XII. The Guard on the North Western Frontier
| Wikifier:Laxman Burdak, IFS (R) |
Muslim Arabs crossed the Hindukush in 664
[p.129]: The death of Harsha about the middle of the seventh century almost coincided with the destruction of the Sassanid Empire at the hands of the Muslim Arabs. These changes threw the north-western frontiers of the Panjab into confusion. In 664 the Muslim Arabs crossed the Hindukush and levied tribute on Kapishi; in 682 they made another incursion into that state and, soon afterwards, launched two more expeditions into it. The menace of the Arabs drove the Turkish rulers of that region, who had replaced the Kshatriya king of the time of Harsha or his successors, into the lap of the Chinese, with the result that the Chinese Annals began to claim that the sixteen states between the Oxus and the Indus acknowledged the suzerainty of the T’ang. In Tukharistan, or the region to the north of the Hindukush, the Chinese set up a stele as a mark of their overlordship over its Yabghu who, according to a report of 718, had extended his sway from the Iron Gates to Zabulistan and from the Murghab to the Indus. But the Arabs constantly raided his territory and harassed his people. Sometime before 727 they imprisoned his father and saddled his people with enormous requisitions, as a letter from his son to the Chinese emperor, written in that year, shows.
Besides the Arabs, the Tibetans also pestered the Turks of Tukharistan compelling their Yabghu Srimangala to seek the help of the Chinese empire. The menace of the Tibetans also stared Kashmira in the face and inclined her towards China. Thus an entente among the Turks, Kashmira and the Chinese was formed.
The Turks of Tukharistan and the Kabul Valley were Buddhists
[p.129]: The Turks of Tukharistan and the Kabul Valley were, however, devout and pious Buddhists. The Chinese pilgrim Wuk’ong, who stayed in Gandhara for well over forty years in the latter half of the eighth century, reported that the Turki ruler, his queen, his eldest son and other members of his family and,
[p.130]: following them, his generals and administrative officers undertook to repair the shrines and sanctuaries destroyed by the Hephthalites and launched a programme of founding new endowments and establishments and extended their constructive activity to Kashmira also (E. Chavannes et S. Levi, 'L' itineraire de Wouk‘ong'Journal Asiatique (1895) p. 356). That they were Indianized is manifest from the remarks of many authors. To their house probably belonged Shri Spalapati Deva whose coins, bearing legends in Brahmi and Tukharian, have been found up to the village Tatarski Tolkish in the Tartar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and in Niederlandin in the Angermünde district (DDR).
Account of Korean Buddhist Hui Chao
[p.130]: While these changes were overtaking the north-western frontier, the Panjab also became independent under a ruling house with its capital at Jullundur. In the first quarter of the-eighth century, the Korean pilgrim Hui Ch’ao toured through this country and noted that its king had 300 war-elephants and lived at a city which he built on hill side. His account shows that, this king of Jullundur was an important power in North India, but the kings of Kashmira and Middle India frequently invaded and annexed his territory forcing him to retire to the hill retreat. One drawback of this kingdom, according to him, was the dearth and scarcity of horses, the king having only 100 and the chiefs three to five. This may be due to the fact that the sources of horse supply were cut in the north by the Turki Shahis and in the west by the Muslim invaders of Sind as well as by the king of Middle India Yashovarman, who had conquered and controlled Rajasthan and Hariyana, as Vakpati states in his Gaudavaho.
The Korean pilgrim states that the kings of Kashmira and Middle India frequently invaded and annexed the territory of the kingdom of Jullundur. The king of Kashmira at that time was Chandrapida (713-722) of the Naga or Karkota dynasty, who also possessed a force of 300 elephants according to that pilgrim, and the king of Middle India, having his capital at Ke-na-chi-tzta (Kanauj), was Yashovarman, about whom he writes as follows ;
- “The territory of this Central Indian king is very broad, the inhabitants here are populous. The king possesses 900 elephants, the rest of great chiefs, each possesses two to three hundred elephants. The king himself often led troops
- [p.131] in battles, frequently fought with other rulers and the Central Indian king is always victorious” (Fujita Toyohaohi, Hui-Ch'ao wong wu-t'ien-chu-kuo chuan chien-shih, p. 10) translated by Jan Yun-hua, ‘Some Fresh Reflections on Yashovarman of Kanauj and Muktapida of Kashmira, Journal of Indian History, Vol. XLV (April 1967.)
This king, called Yi-sha-fu-mo, is reported to have sent one Bhadanta, named Po-ta-hsin (Bhaṭṭasena ?) to the court of the Tang in China between November 4 and December 3, 731 A.D. with presents of local products. The Gaudavaho represents him as a conqueror of the whole of India.
