History of India, as Told by its own Historians: The Muhammadan Period - The History of India, Volume 2

and in the vicinity of the river Biyáh. At length ambassadors to the Sultán came to Khurásán from 'Irák, on the part of Hulákú Mughal, son of Tolí, son of Changíz Khán, and orders were given that the embassy was to halt at Márúta.³⁸¹

Ulugh Khán and other nobles, with the royal troops and their own followers, suddenly resolved upon a campaign in the hills, and made the first march in advance on Monday, 4th Safar, 658. In their first forced march (kashish) they accomplished nearly fifty kos, and fell unexpectedly upon the rebels. These retreated to the summits of the mountains, to the defiles, to deep gorges and narrow valleys, but they were all taken and put to the sword. For twenty days the troops traversed the hills in all directions. The villages and habitations of the mountaineers were on the summits of the loftiest hills and rocks, and were of great strength, but they were all taken and ravaged by order of Ulugh Khán, and the inhabitants who were thieves, robbers, and highwaymen were all slain. A silver tanka was offered for every head, and two tankas for every man brought in alive. Eager for these rewards the soldiers climbed the highest hills, and penetrated the ravines and deepest gorges, and brought in heads and captives; especially the Afgháns, a body of whom, amounting to three thousand horse and foot, was in the service of Ulugh Khán. These men were very bold and daring, and in fact the whole army, nobles and chiefs, Turks and Tázíks, exhibited great bravery, and their feats will remain recorded in history. Fortune now so favoured Ulugh Khán that he was able to penetrate to a fastness which no Musulmán army had ever reached, and that Hindu rebel who had carried off the camels was taken prisoner with his children and dependants. Two hundred and fifty of the chiefs of the rebels were captured. One hundred and forty-two horses were led away to the royal stables, and six bags of tankas, amounting to thirty thousand tankas, were taken from the Ránas of the hills and the Ráís of Sind, and sent to the royal treasury.

In the course of twenty days this great work was accomplished, and the army returned to the capital on the 24th Rabí'u-l awwal, 658. His Majesty, with a great retinue of chiefs and nobles, came forth to the plain of Hauz-rání to meet him, and a grand Court was held in which many honours and rewards were bestowed.³⁸² After a stay of two days in the capital the Court went forth again to Hauz-rání on a mission of revenge. The elephants were prepared, and the Turks made ready their trenchant swords. By royal command many of the rebels were cast under the feet of elephants, and the fierce Turks cut the bodies of the Hindus in two. About a hundred met their death at the hands of the flayers, being skinned from head to foot; their skins were all stuffed with straw, and some of them were hung over every gate of the city. The plain of Hauz-rání and the gates of Dehli remembered no punishment like this, nor had any one ever heard such a tale of horror.

Ulugh Khán now represented to the Sultán that the Mughal ambassador in Khurásán should be brought to Court and be granted an interview. On Wednesday, 7th Rabí'u-l awwal, the Court proceeded to the Kushk-i sabz (green palace), and Ulugh Khán gave orders for armed men to be collected from all quarters round Dehli to the number of two hundred thousand foot and fifty thousand horse, with banners and accoutrements. Great numbers of armed men of all ranks went out of the city, and assembled in the new city of Kílu-gharí, at the royal residence, where they were drawn up shoulder to shoulder in twenty lines. * * * When the ambassadors arrived, and their eyes fell on this vast multitude, they were stricken with fear, * * * * * and it is certain that on seeing the elephants some of them fell from their horses. On the ambassadors entering the city they were received with the greatest honour, and were conducted before the throne with the highest possible ceremony. The palace was decked out in the most splendid array, and all the princes and nobles and officers attended in gorgeous dresses. A poem written by the author of this work was recited before the throne. I here insert it. * * * * After the reception the ambassadors were conducted in great state to the place appointed for their abode.³⁸³

Let us return to the thread of our history. The last event which I have to record is this. When Ulugh Khán carried war into the hills, and punished the rebels in the way we have related, a number of them escaped by flight. They now again took to plundering on the highways, and murdering Musulmáns, so that the roads became dangerous. This being reported to the Khán, he sent emissaries and spies to find out the places where the rebels had taken refuge, and to make a full report of their state and condition. On Monday, 24th Rajab, 658 (July, 1260), he marched from Dehli with his own forces, the main army, and the forces of several chiefs. He hastened towards the hills, and, accomplishing more than fifty kos in one day's journey (!),^383a he fell upon the insurgents unawares, and captured them all, to the number of twelve thousand—men, women, and children—whom he put to the sword. All their valleys and strongholds were overrun and cleared, and great booty captured. Thanks be to God for this victory of Islám!

IX.

[The Táríkh-i Jahán-Kushá, or Jahán-Kusháí, “the History of the Conquest of the World,” is the work of 'Aláu-d dín Malik, son of Baháu-d dín Muhammad Juwainí, but the author is better known to Europeans by the name of 'Atá Malik Juwainí. He was a native of Juwain, in Khurásán, near Naishápur. The date of his birth is unknown, but he was twenty-seven years of age when he began to write his history.

Baháu-d dín was one of the principal revenue officers of Persia under the Mongol governor Arghún; and his son 'Aláu-d dín, disregarding his father's advice to adopt literature as his profession, entered into public employ in his father's office before he had completed his twentieth year. When Mangú Khán was elected emperor, Arghún went to Tartary in 650, to pay his respects to the new sovereign, and Baháu-d dín with his son, our author, proceeded thither in his suite. Arghún was confirmed in his office, and he made Baháu-d dín chief superintendant of the revenues of his province. Shortly after his return in 651 (1253 A.D.), Baháu-d dín died at the age of sixty. When Hulákú Khán arrived in Persia, in 654 H., the viceroy Arghún was called to court; and on his departure he left 'Aláu-d dín at court of the Emperor as one of his representatives. While thus situated our author followed in the suite of Hulákú during his campaign against the Ismái'lians. His brother, Shamsu-d dín, became wazír of Hulákú in 662 (1263-4 A.D.), and 'Aláu-d dín was appointed governor of Baghdád.

'Aláu-d dín had made himself conspicuous by his zeal against the Ismái'lians, which incited three men of that sect to attempt his assassination. He escaped this danger, but only to endure great reverses and ignominy. Intrigues were formed against him, he was dismissed from office, fined heavily, tortured, and paraded naked all round Baghdád. He remained for some time afterwards in confinement at Hamadán, but his innocence being proved, the fine exacted from him was returned, and he was restored to his office, which he retained until his death in 681.

In character he was naturally mild and just, but he was so blinded by the power and success of his masters that he could see nothing but good in them and their doings. “Placed as he was,” says M. D'Ohsson, “it is manifest that he could not write freely; but he of his own accord made himself the panegyrist of those barbarians who had utterly ruined his country, and who continued to waste and oppress the dominions of the Muham-madans. He speaks with a profound veneration of Changíz Khán and his descendants, he lauds Mangú to the skies, and in his honour he exhausts his stock of the most exaggerated hyperbole. More than this, he strives to prove in his preface that the ruin of so many Musulmán countries by the Mughal armies was a necessary evil, from which arose two benefits—one spiritual, the other temporal. He does not blush to boast of the gentleness of the Mughals towards those who submitted to them, and he praises with better reason their tolerance of all religions.”

His occupations he tells us left him little leisure for the acquisition of useful knowledge up to the age of twenty-seven, and he expresses his regret that he had not adopted the course of life advised by his father; but years had matured his reason, and he was resolved to make up for lost time. He had several times travelled over Transoxiana and Turkistán, as well as the more western regions. He had been a witness of many events, and he had besides obtained information from well-informed and trustworthy persons, so in the year 650, during his stay at the court of Mangú, at the request of his friends he began to write his history, the chief object of which was to perpetuate the memory of the great actions of the Emperor Mangú. The style of the work is much admired by Orientals, “but a European may be allowed to pronounce it inflated, and to wish that the author had used more truth in his colouring, and more method in his narrative.” The history stops at the year 655 (1257 A.D.), although the author lived up to the year 681 (1282 A.D.).

The MS. used by M. Quatremère and Baron D'Ohsson is an incomplete one belonging to the Imperial Library at Paris. “The Jahán Kusháí,” says Sir H. Elliot, “though not uncommon in Europe, is very rare in India. All my research has only procured for me one copy, and that belongs to Munshí 'Abdu-r Razzák, Sarrishtadár of the Civil Court of Farrukhábád. It is very clean, and well written in Nasta'lík, but contains many errors. Its extent is 275 folios of nineteen lines in each page.” There is no copy of the work in Sir H. Elliot's library.]

EXTRACTS.³⁸⁶

Punishment of Criminals.

It is a custom amongst the Mughals that when any one has committed a crime worthy of death, should he not be sentenced to that penalty, they send him to the wars, remarking that if he was destined to be slain, he may as well be slain in fight; or they send him on a message or embassy to rebellious chiefs, from whom they think it most probable he will never be allowed to return; or they send him to some hot place where a pestilent wind blows; and it was for such a reason they sent Baláktigín^386a on an embassy to Egypt and Syria.

* * * * *

The Mughal Conquests.—The Kings of Hind.

In the space of twelve years the Mughals conquered every country, and nowhere were rebellion and turbulence left unrepressed. Having reached a place where they saw men with the limbs of beasts, and knew that there could be no habitation beyond it, they returned to their own country, bringing the kings of various countries with them, who presented their offerings of allegiance. Búkú Khán honoured all of them according to their respective ranks, and sent them back to their own countries; but he would not allow the king of Hind to come on account of his filth and ugliness.

* * * * *

Changíz Khán in Bokhárá.

Next day, the Imáms and elders of the city of Bokhárá went to do homage to Changíz Khán,³⁸⁷ and he came within in order to see the town and fort. He entered the Jámi' Masjíd and stood before the archways. His son, Túlí Khán, was on foot, and ascended the pulpit. Changíz Khán enquired, “Is this the palace of the Sultán?” They replied, “It is the house of God.” He then dismounted, and ascended two or three steps of the pulpit, and exclaimed, “The country is denuded of forage, fill my horses' bellies.” They opened the granaries which were in the city, and brought the corn. They brought forth the chests which contained the Kuráns into the area of the mosque, and scattered the books about, converting the chests into horse-troughs. They circulated their flagons, and the courtesans of the city were sent for to dance and sing, and the Mughals raised their own voices in response.^387a The Imáms, doctors, Saiyids, scholars, and priests, were appointed to take charge of the quadrupeds, being singled out for that special duty. After one or two hours, Changíz Khán arose to return to his camp, and the others also departed, after the leaves of the Kurán had been kicked about in the midst of impurities.³⁸⁸ * * *

One of the inhabitants fled to Khurásán after these transactions. They enquired of him the state of Bokhárá. He replied “The Mughals came, dug, burnt, slaughtered, plundered, and departed.” A knot of learned men who heard him unanimously declared that it would be impossible to express any sentence more concisely in Pársí. The cream and essence of whatever is written in this volume might be represented in these few words.

* * * * *

Changíz Khán's Pursuit and Defeat of Sultán Jalálu-d dín.

Changíz Khán detached a portion of his army, fully equipped, from Tálikán, against Sultán Jalálu-d dín, and when he heard of his still further successes, he himself marched with such expedition that there was no difference between night and day, and no time for cooking food. On his reaching Ghazna, he ascertained that the Sultán had left it fifteen days previous, for the purpose of crossing the river Sindh, so he appointed Yelwáj with his contingent to the charge of Ghazna,^388a and himself hastened like a cloud-impelling wind in pursuit of him.

He came up with the Sultán on the bank of the Sind, and hemmed him completely in with his army, several curves extending one behind another like a bow, of which the river was the string. Changíz Khán ordered his troops to advance, and enjoined that every attempt should be made to take the Sultán alive. Chagtáí and Ogtáí³⁸⁹ also arrived to his support from Khwárizm.

When the Sultán saw that it was a time for exertion and action, he prepared for fight with the few men he had under him; galloping from the right to the left wing, from the left to the centre, and making furious onslaughts. But the army of the Mughals made good their advance by degrees, narrowing the field of battle and the opportunity of escape, while the Sultán was fighting like an angry lion.

In every direction that he urged his steed
He raised dust commingled with blood.

Orders were again issued that they should take him prisoner, and the army refrained from wounding with spear and arrow, in their anxiety to carry the commands of Changíz Khán into effect. Jalálu-d dín himself maintained his ground, and, mounting a fresh horse that was brought to him, made one more charge, and then retreated like the wind and like a flash of lightning upon water.^389a

When Changíz Khán saw that the Sultán had dashed into the river, and that the Mughals were anxious to follow him, he prevented them, and placing his hand in his mouth through excess of astonishment, exclaimed to his sons:—

This is one whom you may indeed call a man!
A true fighting elephant to tooth and marrow!^389b
This he said, and looked in that direction
Where the Sultán went like a Rustam on his way.

All his followers who were not drowned in the river were put to the sword,^389c and the ladies of his household and his children were brought to Changíz Khán. He ordered with respect to all the males, even down to those who were sucklings, that the nipple of death should be placed in the mouth of their life, and that their bodies should be left to be devoured by crows.³⁹⁰

As all the property and wealth of the Sultán had been thrown that day into the river by his orders, Changíz Khán directed divers to search for it, and bring out what they could. This transaction, which was one of the wonders of the time, took place in Rajab, of the year 618 H., in accordance with the proverb, “Wonders occur in Rajab.” Changíz Khán, after the battle marched to the banks of the Jíhún (Indus), and sent Ogtáí to Ghazna. On his arrival they proffered their submission. He ordered all the inhabitants to be brought out into the plain and counted, and, after selecting artizans from among them, he ordered all the rest to be slain. He also destroyed the city, and Ogtáí returned towards Hirát, after burying the slain.

The Mughals winter in Hindustán, and return.

Chaghtáí was left on the borders of Kirmán. He went in pursuit of the Sultán, and as he could not find him, he fixed his winter quarters in the plains of Hindustán.^390a The governor of the country in which he cantoned himself was Sálár Ahmad, who bound the girdle of obedience round his waist, and provided all the supplies he could for the use of the army. On account of the pestilential air most of the army fell sick and lost their strength, and as they had many slaves with them, having added to their number while encamped there (insomuch that to every tent there were as many as ten or twenty, who were engaged in preparing rice and other things for the use of their masters), and as the climate of the country agreed well with their constitutions, Changíz Khán³⁹¹ gave orders that in every tent every captive should prepare and clean five hundred mans of rice. All expedition was made, and within one week they ceased from that labour. He then issued orders that every prisoner in camp should be slain, and the next morning not a trace of captives or Hindús remained. He sent ambassadors to all the princes of that country, and they submitted. One was despatched to the Ráná, and he was at first well received, but was afterwards crucified; upon which an army was sent against the Ráná, and he was taken. An army was also sent to besiege Aghrák, in the fort in which he had taken refuge.

When the army had recovered its health, thoughts of return were entertained, in order that by way of Hindustán they might reach the country of Tangút.^391a They advanced some marches, and when they found there was no road, they came back again, and went to Fersháwar (Pesháwar), and employed themselves in returning by the same road which they came. * * * The reason of their expediting their return was that intelligence was received that Khítá and Tangút had exhibited signs of disaffection, in consequence of Changíz Khán's prolonged absence.

* * * * *

Capture of Bhera, and retreat from Multán.

When Chaghtáí returned without finding the Sultán, Changíz Khán despatched Túrtáí^391b with two túmáns of Mughals, to pursue the Sultán beyond the Sind, which he passed over, and then reached the banks of the Bhut,³⁹² which is a country of Hindustán, then held by Kamru-d dín Kirmání, one of the Sultán's nobles. Túrtáí conquered that country, and took the strong fort of Bhera, and after ravaging that neighbourhood, he went towards Multán, but as there were no stones there, he ordered that the population of Bhera should be turned out to make floats of wood, and load them with stones for the man-janíks. So they floated them down the river, and when they arrived at Multán, the manjaníks were set to work, and threw down many of the ramparts of the fort, which was nearly taken, when the excessive heat of the weather put a stop to their operations. The Mughals contented themselves with plundering and massacreing all the country of Multán and Loháwar, and returned thence across the Sind to Ghaznín.

