Anandapala

Author:Laxman Burdak, IFS (R)

---

Map of Hindu Shahi dynasty

Anandapala (आनंदपाल) was son of Jayapala (जयपाल) , a Jat Ruler and King of Hindu Shahi with capital at Bhatinda and Lahore.

History

Maharajadhiraj Anandpal: Prince Anandapala who ascended his father's throne (in about March/April AD 1002) already proved an able warrior and general in leading many battles prior to his ascension. According to 'Adáb al-Harb' (pp. 307–10) in about AD 990, it is written, "the arrogant but ambitious Raja of Lahore Bharat, having put his father in confinement, marched on the country of Jayapála with the intention of conquering the districts of Nandana, Jailum (Jehlum) and Tákeshar" (in an attempt to take advantage of Jayapala's concentrated effort with defence against the armies of Ghazni). "Jayapala instructed Prince Anandapala to repel the opportunist Raja Bharat. Anandapala defeated Bharat and took him prisoner in the battle of Takeshar and marched on Lahore and captured the city and extended his father's kingdom yet further."

However, during his reign, many attacks were inflicted on his kingdom by the Ghaznavids. During the battle of Chach between Mahmud and Anandapala, it is stated that "a body of 30,000 Gakhars fought alongside as soldiers for the Shahi Emperor and incurred huge losses for the Ghaznavids". However, despite the heavy losses of the enemy, Anandapala lost the battle and suffered much financial and territorial loss. This was Anandapala's last stand against Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni. He eventually signed a treaty with the Ghaznavid Empire in AD 1010 and shortly a year later died a peaceful death. R.C Majumdar compared him ironically to his dynastic ancient famous ancestor "King Porus, who bravely opposed Alexander but later submitted and helped in subduing other Indian rulers". And Tahqíq Má li'l-Hind (p. 351) finally revered him in his legacy as "noble and courageous" .

In the Punjab, Jayapala became the paramount ruler. He made Bathinda, his second capital for better administration of the neighbouring region. To the east of his realm, the Toramana dynasty ruled over Haryana and Delhi. The Ghalibids governed Multan and the territory up to Lahore and Ramiyan. Jayapala sent an expedition under his son Anandapala, who defeated Bharata and advanced on Lahore. Bharata paid him a large sum of money and he was allowed to rule Lahore as a feudatory of Jayapala.

But later Bharata was dethroned by his son Hardrat who declared himself as free ruler of Lahore. At this, Anandapala again marched with a big army to punish him and finally annexed Lahore to Sahi dominions in 999 AD. Jayapala’s authority now extended from Langhman (Jallalabad) to the river Chenab. He now ranked as the greatest king of India. The Arabs described him as the ruler of Hindustan.

Read more at Jayapala

Buddha Prakash mentions

Buddha Prakash mentions ....[p.142]: About 1002 Jayapala's son Anandapala came to the throne. He was independent and headstrong and cocked the snook at the Turks. His first act was to repudiate the tribute claimed by Mahmud. He even refused passage to him, when he wanted to pass through the Shahi kingdom to invade the Ismaili ruler of Multan, Abdul Fath Daud. Rather he used Mahmud as a cat's paw to chastise the refractory ruler of Bhera, Bijaya Rai, on the western bank of the Jhelum who tried to fish in the troubled waters of Shahi affairs. The attitude of Anandapala naturally provoked Mahmud to start hostilities and extend “the hand of plunder, levelling, destruction and burning into villages and cities”.

In an engagement near Peshawar Anandapala was defeated and his son Sukhapala was captured by the Turks and converted to Islam under the name of Newasa Khan. About that time the Turk chief Ilak Khan invaded the northern parts of the Ghaznavid kingdom. In that crisis Mahmud thought it prudent to make friends with Anandapala and entered into a pact of neutrality with him so as to be safe on the eastern frontier. This is clear from the fact that Anandapala not only did not utilise the absence of Mahmud for invading the heart of his empire, but offered to send 5,000 horsemen, 10,000 infantry and 100 elephants and even his son with double that number of troops for his assistance (E. C. Sachau, Al Beruni's India, II, p. 13). Modern historians have criticised Anandapala for the policy of docility and inaction at such an opportune moment. But they forget that a man in his circumstances could think that, if peace could be had in any way with a rival like Mahmud, it was worth while to try for it. Many times his father and he had suffered at the hands of the Turks on the north-western frontier. This is an area in which even the British government had to follow a policy of suborning and soft-pedalling the qabailies. Hence, when Mahmud offered to make a treaty with him, he accepted it and abided by its letter thinking that the other side would also adhere to it. He may have

---

[p. 143]: miscalculated the nature of Mahmud or failed to visualise that, in the event of his success, he would repay his sincerity with treachery, but he urgently needed peace to recoup himself and was justified in welcoming an opportunity to have it even at the cost of some risk. It is wrong to think that his conduct was imbecile or pusillanimous. His policy was understandable though his calculation proved wrong and his assessment defective.

At soon as Mahmud was free from the menace of Ilak Khan and had quelled the revolt of Sukhapala or Navasa Khan, he took up arms against Anandapala again in violation of his treaty and betrayal of his trust. Anandapala must have been irked by the ignominous behaviour of his friend and made preparations to face his challenge. Firishta writes that he “sent ambassadors on all sides inviting the assistance of other princes of Hindustan who now considered the expulsion of the Mohammadans from India as a sacred duty”. He adds that “the rajas of Ujjain, Gwalior, Kalinjar, Kanauj, Delhi, Ajmer entered into a confederacy and, collecting their forces, advanced towards Panjab with the greatest army that had yet taken the field.” How far he is correct in giving this information is difficult to say, for [Utbi]] and Nizamuddin do not support it and the trends of Indian affairs at that time preclude its possibility, but it seems to be a fact that the common people were siezed by a patriotic sentiment whereby “the Hindu women sold their jewels and melted down their golden ornaments to furnish resources for the war and the Gakkhars and other warlike tribes joined the army and surrounded the Mohammadans” (Tarikh-i-Firishta, Vol. I, p. 46 ).