Yashovarman followed a vigorous policy in regard to the Panjab also. The Gaudavaho (verse 484) refers to his conquest of Rajasthan (Marudesha), and Hariyana (Shrikantha-Kurukshetra). Hui Ch’ao mentions his frequent invasions of the kingdom of Jullundur and annexations of its territory and the Nalanda Inscription (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XX, pp.37-46) suggests his conquest of Western Panjab after which he appointed a governor with the title of Udicipati (lord of the north) and mārgapati (warden of the marches) there. This Udicipati-mārgapati is called pratita-tikina (one who has rivalled or excelled the tikin) showing that he took arms against the Turki Shahi rulers of the North-West. The discovery of Yashovarman’s coin in the Manikyala stapa also indicates his influence over that region. In spite of a clash of interests over the Panjab, particularly the kingdom of Jullundur, Yashovarman maintained workably good relations with the kings of Kashmira, obviously to stem and stave off the menace of the Tibetans who were pressing on Baltistan. This is clear from the account of an embassy under Bhadanta Wu-li-to sent by Lalitaditya Muktapida, who came to the throne of Kashmira after his brother Tarapida in 726, to the court of the Tang emperor Hiuen-Tsung on May 10, 733. The Hsin Tang-slut (New History of the T’ang Dynasty) states that the envoy of Kashmira presented a memorial to the Chinese emperor conveying the following message of Lalitaditya:
- “I, an humble subject of Your Majesty, along with the king of Central India, control the five principal routes of communication of Tibet having fought against the Tibetans with constant victories. If Your Majesty, the Heavenly
Khan, will despatch the Imperial armies to Po-lu (Baltistan), I
- [p.132] would be able to supply food to two hundred thousand soldiers. Moreover, there is a dragon pool in the country named Mo-ho-poto-mo ( Mahapadma). I wish to build a memorial building for Your Majesty, the Heavenly Khan. I, therefore, pray for an Imperial appointment by proclamation”.
Relations between Kanauj and Kashmir
[p.132]: This communication shows that, up to 733, the relations between Kanauj and Kashmira were good and they even collaborated in checking the Tibetans. But Lalitaditya Muktapida was cast in a different mould. He was pushing and aggressive and intolerant of rivals. Besides this, some of the Turki Sahi princes, menaced by Yashovarman in the North-West, took refuge in Kashmira and rose to high positions there. One of them Caṅkuṇa ( Tsiang-kiun or Tegin), seems to have instigated Lalitaditya to march against Yashovarman and put an end to his supremacy in the Panjab and the North-West. On his advice Lalitaditya led an expedition against Yashovarman, Kalhana says that Cankuna played a leading part in this campaign. Starting in the rainy season, he somehow negotiated the flooded rivers of the Panjab and reached the doab of the Ganga and the Yamuna (Rajatarangini, IV, p.132). After prolonged hostilities parleys of peace started but broke down on the ticklish question of the precedence of names in the preamble to the treaty. Hence fighting flared up, Yashovarman was defeated and “the land of Kanauj from the bank of the Yamuna to that of the Kalika (Kali Nadi) was so much in the power of Lalitaditya as the courtyard of his palace” (Rajatarangini, IV, p.145) The result of the victory was that Panjab, Jullundur and Kangra were wrested by Lalitaditya and given over to his attendants, probably the Turki Shahi princes. So the outcome of the conflict between Kashmira and Kanauj was the establishment of the Turki Shahis over the Panjab.
Lalitaditya was for the time being the paramount sovereign of India. But the pressure of the Tibetans mounted and they conquered Baltistan in 744. The Tibetan prince LJan-tsa-lha-bdon,who is probably Shalya of the Rajatarangini, led an army of 8,00,003 against Kashmira whereupon Lalitaditya committed suicide in discomfiture. (K.K.Datta Shastri, ‘A Note on Rajatarangini/Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol.III (Sept. 1965) p. 243). After him came a succession of weak kings. Hence the Turki Sahis became dominant in the Panjab.
Turki-Shahi kings of the Kabul and Huna Kings of Zabul
[p.132]: The Turki-Shahi kings of the Kabul Valley and the Huna Kings of Zabul, called Zambil by Muslim writers, often fought
[p. 133]: among themselves. This is clear from the fact that sometimes these writers refer to Zambil as the king of Kabul which implies the conquest by him of the Turki Sahi realm. Naturally the resistance from their side must have also been quite stubborn. But the story of their heroic struggle with the Muslims eclipses the episodes of conflict and tension among them, On some occasions we also hear of some collaboration among them.