* * * * *

A Large Dragon.

Abú-l Fazl Baihakí has related in his Táríkh-i Násirí, that one of the soldiers of Sultán Mahmúd on the return from Somnát, killed a large dragon, and when they flayed it, the skin was found to be thirty yards long and four cubits broad. My object in mentioning this is, that Abú-l Fazl says, let any who doubts this fact go to Ghaznín, and see the skin, which is spread out like a curtain, and is suspended at one of the gates. Now the writer of this history says he is entitled to the same credit, when he asserts a thing which may seem impossible.

Death of Muhammad Ghorí.

In the year 602 H. (1205 A.D.), Muhammad Ghorí determined on prosecuting a holy war in Hind, in order to repair the fortunes of his servants and armies; for within the last few years Khurásán, on account of the disasters it had sustained, yielded neither men nor money. When he arrived in Hind, God gave him such a victory that his treasures were replenished, and his armies renewed. On his return, after crossing the Jailam, he was encamped on the banks of the Jíhún (Indus), so that one-half of the royal enclosure, where the private apartments were, was in the water. In consequence of which no precaution had been taken to ensure their protection. About the time of the mid-day siesta, two or three Hindús came through the water, and falling like fire upon the royal tent, slew the Sultán, who was entirely unprepared for such a treacherous attack.

* * * * *

Sultán Jalálu-d dín in Hindustán.³⁹³

When the Sultán had survived the double danger of water and fire, namely, the whirlpools of the Sind and the flame of Changíz Khán's persecution, he was joined by six or seven of his followers, who had escaped from drowning, and whom the fiery blast of evil had not sent to the dust of corruption; but, as no other course except retreat and concealment among the forests was left to him, he remained two or three days longer in his covert,^393a until he was joined by fifty more men. The spies whom he had sent out to watch the proceedings of Changíz Khán, returned, and brought him intelligence that a body^393b of Hindu rascals,³⁹⁴ horse and foot, were lying only two parasangs distance from the Sultán, occupied in rioting and debauchery. The Sultán ordered his followers to arm themselves each with a club, and then making a night attack upon this party, he slew most of them, capturing their animals and arms.

He was then joined by other parties, mounted on horses and mules,^394a and soon after certain intelligence was brought to him that two or three thousand men of the armies of Hind were encamped in the neighbourhood. The Sultán attacked them with a hundred and twenty men, and slew many of those Hindús with the Hindí sword, and set up his own troops with the plunder he obtained.^394b

Arabic Verse.

Whoever requires anything from me, let him live by his sword,
Whoever requires anything from other men, let him solicit them.

When the news spread throughout Hindustán of the Sultán's fame and courage, five or six thousand mounted men assembled from the hills of Balála and Mankála, for the purpose of attacking him. On his gaining intelligence of this movement, he set upon them with five hundred cavalry which he had under him, and routed and slew the Hindú armies.^394c The effect of this success was that he was joined by several more adherents from all quarters, so that his force amounted to three thousand men.

When the world-conquering Changíz Khán, who was then in the neighbourhood of Ghazní, heard of these new levies, he despatched a Mughal army, under Túrtáí, to expel him, and as the Sultán was not able to oppose him, he went towards Dehli, when Túrtáí crossed the river. The Mughals, when they heard of his flight, returned and pillaged the country round Malikpúr.

The Sultán, when he was two or three days distant from Dehli, deputed a messenger named 'Ainu-l mulk to Sultán Shamsu-d dín, saying—“The great have opportunies of showing mercy, since it is evident in our relations with each other, that I have come to claim your protection and favour, and the chances are rare of meeting with a person of my rank on whom to bestow a kind reception. If the road of friendship should be made clear, and the ear of brotherhood should listen in our communications with each other, and if, in joy and affliction, aid and support be mutually afforded, and if our object and desires should be accomplished, when our enemies witness our alliance, the teeth of their enmity will be blunted.” He then solicited that some spot³⁹⁵ might be indicated in which he might reside for a few days.

As the courage and determination of the Sultán were noised abroad, and his exceeding power and predominance were celebrated throughout the world, Sultán Shamsu-d dín, after receiving the message, was engaged for some time in deliberation, reflecting upon the importance of the result, alarmed at his proceedings, and apprehensive of his attacks. It is said that he entertained a design against the life of 'Ainu-l mulk, so that he died;^395a but Sultán Shamsu-d dín sent an envoy of his own, with presents suited to such a distinguished guest, and offered the following subterfuge for not according to him the place of residence he desired, namely, “that the climate of these parts is not favourable, and there is no tract suited to the Sultán; but that, if he wished, Shamsu-d dín would fix upon some place near Dehli where the Sultán might take up his abode, and that it would be made over to him as soon as it was cleared of rebels and enemies.”

When the Sultán heard this reply he returned, and reached the borders of Balála and Mankála, where from several quarters he was joined by his soldiers who had escaped, and by entire bands of those who had been wounded by the sword, insomuch that his troops amounted to ten thousand men.

He sent Táju-d dín Malik Khilj to the mountains of Júd, who plundered that tract, and obtained much booty. He sent an emissary, also, to ask Ráí Kokár Saknín's³⁹⁶ daughter in marriage. The Ráí consented, and despatched his son with a force to serve under the Sultán, who bestowed upon him the title of Katlagh Khán.^396a

There was a chief, by name Kubácha, who had the country of Sind under his government, and aspired to independence. There was enmity between him and Ráí Saknín Kokár. The Sultán despatched an army against Kubácha, and appointed Uzbek Páí to command it. Kubácha was encamped with twenty thousand men on the banks of the Sind, at the distance of a parasang from Uchh. Uzbek Páí, at the head of seven thousand men, suddenly falling upon them by night, routed and dispersed them. Ku-bácha embarked on a boat, and fled to Akar and Bakkar,^396b two forts on an island, while Uzbek Páí took up his quarters in Kubácha's camp, captured all those whom he found within its precincts, and sent tidings of the victory to the Sultán, who, marching onwards, arrived at the camp in which the tent of Kubácha was pitched.

Kubácha afterwards, flying from Akar and Bakkar, proceeded to Multán. The Sultán sent an ambassador to him, requiring the surrender of Amír Khán's son and daughter, who had fled from the battle of the Sind, and had taken shelter at Multán. Money was also demanded. Kubácha complied with the requisition, delivered up the son and daughter of Amír Khán, and sent a large sum of money for the use of the Sultán, soliciting that his territory might not be injured.

When the weather became hot, the Sultán left Uchh with the intention of proceeding through Balála and Mankála, to take up his summer-quarters in the mountains of Júd, and on his way laid siege to the fort of Parsrúr,³⁹⁷ where he was wounded in the head by an arrow. When the fort was captured, the whole garrison was put to the sword. He returned from that place, when he received intelligence of the advance of the Mughal armies in pursuit of him, and as his way led him near Multán, he sent an envoy to Kubácha to intimate that the Sultán was passing in that direction, and to demand tribute. Kubácha refused, and assuming an attitude of defiance, advanced to fight him. The standards of the Sultán halted but for a moment, and then departed, returning towards Uchh, which also had revolted against him. The Sultán remained before it two days, and after setting fire to the city, went towards Sadúsán.^397a

Sultán Jalálu-d dín in Sind

Fakhru-d dín Sálárí was governor of Sadúsán on the part of Kubácha, and Láchín of Khitá, who was in command of the army, went out against Amír Khán,^397b the leader of the Sultán's advance guard. Láchín was slain in the action, and Uzbek Khán invested the city of Sadúsán. When the Sultán himself arrived, Fakhru-d dín Sálári presented himself before him in an humble posture, with his sword (round his neck), and clothed in a shroud.³⁹⁸ The Sultán entered the city, and after staying there for one month, he conferred an honorary dress upon Fakhru-d dín Sálárí, and restored to him the governorship of Sadúsán.

The Sultán then went towards Dewal and Darbela, and Jaisí;^398a the ruler of that country, fled away on a ship, and went in the direction of the sea. The Sultán remained near Dewal and Damríla, and sent Khás Khán with an army to pillage Nahr-wála, whence he brought back many captives.

The Sultán raised a jámi' masjid at Dewal, on the spot where an idol temple stood. While he was engaged in these operations, intelligence was received from 'Irák, that Sultán Ghiyásu-d dín had established himself in that province, and that most of the troops who were quartered there were attached to the interests of Sultán Jalálu-d dín, and were anxiously expecting his return. It was also represented, that Burák Hájib was in Kirmán, and had fortified himself in the city of Bardasír. It was also given out that the Mughal army was still in pursuit of the Sultán. He accordingly departed from Dewal and Damríla, and went by way of Makrán, but the climate was so very insalubrious that he lost the greater part of his army.^398b

When Burák Hájib heard of the approach of the Sultán, he sent him many presents, with the expression of his hearty congratulations, and, on the Sultan's arrival, Burák Hájib solicited that he would accept his daughter in marriage. The Sultán acceded to the request, and the marriage was celebrated. The Kotwál also came forth, and presented the keys of his fort, upon which the Sultán entered it, and remained during the night.

* * * * *

Sultán Jalálu-d dín's Allies.

After the lapse of a week, Sultán Jalálu-d dín arrived at Ghazna, where he was joined by many bodies of his adherents, and assumed the pomp and circumstance of a monarch. When Yamín Malik heard, in Hindustán, of the Sultán's arrival at Ghazna, he hastened to meet him. Aghrák Malik, also, with an army of Khiljís and Turkománs, came from Pesháwar to do him homage, and A'zam Malik³⁹⁹ brought a large force of Ghorians to serve under him. In all the troops now at his disposal amounted to twenty thousand cavalry.

The Sultán went with these large reinforcements to Parwán, on the borders of Bámíán, where many roads converge. There he received intelligence that a body of ten or twelve thousand Mughal cavalry had gone in pursuit of him to Ghazna, where, as there was no army to oppose them, they had entered the city before the inhabitants had received intelligence of their approach, had burned several mosques, massacred all the people they found in the lanes and streets, and then continued their pursuit after the Sultán to Parwán, by way of Kaláwaz, staying at Ghazna only one day.^399a

Their Fate, after deserting the Sultán.

In the action which ensued the Sultán was victorious, and the defeated Mughals returned to Changíz Khán in Tálikán; but after the victory strife arose in the Sultán's army, between the Khiljís, Turkománs, and Ghorians on one side, and the Khwárizmians on the other, respecting the division of the horses which had been taken as booty. Aghrák Malik and A'zam Malik went off by way of Pesháwar, with all the Khiljís, Tur-kománs, and Ghorians. The Sultán returned to Ghazna with the Turks and Khwárzimians, who all remained true to him.⁴⁰⁰ Aghrák Malik, A'zam Malik, and the other Khilj, Turkomán, and Ghorian chiefs, went, after first leaving the Sultán, to Nang-nehár, which was in the fief of A'zam Malik. He entertained them all nobly, and treated them with great kindness, until disgust and hatred arose between Aghrák Malik and Koh Jándár, one of the Khilj chiefs, who had five or six thousand families under him.

Aghrák Malik turned his face towards Pesháwar, at the head of twenty thousand men, and Koh Jándár cantoned himself at Nangnehár.^400a When Saifu-d dín Malik had encamped only one march distant from Nangnehár, he sent a messenger to A'zam Malik to say:—“Between us and you there exist the relations of father and son. I am father and you are son. If you desire to gratify me, do not allow Koh Jándár to remain in your territory, nor bestow upon him any tract of land.” A'zam Malik said:—“In this matter it is not expedient that there should be any misunderstanding or wrangling between Musul-máns,” so he went forth with fifty horsemen of his bodyguard to Saifu-d dín Aghrák, in order to effect a reconciliation. Saifu-d dín Aghrák advanced to meet him, and they sat down together to drink. A'zam Malik spoke on the subject of Koh Jándár, and Aghrák Malik pretended to listen to his persuasions. Saifu-d dín Aghrák then rose up suddenly in a state of inebriety, and went towards the camp of Koh Jándár, with a few horsemen. Koh Jándár, under the impression that he had come on a friendly visit, went out with his sons to meet him, and give him an honourable reception, when Aghrák Malik in his drunkenness drew his sword, with the intention of killing Koh, whose attendants seized the assailant and cut him in pieces.

When the news of this event reached the camp of Aghrák Malik, his troops suspected that he had been the victim of a plot between Koh and A'zam Malik. In consequence of which, they seized A'zam Malik and slew him. They then attacked the camp of Koh, and killed him and his sons. Many were slain on both sides, and even the women took part in the fray, and lost their lives.

About this time Pakchak and 'Aláu-l mulk Sadr were despatched by order of Changíz Khán to punish these drunkards. Pakchak was the commandant of these Mughals, and 'Aláu-l mulk of the infantry, and the residue of those armies of Khiljís, Turkománs, and Ghorians were all put to the sword and dispersed, within two or three months after they had deserted Sultán Jalálu-d dín, either in squabbles amongst themselves, or by the armies of Changíz Khán, so that not a vestige of them remained.

* * * * *

Burák Hájib.⁴⁰¹

Burák Hájib having had some dispute with Táju-d dín Karímu-s shark, marched away with his army towards Hin-dustán. In the year 619 H., Ghiyásu-d dín designed to go to Fárs. * * * * When news was received of the arrival of the Mughal army, under Túlúí^401a Khán, Burák Hájib requested Ghiyásu-d dín to allow him to go to Ispahán, but he went with his tribe (Karákhitáí) to Hindustán, by the road of Kirmán.⁴⁰² When he arrived at Júraft and Daryáí, the garrison of the fort of Kawáchír urged Shujá'u-d dín Abú-l na'ím to follow after him, so Shujá'u-d dín plundered his camp, and brought back many Khitáí slaves.

APPENDIX.

NOTE A.

Abú Ríhán al Bírúní has the following statement respecting this dynasty in his lately discovered Arabic work, entitled Táríkhu-l Hind:—

“Kábul was formerly governed by princes of Turk lineage. It is said that they were originally from Tibet. The first of them was named Barhtigín, * * * * and the kingdom continued with his children for sixty generations. * * * * * The last of them was a Katormán, and his minister was Kalar, a Bráhman. This minister was favoured by fortune, and he found in the earth treasures which augmented his power. Fortune at the same time turned her back upon his master. The Katormán's thoughts and actions were evil, so that many complaints reached the minister, who loaded him with chains, and imprisoned him for his correction. In the end the minister yielded to the temptation of becoming sole master, and he had wealth sufficient to remove all obstacles. So he established himself on the throne. After him reigned the Bráhman(s) Samand, then Kamlúa, then Bhím, then Jaipál, then Anandpál, then Narda-janpál, who was killed in A.H. 412. His son, Bhímpál, succeeded him, after the lapse of five years, and under him the sovereignty of Hind became extinct, and no descendant remained to light a fire on the hearth. These princes, notwithstanding the extent of their dominions, were endowed with excellent qualities, faithful to their engagements, and gracious towards their inferiors. The letter which Anandpál wrote to Amír Mahmúd, at the time enmity existed between them, is much to be admired. ‘I have heard that the Turks have invaded your dominions, and have spread over Khurásán; if you desire it, I will join you with 5,000 cavalry, 10,000 infantry, and 100 elephants, but if you prefer it, I will send my son with twice the number. In making this proposal, I do not wish to ingratiate myself with you. Though I have vanquished you, I do not desire that any one else but myself should obtain the ascendancy.’ This prince was a determined enemy of the Musulmáns from the time that his son, Nardajanpál, was taken prisoner; but his son was, on the contrary, well-disposed towards them.”