This memorable battle took place in 1008 on the bank of the Ohind according to Utbi and in the plains of Peshawar according to Firishta. Let us hear its story from the latter :

“The two armies remained encamped for forty days without coming into action and the troops of the idolators daily increased in number. Mahmud ordered 6,000 archers in the front to endeavour to provoke the enemy to attack his entrenchments. The archers were opposed by the Gakkhars who, inspite of the king’s efforts and presence, repulsed his light troops and followed them so closely that no less than 30,000 Gakkhars, with their heads and feet bare, and armed with various weapons, penetrated into the Muslim lines, where a dreadful carnage ensued, and in a few minutes

---

[p.144]: 5,000 Mohammadans were slain. The enemy was at length checked, and being cut off as fast as they advanced, the attacks became fainter and fainter, till on a sudden, the elephant, upon which the prince, who commanded the Hindus, rode, becoming; unruly from the effects of the naphtha balls and the flights of arrows, turned and fled. This circumstance produced a panic amongst the Hindus, who, seeing themselves deserted by their general, gave way and fled also” (Tarikh-i-Firishta, I, pp, 46-47 ). Utbi gives the following version of the battle :

“And from the time that the falcon of morning took his flight from the nest of the horizon, until the crow of darkness closed her wing, the fire of battle burnt, and the pieces of men’s bodies, hacked by the sword, coloured the earth as if by anemones. And it had nearly happened that the army of the Sultan were wounded (worsted) and that the infidels had obtained the high hand. However, the Sultan with his own guards made a charge under which the feet of the infidels were unable to stand” (Kitab-i-Yamini, p. 340).

These accounts show that for a considerable time the two armies confronted each other, at last Mahmud broke the stalemate to prevent the arrival of more reinforcements on the other side and launched the attack, the Shahi response was effective, the Gakkhars repelled the advance and themselves penetrated into the enemy ranks making terrible - slaughter, behind them other regiments of the Shahi army sallied on the enemy and fought with terrible fury and vigour, grim slaughter and destruction stalked the field till nightfall, the Turk army was nearly worsted and the Shahis got the upper hand, but in that critical moment the elephant of Anandapala ran amuck and backed out of the contest, this created panic and chaos turning the verdict of the battle into a defeat, yet the gains of Mahmud were insignificant, only thirty elephants, according to Firishta and Nizamuddin, sixty, according to Utbi.

In the hurly-burly of the event Mahmud raided Nagarkot and plundered its temple, then, in 1009, invaded Narayanpur in the Alwar state and looted the temples and next year subjugated Multan, deposed its ruler and suppressed the Ismailis.

Inspite of all this it cannot be said that Mahmud was fully successful against the Shahis. This is clear from the fact that

---

[p.145]: Mahmud made a treaty with Anandapala undertaking not to lead any more invasions against the Shahis and resting content with the annual tribute of fifty elephants laden with valuables and accompanied by 2000 men.

But Mahmud was not a man to abide by his promises or undertakings. In 1011-12 he raided Thanesar and desecrated its temples notwithstanding the protests of Anandapala. Yet his mind was not quite free from the fear of Anandapala for Firishta says that he did not penetrate further east from Thanesar “from his apprehension”. In fact the danger from the Sahis was so acute that the advisors of Mahmud opined and urged that it was impossible to take possession of the Ganga-Yamuna Valley unless the Sahis were completely destroyed (Tarikh-i-Firishta, p. 52).

About 1112 Anandapala died leaving the throne to his son Trilochanapala.

नैन गोत्र की वंशावली

राजा आनंदपाल के दो लड़के थे. बड़े का नाम अनंगपाल तथा छोटे का नाम नैनपाल था. बड़ा बेटा होने के कारण अनंगपाल को दिल्ली की गद्दी मिली थी. छोटा बेटा नैनपाल राजकाज के अन्य काम देखता था. वह बड़ा सीधासादा तथा शील स्वभाव का था. कुछ लोगों का मानना है कि नैनपाल से नैन गोत्र शुरू हुआ.

शमशेर सिंह गाँव धमतान साहिब, जिला जींद की वंशावली इस प्रकार है: 1. आनंदपाल → 2. नैनपाल (अनंगपाल का छोटा भाई)→ 3. थरेय → 4. थरेया → 5. थेथपाल → 6. जोजपाल → 7. चीडिया → 8. बाछल → 9. बीरम → 10. बीना → 11. रतुराम → 12. मोखाराम → 13. सोखाराम → 14. भाना राम → 15. उदय सिंह → 16. पहराज → 17. सिन्हमल → 18. खांडेराव → 19. जैलोसिंह → 20. बालक दास → 21. रामचंद्र → 22. आंकल → 23. राजेराम → 24. लालदास → 25. मान सिंह → 26. केसरिया → 27. बख्तावर → 28. बाजा → 29. फतन → 30. कलिया राम → 31. बल देव सिंह → 32. शमशेर सिंह → 33. सुमेर सिंह

References

Jayapala- The Paramount ruler of India.

Further readings

ठाकुर देशराज: जाट इतिहास, दिल्ली, 1992 , पृ. 214 -219

References

---

Back to The Rulers