Few events in history are more stirring than the grim resistance offered by the people of Zabul and Kabul to Muslim invaders over a long period of time. In 650, when the Arab general Abdullah-ibn-Amir set out for Khurasan, he despatched Al-Rabi- ibn-Ziyad to Sijistan or Seistan, the lowlands lying round and to the east, of the Zarah Lake. Al-Rabi reached the Helmund and appeared before Zaranj, the capital of the country. The people of the city opposed him fiercely and wounded a number of Muslims, but had to retire into the city. Baladhuri states that the satrap of the city was so terrified as to allow the Arab general to enter the city. But, from the fact that two and a half years later Abdur-Rahman-ibn- Samurah compelled the satrap to pay 2,000.000 dirhams, it appears that that region was not annexed to the Muslim kingdom. On receiving the tribute from him, Abdur-Rahman marched on Az-zur where he plundered the temple cutting off the hand and taking out the two rubies from the eyes of the golden idol to shake the faith of the people. Then he is said to have obtained control of Bust and Zabul. But there is something fishy about the account for it is said that he made no prisoners. In view of some agreement entered into by the Caliph Uthman. However the people expelled his successor Umar-ibn-Ahmar from Seistan and closed the town Zaranj. During the reign of Muawiyah, Abur-Rahman was sent again as governor of that region, but he was faced with a formidable task, for it is said that the people of Seistan had apostatized and those of Zabul broken their treaties. Yet he controlled the situation defeating the people of Zabul and reducing those of Kabul taking with him slaves captured there. Before his death in 670 A.D. Al-Rabi-ibn-Ziyad was appointed governor. During his term Kabul and Zabul again revolted. The king of Kabul assembled a force to oppose the Muslims and drove out those, who were in Kabul, while the king of Zabul recovered his kingdom up to Bust. Al-Rabi had to lead an expedition against the king of Zabul and throw him back even from Al-Dawar. The next governor Ubaidul iah-ibn-
[p.134]: abi-Bakrah continued, the war and reached Razan. However, negotiations were opened, Ubaidullah demanded 12,00,000 dirhams, for letting Zabul and Kabul live in peace, but they offered less, at last the bargain was struck at 10,00,000 and the treaty was confirmed by the governor of Basrah. But, in 680, the people of Kabul again rose and imprisoned Abu-Ubaidah-ibn-Ziyad. The governor of Seistan proceeded against the insurgents, but he and many of his followers were killed and the rest put to flight. Even leaders like Zayd-ibn-Abdullah and Silah-ibn-Ashtam-Abussabha perished. The Arabs had to ransom Abu-Ubaidah for 5,00,000 dirhams. Asa result the cities of Seistan became free from the Caliph’s control.
In 683 Abdul-Aziz-ibn-Abdullah-ibn-Amir arrived as the governor of Seistan, but had to stop at Zaranj owing to the war with the king of Zabul. But soon Abu-Afra-Umar-al-Mazim killed the king of Zabul. Yet the war did not end with the death of that prince.
In 692 the new governor Abdullah had to continue the war. Talks for peace were opened. The king of Zabul was ready to pay 10,00,000 dirhams. But Abdullah wanted that his tent be filled with gold. Hence hostilities were resumed. The Arab army penetrated deep into the country. The Zabulites retreated and entrapped the invaders. At last Abdullah was compelled to be content with the payment of 3,00,000 dirhams only. On this he was dismissed by the Caliph Abdul Malik. During the viceroyalty of Al-Hajjaj (694-713) Ubaidullah-ibn- Abi-Bakrah was appointed the governor of Seistan. Immediately on joining he advanced on Kabul. The king of Kabul blocked a mountain path. The king of Zabul also joined him. The Arab army was in a crisis. Ubaidullah had to make peace and agreed not to disturb them against a payment of 5,00,000 dirhams. In token of the treaty, he sent his three sons, Nahar, Al-Hajjaj and Abu Bakrah, as hostages to Kabul. This humiliating peace sent ashudder in the Arab camp. Some generals did not reconcile themselves to it. One Shuraih rejected the treaty and led a charge against Kabul. But he was killed and his army perished. Ubaidullah died of grief. Al-Hajjaj sent another army to avenge the defeat. It defeated the king of Zabul, but its movements were slowed by his retreat. Al-Hajjaj recalled its general Abdur-Rahman. But he rebelled and joined the king of Zabul. On this Al-Hajjaj had to make peace with the king of Zabul agreeing not to make war on him for seven years and remained friendly with him till his death in 714. In 710 the governor of Khurasan, Qutyba, undertook a cam-
[p.135]: paign against Zabul, but it proved abortive. In the reign of the Caliph Sulairaan (715-17) the king of Zabul ceased to pay the contribution. For well over forty years Zabul enjoyed a spell of peace. In the reign of the Caliph, Al-Mansur (754-75), steps were again taken against it. Man-ibn-Zaidah took over as governor of Seistan and demanded tribute from Zabul. Its king replied by sending some camels, Turkish tents and slaves reckoning each at double its value. This enraged the Arab governor to resume war. When he marched on ar-Rukhaj, the king withdrew to Zabul. Ar-Rukhaj fell to the invader and 30,000 slaves came to his lot, but his success was pyrrhic. During the Caliphate of Al-Mahdi (775-85) and Al-Rashid (786-808) also Seistan was not completely subjugated, as Baladhuri states, and their officers continued to collect tribute as well as they could. In 792-3 an army under Ibrahim-ibn Jibul crossed the Hindukush and stormed Kapishi forcing its king to retire to Kabul When the next caliph, Al-Mamun (808-818), was in Khurasan, the king of Kabul is said to have professed Islam and offered allegiance. But the gains were not lasting. The Zambil (king of Zabul) was in Kabul giving shelter to Nasr and Salih, the sons of Darhim, in 867 on the conquest of Seistan by Yaqub-bin Layth. Yaqub turned against Zabul and conquered Kabul in 870 but his dynasty was replaced by that of the Samanids who did not make any serious effort to extend their authority in the Kabul Valley.