The publication of this extract by M. Reinaud has excited considerable discussion, and has given rise to some ingenious remarks and comments by those interested in this period of history, in which we have a series of names recorded, which add nearly a century to the barren annals of India previous to the Muhammadan conquest. A paper by Mr. E. Thomas, of the Bengal Civil Service, published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. IX. p. 177, is especially valuable, as in it he has endeavoured to trace the names of these particular kings upon a series of coins denominated Rájpút, of the bull and horseman type, and hitherto doubtfully ascribed to periods extending from A.D. 1000 to 1200. I shall avail myself freely of his remarks, though I am not prepared to coincide in his conclusions, for taking into consideration the difficulty of identifying Hindí names in Arabic manuscripts, in which ignorance and carelessness give rise to every imaginable kind of error, he has endeavoured to correct the Arabic from the unquestionable record of the coins themselves, which have hitherto existed without the ascription of a kingdom and a date, and “instead of applying coins to kings, to apply the kings to their own coins.” It may easily be supposed that this principle gives too great a license to speculation, and it will appear in the sequel that very few of the attempted identifications can be admitted without question.

Before we examine these names in detail, it will be necessary to make a few general remarks on the subject of these Turks, and especially respecting Kanak, the most celebrated of them.

First of all, it admits of great question what particular position in the series of Kábul Turkish kings this Kanak occupied. M. Reinaud both in his translation of Al Bírúní in Fragments Arabes, and his Mémoire sur l'Inde, considers him to be the great Kanika or Kanishka of the Buddhists, and it is respecting this Kanak that the anecdote is related which will be found in this work, Vol. II. p. 10. Mr. Thomas, trusting to translations or abstracts of Al Bírúní, makes Kanak the last of the Turkish kings, and the immediate predecessor of the Brahmin Samand; but as the existence of the great Kanak who opposed the Ráí of Kanauj is not to be disputed, he must consider that the last of the Turks was a second Kanak.

This point requires further consideration, and we must consider what our several authorities say concerning it. The passage in the first line of the extract which I have translated thus, “The last of them was a Katormán,” is in the original Arabic of Al Birúní—

which M. Reinaud translates, “The last of them (the Turks) was Laktouzemán,” which is certainly correct, provided the reading is admitted to be so; but Mr. Thomas, after examining various copies of the Jámi'u-t tawáríkh and Binákití—the former of which is a translation, and the latter an abridgement of Al Bírúní's account, finds great reason to dispute it, and leans altogether to another interpretation. He finds the following in an excellent Arabic version of the Jámi', in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society—

“and Kanak returned to his country, and he was the last of the Katormán kings.”

The corresponding passage in the Persian Jámi' in the British Museum is—

Binákití has the following—

“and after him was Kanak, and he was the last of the Katormán kings.”

All the copies of Binákití which I have seen concur in this reading, and of three several copies of the Persian Jámi'u-t tawáríkh which I have examined, two are in conformity with the extract given above, with the exception of reading Katoriyán for Katormán, and a third has—

“after Básdeo from among their rulers (i.e., of the Indians), one was Kanak, and he was the last of the Kayormán kings.”

The omission of all notice of the Kábul Turkish dynasty, and the making Kanak succeed Básdeo, and the Brahmans succeed Kanak, without any notice or allusion to there being intermediate kings, is a culpable omission on the part of Rashídu-d dín and Binákití. The making Kanak the last of the Turkish dynasty does not seem authorized by the only original of Al Bírúní's Táríkhu-l Hind which we possess, and Rashídu-d dín must have had other copies or other works to have authorized him to make this statement. M. Reinaud (Mem. 30) considers that he has used some other work of Al Bírúní's which has not come down to us, but this may reasonably be doubted.

M. Reinaud altogether ignores these readings of the manuscripts consulted by Mr. Thomas, and merely observes upon them, “On a vu ci-devant, que le vizir de Perse Raschid-eddin, avait, dans son Historie des Mongols, mis à contribution un écrit d'Albyrouny autre que celui-ci, et que ne nous est point parvenu. Malheureuse-ment, les manuscripts de l'ouvrage de Raschid-ed din diffèrent entre eux: au lieu de Laktouzeman, ils portent Katourman, et on ne distingue pas bien s'il s'agit là d'un prince ou d'un pays.” Notwithstanding this, I have been given to understand by those who have seen the original manuscript of the Táríkhu-l Hind, that even that bears a closer resemblance to Katourman than Laktouzeman.⁴⁰⁶ Taking all circumstances into consideration, I am disposed to get rid of the name of Laktouzeman from the Táríkhu-l Hind, and to substitute for it, by two slight changes in the original, al Katormán, which represents the name of a tribe, or prince of that tribe, as well as the name of the country in which that tribe resided. I have therefore translated the disputed line, “The last of them was a Katormán.”

Let us now enter upon some of the considerations which this name suggests.

The Katormáns, or Kators, have hitherto been better known to modern than ancient history. We are informed that it was the name of one of the tribes of Káfiristán,⁴⁰⁷ and that the ruler of Chitral to this day bears the title of Sháh Kator,^407a and I have heard the same designation given to the chief of Gilgit. The country of Kator is also spoken of by Sádik Isfaháni, as being the country of the Siyáh-poshes, or black-vested, on the borders of Kábul.^407b

These Kators boast still of their Grecian lineage, and their claim to this honour is by no means, as many have supposed, of modern origin, attributable to our own enquiries after the descendants of the followers of the Macedonian conqueror.^407c

We find at the period of Timur's invasion of India, the Katorians making themselves conspicuous for their opposition to that monarch. After leaving Inderáb he entered their difficult country by way of Kháwah, and after an expedition of eighteen days reduced them to submission. As we thus have proof that this country and people were called by the name of Kator at so early a period, it seems probable that the Kators whom we read of in Abú-l Fazl Baihakí are no other than the descendants of the dynasty we have been considering, and that the Ghaznivide sovereigns organized them among their troops, as we know from the Táríkh-i Yamíní that Mahmúd was in the practice of doing with conquered nations, as exemplified in his treatment of the Khiljís, Afgháns, and Indians. It is evident from the extracts given in this work from the Tabakát-i Akbarí and the Táríkh-i Mas'údí, that a body of Kator troops was kept in pay, and that the Tilak mentioned therein was the commander of these foreign troops, which were rated as Indian, he being in one passage spoken of as commander of the Indians, in another of the Kator troops. It opens a very interesting subject of investigation to enquire if these Kators have no memorials of themselves in India. The identity of name and the period of the establishment of the Kators in Kumáún appear to render it probable that we have in them the descendants of those Kators who fought under the banners of the first Muhammadan conquerors.

A curious coincidence of names seems worth noticing in this place. It will be observed that Al Birúní makes the Turk kings of Kábul come from the mountains of Tibet, and Grecian and Chinese authors concur in saying that in the first years of the Christian era the valley of the Indus and some of the neighbouring countries were occupied by a race from Tartary. Ptolemy, Dionysius, and the author of the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea, give to the country watered by the Lower Indus the name of Indo-Scythia, and Ptolemy applies the same name to a country at the bottom of the Gulf of Cambay. The Chinese writers inform us that a people of Tatar race named Yue-chi or Yue-tchi crossed the Hindú-kush, and established themselves in Afghánistán. Fa-Hian speaks of these barbarians having occupied, long before his visit to India, the province of Pesháwar.

De Guignes has informed us, after Chinese authors, that the nomade race of Yue-tchi, being driven about the year 160 before Christ from its original seat in the western provinces of China, by another race called Hioung-non, established themselves in Transoxiana, and spread over the countries in that neighbourhood. Abel-Rémusat and Klaproth have also furnished us with further particulars from the same sources. We learn that the Yue-tchi took part in the struggle which took place between the Greek princes of Bactria and the Arsacidan monarchs of Persia, and that they contributed to the downfall of the former. A few years before Christ, the Yue-tchi chief, named Khieou-tsieou-hy, after subjugating the other independent rulers of his own tribe, proclaimed himself king, and conquered the countries situated between the Oxus, Hindú-kush and Little Tibet. His successor, Yan-kao-tchin, penetrated as far as India.

Some time after, the monarch of the Yue-tchi, whom the Chinese call Ki-to-lo, which Klaproth has converted into Ghidor, descended to the south of the Hindú-kush “in following the valley of the Indus” (?), and invaded India on the north. Among other regions he reduced the province of Pesháwar; but being himself compelled to return westward, left the government of the conquered country to his son.⁴⁰⁹ M. Reinaud is of opinion^409a that it is to this Ki-to-lo that Fa-Hian alludes, when he says, “Formerly the king of the Yue-tchi, levied a powerful army, and came to attack the country he was anxious to obtain.”

The conquerors, who remained in the valley of Kábul, received the name of the “Little Yue-tchi,” while the mass of the nation was designated the “Great Yue-tchi.” In these Little Yue-tchi we have the ancestors of our modern Játs, a subject which I may, perhaps, discuss at further length hereafter.

It is impossible not to be struck here with the coincidence of the name of Ki-to-lo with Kitor or Kator, the l and the r being as usual convertible. Here we seem to have the origin of the name Kitor, the establishment of a prince of that name between Kábul and the Hindú-kush, on the very site of the modern Káfiristán, or land of Siyáh-poshes and the country of Kitor, according to the authorities given above. It is probable that we are to look to one of his descendants for the Katormán, who was the last of the Turkish dynasty; and these united considerations have combined to induce me to adopt the readings to which I have given the preference above.

It is to be observed that Al Birúní asserts the Turkish dynasty of Kábul to have lasted for sixty generations; but we are not to suppose that the crown continued in the same family or tribe, but that they were members of the great Turkish stem of nations, which conveys no more definite notion than the Scythians of the ancients, or the Tartars of the moderns. There may have been Turks of other tribes who ruled in the kingdom, who, whether Sakas, Turushkas, Durárís, Yue-tchis, or Kators, would still be classed under the generic designation of Turks, as the last of the Turks appears to have reigned about A.D. 850. If we allow fourteen years as the average duration of their reigns, we shall find the period of the conquest occurring about the first year of the era of Our Saviour; and if we allow sixteen years as the average duration, we shall exactly bring it to the period of the downfall of the Greco-Bactrian Empire in 125 before Christ.

Here, then, there is reason to suppose that the first monarch of the Turkish dynasty must have been the subverter of the Grecian Empire in the East. He is called by Al Birúní “Barhtigín;” tigín being a common Turkish affix, signifying “the brave,” as Alp-tigín, Subuk-tigín. M. Reinaud conjectures that Barh or Barha answers, probably, to the word pharahatassa, which Lassen and Wilson have read on certain Greco-Barbarian coins, and to be the same name which the Greeks have converted into Phraates and Phraoites.⁴¹⁰ Al Bírúní informs us that the names of these princes were recorded on a piece of silk, which was found in the fort of Nagarkot, when it was taken by the Muhammadans; but that circumstances prevented his fulfilling his anxious desire to examine it.

Al Bírúní mentions that Kanak was of the number of these kings, and that he founded the Vihár, or Buddhist monastery at Pesháwar, called after his name even in Al Bírúní's time, and which, probably, occupied the site of the present conspicuous building, called the Gor-khattrí, at the eastern entrance of that town. The romantic anecdote which he relates of him, and which, probably, has little foundation in truth, will be found among the extracts translated from the Táríkhu-l Hind, in this volume.

M. Reinaud considers this Kanak to have reigned a little prior to the commencement of our era, and to be the same as the Kanika or Nika of Fa-Hian; the Kanishka of Hiuen-thsang and the Rájá-taranginí and the Kanerkes of the Greco-Barbarian coins; and General A. Cunningham has formed the same opinion independently with reference to the two first identifications, considering the same monarch to be the Kanika of the Chinese, and the Kanaksen from whom many Rájpút families trace their lineage.^410a

According to Hiuen-thsang, Kanika or Kanishka reigned over the whole valley of Kábul, the province of Pesháwar, the Panjáb, and Kashmír. He crossed the Hindú-kush and Himalaya, and subjected Tukháristán and Little Tibet. He received the title of the Lord of Jambu-dwípa, which is equivalent to “The Paramount of all India.” He was a long time a stranger to the dogmas of Buddhism, and despised the law; until, by chance, he was converted to that faith, and became one of its most zealous disciples and promoters.

The same Chinese author states that he reigned four hundred years after the death of Buddha, which, as it occurred 544 years before our era, would bring it to more than a century before Christ; but as he expresses his dates in round numbers, we cannot rely much upon his precision. We may with more probability look for it a century later, if, at least, he be the same as Kanerkes, for among the coins and other objects bearing his name, which were found in the tope of Manikyála, and which would appear to indicate that that monument was constructed under the reign of that prince, certain Roman medals were also found of the period of Octavius and Antony extending to as low as 33 B.C.⁴¹¹

The Yue-tchi evidently established themselves in Kábul subsequent to the reign of Kanishka, and probably not long after, for Fa-Hian, about the year 400 A.D., speaks of their occupation of that valley, as if it were a transaction of no recent date. If we assign to Ki-to-lo the date of A.D. 200, we shall have nearly seven hundred years from the first to the last of the Katormán dynasty, during which, probably, other families and other tribes may have intermediately occupied the throne, without entirely subverting the right of the Yue-tchi conquerors of the valley.

The statement of Al Bírúní, respecting the occupation of Kábul by the Turks, is in strict conformity with Biládurí and Tabarí, and with the brief notices which the other early Arabic historians and geographers have given us respecting that city. They couple it, however, with the curious announcement of an occupation divided between the dominant Turks and subject Hindús. Mr. E. Thomas has considered this subject at considerable length in another excellent paper by him, on the Coins of the Ghaznivides.⁴¹²

The first in order is Mas'údí, who visited tbe valley of the Indus in 303 A.H.= 915 A.D. He says nothing of the political and religious revolution which we have been considering, by which Brahmans had been substituted for Buddhist Turks. On the contrary, he designates the prince who reigned at Kábul by the same title as he held when the Arabs penetrated for the first time into those regions.

Istahkrí, who wrote within six years after Mas'údí travelled in India, says:—

“Kábul has a castle celebrated for its strength, accessible only by one road. In it there are Musulmáns, and it has a town, in which are infidels from Hind.”

Ibn Haukal began his travels in 331 A.H. = 942 A.D., and wrote an account of them thirty-five years later. He follows his predecessor implicitly in the main points, but respecting the occupants of the town, the Bodleian copy varies^412a from the Lucknow one, which bears the name of Ashkálu-l Bilád. In the former, “Hindú infidels” is converted into “Infidels and Jews.” The latter reads:—

The statement of Al Bírúní, in his Kánún-i Ma'súdí, written less than a century after this, is:—

Here there is no specification respecting the different occupancy of the castle and town, but nothing to impugn the correctness of what is asserted by Istakhrí and Ibn Haukal. There is no occasion to quote any of the later geographers, who add nothing to our information, and are careless as well as confused in their statements.

Before concluding this subject of the Turkish occupation of Kábul, the statement of Ibn Khallikán should be noticed, who states in his article on “Ya'kúb bin Lais,” that Kábul, in the times of that prince, was inhabited by a Turkish race who appertained to a tribe called Durárí. This name is new, and the assertion would authorise us to conclude that in his time the Turks were still predominant, though that fact would scarcely seem consistent with what we shall have to advance under Kamlúa. It is possible that the term Durárí may have connection with Darra, a hill pass, and that allusion may be to the country to the north of Kábul, just in the same way as in modern times the inhabitants of those same tracts are styled in Kábul “Kohistánís,” or hill-men.

It does not appear when the city was either first or finally subdued by the Muhammadans. It is evident, however, that the first inroads were not followed by permanent occupation, and that there was no entire subversion of the native dynasty till the Ghaznivide dynasty rose to power.

The first invasion we read of was in the time of 'Abdu-llah, governor of 'Irák, on the part of the Khalif 'Usmán. He was directed by the Khalif to send an emissary to explore the provinces of Hind; and notwithstanding a discouraging report, 'Abdu-lla ordered the country of Sijistán to be invaded by one of his cousins, 'Abdu-r Rahman, son of Samra. 'Abdu-r Rahmán advanced to the city of Zaranj, and besieged the Marzabán, or Persian governor, in his palace, on the festival of the 'Íd. The governor solicited peace, and submitted to pay a tribute of two millions of dirhams and two thousand slaves. After that, 'Abdu-r Rahmán subdued the country between Zaranj and Kish, which was then styled Indian territory, and the tract between Ar-Rukhaj (Arachosia) and the province of Dáwar—in which latter country he attacked the idolaters in the mountain of Zúr, who sued for peace; and though he had with him 8,000 men, the booty acquired dnring this incursion was so great, that each man received four thousand pieces of silver as his share. Their idol of Zúr was of gold, and its eyes were two rubies. The zealous Musulmáns cut off its hand and plucked out its eyes, and then remarked to the Marzabán how powerless was his idol “to do either good or evil.” In the same expedition, Bust was taken. After this, 'Abdu-r Rahmán advanced to Zábul, and afterwards, in the time of Mu'áwiya, to Kábul.⁴¹⁴ The year in which this inroad was made is not mentioned, but as 'Abd-ulla was removed from his government in 36 A.H., we may consider it to have taken place about the year 35.

