (sic.) lay was under Hindu rule for long after the Muhammadan conquest of Lakhnautī.”¹ Unfortunately these suggestions about the location of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt of the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* are equally untenable, although Hodivala is right in his criticism of the Jagannāth theory. Minhājuddīn stayed at Lakhnautī for over two years in 1242-45 A.D.² and could hardly have been as ignorant of the geography of Bengal as Hodivala takes him to have been. Sonārgāon was not a country and, since it was a city in Bang, it is certainly absurd to speak of one’s flight towards Sonārgāon and Bang. The arguments against the identification of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt with Jagannāth or Purī, offered by Hodivala himself, are equally applicable against its identification with Sātgāon which lay to the south of Nadīā unlike the Vikra-mapura region lying to its east.

c14.10

¹ Op. cit., 207.

c14.11

² Cf. Elliot and Dowson, op. cit., p. 260.

c14.12

The *History of Bengal*, recently published by the Dacca University, offers conflicting suggestions regarding the identification of Minhājuddin’s Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt. In Volume I of this work, R.C. Majumdar refers to Saṅkaṭa-grāma, mentioned in Sandhyākaranandin’s *Rāmacarita* as the territory of one of Rāmapāla’s feudatories named Caṇḍārjuna, and observes, “*Ain-i-Akbari* refers to pargana Sakot in Sarkār Sātgāon. The name Sakot resembles Saṅkaṭa...........Saṅkaṭa-grāma is probably the same as Saṅka-koṭa referred to in *Vallālacarita* and Sankanāt referred to in *Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī*.”¹ It will be seen that the identification of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt with a locality near Sātgāon is as untenable as its location at Sātgāon itself.

c14.13

¹ *Op. cit.*, p. 158.

c14.14

In Volume II of the above work, K. R. Qanungo says, “The region to which Rāi Lakhmanīa fled from Nadīā is named in the *T.N.* as Bang wa *S-n-k-n-āt*. Bang means East Bengal and the second place-name is a copyist’s error for Sil-hāṭ, i.e. Sylhet. The invariable practice of Persian writers is to designate a district by joining together two well-known places in it, which might be even 50 miles apart; *e.g.* Sultanpur-Nandurbar, Vani-Dindori, Trimbak-Nasik, Dholpur-Bari, Kora-Jahanabad, Kara-Manikpur.”² Of all the identifications of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt of the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* proposed by scholars and discussed above, Qanungo’s suggestion appears to be the least objectionable, as Sylhet may be regarded as a district adjacent to Bang. But the statement that Bang and Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt have been mentioned jointly to indicate a district like Sultanpur-Nandurbar is clearly wrong. The passage ‘to the country of Saknāt-Sankāt- Sanknāt and to the cities of Bang and Kāmrup’ quoted above from Elliot’s and Dowson’s translation of the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāsiri* shows beyond doubt that Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt did not form an integral part of Bang. The other passage quoted from the same work, however, suggests that this territory lay adjacent to Bang, and the Sylhet District no doubt suits this position. As regards the possibility of scribal errors in the transliteration of Sil-haṭ (acutually Silhaṭ from Śrīhaṭṭa or Śrīhaṭa) as Saknāt, Sankāt or Sanknāt in the Perso-Arabic script, we may cite many other instances of the type.¹

c14.15

² *Op. cit.*, p. 4.

c14.16

¹ Cf. Ray, *D.H.N.I.*, pp. 599ff., 698, etc. Cf. ‘Kanauj and futuh, when pelt without diacritical points, assume the same form : a good illustration of the difficulty of reading accurately oriental names;—here two words of the ame form have not a letter in common’ (Elliot and Dowson, *op. cit.*, p. 45).

c14.17

It should, however, be pointed out that Śrīhaṭṭa or Sylhet as the name of an important territory is not usually found in early records, while the district round Sylhet is mentioned in the Chittagong plate (about the ninth century A.D.) of king Kāntideva as the Harikela (sometimes called Harikeli or Harikelā) *maṇḍala* (province). Moreover, both Bang and Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt appear to have formed a part of the dominions of Lakṣmaṇasena while there is hardly any evidence in favour of the inclusion of Sylhet in the Sena kingdom. Viewed from this angle, the identification of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt with Sylhet does not appear to be entirely beyond doubt. On the other hand, there was another territory near Bang (Vaṅga), which was not only well-known in Indian literature between the fourth and the thirteenth century A.D. but also probably formed a part of Lakṣmaṇasena’s kingdom. Its name again may be regarded as the origin of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt of the Perso-Arabic script with equal plausibility as Silhaṭ (Sylhet) if not with more justification. This is the country of Samaṭaṭa which was the name of the Tippera-Noakhali region of South-East Bengal as late as the thirteenth century when the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāsiri* was composed. It has to be remembered that Samaṭaṭa as a territory near Vaṅga was considerably more important than Śrīhaṭṭa or Sylhet. The intended reading for Minhājuddīn’s Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt thus appears to have been Samṭaṭ or Sanṭaṭ.

c14.18

The Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta (*circa* 340-76 A.D.) mentions the Samataṭa country while Varāhamihira’s *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* (sixth century A.D.) distinguishes it from Vaṅga. The country is mentioned in the seventh century in the accounts of the celebrated Chinese pilgrims Hiuen-tsang and I-tsing as well as in the Kailān plate¹ of king Śrīdhāraṇa of the Rāta dynasty, who is described as the lord of Samataṭa. The same country is further mentioned in the Bāghāurā inscription² of Mahīpāla I (*circa* 988-1038 A.D.) and in the Mehār plate³ (1234 A.D.) of Dāmodara. The Mehār plate mentions Samataṭa as a *maṇḍala* or province. The name Samataṭa disappeared from Indian geography after the thirteenth century A.D.