With the conquest of Kapishi by the Arabs in 792-3, its Turki Shahi ruler moved to Kabul. This event seems to underly the tradition of the entering of Barhatikin in a cave at Kabul recorded by Al Biruni (E.C. Sachau, Al-Beruni's India, Vol II p. 10). However, on account of the confused account, transmitted to him, Al-Biruni observed that sixty generations of rulers had intervened between Barhatikin and his own time.
Turki Sahi of Kabul displaced by Lalliya of Hindu Shahi
[p.135]: As said above, in the ninth century the Arabs exercised relentless pressure on Kabul. From the east the Pratihara rulers of Kanauj struck at them. Nagabhata II (795-833) wrested some territory in the Panjab from them and Mihira Bhoja (836-90) sent an expedition under Harsharsja Guhila against them (Chatsu Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, XII, p.13). As a result of these moves, East Panjab was annexed to the Pratihara empire and West Panjab was placed under the viceroyalty of Alakhana with his capital at or near Gujarat. Almost at the same time the people revolted against the tyranny of the Turki ruler
[p.136]: Laghturman who, according to Al-Biruni, had ‘bad manners and a worse behaviour’. (E. C. Sachau, Al-Berun's India, Vol. II p. 13). Under these blows and pressures, external as well as internal, the Turki Sahi kingdom of Kabul fell and the Brahmana minister of the king, Laghturman, whom Kalhana calls Lalliya and Al Biruni, Kallar, staged a coup'd’ etat and shifted his capital to Ohind or Udbhandapura on the Indus. His kingdom included the lower Kabul Valley from Laghman (Lampaka) to Gandhara and also parts of western Panjab. He was a powerful ruler, “whose mighty glory outshone the kings of the north just as the sun-disc outshines the stars in heaven”, as Kalhana states (Rajatarangini V, 154). ‘In his capital of Udbhandapura other kings found safety, just as the mountains in the ocean, when threatened by the danger of having their wings cut by Indra ” (Ibid,, V, 153). That he was friendly to the Pratiharas is clear from the fact that he gave shelter to the Pratihara chief Alakhana when he was defeated by the king of Kashmira, Shankaravarman, and compelled to surrender the Takka country to him.
It appears that the Turki Sahi rulers, displaced by Lalliya, took refuge with the king of Kashmira while he made friends with the Pratiharas. Thus the entente of the Brahmana Sahis and the Pratiharas was confronted with the alliance of the Turki Sahis and the king of Kashmira. But there seems to have been no encounter between them on account of their respective problems. However H. C. Ray suggests that the violent death of the king of Kashmira, Shankaravarman, in the hills of Hazara, may be due to the complicity of the Sahis (Dynastic History of Northern India, Vol. I, p. 75).
Samantadeva ascended the Shahi throne at Ohind
[p.136]: After Lalliya, Samantadeva (सामन्त देव) ascended the Sahi throne at Ohind. His coins, they are elephant and lion type but mostly of the bull and horseman type, have been found at Sultanpur, Sunet, Joner and Kapalmochan in East Panjab, on the one hand, and near Rostow in the Yaroslavi province, Gniezdovo in the Smolensk province, Tatarski Tolkish in the Kazan province, now in the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Denissy in the Poltava province, Vaabina in the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Obrzicho in Poland and Chivaz near Taskent, in the U.S.S.R. and eastern Europe, on the other. The discovery of his coins over such a wide stretch of territory from East Punjab to Poland shows that
[p.137]: under him his kingdom had acquired considerable importance. Yaqubi states that, from the ninth century, Kabul was visited by tradesmen for the so-called mirobalan which was very much valued by the medical practitioners of medieval times. Trade in this as well as other commodities seems to have carried the coins of Samantadeva far abroad (A.A. Bykov, ‘Finds of Indian Medieval Coins in East Europe', Journal of the Numismatic Society of India, Vol. XXVII (1965) part II, pp. 146-156).
Thus it is clear that Samantadeva consolidated the Shahi Kingdom on the frontier so firmly as to make it a centre of economic progress and commercial prosperity. But soon internal troubles queered the pitch for him. A son of Lalliya, Toramana, advanced his claim to the throne and sought the help of Kashmira in support of it. Kashmira was keen to resuscitate her influence over the frontier state of the Shahis which was shaken when Lalliya overthrew Laghturman and befriended the Pratiharas of Kanauj who had acquired hegemony over the Panjab. Hence she took the occasion by the forelock and her minister, Prabhakaradeva, led an army against Ohind, overthrew Samantadeva and installed Toramana under the name Kamaluka or Kamalavarman (Rajatarangini,232-3).