In the year 44 A.H. Muhallab ibn Abú Sufra, whose army chiefly consisted of the tribe of Azd, which was very powerful in Khurásán, and contributed largely to the downfall of the Ummayides—advanced on the Indian frontier as far as Banna (Banú) and Alahwáz [or “Alahwár”=Lahore?] two places situated between Kábul and Multán. Firishta makes him penetrate as far as Multán, and opens his history by saying he was the first chieftain who spread the banners of the true faith on the plains of Hind. He says he plundered the country and brought back to the head-quarters of the army at Khurásán many prisoners who were compelled to become converts to the faith Muhallab had been detached from the main army which had invaded Kábul from Merv, under 'Abdu-r Rahmán bin Shimar, and had made converts of twelve thousand persons. Muhallab subsequently made himself conspicuous as governor of Alahwár, and exterminator of the Azrakian insurgents, and as a traitor to his master, 'Abdu-llah ibn Zubair, the Khalif of Mecca. He was the ancestor of those chiefs, who, under the name of Muhallabís, often occur in the history of the later members of the Ummaya family, until they were nearly exterminated at Kandábíl in 101 H.⁴¹⁵ Gildemeister doubts the truth of this expedition, as Sijistán had not yet been conquered; but he forgets that the Musulmáns did not penetrate to India through Sijistán, but through Kábul.

In Biládurí's account of this interesting expedition, there is a curious relation which must not be altogether omitted. He informs us that in the country of Kíkán, Muhallab encountered eighteen Turks, mounted on horses with their tails cut. As they were all killed fighting, Muhallab attributed the activity and valour of “the barbarians” to the fact of their horses' tails being cut. “Upon which he ordered his own horses' tails to be docked; and he was the first amongst the Musulmáns who adopted the practice.”^415a

About the same time, 'Abbád, the son of Ziyád, made an incursion on the frontier of India, by way of Sijistán. He went through Rúdbár to the Hindmand (Helmand), and after staying at Kish, he crossed the desert, and reached Kandahár. Although the country was conquered, many Musulmáns lost their lives in this expedition.^415b

Biládurí informs us that under the Khiláfat of Mu'áwiya, 'Abdu-r Rahmán, son of Samrah, penetrated to the city of Kábul, and obtained possession of it after a month's siege. He conquered also the circumjacent countries, especially Ar-Rukhaj (Arachosia). The king of Kábul made an appeal to the warriors of India, and the Musulmáns were driven out of Kábul. He recovered all the other conquered countries, and advanced as far as Bust, but on the approach of another Musulmán army, he submitted, and engaged to pay an annual tribute.⁴¹⁶

The Kábulís subsequently profited by the contests which distracted the Khiláfat, and the tribute was withheld; but in 64 A.H. = 683-4 A.D. 'Abdu-l 'aziz, the governor of Sístán, declared war against the king of Kábul, and in the combat which took place, that king was defeated and killed. The war continued under his successor, and he was compelled to submit to the payment of tribute, but whenever opportunity offered, renewed efforts were made by the Kábulís to recover their lost independence.^416a

Amongst the earliest attempts against Kábul may be noticed that of 'Abdu-llah, governor of Sístán, in 78 A.H.=697-8 A.D., or according to some, in the following year. When he arrived at Nímroz, Hajjáj desired him not to linger in Sístán, but to march without delay towards Kábul to enforce the payment of the tribute from Ranbal, to which that chief had agreed; and ordered him peremptorily not to return until he had subjugated the whole province. Ranbal retiring before his assailant, detached troops to their rear and blocking up the defiles, entirely intercepted their retreat, and in this situation exposed to the danger of perishing by famine, 'Abdu-llah was compelled to purchase the liberation of himself and followers for a ransom of seven hundred thousand dirhams.^416b

To wipe out the disgrace which the Muhammadan arms had sustained, 'Abdu-r Rahmán bin Muhammad bin Asha's, was despatched to Kábul by the famous Hajjáj in 81 A.H.=700-1 A.D.;^416c or in the preceding year, according to some authors, he was sent at the head of forty thousand men into Sístán, and having there united to his own troops the troops of the province, marched without delay against the prince of Kábul. 'Abdu-r Rahmán returned to Sístán laden with booty, but incurred the displeasure of Hajjáj by not remaining to secure his conquest. Exasperated by a threat of supersession, he determined to carry his arms against his master, and, in order to strengthen his power, concluded a treaty with the enemies of his faith, in which it was stipulated that if his expedition should be attended with success, Ranbal should be absolved from every species of tribute, provided the latter should agree to afford him an asylum in the event of failure. After many vicissitudes of fortune, 'Abdu-r Rahmán was at last compelled to seek the protection of his ally, who, after treating him for some time with kindness and hospitality, was at last seduced by the promises or by the threats of Hajjáj to deliver up his guest. 'Abdu-r Rahmán frustrated the vindictive designs of his enemy by throwing himself down from a precipice while he was on his way—A.H. 84.⁴¹⁷

The interest which this contest excited throughout the Khiláfat seems to have invested the Prince of Kábul with a fictitious celebrity, insomuch that he is the hero of many Arab stories of the holy wars on the frontiers of Hind. Nevertheless there is no certainty as to the proper mode of spelling the name. The various readings of the European authors who have noticed him show how little the orthography is settled. Ockley^417a calls him “Zentil;” Weil,^417b “Zenbil;” Reinaud,^417c “Ratbyl” and “Zenbyl.” Wilson,^417d “Rateil, Ratpeil, Ratbal, Rantal, Zantíl—variations easily accounted for by the nature of the Persian letters.” E. Thomas,^417e “Ratpíl;” Price,^417f “Reteil,” “Ratteil,” or “Retpeil.”^417g

Price observes that the name bespeaks him to be either a Tartar or Hindú, and that the real name might perhaps have been Vittel, still common among the Hindus. Wilson considers it as a genuine Indian appellation; Ratná-pála or Rutun-pál.^417h

Mas'údí, in his chapter in the Murúj, which is consecrated to the kings of Syria, makes mention of a prince who reigned in the valley of the Indus, and who after having subjugated Eastern Persia, advanced to the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. The name of this prince was Ranbal, under one of its various modifications, and he adds that the name formed in his time the designation of the indigenous princes of the country, and he calls the Buddhist princes of Kábul by this epithet, which he makes common to all. In this he is borne out by Tabarí, and M. Reinaud is induced therefore to consider the word significative.⁴¹⁸ But it is not improbable that this assertion arises from the ignorance of the Muhammadans, and that they were ready to apply all the stories relating to the border chiefs of India to that one who had obtained the greatest notoriety with historians by his transactions with the generals of the Khiláfat, just as the Hadíka Sanáî speaks of Jaipál being the king of India in the time of Bahrám, and Hátifí speaks of Rái Pithaurá as the same even in the time of Timúr.

The Jámi'u-l Hikáyát ascribes the name to a contemporary of Ya'kúb Lais, which would make him one hundred and sixty years later than the invader of Syria, a long time for a title to have remained attached to a succession of petty chiefs. Moreover, at one time we find him ruler in Sind, at another in Kábul, though at the period spoken of those countries were not united under one dominion.

Khákí Shírází says:—“In the year twenty-two the province of Sijistán was conquered for 'Umar-bin Khattáb, by the hands of 'Amru bin al Tamímí; and in the same year Makrán was subdued by Abdu-llah bin 'Abdu-llah Anán, who marched against it from Kirmán. The ruler of that province, whose name in the language of the country was Zambíl, was also ruler of Sind, and was killed.”

In the opening of the history of Mas'úd the Ghaznivide, by Abú-l Fazl Baihakí, reference is made to the Palace of Ranbal, where it certainly seems to apply to an individual rather than a class.^418a

The Ranbal of whom we have been speaking as the opponent, ally, protector, and betrayer of 'Abdu-r Rahmán, must have been one of the Turkish dynasty of Kábul, of the Buddhist persuasion. We find, from the Arabic histories of the period, that some of his relatives still held dominion in Transoxiana, though the relationship was probably rather that of tribe than family. If the family had been Hindú rather than Turkish, Ran-bal, “strong in battle,” would have been sufficiently significative to render that the most likely reading of this disputed name. The probable prevalence, however, of the language of the Hindús in these parts might still have encouraged the use of the terms, notwithstanding that the Brahmans had not yet attained their supremacy.

In 107 A.H.=725-6 A.D., under the Khiláfat of Hashám, part of the dominions of Kábul was taken, but the capture of the town itself is not noticed.⁴¹⁹

The lieutenants of the Khalifs Al Mahdí and Ar Rashíd took tribute from the Ranbal of Sijistán, proportioned to the strength or weakness of that prince, and named governors to the countries where Islám prevailed—A.H. 158-193=A.D. 775-809. When Al Mámún was made governor of Khurásán, he demanded double tribute. He took Kábul, and the king submitted, and professed Islám. An agent on the part of Mámún resided in that city, and a post was established which enabled Al Mámún to procure from it fresh myrobalans.^419a

After this we read nothing of Kábul till the time of the Saffárides —A.H. 256=A.D. 868-9.^419b In the succeeding year^419c Ya'kúb Lais took Kábul, and made its prince a prisoner. The king of Ar Rukhaj was put to death, and its inhabitants forced to embrace Islám. Ya'kúb returned to his capital loaded with booty, and carrying with him the heads of three kings; and many statues of Indian divinities, which were amongst the booty, were sent to Baghdád for presentation to the Khalif.^419d

This Muhammadan conquest appears to have been more durable than the preceding ones, for we find coins of Ya'kúb struck at Panjshír, to the north-east of Kábul, in the years 260 and 261 H.⁴²⁰

By referring to the passages given above from the geographers, we shall learn the state of the occupancy of Kábul from the time of the Saffárides to that of the Ghaznivides, which commenced as early as the time of Alptigín, according to the statement of Abú-l Fazl, and it is probably to his time that the story related by Al-Birúní refers, where he states that when the Espehbed, or general-in-chief, had the gates of Kábul opened to him, the inhabitants imposed upon him the condition not to eat cow's flesh or indulge in unnatural crimes.^420a Neither condition is strictly observed by the modern occupants.

We will now proceed to examine more particularly the attempted identification of the several names of this series of Kábul kings:—

Barhtigín has been already sufficiently remarked upon.

Kanak—Katormán.—Both these names have also been the subject of extended remarks. It will be observed that all the authorities quoted above from the original, make Kanak the last of the Turks, excepting only the Táríkhu-l Hind, which makes him only one, and the most famous one of the middle series of the Turkish kings for sixty generations. Allowing that Kanak is Kanishka, for which ample ground has already been advanced, this becomes impossible, and we must fall back upon the better authority of the Táríkhu-l Hind, and consider the Katormán or Laktúzamán as the last. In the more modern narratives of Rashídu-d dín and Binákití we must place a full stop after “Kanak returned to his country.” Then proceed, “the last of the kings was the Katormán.” This requires no violent alteration of the text. Indeed the mere omission of from the Arabic, and from the Persian reconciles everything, and this last omission is actually made in the British Museum MS.

The writers themselves knew little of the state of the case, and wished merely to translate Al Bírúní, who knew well enough what he was writing. For instance, Binákití wishing to reduce the narrative of the Jámi', makes it appear that Ujen was the predecessor of Kanak. Haidar Rází, again, among the names of the illustrious kings of India who succeeded Basdeo (here meant not for him of Kanauj, but the great Krishna) mentions Arjun and Jasand (the former being manifestly the famous hero of the Mahá-bháráta, and the latter Jarásandha), and “after him came Kanak, Chand.” This, thorough indifference to correct chronology, enables us to see that by Ujen is meant Arjun, the senior of Kanak by several centuries. Mr. Thomas is persuaded that to this Kanak, the last of the Turks, are to be ascribed the coins which bear the name of Sri Vanka Deva “of the elephant-and-lion type of coin, which preceded the bull-and-horseman money introduced by the Brahmans. The similitude of names and the needful correspondence of all available evidence are surely sufficient to authorise our indicating Vanka Deva” as the Kanak above mentioned. This is by no means admissible, and he has himself since found that the real reading on the coin is “Varka,” and has, consequently, altogether abandoned this speculation.⁴²¹

Kalar “is, we have little doubt, the Syálapati of our coins. There is less difference in sound between Syála and Kalar than would at first be imagined; so that if our translator, Al Bírúní, wrote his Arabic version from oral tradition, this slight change in the initial pronunciation of the name would be fairly probable.” This is carrying speculation to an extreme, and there is no warrant whatever for the presumed identification.

It is to be observed that the Jámi'u-t Tawáríkh and its followers omit all notice of Kalar, making Sámand the immediate successor of Kanak.

The Syála or Syál-pati ( in Greek), of whom so many coins are found in Afghánistán, was probably a leader, and, perhaps, even the progenitor of the Syál Játs of Jhang Syál and other localities in the Panjáb.

Samand.—Coins of Samanta, or Samanta Deva, are found in great profusion not only in Afghánistán, but throughout the Panjáb and the whole of Northern India, and one has even been found in the province of Posen.⁴²² Mr. Thomas is of opinion that this is owing to his having called in the coins of his Buddhist predecessors, in order to give prevalence to his own creed of Brahmanism by the substitution of the bull-and-horseman type for that of the elephant-and-lion, which is considered emblematic of Buddhism;^422a but this supposition seems defeated by the fact of our finding Samanta coins with the elephant also upon them. The name of this reviver of the old faith became so celebrated, that we find it upon the coins of his successors, extending even down to the Muhammadan conquest of Dehli, in 1192 A.D., and the coins of Ráí Pithaurá.

Professor Wilson attributed these coins to a Rájpút prince, who lived many years afterwards. M. Reinaud never hesitated to recognize in these medals the name of the king of Kábul, and his opinion was confirmed by the examination which M. Adrien de Longpérier made of them.^422b

It may be considered presumption to oppose such an array of authority in favour of this identification, but, nevertheless, I hesitate to concur in it without more cogent arguments than those that have yet been adduced. Putting aside the improbability that one man's name should be stamped on a series of coins, extending through more than two centuries, sometimes in supercession, and sometimes in conjunction with, that of the reigning monarch—and that, too, even in the case of the later Ghaznivides—there seems so obvious a solution of this continuance of a single name, that it requires far less boldness to adopt this simple explanation, than to seek grounds for establishing a position which, from its many improbabilities, is always open to question. It may, perhaps, be admitted that the coins which bear the simple name of Srí Samant Deva are to be referred to the Sámand of Abú Ríhán; but even that admission is open to objection, there being a double mis-spelling in the name, for in the former we have a short a instead of a broad one, and a t instead of a d.⁴²³

It appears to me, then, that Samanta, whenever it is found with another name, is throughout merely a title, meaning the warrior, the hero, the preux chevalier, the leader of an army, the Amír; and that after being used concurrently with Srí Hamír on the later Ghaznivide coins, it was by the early Ghorian monarchs altogether displaced by that more appropriate title.

At this latter period the prevalence of the title of Samant is obvious from its frequent use by the bard Chand, who has celebrated the exploits of Ráí Pithaurá, and his three hundred Samants, or stalwart knights.

Kamlúa.—Mr. Thomas wishes to appropriate to this monarch a medal bearing the legend of Khvadavayaka or Khedavayaka, while he confesses that even to liberal ears these names are not quite accordant in sound. He then seeks to justify the appropriation by mutations, blots, or intermixture of letters.^423a We must reject this, it being not worthy of the least credit; and the discovery of the name of Kamlúa in another history sets the question at rest, and establishes the correctness of Al Bírúní.