c14.19

¹ *I. H. Q.*, Vol. XXIII, pp. 221 ff.

c14.20

² *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XVII, p. 355.

c14.21

³ *Ibid.*, Vol. XXVII, pp. 182 ff.

c14.22

King Lakṣmaṇasena ruled from his headquarters at Vikramapura in the Dacca District in Vaṅga at least up to 1205-06 A.D. when Śrīdharadāsa compiled his *Saduktikarṇāmṛta*. King Viśvarūpasena, son and successor of Lakṣmaṇasena, ruled after his father at least for fourteen years as known from the Madanpāḍā plate.⁴ The *Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* speaks of Sena rule in Bang as late at least as 1242-45 A. D. when Minhājuddīn was staying at Lakhnautī. But about this time the erstwhile feudatories of the Senas in the Samataṭa or Tippera-Noakhali region asserted their independence. A king named Harikāladeva Raṇavaṅkamalla was ruling over the kingdom of Paṭṭikerā in the Tippera Distrrict in 1221 A.D. while another king named Dāmodara is known to have established his suzerainty in the Tippera-Noakhali-Chittagong region and to have been ruling from 1231 A.D. at least up to 1243 A.D. Dāmodara belonged to the Deva family and was preceded on the throne by his father Vāsudeva, grandfather Madhusūdana and great-grandfather Puruṣottama. It seems that the earlier members of this family acknowledged the supremacy of the Senas of Vikramapura. Some of Dāmodara’s epithets as found in his inscriptions are clearly imitated from those of the Later Senas, used in the copper-plate grants of king Viśvarūpasena. This shows that even if the Senas were continuing their precarious existence at Vikramapura as late as the fifth decade of the thirteenth century (as indicated by the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī*), they were no better than subordinate allies of the Deva king. Dāmodara’s son, Daśaratha, issued his charters from Vikramapura which had been previously the capital of the Senas in Vaṅga. This points to the complete overthrow of the Senas. Daśaratha’s title *Arirāja-danuja-mādhava* suggests that he is identical with Danuj Rāi, Rājā of Soṇārgāon (near Vikramapura) close to Dacca, who, according to Ziāuddīn Baranī, entered into an agreement with Sulṭān Ghiyāṣuddin Balban of Delhi about 1281 A.D. that he should guard against the escape of the rebellious Sulṭān Mughisuddin Tughril Khān of Lakhnautī by water.¹ Thus the Devas of Samataṭa were the successors of the Senas at Vikramapura in Vaṅga.

c14.23

⁴ See *J. A. S.*, Letters, Vol. XX, pp. 209 ff. ; cf. pp. 201 ff. There was no king named Keśavasena in the Sena dynasty.

c14.24

¹ *Hist. Beng.*, Vol. II, p. 65.

c14.25

Earlier expeditions of the Muslim rulers of Lakhnautī against the country of Bang do not appear to have been successful. But Sulṭān Tughril Khān, who began to rule in 1268 A.D., is doubtfully said to have built a fort at Loricol about 25 miles due south of Dacca and to have invaded the kingdom of Hill Tippera.² In course of his Bengal compaign, Sulṭān Ghiyāṣuddin Balban claimed to have subdued Iqlim-i-Lakhnautī and ’Arsah-i-Bangāla while he advised his son Nāṣiruddīn Bughra Khān, whom he left as the governor of Muslim Bengal, to exert for the conquest of Diyār-i-Bangāla.³ It is probable that the dominions of Daśaratha or Danuj Rāi of Soṇārgāon in Bang were included in this Diyār-i-Bangāla.⁴ When exactly the Deva dynasty of Sonārgāon was overthrown by the Muslims is not known. Jalāluddīn, a son of Sulṭān Shamsuddīn Firūz Shāh (1301-22 A.D.) is known to have issued coins from the Lakhnautī mint ‘from the spoils of Bang’ while a coin of Shamsuddīn Firūz Shāh issued from his mint at Sonārgāon itself bears the date 710 A.H.=1310-11 A.D.¹ Thus the Deva dynasty of Sonārgāon seems to have been extirpated by the Muhammadans shortly after the reign of Daśaratha. A copper-plate grant issued by a ruler named Vīradharadeva in his 15th regnal year has been recently discovered at Maināmatī in the Tippera District of East Pakistan.² He seems to have been the successor of Daśarathadeva.

c14.26

² *Ibid.*, p. 59.

c14.27

³ *Ibid.*, p. 67.

c14.28

⁴ About this time, the lower portion of South-West Bengal seems to have formed a part of the dominions of the Gaṅga kings of Orissa. From the twelfth to the sixteenth century, the Bhāgīrathī was claimed to have been the eastern boundary of the kingdom of Orissa. The upper part of that area, called Rāḷ (Rāḍha), formed one wing of the Muslim territory of Lakhnautī, its other wing being Barind (Varendra), according to Minhājuddin.

c14.29

¹ Ibid., pp. 80-81.

c14.30

² F. A. Khan, *Further Excavations in East Pakistan* : Mainamati, p. 26.

Linked texts (6)