The new ruler issued the copper coins with peacock with outspread wings to left on the obverse and lion to right and the legend Sri Kamara on the obverse. It may also be that he issued the bull and horseman type of silver coins with the Iranian legend Shri Khudavayakaḥ , corresponding to Xvatāvaya, for circulation in the Iranian world. This revolution changed the balance of power on the frontier and brought the Shahis and Kashmira together against the Pratiharas.
Kamaluka’s successor Bhima further strengthened his ties with Kashmira by marrying his daughter to the ruler of Lohara, Simharaja, whose daughter Didda became the queen of the king of Kashmira, Kshemagupta (c. 950-958). At that time the Shahis had considerable influence over Kashmira an evidence of which is afforded by the richly endowed temple of Vishnu, called Bhimakeshava, the remains of which have been identified by Stein with the Ziarat of Bamzu near Martanda, built by Bhima. The coins of Bhima with the legend of Shri Bhimadeva, those of silver having a recumbent humped bull on obverse and horseman with lance on the reverse and those of copper having elephant to right on the obverse and lion to right on the reverse, have been found in Kabulistan and his inscription, showing that he adopted the title of Maharajadhiraja Parameshvara, has been
[p.138]: discovered at Dewai in the Gadun country. That Bhima was the: paramount monarch of the North-West with a dominant influence over Kashmira admits of no doubt. Under him the Shahi kingdom must have reached a high point of progress.
Shahi King Thakkana
[p.138]: During the aforesaid period some significant changes were taking place to the west of the Indus. A Turkish slave of the Samanid, Amir Mansur, named Alptigin, captured Gazni by expelling the Wali of Zabulistan, Abu Bakr-i-Lawik, and founded an independent kingdom there. This heralded the offensive policy of the Muslims in regard to the Shahi kingdom.
From the east, the Pratiharas made an effort to resuscitate their lost influence over the Shahis and counter the importance of Kashmira. The Pratihara King Mahipala invaded the North-West marching at the head of a vast army of horses and elephants and acquired an image of Vaikuntha from the Shahi king obviously after defeating him. Again the pendulum of the Shahis swung from Kashmira towards Kanauj.
Outwitted by Kanauj, Kashmira again tried to resuscitate its influence over the Shahis. Queen Didda, acting as the guardian of King Abhimanyu (958-72), sent the commander-in-chief Yashodhara to invade the Shahis. Yashodhara defeated and captured the ruling Shahi King Thakkana and exacted tribute from him. But the success of Kashmira proved short-lived for Kanauj was again on the offensive.
Shahi King Jayapala
[p.138]: When Thakkana was worsted by Kashmira, Kanauj intervened and replaced him by a new branch installing Jayapala, son of Ishtapala, on the throne of the Shahis. The tenth century Persian geography Hudūd-ai-Ālam ( ed. Minorsky., p. 239 ) expressly says that he was “under the orders of Qinnauj”. As an ally of the Pratiharas Jayapala even overpowered Kashmira. This is clear from the remark of Firishta that his kingdom extended in length from Sirhind to Lamghan and in breadth from Kashmira to Multan (Tārikh-ī-Firishtā, tr. Briggs, vol. I, p. 15 ) and the observation of the Hudud-al-Alam that “Vayhind (Udbhandapura) and Kashmira were the dependencies of the Rai of Qinnauj”.
The latter part of the tenth century saw the weakening of the Pratihara empire of Kanauj. In the Panjab up to Sirhind Jayapala was the paramount ruler with Bhatinda as his second capital, to the east of it the Tomaras ruled over Hariyana and Delhi
[p.139]: and in South Panjab the Ghalibids governed Multan and the territory up to Lahore and Bamiyan. But, at Lahore, a native ruler, named Bharata, became independent and made sallies into the realm of the Sahis raiding the salt mines of Nandana in the Jhelum district and the region of Takeshar. Jayapala deputed his son Anandapala to quell the raids of that troublesome chief. He advanced on Lahore, defeated Bharata and allowed him to rule as a feudatory in return for a large sum of money. Subsequently, the son of Bharata, Handrat, dethroned him whereupon Anandapala marched with an army to punish him and annexed Lahore to the Sahi kingdom in 999. For a time Jayapala ranked as the most powerful king of India as Minhajuddin says ( Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Vol. I, p. 82 ).
Though paramount in the Panjab Jayapala was faced with the onslaughts of the Turks. We have seen above how Alptigin had captured Ghazni from its ruler Lawik or Anuk who was not necessarily a Muslim (C. E. Bosworth, The Ghazmvids, p. 38 ).