This discovery is in other respects important, as enabling us to fix a synchronism by which we may conjecture the periods of the other monarchs of this dynasty. In one of the stories translated from the Jámi'u-l Hikáyát,^423b it will be found that he was a contemporary of 'Amrú Lais, who reigned between 265-287 A.H.=878-900 A.D. Kamlúa is there called the Ráí of Hindústán, and he must have ruled sometime within this period.

If we admit that these names represent a continuous series of successive monarchs, and not rather those who alone were conspicuous, we shall have to place the commencement of Kamlúa's reign as late as possible within the twenty-two years above-named. For we must connect it with another synchronism which we obtain from the same Jámi'u-l Hikáyát, wherein we learn that Mahmúd was only fourteen years old when the defeat of Jaipál occurred near the miraculous fountain, which—as he died in A.H. 421,⁴²⁴ when he was sixty-three years old—reduces that date to 372 A.H., or 982-3 A.D., fifteen years before the death of Subuktigín.

Jaipál died in 1002 A.D., and it is evident from the statement in the Táríkh-i Yamíní, that he was then a very old man. He had opposed Subuktigín, while yet that warrior was only general of Alptigín, and therefore before 976 A.D., making his reign at least a quarter of a century. If we assume that Kamlúa's reign commenced in 890 A.D., being about the middle of that of 'Amrú Lais, we shall have to divide the period extending from 890 to 1002 A.D., between the reigns of Kamlúa, Bhím and Jaipál, being an average of thirty-seven years for each, which seems much too long. But as there is no disputing the dates, we must admit the long duration of 112 years for only three reigns, or admit that the names of unimportant monarchs have been omitted; just as in the case of the Turkish series, of which only Kanak is mentioned, between the first and last of the dynasty.

In the same way, between Kalar and Sámand, and Sámand and Kamlúa—there may have been other omissions, and even long interregna of Muhammadan supremacy; and we may thus throw back the period of the Brahmanical revolution to an earlier date than has yet been conjectured. It must be confessed this would relieve us of some difficulties, and enable us to dispose of other names of this series, of which we have incidental notice elsewhere: as, for instance, in the Sairu-l Mulúk, where we meet with the name of Lomak.

Syála, Khedavayaka, Varka, and even Ranbal may have been individuals of the Kábul series, either Turk or Hindú, though not honoured with distinct mention by Abú Ríhán. Numismatists, indeed, are now so certain that these coins do belong to the Kábul series, and trace with such confidence the relative antiquity of each extant medal from the difference in devices and execution, that we may readily concede the point to such able and experienced enquirers. All that is required is that there should be no unnatural forcing to suit preconceived theories.

Mr. Thomas has conjectured on other grounds that the accession of Sámand occurred in 935 A.D.,⁴²⁵ but his computation does not rest on any such specific dates as the two mentioned above, and he considers that, under any circumstances, it is imperfect, and that “the utmost the materials at our command enable us to assert with any degree of certainty is that Syála's usurpation took place early in the tenth century;” but even this certainty is dispelled by the establishment of the fact that Kamlúa was, unquestionably, a contemporary of 'Amrú Lais. Altogether, we may consider the subversion of the Turk by the Brahman dynasty to have occurred about 850 A.D., shortly before its capture by Ya'kub Lais; and as it appears from the Arab geographers that Musulmáns held the castle, it is evident that the Brahmans were only occasionally dominant, and did not hold their power without long and frequent interruptions.

Bhím.—The coins of Bhím are found in Kábulistán, but are seldom, if ever, met with in India. There is no reason to doubt that this is the same Bhím as the Srí Bhím Deva of the bull-and-horseman series, and this is the only one of which the identification can be admitted without question.

M. Reinaud considers that this Bhím is the one mentioned by 'Utbí and Firishta as the founder of Nagarkot;^425a but there is more reason to believe the hero of the Mahá-bhárata to be the one indicated.

Jaipál I.—It is strange that no coins of Jaipál are found. Firishta calls him the son of Ishtpál,^425b and distinctly avers that he was a Brahman, and Bírúní also includes him in that dynasty; but the introduction of the term Pál, which is now continued to the close of the dynasty, might incline us to suppose that a new family had commenced. This seems in other respects not improbable, for in the opening of the Táríkh-i Yamíní we find Jaipál's western border extended no further than Lamghán, Kábul being already in possession of Subuktigín. It seems probable, therefore, that the succession of the real Kábul sovereigns ceased with Bhím, and that the king of Northern India succeeded to the paramount sovereignty which, as far as the Muhammadans were concerned, had hitherto been held by the ruler of Kábul. It is a mistake to suppose that Jaipál was king of Dehli. It does not appear that any such place existed in his time, and Abú-l Fidá's determination of its latitude and longitude on the authority of the Kánún-í Mas'údí is a misquotation, which it is of importance to correct, for there is nowhere mention of Dehli either in that work or in the Táríkhu-l Hind. The principal places of his residence appear to have been Lahore, Bhera, and Waihind; and it may be doubted if any of these places, except perhaps the last, had been held by the kings of Kábul.

The assertion that he was a Brahman probably arises from ignorance on the part of Firishta. Al Bírúní is not specific in his statement that he was a Brahman, but merely includes him in the dynasty which commenced with a Brahman, and he may no more have been really of that caste than were the Bahmaní sovereigns of the Dekhin, though they were called after one. The term Brahman, in the conception of a Musulmán, might merely imply that he maintained the doctrines of that faith, and from his position was its staunchest defender and champion. There seems ground to suppose he must have been a Rájpút, and some reasons have been assigned in the note on Mahmúd's invasion for considering him a Bhattí.

Anandpál.—Mr. Thomas observes⁴²⁶ that the coins of Anandpál are common, and are plentiful in the Panjáb and the northern parts of the Ganges Dúáb. But these are evidently to be referred to the monarch of Delhi, who lived a century and a half later, and we have to deal with Anandpál not Anangpál. 'Utbi calls him Andpál.

Jaipál II.—This is not the name given by Al Bírúní, where it appears more like Tardijanbál, and in the other authors who mention him it goes through various forms. Tadan jaipál, Nanduwa Jaipál, Turu Jaipál, Parou Jaipál, Nardajanpála, Niranjanpál, Tasd?? Jaipál, and many more.⁴²⁷ The latest reading proposed by M. Reinaud is Trilochan Pál, after the “three-eyed” Siva. Persian authors generally call him Nabíra Jaipál, or the grandson of Jaipál, and in that relationship no doubt he stood to the first Jaipál. Hence Dow calls him “Pitterugepál.” The real name was, perhaps, Púr Jaipál, or Jaipál junior, Jaipál the son or grandson. Al Bírúní tells us that his father Anandpál was an inveterate enemy of the Musulmáns from the time that Púr Jaipál was taken prisoner, but Púr Jaipál himself was well disposed towards them.

According to 'Utbí we find him holding dominion as far eastward as Kanauj and the Ráhib, respecting which the note on the ninth and twelfth expeditions of Mahmúd may be consulted. The same author mentions another son of Anandpál, by the name of Brahman Pál, who is probably a different one.

Abú Ríhán informs us that he was killed in 412 A.H.=1021-2 A.D. It does not appear exactly when he began to reign, but he certainly opposed Mahmúd during the Kanauj campaign in 409 H.

Bhím Pál.—In him we have the last of the dynasty of Kábul and Northern India. As he is mentioned by Abú Ríhán, he must have succeeded to some remnant of his father's domains; but it does not appear that in his time he contested the advance of the Muham-madans, though before he ascended the throne we find him taking an active part in defending his father's dominions, under the name of Nidar Bhím, “Bhím the Dauntless.”^427a

From his letter to Chand Ráí, which is recorded by 'Utbí, it would appear that he was inclined to peaceful counsels, and that bitter experience had taught him the hopelessness of contending with his relentless and sanguinary rivals.^427b

From a statement in the Táríkhu-l Hind, we may infer that his capital was Bárí, to the ??ast of Kanauj.

Neither of Bhím Pál, nor of any other of the Pál family, are any coins extant.

Bhím Pál survived his father five years, and died, therefore, in 417 A.H., the eventful year of the capture and plunder of S??nát. Haidar Rázi gives nine years as the period of his reign.

NOTE B.

“Before I leave the subject, I may be permitted to make some observations in reference to an original suggestion of my own, that the Srí Hamírah, on the reverse of the immediately succeeding Moslem coins, was designed to convey the title of the spiritual representative of the Arabian Prophet on earth, embodied for the time being in the Khalíf of Baghdád. Sir H. M. Elliot, placing himself under the guidance of Capt. Cunningham, has contested this inference. I am not only prepared to concede the fact that Muhammad bin Sám uses this term in connection with his own name on the lower Kanauj coins, but I can supply further independent evidence, that my opponents could not then cite against me, in the association of this title with the name of the early Sultáns of Dehli in the Pálam Inscription (1333 Vikramáditya); but, on the other hand, I can claim a still more definite support in an item of testimony contributed by the consecutive suite of the selfsame fabric of coins, where the (hamírah) is replaced by the word (khalífa). As far as I have yet been able to ascertain, this transition first takes place on the money of 'Aláu-d dín Mas'úd (639-644 A.H.); and here, again, I can afford, in all frankness, to cite further data that may eventually bear against myself, in recording that this reverse of Srí Khalífa is combined in other cases with a broken obverse legend of … … which, being interpreted to stand for the Amíru-l Múminín of the Arabic system, may either be accepted as the Sanskrit counterpart legend of Altamsh's anonymous coins in the Persian character,”⁴²⁸ or be converted into a possible argument against my theory, if supposed to represent the independent spiritual supremacy claimed by subsequent Sultáns of Dehli; which last assignment, however, will scarcely carry weight in the present state of our knowledge. As regards the difficulty raised respecting the conventional acceptance of the Srí Samanta Deva of the coins as an historical, rather than an individually titular, impress, I have always been fully prepared to recognize the linguistic value of the word Samanta, and yet claim to retain the Srí Samanta Deva—which comes down to us, in numismatic sequence, in the place of honour on so many mint issues—as an independent name or title, to which some special prestige attached, rather than to look upon it as an ordinary prefix to the designation of each potentate on whose money it appears. And such a decision, in parallel apposition to the succession of the titles of Srí Hamíra and Khalífa, just noticed, would seem to be strikingly confirmed by the replacement of this same legend of Srí Samanta Deva on the local coins of Cháhad Deva, by the style and title of the Moslem suzerain, to whom that rája had eventually to concede allegiance.

The two classes of coins to which I allude may, for the moment, be exemplified, the one in the type given in ‘Ariana Antiqua,’ xix. 16; the other in pl. xxvi. fig. 31, Vol. i. (Prinsep).

The former, when corrected up and amplified from more perfect specimens, will be found to bear the legends: OBV. . REV. —while the latter will be seen to display an obverse epigraph of , with a reverse similar to the last.

I understand this obverse legend to convey, in imperfect orthography, the name of Shamsu-d dín Altamsh—whose other coins, of but little varied type, have a similarly outlined name, with the Moslem Srí Hamírah on the reverse.

NOTE C.

The Historians of the Ghaznivides.

The contents of this volume relate more especially to the history of the Ghaznivides. It therefore seems expedient to take a general review of the authors who have particularly treated of that dynasty.

First in order comes 'Utbí, who has already been sufficiently noticed. It may be remarked generally that he is deficient in dates, and, though the chief and earliest authority on all which relates to the early invasions of India, he evidently had no personal knowledge of that country, a circumstance which of course greatly detracts from his value. He is fuller in the reign of Subuktigín and the transactions in Turkistán than any of his successors.

Thirty years later comes Abú-l Fazl Baihakí, of whose voluminous and important work only a portion has come down to us.

After an interval of more than two centuries follows the Nizámu-t Tawáríkh, composed in 674 H., about a century after the extinction of the dynasty. The short notice which this work devotes to the Ghaznivides has been translated as an extract from that work, but it is of little authority, and confuses dates irremediably towards the close of the dynasty, in which the transactions were carried on too far eastward to be within the foreign ken of the author. Indeed he confesses that he knows nothing of their successors, the Ghorians, beyond the names of three of their kings.

The next, but after a period of two hundred years from 'Utbí is the Tabakát-i Násiri, the chief value of which is that it quotes the lost volumes of Abú-l Fazl Baihakí. It is for this reason, however, greatly to be regretted, especially as he is one of the earliest Muhammadan authors who wrote in India, that his notice of Mahmúd's reign is so very curt; for it is that in which we most feel the want of Baihakí's familiar gossiping narrative. It is true he is quoted in the Jámí'u-l Hikáyát, Táríkh-i Guzída, Ráuzatu-s Safá, and Firishta; yet it may be doubted if any except the author of the first ever saw his Táríkh-i Násirí, which is mentioned by name in the Tabakát. In some of the other Ghaznivide reigns, this work differs from others, as will be seen from the passages which are extracted in the article TABAKÁT-I NÁSIRI in this volume.

The great copyist and extractor, Rashídu-d dín, follows after the lapse of about twenty years. In his Jámí'u-t Tawáríkh, he follows 'Utbí implicitly, as far as the Yamíní extends, taking out not only his facts, but giving a literal translation of that work, even to the images and similes. So little does he attempt to improve upon the Yamíní, that he even leaves out the important expedition to Somnát, which was undertaken after the close of that work. This resource fails him altogether in the later reigns, which are consequently very unsatisfactorily disposed of in the Jámi'u-t Tawáríkh.⁴³⁰

About twenty years later follows the Táríkh-i Guzída of Hamdu-lla Mustaufí—although he mentions the Makámát of Abú Nasr Miská'ti, and the Mujalladát of Abú-l Fazl Baihakí, he does not appear to have read them: at least he gives no information derived from them, and altogether his account of Mahmúd's reign is very meagre. He mentions the names of the towns taken by him, omitting, however, all notice of Somnát, and without stating the dates of their capture. He is so often quoted by Mírkhond, Khondamír, and Firishta, that he has had more credit than he deserves in this portion of his universal history.

After a long interval of about a century, we have Mírkhond, who in his Rauzatu-s Safá has given us the first detailed account of the history of the Ghaznivides. It is founded in the early portion upon the Yamíní, but in later reigns rests upon some other authorities which are not quoted. Those which are mentioned, as the Násirí and Guzída, are too meagre to have furnished the fuller information found in the Rauzatu-s Safá. This portion has been translated by F. Wilken into Latin, and published with the original text at Berlin in 1832, under the title of Historia Gasnevidarum. He has added in footnotes passages from Firishta and Haidar Rází, where the details are more complete than in the Rauzatu-s Safá. Haidar Rází, however, is no original authority. I have found all the passages, except two, quoted by Wilken to be word for word the same as the Táríkh-i Alfí, even where other authorities are quoted, as Ibn Asír, Ibn Kasír, and Háfiz Ábrú. The chief omission to be noted in Mírkhond's account is that of the expeditions to India intervening between those of Kanauj and Somnát, and the attack upon the Játs of Júd after Mahmúd's return from Somnát.

Mírkhond is followed by his nephew Khondamír in the Khulásatu-l Akhbár and the Habíbu-s Siyar. The former has been translated by Price with additions from Firishta, and from the latter a translation will be found in a later volume of this work. He follows the Rauzata-s Safá closely, and has no new authorities, omitting some passages, but dealing more copiously with the biographies of cotemporary poets and ministers. Altogether, Mírkhond's narrative is preferable, and in this, as well as in many other portions of his history Khondamír might have saved himself the trouble of attempting to rival his uncle.

The next authority of any value is the Táríkh-i Alfí. Like as in other portions of that work, it is, in the history of the Ghaznivides, also somewhat deficient in connexion, and troublesome, from adopting a new era; but. altogether, it is copious and correct. 'Utbí and Mírkhond are the chief authorities of the Táríkh-i Alfí, but something is added from the less known histories, which have already been mentioned as being quoted at second hand by Haidar Rází. It is to be regretted that Abú-l Fazl Baihakí is not amongst them. Here also we have no detailed account of the Indian expeditions between those of Kanauj and Somnát, and that to Thánesar is not mentioned.

