“Mahmúd, after the capture of Thánesar, was desirous of proceeding to reduce Dehlí; but his nobles told him that it would be impossible to keep possession of it, till he had rendered the Panjáb a province of his own government, and had secured himself from all apprehension of Anandpál (Rája of Láhore). The king resolved, therefore, for the present, to proceed no further, till he had accomplished these objects. Anandpál, however, conducted himself with so much policy and hospitality towards Mahmúd,* that the Sultán returned peaceably to Ghaznín. On this occasion, the Muhammadan army brought to Ghaznín 200,000 captives, so that the capital appeared like an Indian city, for every soldier of the army had several slaves and slave girls.”—Firishta.
There is nothing in the Yamíní to warrant this mention of Dehlí, the existence of which is nowhere alluded to by contemporary writers. The frequent mention therefore by Firishta of Dehlí and its Rájá, in the transactions with the Ghaznivides, seems not to rest on any solid foundation.
Mírkhond makes no mention of Thánesar by name, but speaks of the “Moslem” elephants. 'Utbí and Khondamír make mention of these elephants in connection with Thánesar. Though Firishta leaves no doubt that he considered the holy Thánesar to be meant, it is probable some other place may be alluded to; yet I know no place in India where he could, immediately after crossing a desert, have come upon a stream flowing through a hill-pass, except it be Kach Gandáva in Sindh, which is obviously out of the direction.
Dr. Bird considers Nárdín to have been in Káfiristán, and Thánesar to be Panjshír, which is the name of a river joining that of Ghorband, and giving name to a pass which leads through Hindú Kush from Kábul to Turkistán, but here we should want both the desert and the elephants.
The term “Moslem” elephants is curious. The Universal History endeavours to explain the word thus:—
“Mahmúd Ibn Subuktigín now undertook another expedition into India, and reduced the kingdom of Marwin, which had a capital of the same name. Here he was informed that an Indian idolatrous prince occupied a province, which produced a race of elephants, called Moslem, or faithful elephants. This information excited him to attempt the conquest of that province; which having effected, he brought off with him a vast quantity of spoil, and a great number of those elephants. They were termed Moslem, or faithful elephants, because they sometimes performed a sort of genuflexion and prostration not unlike those of the Moslems or Muhammedans; which induced many of the latter to believe that they were religious animals.”
Dr. Bird calls them “elephants of Sulaiman.” S. de Sacy,
“Saileman.” Wilken, “Moslem.” With regard to their being
Moslems and their adoration and genuflexions, see D'Herbelot, Art.
“Fil.” The Jámi'u-t Tawáríkh and D'Herbelot designate them as
Musulmán. The reading of the Yamíní and of Ibn Asír is “Saila-
Eleventh Expedition.—Lohkot.* A.H. 406.—This was an attempt to penetrate into Kashmír, which was entirely unsuccessful, for Mahmúd advanced no further than Lohkot, and then returned, There is no allusion to it in the Yamíní,* the Rauzatu-s Safá, or the Habíbu-s Siyar, but it is mentioned in the Táríkh-i Alfí, the Tabakát-i Akbarí, and Firishta.* The Tabakát-i Akbarí ascribes it to the year 407, and calls the place simply Kot. Reinaud* considers that this attack was made during the expedition to Kanauj, but this is highly improbable; for though the governor of the passes leading into Kashmír came to pay his respects on that occasion, Mahmúd did not penetrate even the lower hills.
The position of Lohkot is difficult to fix. It is perhaps the same strong place which Al Bírúní and Rashídu-d dín speak of as Lohúr or Loháwar, in the hills of Kashmír*; and as they describe it as not far from Rájáwar, one of the boundaries of Hind, on the north, I think we may look for an identification in the present Kotta, where there is a lofty fort of evident antiquity. If so, he must have returned by the bed of the Panjál river, and the waters from which he could not extricate his army must have been those of the Jailam, expanding over the plain so accurately described by Quintus Curtius, and so faithful to present appearances.
Firishta thus speaks of this campaign:—
“Mahmúd, in the year 406, again marched with the design of entering Kashmír, and besieged the fort of Loh-kot, which was remarkable on account of its height and strength. After a while, when the snow began to fall, and the season became intensely cold, and the enemy received reinforcements from Kashmír, the Sultán was obliged to abandon his design, and return to Ghaznín. On his route, having lost his way, he came upon a place where the whole plain was covered with water—wherever they went they saw nothing but water. Many of his troops perished. This was the first disaster that the Sultán suffered in his campaigns against India. After some days he extricated himself with great difficulty from his peril, and reached Ghaznín without having achieved any success.”
Twelfth Expedition.—Kanauj, Mathura. A.H. 409.—A full account has been given of this celebrated invasion by 'Utbi and Khondamír. As the statement of Nizámu-d dín differs from Firishta in some respects, it is given below. It is to be observed that all the authors, except Mírkhond, concur in representing that 409 H. was the year of this invasion, and most of them mention that he set out in the spring. This gives occasion to Dr. Bird to observe:—“As the spring season is mentioned, and as Hijra 409 commenced on the 20th May, A.D. 1018, Mahmúd must have left Ghazní in the end of the preceding year, 408, which would correspond with the spring of A.D. 1018. Muhmammadan historians, not attending to the fact of the seasons west of the Indus being the same as those in Europe, and forgetting the particular commencement of the Hijra years, are constantly committing such blunders.” Consequently he makes six or seven months to elapse before Mahmúd reaches Kanauj.
Here, with all due deference be it said, Dr. Bird seems to have fallen into the very error which he condemns; for it is abundantly evident that here, as has already been observed respecting the sixth expedition,* that the Indian spring after the close of the rains is meant. That spring occurs in Afghánistán much about the same time as our own in Europe is admitted. Indeed, it is observed in Afghánistán with the same kind of joyous festivities as it was in Europe, before more utilitarian notions prevailed; but in this instance, where the months are mentioned, we can be left in no manner of doubt. Starting in the spring, we find from 'Utbí that Mahmúd crossed the Jumna on the 20th of Rajab, 409=December 1018, and reached Kanauj on the 8th of Sha'bán, 409=January, 1019, and as this is declared to be a three months' journey, he must have started in October, so that he might have the whole of the six months of the cold season before him. The spring therefore alluded to was evidently not in accordance with the European season.
Elphinstone has been led into the same error by following the guidance of Dr. Bird, and observes:—“The whole of this expedition is indistinctly related by Firishta. He copies the Persian writers, who, adverting to the season in their own country, make Mahmúd begin his march in spring. Had he done so he need not have gone so high in search of fords, but he would have reached Kanauj at the beginning of the periodical rains, and carried on all his subsequent movements in the midst of rivers during that season. It is probable he would go to Pesháwar before the snow set in above the passes, and would cross the Indus early in November.”
In this last passage he acutely suggests as Mahmúd's probable movement, that which actually occurred, except that he must have crossed the Indus in October. There is, therefore, no correction necessary, and the native authorities have been wrongly censured.
He continues:—“His marches are still worse detailed. He goes first to Kanauj; then back to Mírat, and then back again to Mattra. There is no clue to his route, advancing or retiring. He probably came down by Mírat, but it is quite uncertain how he returned.” Dr. Bird also remarks upon Firishta's ignorance of geography, upon the army moving about in all directions, without any obvious reason.