On his death the Lawik, probably with the assistance of the Shahis, reoccupied Ghazni. In 966 the Turkish troops of Ghazni chose a ghulam of Alptigin, named Bilkatlgin, as their leader who again took Ghazni. On the death of Bilkatigin another ghulam of Alptigin, Boritigin, held power for two years, but his tyranny and cruelty, drove the people into inviting the Lawik again. In that hurly-burly another slave Sebuktigin came up and made short shrift of the Lawik. Soon afterwards he reformed the military administration by providing for the payment of the army through the central diwan and making all the fiefs mustaghall or revenue assignments.
Faced with the challenge of the Turks, Jayapala formed an alliance with the Muslim rulers of Multan and even advanced to sieze Ghazni as Minhaj says (Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Raverty, Vol. I, p. 73 ). Hence the first task before Sebuktigin was to break this alliance and detach Shaikh Hamid Lodi from Jayapala. Having succeeded in this diplomatic move, he “girded up his loins for a war of religion” and “endeavoured to desolate the territories of Raja Jayapala’’, capturing many castles and strongholds ( Tarikh-i Firishta , Briggs, Vol. I, pp. 9-10 ). To this Jayapala responded by a massive attack. The Turks also advanced from the other side. The battle was joined on the frontier. Al-Utbi writes “each army
[p.140]: mutually attacked the other, fought and resisted in every way, until the face of the earth was stained red with the blood of the slain, and the warriors of both armies and nations were worn out and reduced to despair. Then prince Mahmud remarked that all skill and intelligence was unequal to the subjugation of this fort and that all human power fell short against it. (Kitab-i-Yamin, J. Reynolds, pp. 33-36). When Jayapala was within an ace of success, a hailstorm suddenly changed the scene to one of extreme cold and grey mist. The Indian army, mostly from the plain, could not cope with that atmosphere and Jayapala had to send the following message to Sebiktigin :
- “You have heard and know the nobleness of the Indians, how that, in seasons of extremity, they fear not death or destruction. They run the edge of the sword over those who wrong them, when there is no means of escaping the blade. In affairs of honour and renown we would place ourselves upon the fire like roast meat and upon the dagger like the sunrays” (Kitab-i-Yamini, p. 37)
This message shows the indomitable will of the Indian warriors led by Jayapala. Sebuktigin was ready to make peace. To bide time, Jayapala agreed to pay “1000 packets of 1000 dinars and five stables full of elephants" and cede some cities and fortresses and send some hostages as earnest for the treaty. But, in his heart of hearts, he was averse to any concession. When he reached Lahore, his Brahmana ministers were firmly against paying anything to the enemy (Tarikh-i-Firishta, Vol. I, p. 17). Hence he repudiated all terms of treaty and even imprisoned the agents of the Turks who had come to take charge of the territories to bs ceded by him. On it Sebuktigin invaded the Sahi kingdom. “Wheresoever he came he sacked and plundered, dug up and burnt down all the buildings and killed the people carrying away their children and cattle as booty. He made the territory of Lamghan, which had been the most populous and flourishing of all that country, entirely stript and bare. He mastered several other territories, and destroying their temples, their sacred buildings and their churches, built mosques in their stead” (Tabqat-i-Akbari of Nizamuddin, B. Dey, p. 3). On this Jayapala also made adequate preparations, “despatched letters to the various provinces of India imploring aid"
[p. 141]: and collected a vast army of 1,00,000 horse, many elephants and numerous foot to fight the enemy. With that vast army, he marched on Ghazni and met the Turks near Lamghan. Faced with that army, “boundless like the ocean and in numbers like the ants and locusts of the wilderness”, Sebuktigin relinquished direct encounter and sent squadrons of 500 men each to attack particular points successively till they showed signs of breaking. Wearing the Indian army with these guerilla tactics, Sebuktigin struck at the opportune moment and carried the day with singular dash and drive. The Indians fell back on the Indus, but the Turks drove hard on them dealing deadly blows. Again it was made clear that the men of the plains could not operate in hills and dales without effective training.
After this victory the Turks were masters of the region beyond the Indus. Lamghan and Peshawar were Muslim cities. The Indus flowed uneasily between the Turks and the Sahis. At that fateful time the throne of the Ghaznavis was held by the energetic and ambitious son of Sebuktigin, Mahmud. He was not a man to relent or relax and so took the offensive against the Sahis. In 1000 A.D. he raided many Shahi forts and posts and, next year, swooped upon Peshawar with a cavalry force of 10,000. But Jayapala was alive to the situation and equal to the occasion. Let us hear from Utbi what he did in that circumstance.
- “ He advanced in opposition to the standards of the Sultan with 8,000 cavalry, 30,000 infantry and 300 elephants. The earth groaned under the pain of their boots. And when the distances between the two armies was but small he began to delay the commencement of the battle and tire onset in order that the rear of the troops and those men of the army, who were coming up behind the others, should arrive. The Sultan perceived this strategem and hastened forward and wrested the power of choice from his hand” (Tarikh-i-Yamini, p. 281).