Nizámu-d dín Ahmad, in his Tabakát-i Akbarí, gives a succinct account of the history of the Ghaznivides, and is particular in mentioning his dates. He notices very cursorily the events in Turkistán, Sístán, and 'Irák, confining his attention principally to what related to India. In his work we, for the first time, find mention of several expeditions to India, which are passed over by his predecessors; and it is, therefore, to be regretted that he does not signify on what authority he relates them. The only probable source, among those mentioned as his general authorities, is the Zainu-l Akhbár. Nizámu-d dín is followed closely by Firishta.

'Abdu-l Kádír, in his Táríkh-i Badáúní, follows Nizámu-d dín implicitly; but, in order to show the variations, he occasionally quotes the Nizámu-t Tawáríkh, and the Lubbu-t Tawáríkh. He adds, also, some verses of poets who were contemporary with the Ghaznivides.

The Muntakhabu-t Tawáríkh of Khákí Shírází is very brief, and scarcely deserves notice. It chiefly follows the Habíbu-s Siyar.

We next come to the history of Firishta, which gives the most complete and detailed account which we have of the Ghaznivides. Dr. Bird complains of the author's ignorance of the geography of Upper India; but he has exhibited no more than his predecessors, and in one or two instances attempts corrections. His chief resource is the Tabakát-i Akbarí, but he has also used the Táríkh-i Yamíní, the Táríkh-i Guzída, the Rauzatu-s Safá, and the Habíbu-s Siyar. Some of the other works which he quotes there is reason to believe he never saw. The translation by Briggs is generally correct and faithful in this portion, and there are no omissions in it of any great consequence.

The Khulásatu-t Tawáríkh discusses this history in a peculiar fashion of its own. It omits all notice of transactions on the frontiers of Persia and Turkistán, and confines itself solely to India, insomuch that it leaves out whole reigns in which the sovereign had no connection with India: and, in consequence, preposterously confines the whole number of reigns to seven only. There is no other novelty in this chapter, except that it substitutes two new readings of places, which if they are derived from the history of Mahmúd by 'Unsurí, which is quoted in the preface, may be considered authentic.

These are all the authorities which it seems necessary to notice, as all the subsequent ones follow in the wake of Firishta. Abú-l Fidá, Ibn Shuhna, Ibn Asír, Ibn Kasír, Nikbi, and Lárí, have had all that is valuable in them extracted by the diligence of European authors, who have translated, abridged, or commented on the reigns of the Ghaznivides. The Turkish histories of the period, such as the Nakhbatu-t Tawáríkh, and the work of Munajjim Báshí, we may fairly presume to have been exhausted by the industry of Hammer-Purgstall amongst the fourteen different histories which he quotes as authorities upon Mahmúd's reign—so that the only hope now left us for ascertaining any new fact with respect to the history of the Ghaznivides is in the recovery of the missing volumes of Memoirs, which we know to have been written by contemporary writers, and to have been in existence less than two centuries ago— such as those of Abú-l Fazl Baihakí, Abú Nasr Mishkání, and Mulla Muhammad Ghaznawí. The Makámát of Abú Nazr Mishkátí⁴³³ (Mishkaní) is mentioned by Firishta (Briggs I. 32 and 97), and the same author is referred to in Wilken (Gasnevidarum, p. 189). Firishta quotes from him the anecdote about Mas'úd, which has been given from the Tabakát-i Násirí (supra, p. 271), and which is there also attributed to Abú Nasr Mishkán. The Táríkh-i Mulla Muhammad Ghaznawí is mentioned by 'Abdu-r Rahmán,who wrote the Mir-átu-l Asrár and Mir-át-i Mas'údí, in Jahángír's time. The author was contemporary with Sultán Mahmúd, of whom his work is said to give an ample account.

NOTE D.

Mahmúd's Expeditions to India.

The times, places, and numbers of Mahmúd's expeditions to India have offered great difficulties to those who have dealt with the history of that ferocious and insatiable conqueror. We look in vain for any enquiry on the subject from the native historians of this period, who, in their ignorance of Upper India, enter names and years without the scruples and hesitations which a better knowledge or a more critical spirit, would have induced.

It is only when European authors begin to discuss the matter that we are taught how many difficulties there are to solve, how many places to identify, how many names to restore. Those who have added most to our knowledge of this period, and have occasionally interspersed their narratives or notes with illustrative comments, and who will be quoted in the course of this Note, may be thus named in the order of their publications:—D'Herbelot,⁴³⁴ De Guigues,^434a Hunt (?),^434b Dow,^434c De Sacy,^434d Mill,^434e Wilson,^434f Audiffret,^434g Rampoldi,^434h Briggs,⁴³⁴ⁱ Wilken,^434j Ritter,^434k Bird,^434l Hammer-Purgstall,^434m Elphinstone,⁴³⁴ⁿ and Reinaud.^434o It is needless to mention Gibbon, Malcolm, Conder, Gleig, Murray, and others, whose works, however useful, are mere copies and abstracts of others, and add nothing to our previous information.

It has been usual to consider the number of Mahmúd's expeditions to India to be twelve. The first authority for this number is Nizámu-d dín Ahmad in the Tabakát-i Akbarí; and as Dow has also numbered them as twelve, most English authors following him as the standard, have entertained the same persuasion. But it is curious to observe that, while Nizámu-d dín mentions that there were altogether twelve, in recording them seriatim, he enumerates no less than sixteen; and Dow, while he marginally notes twelve, records no less than fifteen different invasions. Even Elphinstone, though he notes twelve, records more. The Khulásatu-t Tawáríkh gives twelve, and confines itself to that number, or in reality only to eleven, as by some mistake an expedition to Kashmír and Kálinjar are placed in one year, and the tenth expedition is omitted. The Akhbár-i Muhabbat follows it in both errors. I will not attempt to maintain this established number of expeditions, but will consider them in the actual order of their occurrence.

First Expedition.—Frontier Towns. A.H. 390 (1000 A.D.)—Nizámu-d dín Ahmad and Firishta mention that about the year 390 H. Mahmúd marched in the direction of India, and, after taking many forts and provinces, and establishing his own governors in them, he returned to Ghazní. This rests solely on the authority of these two authors, and is not supported by the Táríkh Yamíní; but there is no improbability in the statement.

It was to have been expected that Mahmúd, after establishing himself on the throne of Ghazní, would have embraced the first opportunity of invading India; for, while yet a prince, he had seen how easily the hardy warriors of Zábulistán had overcome the more effeminate sons of India. His father Subuktigín is described in the Yamíní as making several attacks upon the country of Hind, independent of the three which are more specifically mentioned, the scene of which was Kusdár and Lamghán. Even during the fifteen years of Alptigín's reign, Subuktigín is represented by Firishta in an untranslated passage to have made frequent attacks upon India, and even to have penetrated as far as Sodra on the Chináb, where he demolished idols in celebration of Mahmúd's birth, which, as it occurred on the date of the prophet's birth, Subuktigín was anxious that it should be illustrated by an event similar to the destruction of the idols in the palace of the Persian king by an earthquake, on the day of the prophet's birth. In the words of the Bostán:—

Near the Lamghán valley two actions were fought, or more probably in the valley of Jalálabád, for as the plural, Lamghánát, is frequently used, there seems reason to believe that the valley to the south as well as the north of the Kábul river was included in that province. The first action fought in this neighbourhood was brought to a conclusion by the effect of the miraculous fountain or stream in the hill of Ghúzak, which emitted storms, thunder, and cold, whenever some impurity was cast into it. A more particular account of this will be found in the extracts from the Yamíní and the Jámi'u-l Hikáyát.⁴³⁶

What could have given rise to this extraordinary story is not easy to conceive, and no one has attempted an explanation. The most probable solution seems to be that a snow-storm came on, and not only harassed but alarmed the Hindús, who had never witnessed such a thing before; for it is quite compatible with probability that although the Lamghánát were then included in the country of Hind, yet that the soldiers, who, for the most part, came from the more eastern provinces, might never have seen a fall of snow. It is to be observed that the Tabakát-i Akbarí expressly says that Jaipál and the Hindús were unaccustomed to the cold, and that was the reason why they suffered more than the Musulmáns. It may fairly be surmised, then, that the snow and frost totally paralysed the Hindú warriors, and were felt as grievously by them as, nine centuries afterwards, by Indian and British troops combined, when they sustained the most grievous disaster that has ever befallen our nation. It is an extraordinary coincidence that the very scene of this first and last defeat of an Indian army was the same—what wonder if the cause also did not differ?

The minds of the natives of India would naturally have tried to account for such a supernatural phenomenon as a fall of snow, and superstition was at hand to render her assistance.

There was a stone, celebrated amongst the Turkish nations, which had the peculiar property of causing rain, and hail, and snow, and excessive cold, and violent tempests, if the possessor, after repeating the name of God, and breathing upon it, threw it into the water. This stone is called the “Yedeh,” or “Jedeh.” The first stone of the kind was said to have been given to Japhet by Noah, to whom the secret was disclosed by Gabriel. The stone came into the possession of Turk, the eldest son of Japhet, and in an action which was fought between him and his nephew, for the possession of the stone, the latter was killed; and, as he was the father of the Turko-máns, this stone is said to be the cause of the unceasing enmity between that tribe and the Turks. Subsequently, the art of using this stone was more generally disseminated, and occasioned magicians to be generally called “yedehehís;” and we have frequent mention of its use in Mongol history for purposes similar to those for which we suppose it to have been applied on the present occasion. As early as the year 2634 before our era, we find the following statement in a quotation by M. Klaproth, to prove the antiquity of the compass among the Chinese: “Tchi-yeou raised a thick fog, in order that by means of the darkness he might spread confusion in the enemy's army. But Hiuan-yuan constructed a chariot for indicating the south, in order to distinguish the four cardinal points.”⁴³⁷

In an action between the Mongols and Chinese, with respect to the latter, Rashídu-d dín says: “In consequence of the arts of the magician, the Chinese felt, in the middle of summer, a temperature which they had never experienced, even in winter, and were paralysed.” Bergman says that the stone used at present among the nomadic nations is the Bezoar. Marco Polo, also, speaking of a country not far from the confines of India, says:—“When the Carannas wish to overrun the country and rob it, they, by their enchantment and diabolical agency, cause the day to become dark, so that you can see to little or no distance.” In the mountains between Kashmír and Tibet, there is a lake, into which, if animal flesh is thrown, we are informed by Abú-l Fazl, that a storm of snow or rain will arise. There is said to be a similar one at Dámaghán, in Tabaristán, and Zakaríya Kazwíní mentions one near Ghazní, which is, no doubt, the one alluded to in Subuktigín's battle with Jaipál. Altogether, we may consider Jaipál's army to have been surprised and paralyzed by a snow-storm, and that superstition ascribed the unusual visitation to the “Yedeh” stone.⁴³⁸

Second Expedition.—Pesháwar—Waihind. A.H. 391-2.—Mahmúd left Ghazní in Shawwál, 391 H., and a severe action took place on the 8th of Muharram, 392, at Pesháwar, in which he was completely victorious, and Jaipál and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations were taken prisoners, after the loss of 5000 men.

He is then represented by all the later authorities to have marched from Pesháwar to Batinda, and invested it. Elphinstone observes that Batinda is beyond the Sutlej, “and seems formerly to have been a place of more consequence than its situation in a sort of desert would promise. It is said by Colonel Tod to have been the residence of the Rájá of Láhore, alternately with the capital, from which he took this name. As the battle of Pesháwar was on the 27th of November, Mahmúd would reach Batinda towards the end of the cold season, when the rivers of the Panjáb, though not all fordable, would offer little obstruction to cavalry.” Dr. Bird also speaks of Batinda as being in the most easterly and inaccessible part of the Panjáb kingdom, and following the Tabakát-i Akbarí and Firishta, says that Jaipál used to reside there. The latter indeed says he resided there for the convenience of opposing the Muham-madans—which is an absurdity, if we are to understand the most eastern city of his dominions. Rampoldi, with his usual confusion of names and places, makes his residence Multán.

All these difficulties about Mahmúd's movements are at once obviated by correcting the reading, and rejecting Batinda altogether. The real name is Bihand or Waihind, as is plainly indicated in the Yamíní.^438a It was a place of considerable importance, on the western bank of the Indus, about fifteen miles above Attock, on the old high road from Láhore to Pesháwar, and only three marches from the latter. It was the capital of Eastern Kandahár, and is noticed by Bírúní, Baihakí, and Abú-l Fidá, from which latter author we learn that its foundation is attributed to Alexander the Great. The name is now Húnd, and while I was in the neighbourhood I could not find that even any first syllable was ever added to it, either by natives or strangers.

By the capture of Waihind, Mahmúd's progress becomes easy and natural, and instead of having to cross and recross several foaming streams and marching through a hostile and difficult country, he has not yet crossed even the Indus.

Third Expedition.—Bhera (Bhátía). A.H. 395 (1004-5 A.D.)—After a rest of three years, during which attention was occupied by affairs in the west, we find Mahmúd returning to India to take the city of Bhateea (Briggs), Battea (Dow), Bhatía (Elphinstone), Bhátnah (Bird), Bahadiyah (Univ. Hist.), Bhadiyah (Rampoldi), Bahatia (S. de Sacy), Hebath (D'Herbelot),⁴³⁹ Bihatia (Hammer-Purgstall). Briggs says he has failed in fixing the position of this place. Elphinstone says, “a dependency of Láhore, at the southern side of Multán.” Bird says it is now called Bhatnír, situated on the northern extremity of the Bikanír desert. Reinaud says it is to the south-east of Multán, and in the middle of an arid country, apparently on the testimony of 'Utbi, but he makes no such assertion. Hammer-Purgstall conceives it to be the present Baháwalpúr. But how could a dependency of Láhore be on the southern side of Multán, itself independent? How could Mahmúd advance over all the Panjáb rivers to attack a city in a desert? Or Baháwalpúr, leaving a country full of hostile and martial populations in his rear? How could Bijí Ráí, deserting his fort, “take post in a wood on the Indus,” as Firishta says, if Bhátía were on the other side of the Sutlej? or how could he “take refuge on the top of some hills,” as 'Utbí says, when there are no hills within a hundred and twenty miles from either place?

Here again we must correct the reading, and all becomes explicable and easy. The real name of the place is Bhera. It lies on the left bank of the Jailam, under the Salt range. It bears evident marks of great antiquity, and has on the opposite side of the river the extensive ruins of Buraria, above Ahmadábád, which strike every beholder with astonishment. The only works which read Bhera are the Khulásatu-t Tawáríkh and its followers the Akhbár-i Muhabbat, etc. That Dow's copy of Firishta must have been very near it, is evident, for, although Mahmúd advances against the city of “Battea,” he is made by a strange inadvertence to take the city of “Tahera.” 'Utbí [and Ibn Asír] certainly read Bhátía, and Al Bírúní mentions Bhátía and not Bhera, but his Bhátía scarcely seems the one we are dealing with.

Whether Bhátía is written by mistake, or whether Bhátía is an old name of Bhera, is difficult to say. The latter is very probable, for the Bhatí or Bhattí Rájpúts still point to this tract as the place of their residence before their advance to the eastward, and their name is still preserved in the large town of Pindí Bhattíán, on the Chináb. It is worthy of remark, as observed by Mr. E. Thomas,⁴⁴⁰ that of the list of Hindú kings given by Al Bírúní, the four last beginning with Jaipál I. add the designation of Pál to that of Deva, borne by their Brahman predecessors. This would imply the succession of a new tribe, which he considers to be Bhattí Rájpút. There is no improbability in this, for there is no authority except that of Firishta for declaring Jaipál to be a Brahman, and Bhátía therefore may have been the local title of the capital of the tribe. Firishta^440a makes the Rájá of Bhátía to be a different personage from the Rájá of Láhore; but he afterwards tells us that the Láhore dominions extended from Kashmír to Multán—which, as has been shown, includes Bhátía.