This account shows that when Jayapala was preparing for the encounter, Mahmud intercepted him making a surprise attack. Jayapala, however, mustered up. According to Nizamuddin, “the two armies fought with each other and showed much “gallantry” Tabqat-i-Akbari, p. 5) and Firishta says that the contest was obstinate. About mid-day the Indian ranks broke up and, in the affray, Jayapala and his family fell into the hands of the enemy.
[p.142]: Mahmud followed up this victory by a dash on the second Shahi capital, Bhatinda, and reduced it after a siege. But the people, stung to fury by the capture of their chief, must have offered a grim resistance forcing Mahmud to “make friendship with Jayapala” and release him on payment of ransom, as Utbi states. But Jayapala was deeply chagrined by the disaster and disgrace and committed suicide by consigning himself to the flames. Thus ended the eventful life of this heroic person.
Shahi King Anandapala
[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.
Shahi King Trilochanapala
[p.145]: Soon afterwards Mahmud prepared to attack the Shahi kingdom and launched a sudden onslaught on the Fort of Nandana. Taken aback, Trilocanapala entrusted the command of his army to his son Bhimapala and himself went about mobilising other forces. Bhima posted himself at the head of a narrow mountain pass barring it with his elephants. Mahmud tried his best to break through it. The battle raged for several days. In that critical situation Trilocanapala appealed for help to the Kashmiri King Sangramaraja (1003-1028 A.D.). On this appeal the king sent his Prime Minister Tunga, who had already married a Shahi princess Bimba to his son, with a large army to the help of the Shahi monarch. Tunga was bubbling with enthusiastic eagerness to pounce on the Turks and ‘‘gave no thought to night watches, the posting of scouts, the military exercises and other preparations proper for attack”. Trilocanapala, who was acquainted with the strategy of warfare with the Turks, counselled him restraint and advised him to keep posted on the scarf of a hill at the entrance of of the Tosmaidan Pass. But he paid scant heed to it and “crossed with rather a small force to the other bank of the Tausi (modern Tohi of Prunts) and defeated a corps which Hammira (the Turkish Sultan) had sent on reconnaissance”. This inflated his pride on account of which he spurned the repeated advice of the Shahi ruler. Next morning Mahmud unexpectedly led his full army catching Tunga unawares. His army dispersed in disorder. But Trilocanapala rallied whatever force he could and gave battle. The Damara chiefs,
[p.146]: Shrivardhana, Vibhramarka and Jayasimha, showed prodigies of valour. “These three men, fighting on the terrible field of battle, which resounded with the tramps of horses, preserved the honour of their country from being lost”. The performance of Trilocanapala was wonderful. “Causing floods of blood to pour forth in battle, he resembled Shiva (Trilochana) when sending forth the fire which burns the world at the end of the Kalpa”. His singlehanded fighting led the historian Kalhana to exclaim, “who would describe the greatness of Trilocanapala whom numberless enemies even could not defeat in battle” (A. Stein, Rajatarangini, Vol. 1, p. 272-73).
After this victory Mahmud invaded Kashmira through the Tosmaidan Pass and “carried away much booty in the shape of prisoners of war and gold and, after converting many infidels to Islam and laying the foundations of Islam, went back to Ghazni”.(Tabqat-i-Akbari, p. 8). But Trilocanapala even then did not lose heart and cease to make heroic effoirs to retrieve his defeat. Kalhana says that “the Hammira (Mahmud) did not breathe freely thinking of the superhuman powers of the illustrious Trilocanapala” (Rajatarangini, VII, p. 64-5). He continued to struggle with the Turks and, with grim resolution, organized an army in his retreat at Sirhind, but the ruler of Sarsava on the Yamuna, Chand Rai, engaged him in wanton warfare. He tried to end this fruitless conflict by contracting the marriage of his son with the daughter of Chand Rai, but the latter treacherously imprisoned the bridegroom. In this state of tension and turmoil no organized resistance was possible. On the other hand Mahmud also prepared for a major offensive in the quiet of some years and then in 1018 attacked East Panjab. Sand-witched between two forces of Mahmud and Chand Rai, Trilocanapala realised the futility of defence at Sirhind and repaired to the Court of the Paramara King Bhoja of Malwa, who was among the leading powers of that time, obviously to seek his help. But Bhoja was more a men of culture and literature than war and aggression. Hence from there he went over to the Candellas, when their king, Vidyadhara, overthrew Mahmud’s ally Rajyapala of Kannauj.
In 1020-1 Mahmud advanced against Vidyadhara, but Trilochanapala barred his passage probably on the Yamuna. In the battle, that followed, his army was defeated and he made off to join Vidyadhara, bat was captured and killed by
[p.147]: some Hindus in the way in 1021. In this way his grand policy to mobilise the resources of the leading powers of Central India against the Turks came to an end.
Shahi King Bhimapala
[p.147]: His son Bhimapala kept the Turks at bay in the hilly districts south of Lohara, but was killed in a battle in 1026. Thereafter the remnants of the Shahis retired to Kashmira and played an important part in her history, exhibiting rare bravery and heroism. But Panjab was at the feet of the Turks and the region upto Lahore formed part of the Ghaznavi kingdom.