It is to be observed, moreover, that Mahmúd does not pass through Multán, or the province of Multán, to get there, but passes “by the borders of Multán,” as Firishta says, or “crosses the Indus in the neighbourhood of Multán,” as 'Utbí says. Now, as Multán must have extended, as it always has, even down to the days of Mulráj, nearly up to the Salt range, it is probable that Mahmúd came from Ghazní by the valley of Banú, and following the course of the Khuram, crossed the Indus near Ísákhel and the old town of Rorí, and so, passing the Sind-Ságar Doáb through Mitta Tiwána, reached Bhera by way of Khusháb and Sháhpúr.

A subsequent campaign also indicates the position of Bhera, as will be noticed more particularly hereafter. Meanwhile it is to be observed that Mahmúd annexed Bhera to his dominions, which, had it been any place trans-Sutlej, would have been out of the question.

Fourth Expedition.—Multán. A.H. 396.—[Ibn Asír and] the Habíbu-s Siyar place the expedition to Bhátía and Multán in the same year, but it is quite evident from the Yamíní that special preparations were made for this new campaign. Dr. Bird considers that Firishta has misplaced this campaign, and that it should be deferred till after the defeat of Ílak Khán. I see no reason whatever to doubt that it is correctly ascribed to the year 396 H., and that it has nothing whatever to do with the invasion which took place after Ílak Khán's. defeat.

We find the governor or ruler of Multán with a Muhammadan name, “Abí-l Futúh, or “Abú-l Fath,” and he is not an infidel but a heretic, one “who introduced his neologies into religion.” There can be little doubt, therefore, that he was a follower of the Karmatian heresy, which we know, from Al Bírúní, to have prevailed extensively at Multán, and for a long period previous to this invasion. “He says: “When the Karmatians became masters of Multán, their chief broke the idol in pieces, and massacred its ministers; and the temple, which was built of brick, and situated on an elevated spot, became the grand mosque in place of the old one, which was closed on account of the hatred borne against the Ummayide Khalífas, under whose rule it was constructed. Sultán Mahmúd, after subduing the Karmatians, reopened the old mosque, so that the old one was abandoned; and now it is as a plain, destined to vulgar uses.”

The authors which treat of this period do not,—except in a few instances, as the Tabakát-i Akbarí, and the Khulásatu-t Tawáríkh— expressly say that Multán was held by Karmatians, but by “Mulá-hida,” a more generic term, which, though it might include Karma-tians, was more generally, at a subsequent period, used to designate the Isma'ílians.⁴⁴² For more on the subject of the occupation of Multán at this period, the passages mentioned in the note may be consulted.^442a

Abú-l Fath Dáúd was the grandson of Shaikh Hamíd Lodí, who is represented to have done homage to Subuktigín. The word “tribute,” used by Briggs, is not authorized. Elphinstone says that Hamíd Khán had joined the enemies of his faith for a cession of the provinces of Multán and Laghmán, and submitted to Subuktigín after his victory over the Hindús. This statement is made on the authority of Firishta.^442b Dáúd invited the co-operation of Anandpál, who, being defeated at Pesháwar, was pursued as far as Sodra,^442c on the Chináb. From Sodra Mahmúd goes, by way of Batinda, to Multán, which is so circuitous a route as to be absurd. Here, again, Bhera should be read, which is in the direct line between Sodra and Multán.

Ibn Asír, Mírkhond, and Haidar Rází make Dáúd flee away to Sarandíp, but 'Utbí says a fine was levied from the inhabitants of 20,000,000 dirhams. Firishta says an annual tribute was fixed on Dáúd of 20,000 golden dirhams, or dínárs, with promise of implicit obedience and abstinence from heresy for the future.

The Biographie Universelle contains a curious statement, respecting this expedition: “La révolte du gouverneur qu'il avait laissé à Moultan et le débordement des fleuves qui semblait la favoriser, obligèrent Mahmoud de demander passage à Andbal. Sur son refus, il le poursuivit à travers le Candahar et le Kaboulistan jusqu' à Kaschmyre.”^442d What Kandahár and Kábulistán have to do with the pursuit is not easy to say. Authors agree in saying Mahmúd wished to march through Anandpál's territory, but it is very difficult to discern the reason of the request, as he had already crossed the Indus, beyond the borders of his territory, and by a route which would lead him more directly towards his object.

'Unsurí informs us that Mahmúd took two hundred forts on his way to Multán.

Fifth Expedition.⁴⁴³ —Defeat of Nawása Sháh, A.H. 398.—When Mahmúd was called away from Multán by Ílak Khán's invasion of his territory, he left his Indian possessions in charge of Sewakpál, or “Sukhpál, a son of one of the Rájás of India,”^443a and who, having been formerly made a prisoner in Pesháwar by Abú 'Alí Sanjarí, had become a convert to Islám. Sukhpál was taken prisoner by Mahmúd's advance cavalry, and was compelled to pay the sum of 400,000 dirhams; and being made over, as Firishta informs us, to Tigín the Treasurer, was kept in confinement during the rest of his life.^443b

Dr. Bird says that there was no such expedition as this, and that Firishta has confounded it with the previous expedition to Multán; but as it is mentioned by 'Utbí, Mírkhond, and Khondamír, as well as by Firishta, there is no reason whatever to discredit it.

Dr. Bird adduces, as an additional proof of confusion, that the name Nawása, “a grandson,” belonged to Abú-l Fath Dáúd, because he was a grandson of Sheikh Hamíd Lodí; but there is no ground for saying that Dáúd was so called, as the name might have belonged just as well to the grandson of Jaipál, as of Sheikh Hamíd. He apostatised to idolatry, after being converted, whereas Dáúd could only have apostatised to the Karmatian heresy, and not to idolatry and plural worship. The designation of Nawása is considered doubtful. His name was Sewakpál or Sukhpál; Ritter says Samukkel. Dow reads “Shoekpal, who, on conversion to Islám, assumed the name Zab Sais.” D'Herbelot has “Nevescha;” S. de Sacy, “Nawaschteh;” Wilken, “Nuvasch Shah.” The Tabakát-i Akbarí says, “Súkpál, the grandson of the Rájá of Hind.” The readings in Firishta are by no means uniform. They are Áb sahárá, Ábsár, Áb basháer and Záb sá. The Táríkh-i Alfí, and some other authorities, make it Záb Sais or Záb Sháh. Hammer-Purgstall says, “Ssabsa or Schiwekpal.” All these are changes rung upon the word “nawása,’ or “grandson,” especially “a daughter's child.” Bird says, Price is mistaken in calling him Nawása Sháh; but 'Utbí gives this name, and there is no reason why we should reject it. It may have been bestowed upon him by Mahmúd as a mark of endearment, and Shah, “king,” may have been added as a term of aggrandizement, or it might have been Sáh, a common title of respect. But what is more probable than all is that he was the grandchild (by a daughter) of Jaipál, because, in 'Utbi's account of the expedition to Kanauj, we find Bhím Pál, the great-grandson, complaining that his uncle had been forcibly converted to Islám. Sukh Pál, therefore, was the name, Nawása the relationship to Jaipál, and Sáh the honorific title. He was probably one of the relations of Jaipál, made over by him as hostage to Mahmúd; and that, perhaps, was the period of conversion.

The movement by which his seizure was effected was so rapid, and a new invasion of India was entered upon so soon after, that it is probable the scene of the transaction was the valley of Pesháwar.

Sixth Expedition.—Waihind, Nagarkot.⁴⁴⁴ A.H. 399 (1008-9 A.D.).— It will be observed that the account of the commencement of this expedition is described very differently in the Yamíní, the Habíbu-s Siyar and Firishta. I prefer, as on former occasions, the former, the river of Waihind, or the Indus, being a more probable place of action than Pesháwar, which was then within the Muhammadan border. That the Gakkhars may have performed the part assigned to them is probable enough, whether the action was fought at one place or the other; but that the Gakkhars are the ancestors of the modern Játs, as Dr. Bird asserts, is altogether a mistake, and likely to lead to serious errors.

About the proceedings at Nagarkot all accounts agree, and that Nagarkot is the same as Kot Kángrá can admit of no doubt, for the name of Nagarkot is still used. Its position is well described, and corresponds with present circumstances. The impassable waters which surround it are the Bán-ganga and the Biyáh. The town of Bhím, which is about a mile from the fort, is now on the spot called Bhawan, which means a temple raised to a Saktí, or female deity, and Bhím is probably a mistake arising from its presumed foundation by the heroic Bhím. M. Reinaud considers that it was called Bhím-nagar from Srí Bhíma deva, of the Kábul dynasty. The different forms which the name assumes in different authors are shown at p. 34. Elphinstone is mistaken in saying that Nagarkot derived peculiar sanctity from a natural flame which issued from the ground within its precincts. This flame is at Jwálá-mukhí, fifteen miles distant, where carburetted hydrogen issues from the sandstone rocks, and fills the superstitious pilgrim with awe and veneration. These jets of gas are made to burn with increased vigour by the removal of plugs, whenever a distinguished visitor is likely to pay well for this recognition of his superior sanctity.

Dr. Bird, who has given a most critical examination of these invasions, says that the capture of Nagarkot and the previous action beyond the Indus occurred in two different years. He observes: “If we might trust Firishta, Mahmúd at this time (after the battle of Pesháwar) marching into the mountains captured the celebrated fortress of Nagarkot. It was not, however, till the following year, A.H. 400, according to the Tabakát-i Akbarí and Habíbu-s Siyar, that this expedition was undertaken; and as the hostile armies prior to the last battle had consumed three or four months in operations west of the Indus, it is not probable that Mahmúd could have marched into India at the commencement of the rainy season. The Hijra year 399 given for the march to Pesháwar, or the previous year A.D. commenced the 5th September, A.D., 1008; and as the spring season, when he left Ghazní, would not commence till A.D. 1009, he must have spent the summer in Kábul, and set out for Hindústán about October.”

I cannot trace in the Tabakát-i Akbarí and the Habíbu-s Siyar the assertion attributed to them; but let us leave these inferior authorities and refer to the Yamíní. There we find that it is in pursuit (of the flying enemy) that Mahmúd went as far as the fort called Bhímnagar.” The campaign, therefore, must have been continuous, and there was no break between the action trans-Indus and the capture of Nagarkot. He has already traversed the same road as far as Sodra on the Chináb, and he would only have had ten or twelve marches over a new line of country.

In these enquiries we must be very cautious how we deal with the word “spring.” Both Bird and Elphinstone speak of the conquerors setting out in the spring of a Christian year, but the spring of a Ghaznivide invader is the autumn of the Christian year. It is the period when the breaking up of the rains admits of warlike operations. It is the Dasahra of the Hindús, and the season of the commencement of their campaigns. So, in the first decisive action against Jaipál, we find Mahmúd leaving Ghazní in August, and fighting the action at Pesháwar in November. And so here we find him leaving Ghazni on the last day of Rabí'u-l ákhir, or the end of December, which, though unusually late in the season—so late, indeed, as to render marching in the uplands almost impossible—would still have enabled him to fight his action on the Indus at the beginning of February. He might then have completed his operations at Kángrá before the end of March, and have left India again before the severe heat commenced. The only difficulty about the whole campaign is his leaving Ghazní in the heart of winter; but that the action on the Indus and the one at Nagarkot occurred in the fair weather of the same year, there is no sufficient reason to doubt.

The opening part of the expedition is mentioned in more detail by Firishta, than by 'Utbí and Khondamír. His account is as follows:—

“In the year 399 H., Mahmúd having collected his forces, determined again to invade Hindústan, and punish Anandpál, who had shewn much insolence during the late invasion of Multán. Anandpál hearing of his intentions, sent ambassadors on all sides, inviting the assistance of the other princes of Hindústán, who now considered the expulsion of the Muhammadans from India as a sacred duty. Accordingly, the Rájas of Ujjain, Gwáliár, Kálinjar, Kanauj, Dehlí, and Ajmír entered into a confederacy, and, collecting their forces, advanced towards the Panjáb with a greater army than had ever taken the field against Amír Subuktigín. Anandpál himself took the command, and advanced to meet the invader. The Indians and Muhammadans arrived in sight of each other on the plain of Pesh-áwar, where they remained encamped forty days, neither side shewing any eagerness to come to action. The troops of the idolaters daily increased in number, and aid came to them from all sides. The infidel Gakkhars also joined them in great strength, and made extraordinary exertions to resist the Musulmáns. The Hindú females, on this occasion, sold their jewels, and sent the proceeds from distant parts to their husbands, so that they, being supplied with all necessaries for the march, might be in earnest in the war. Those who were poor contributed from their earnings by spinning cotton, and other labour. The Sultán perceived that on this occasion the idolaters behaved most devotedly, and that it was necessary to be very circumspect in striking the first blow. He therefore entrenched his camp, that the infidels might not be able to penetrate therein.

Mahmúd, having thus secured himself, ordered six thousand archers to the front to attack, and endeavour to draw the enemy near to his entrenchments, where the Musulmáns were prepared to receive them. In spite of the Sultán's precautions, during the heat of the battle, 30,000 infidel Gakkhars, with their heads and feet bare, and armed with spears and other weapons, penetrated on two sides into the Muhammadan lines, and forcing their way into the midst of the cavalry, they cut down men and horse with their swords, daggers, and spears, so that, in a few minutes, they slaughtered three or four thousand Muhammadans. They carried their success so far that the Sultán, observing the fury of these Gakkhar footmen, withdrew himself from the thick of the fight, that he might stop the battle for that day. But it so happened that the elephant upon which Anandpál rode, becoming unruly from the effects of the naphtha-balls and the flights of arrows, turned and fled. The Hindús, deeming this to be the signal for flight on the part of their general, all gave way, and fled. 'Abdu-llah Táí, with five or six thousand Arab horse, and Arslán Jázib, with 10,000 Turks, Afgháns, and Khiljís, pursued the enemy for two days and nights, so that 8,000 Hindús were killed in the retreat. Thirty elephants and enormous booty fell into the hands of the pursuers, with which they returned to the Sultán.”⁴⁴⁸

Seventh Expedition.—Náráin. A.H. 400.—The Tabakát-i Akbarí and Firishta do not mention this expedition at all; but it is recorded in the Yamíní, Rauzatu-s Safá and the Habíbu-s Siyar. The latter gives no name, but mentions an invasion of Hind in A.H. 400, between the transactions at Nagarkot and Ghor.

It is not easy to identify the place. 'Utbí speaks of it as in the middle of Hind, where chiefs were reduced who up to that time had obeyed no master. Mírkhond calls it “Nárín;” S. de Sacy has “Nardin,” which he thinks there is reason to believe was situated in a part of India to the west of the Indus. This would be probable enough had it not been declared by 'Utbí to be in the heart of India, and a country of hill and valley. Hammer-Purgstall speaks of the “Máhárájá of Nardín.” Reinaud confounds the campaigns of Náráin and Nardín.

On his return to Ghazní, after this expedition, Mahmúd received an embassy from the ruler of Hind (Jaipál), offering an annual tribute of fifty elephants, laden with rarities, and an Indian force of two thousand men—a curious stipulation, proving how early Indians became mercenary soldiers, even under their most bitter persecutors. This shows that this particular expedition must have made a great impression on Jaipál, and induced him to sue for humiliating terms.

It is barely possible that the Nárín,^448a between Inderáb and Kúndúz, may be indicated. It is the same longitude as Kábul, which we know to have been then comprised in India; and, with reference to Balkh and Ghazni, it might have been considered so far to the eastward and so difficult of access, as to deserve being spoken of as in the heart of Hind. In Istakhrí's map of Khurásán, the position is almost included within “Bilád Hind,” and its neighbourhood to Káfiristán gives colour to the mention of the “chief of the infidels.” What militates greatly against this supposition is, that elephants formed part of the booty; and there are many other considerations also which compel us to look out for Náráin elsewhere.