Assessment of Shahi Dynasty
[p.147]:The Shahis shed lustre on the heroic tradition of the Panjab. All historians, Muslim and Hindu, joined in paying them handsome tribute. Al-Biruni wrote : “We must say that in all their grandeur they never slackened in the ardent desire of doing that which is good and right and that they were men of noble sentiment and noble bearing” (Sachau, Al-Biruni's India, Vol. II, p. 13). Kalhana remarked: “To this day the appellation Shahi throws its lustre on a numberless host of Kshatriyas abroad who trace their origin to that family” (Rajatarangini, VIII 3230). This rare combination of nobility and gallantry invests their history with a remarkable glory and grandeur.
Behind the patriotic heroism of the Sahis was the fine martial quality of the people of the Panjab which even the Muslim Turks acknowledged by recruiting an Indian contingent of troops. These Indian soldiers had their own commander, the Sipāhsālār-i-Hinduyān, and their separate quarters in Ghazni. They formed a counterweight to the Turks and were considered in many ways more reliable than them.
About 1030, when the palace ghulams and the Turkish troops revolted, it was the Indians alone who, under their commander, Savendhray, remained loyal to them. In view of their military calibre the consideration of religion was ignored in their recruitment and they were sent to fight with the Muslims. A historian of Seistan bitterly complains of the slaughter and violence done to the Muslims and Christians of Zarang by Mahmud’s pagan Indian troops in 1003 (C. E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 110).
Thus there is no ground for holding that the fall of the Sahis was due to the martial inferiority of the people. In fact it was their heroism and bravery which enabled the Sahis to keep their hold
[p.148]:on Udbhandapura at least up to 1008, on the Salt Range at least up to 1012 and on the Sirhind frontier at least upto 1018 against overwhelming odds.
The reason for their inability to hurl the Turks back for good was the peculiar socio-political condition prevailing in North India at that time.
The Samanta system made unified administration impossible over long period. The regional complexes and caste biases also told on the mobility of the people. The training of Indian soldiers to operate on the plains in specific formations under centralized command made it difficult for them to fight with the tribals of the hilly areas on the frontier.
The capture of the routes of Afghanistan by the Turks made contacts with the trans-Hindukush region difficult and precluded the possibility of diplomatic and commercial relations with Persia or Central Asia. The snapping of these ties also cut the sources of the supply of good horses and tribal recruits.
The Islamic religion injected the promise of the damsels of heaven into the prospect of plundering the people which had been prompting the tribals into marauding raids and razzias. Religious bigotry steeled social solidarity and canonized the craze for war and conquest and lionized raiders and plunderers as heroes and martyrs. Giving a pious slogan to nefarious lust and providing a gaudy ideology to brutality and treachery, it created a fighting apparatus of relentless potency which was more than a match for the pacific refinement and tranquil morality of the Indian cultural tradition.
By and large the Hindus did not realize the gravity of this situation and remained “haughty, foolishly vain, self-contained and stolid", believing that “there was no countrylike theirs”, as Al-Biruni remarked (Sachau, Al-Biruni's India, Vol. I, p. 22). Hence while the Sahis were fiercely struggling with the Turks on the frontiers, the ruling powers in the interior did not create any second line of defence to check the invaders.
The redoubtable Rajput powers kept cocking the snook at each other without caring to consider the menace with which the Sahis were coping with all their might almost singlehanded.
History is a balance among different sorts of forces. Moral force or cultural prestige alone sometimes do not suffice to counter brute strength and striking power. Organisation and discipline are sometimes stronger among uncouth and barbaric peoples, united by the lure of plunder and pleasure, than among the cultured and refined peoples snivelled by theoretical niceties and doctrinal sub-
[p.149]: tleties. Constant and all-sided vigilance and creativeness are the price of freedom and success in every circumstance.
Conclusion
[p.149]:The aforesaid survey of the evolution of heroic tradition in ancient Panjab from the earliest time up to the beginning of the eleventh century A. D. brings out the salient features of the history of this region revealing the interplay of socio-economic development and politico-military orientation.
In course of it we have observed how the people of the Panjab have given varying turns to their heroic tradition in the context of changing social conditions across the ages. The transitions from the tribal outlook to the territorial and vocational viewpoint and from that to the national and cultural weltanschaung and thence to the cosmopolitan, commercial and bourgeois orientation and then back to the regional, parochial and excluslvist trend of thought shaped the traditions of heroism, gallantry and dynamism into different forms and ways of life.
A study of them has shown that heroism or militarism presupposes social contexts and organizational settings. A hero, despite his personal bravery, acts within a framework of ideas and values which are the products of social and cultural perspectives. Hence it is worthwhile to remember that the heroism of a people has to be matched by effective organization in order to act as a potent instrument of defence and advance.
It is hoped that the above study, based on original materials and sources, would serve to underline this basic imperative of the heroic history of the Panjab.