Under all the circumstances mentioned, I am disposed to look upon Náráin as meant for Anhalwára, the capital of Gujarát, which Abú Ríhán tells us was called Nárána or Náráin in his time. It is to be observed that Mahmúd merely proceeded towards, not to, Náráin, and the country in the direction of Ajmír and Rájpútána was open to his incursions by the previous conquests of Bhátia and Multán. This was, perhaps, merely a preparative to his expedition to Somnát, and the reports he received of its wealth may, on this occasion, have sharpened his appetite for plundering that temple. This expedition would have been sufficient to instil alarm into Jaipál. Náráin was “in the middle of Hind,” and Mahmúd would have advanced towards it “over ground hard and soft,” and there “the friends of God might have committed slaughter in every hill and valley.” It is evident from the statements in the Mir-át-i Mas'údí, that the Musul-máns had some relations with Ajmír previous to 401 H.; and it was, probably, on this particular occasion that it was visited by Mahmúd. The visit which that work makes him pay at a later period, just previous to the conquest of Kanauj, seems highly improbable.⁴⁴⁹

Eighth Expedition.—Multán. A.H. 401.—In the year 401, after the conquest of Ghor, Mahmúd marched to Multán, where he maimed and imprisoned the Karmatians and other heretics, and brought Dáúd prisoner to Ghazní, and confined him in the fort of Ghúrak for life. The Tabakát-i Badáúní says Ghorí, and as Mahmúd had just conquered Ghor, it is not improbable that he may have confined his prisoner there.

The authorities for this expedition are the reverse of those for the last. It is mentioned in the Tabakát-i Akbarí and Firishta, and it is not mentioned in the Yamíní, Rauzatu-s Safá and Habíbu-s Siyar. This would give reason to surmise that these two were in reality but one expedition, but the circumstances of the two are so different, not admitting in any way of the same construction; and they are so consonant with the vow made by Mahmúd, that he would engage in a religious war every year, that there is no reason to reject either as improbable. The omission by 'Utbí is important, but others of a similar kind will have to be noticed; and while I am prepared to admit that we must not impugn what he actually states; yet he may, perhaps, have omitted, through ignorance or negligence, some transactions which actually took place. The Mir-át-i Mas'údí says that after this second capture and plunder of Multán, it was deserted, and that Anandpál, who is there called “the Zamíndár of Multán,” had fled to Uch, where he resided.

Ninth Expedition.—Ninduna [or Nárdín.]⁴⁵⁰ A.H. 404 (1013 A.D.)— Firishta inserts the expedition to Thánesar in A.H. 402, but I am disposed to follow the Yamíní, and place that expedition subsequent. The long delay which occurred between this and the eighth expedition may have been owing to the league which was entered into between Anandpál and Mahmúd, and this invasion may have been occasioned by the death of Anandpál, which according to Firishta occurred at this time. A very full account of the preparations for this expedition will be found among the extracts from the Yamíní, where it is stated that it was entered upon in the year 404—a year to which all the other authors ascribe it. Here we find the invader starting before the winter set in, and his progress arrested by a heavy fall of snow—so he could not have left the highlands till the commencement of spring; and as the year began on the 13th of July, 1013, he could scarcely have entered Hindústán before February, 1014, leaving himself but a short time for operations in that country,

Consequently, we find him proceeding no farther than the hill of Bálnát,^450a a conspicuous mountain overhanging the Jailam, and now generally called Tilla, which means a hill. It is still occasionally called Bálnát, and there is a famous Jogí establishment on its highest summit of great repute, and resorted to by members of that fraternity from the most distant parts of India.

The action which preceded the capture of Ninduna appears to have been fought at the Márgala pass, which answers well to the description given of it by 'Utbí. The subsequent operations are described more fully by Nizámu-d dín Ahmad:

“In A.H. 404, the Sultán marched his army against the fort of Ninduna, situated on the mountain of Bálnáth. Púr⁴⁵¹ Jaipál left veteran troops for its protection, while he himself passed into one of the mountain valleys (darra) of Kashmír. The Sultán having reached Ninduna, invested it, and by mining and other modes of attack, put the garrison under the necessity of capitulating. Sultán Mahmúd with a few of his personal attendants entered it, and took all the property he found there. Having left Sárogh as governor of the fort,^451a he himself proceeded to the Kashmír valley, where Púr Jaipál had taken up his position. This chief, however, did not await his arrival, but fled, and when the Sultán reached the pass he obtained great spoil and a large number of slaves. He also converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islám in that country, returned to Ghaznín.”—Tabakát-i Akbarí.

It will be observed that 'Utbí calls the chief “Nidar Bhím,” and Nizámu-d dín Ahmad calls him Purú Jaipál, but the difference is reconciled by considering Nidar Bhím as the governor, whom Jaipál left in the garrison when he fled towards Kashmír; and as we know from the Yamíní that Purú Jaipál's son was called Bhím-pál, we may consider this governor to have been the identical Bhím-pál, with the epithet of Nidar, “the dauntless.”

The name of Ninduna cannot be restored. It is evidently the same place as is mentioned in Wassáf as being a noted town in the Júd hills, and by 'Abbas Shírwání in his Shír-sháhí. D'Her-belot calls it “Marvin,” in which he is followed by Rampoldi, who confounds it with the capture of Thánesar. Dow calls it Nindoona, S. de Sacy, “Nazin” and “Nazdin.” Briggs, “Nindoona.” Mír-khond speaks of the victory, but does not name the place. Ritter places it near Muzaffarábád, because one stage to the west of it lies a place called “Dunni.”

The pass to which the Rájá fled was doubtless that of Bhímbar, or it might have been near where the Jailam debouches into the plains. Either way, Mahmúd would not have had far to go before his return to Ghazní. Briggs is wrong in representing him as plundering Kashmír. The original mentions nothing but a pass leading into Kashmír.

Tenth Expedition.—Thánesar. A.H. 405.—The Habíbu-s Siyar makes this expedition occur in the same year as the one to Bálnát. The Rauzatu-s Safá ascribes it to the following year. The Yamíní makes it occur subsequent to the Bálnát campaign, but says nothing about Mahmúd's returning intermediately to Ghazní. We have seen, however, that the season was so late as not to admit of his proceeding to Thánesar direct from Bálnát, unless he passed the season of the rains in India, which is not probable. The Táríkh-i Alfí omits all notice of this expedition.

Supposing Thánesar to have been the place visited, it is difficult to reconcile 'Utbí's narrative with the geographical features of the country. If Mahmúd had reached Thánesar by crossing the upper part of the desert of Rájpútána, he could have come to no stream with large stone or precipitous banks, or one flowing through a hill-pass. If, again, he had come to any stream with such characteristics he would nowhere have had anything like a desert to pass. Chandiol on the Chináb would alone answer the description, but that would be only halfway to Thánesar.

Firishta's account is as follows:—

“In the year 402 Mahmúd resolved on the conquest of Thánesar,⁴⁵² in the kingdom of Hindústán. It had reached the ears of the king that Thánesar was held in the same veneration by idolaters, as Mecca by the faithful; that there was an old temple there, in which they had set up a number of idols, the principal of which was called Jagsom, and was believed to have existed ever since the creation of the world. When Mahmúd reached the Panjáb, he was desirous that, in accordance with the subsisting treaty with Anandpál, no injury should be sustained by that prince's country, in consequence of the Muhammadan army passing through it. An embassy was accordingly sent to inform the Rája of his design against Thánesar, and desiring him to depute his officers to remain with the army, in order that the villages and towns which belonged to him might be protected from the camp followers.

“Anandpál, agreeing to this proposal, prepared an entertainment for the reception of the king, at the same time issuing orders for all his subjects to supply the camp with every necessary of life.

“The Rája's brother, with two thousand horse, was also sent to meet the army, and to deliver the following message:⁴⁵³ —‘My brother is the subject and tributary of the king, but he begs permission to acquaint his majesty that the temple of Thánesar is the principal place of worship of the inhabitants of the country; that, although the religion of the king makes it an important and meritorious duty to destroy idols, still the king has already acquitted himself of this duty, in the destruction of the idols in the fort of Nagarkot. If he should be pleased to alter his resolution regarding Thánesar, and to fix a tribute to be paid by the country, Anandpál promises that the amount of it shall be annually paid to Mahmúd; besides which, on his own part, he will present him with fifty elephants, and jewels to a considerable amount.’

“Mahmúd replied: The religion of the faithful inculcates the following tenet: ‘That in proportion as the tenets of the Prophet are diffused, and his followers exert themselves in the subversion of idolatry, so shall be their reward in heaven;’ that, therefore, it behoved him, with the assistance of God, to root out the worship of idols from the face of all India. How, then, should he spare Thánesar.

“This answer was communicated to the Rája of Dehlí, who, resolving to oppose the invaders, sent messengers throughout Hindústán to acquaint the other Rájas that Mahmúd, without provocation, was marching with a vast army to destroy Thánesar, now under his immediate protection. He observed that if a barrier was not expeditiously raised against this roaring torrent, the country of Hindú-stán would be soon overwhelmed, and every state, small and great, would be entirely subverted. It, therefore, behoved them to unite their forces at Thánesar, to avert the impending calamity.

“Mahmúd having reached Thánesar before the Hindús had time to assemble for its defence, the city was plundered, the idols broken, and the idol Jagsom was sent to Ghaznín, to be trodden under foot in the street, and decapitated. Immense wealth was found in the temples. According to Hájí Muhammad Kandahárí, a ruby was found in one of them, weighing 450 miskáls, the equal of which no one had ever seen or heard of.

“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,⁴⁵⁴ 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-mán,” ⁴⁵⁵ which no doubt is related to the word Sailán and like “Sailání,” signifies merely “Ceylonese elephants.”

Eleventh Expedition.—Lohkot.^455a 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,^455b the Rauzatu-s Safá, or the Habíbu-s Siyar, but it is mentioned in the Táríkh-i Alfí, the Tabakát-i Akbarí, and Firishta.⁴⁵⁶ The Tabakát-i Akbarí ascribes it to the year 407, and calls the place simply Kot. Reinaud^456a 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^456b; 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,⁴⁵⁷ 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.

All this arises from following Firishta too implicitly, without referring to more original and authentic sources. The statement in the Yamíní is clear enough, and it does not appear why Firishta should have departed from it.

The Yamíní says that, after passing by the borders of Kashmír, that is, close under the sub-Himalayan range, and crossing the Jumna, Mahmúd takes Baran, which is the ancient name of the present Bulandshahr, for which more modern authors, not knowing what “Baran” was, substitute “Mírat”—then Kulchand's fort, which is the Mahában of the other—then crossing the Jumna he takes Mathura—and then recrossing the Jumna, he proceeds to Kanauj, and takes that and its seven detached forts, of which the ruins of some may still be traced. He then goes to Munj, “a city of Bráhmans,” or, as Briggs says, “of Rájpúts,” for which there is no authority—his original being merely “fighting men.” This place must be the same as the old town of Manjháwan, or Majháwan, the ruins of which are still visible on the Pandú river, ten miles south of Kánhpúr. It is in the heart of the country of the Kanaují Bráhmans. He then proceeds to Chandalbhor's fort of Asní, lower down on the banks of the Ganges, ten miles N.E. from Fathpúr, where at a later period we find Jaichand depositing his treasure. It is a very old town, founded, it is said, by Aswaní Kumára, the son of Súraj, who held a sacrifice there, and founded a city called after his own name. On the 25th of Sha'bán, after capturing Sharwa or Sarúa,—which I conceive to be either Seunra on the Ken, between Kálinjar and Banda, or Sriswa-garh on the Pahonj, not far from Kúnch,—he reaches the retreat of Chand Ráí in the hills. These hills must be those of Bundelkhand, for there are no others which he could have reached before the close of Sha'bán, seeing he only arrived at Kanauj on the 8th. There is to be sure no mention of his crossing or recrossing the Jumna, but this is no valid objection, for neither is there any mention of his crossing the Panjáb on his return to Ghazní. Of the two places mentioned above, in the plains of Bundelkhand, Sriswa-garh or Sríswa-garh, appears the most probable; for we know it to have been a place of considerable importance in the annals of the Bun-delkhand Rájas; for about two centuries after this, the bard Chand informs us, that several chiefs were slain in defending it against Pirthí Ráí of Dehli, who for the purpose of capturing it, had crossed the river Sind, which was the boundary between his dominions and those of Parmál Chandel, the Rája of Mahoba. It is to be observed that no other author except 'Utbí mentions the name of Sharwa— later authors not being able to identify it. Mahmúd's progress under the explanation now given appears to have been regular and consistent.

The Rauzatu-s Safá observes the same order, with the omission of some of the names. First, the fort of a converted Hindú (Baran); then the fort of Kulchand (Mahában); then the holy city not mentioned by name (Mathura); then Kanauj; then Munj; then the fort of Chandpál; and lastly, the pursuit of Chand Rája. The Habîbu-s Siyar follows this statement, omitting all occurrences after the capture of Kanauj. Nizámu-d dín and Firishta have reversed this order, and make Mahmúd proceed direct to Kanauj, then back to Mírat or Baran, then to Mahában, then to Mathura, then to the seven forts on the banks of a river, which the Táríkh-i Alfí adds were under the Dehli Rája; then to Munj, then to the fort of Chandpál, then in pursuit of Chandráí.

The following is extracted from Nizámu-d dín Ahmad. The number of troops which accompanied the Sultán is not mentioned. 'Utbí says he had 20,000 volunteers from Transoxiana. Mírkhond says these were in addition to his own troops. Firishta says he had 100,000 chosen horse and 20,000 northern foot.

“In A.H. 409, Sultán Mahmúd marched at the head of his army with the resolution of conquering the kingdom of Kanauj. When, having crossed seven dreadful rivers, he reached the confines of that kingdom, the governor of the place, whose name was Kora, submitted to him, sought his protection, and sent him presents.⁴⁶⁰

“The Sultán then arrived at the fort of Barna. The governor, whose name was Hardat, left the fort under the care of his tribe and relations,^460a and sought to conceal himself elsewhere. The garrison, finding themselves unable to defend the fort, capitulated in a few days, agreeing to pay a thousand times a thousand (1,000,000) dirhams, which is equal to 2,50,000 rupees, and also to present him with thirty elephants.

“The Sultán marched thence to the fort of Maháwan, on the banks of the river Jumna. The chief of the place, whose name was Kulchandar, mounted his elephant with the intention of crossing over the stream and flying away, but the Sultán's army pursued, and when they approached him he killed himself with his dagger.

“To live in the power of an enemy
Is much worse than to die.”

The fort was captured, and eighty-five elephants, besides much other booty, fell into the hands of the victors.

“Proceeding from this place, the king arrived at Mathura,^460b which was a very large city full of magnificent temples. It is the birthplace of Krishn (or) Básdeo, whom the Hindús venerate as an incarnation of God. When the Sultán reached the city no one came out to oppose him.^460c The Sultan's army plundered the whole city and set fire to the temples. They took immense booty, and by the Sultán's order they broke up a golden image which was ninety-eight thousand three hundred miskáls in weight; and there was also found a sapphire weighing four hundred and fifty miskáls.

“It is said that Chandar Ráí, who was one of the Rájas of Hindústán, possessed a very powerful and famous elephant. The Sultán desired to purchase it at a very large price, but could not get it.⁴⁶¹ When the Sultán was returning from Kanauj, this elephant one night broke away from the other elephants, and went without any driver to the Sultán's camp, who took it, and being much pleased, he called it Khudádád (the gift of God).

“When he returned to Ghaznín, he had the value of the spoil counted. It was found to consist of 20,000,000 dirhams, 53,000 captives, and 350 elephants.”—Tabakát-i Akbarí.

There are not fewer difficulties to contend with when we come to consider the names of the Hindú chiefs. 'Utbí calls the ruler of Kanauj Ráí Jaipál and Purú Jaipál, meaning the same Jaipál who has already been spoken of as the Rájá of Lahore. Mírkhond and Khondamír also call him Jaipál. He is the same as the Nardajan-pál of Al Bírúní, of which none of his commentators are able to restore the correct reading. Nizámu-d dín Ahmad and Firishta call him Kora, or, according to Briggs, Koowur-Ray. We are at a loss what grounds these later authors have for this statement. It may, perhaps, be equivalent to Purú, and be meant for Kunwar, “a rája's son,” a term of common use in the present day. Bird says he was called Kora from the appellation of his tribe; but there is no such tribe, unless Gaur be meant, which would be spelt in nearly a similar form. However this may be, we must, improbable as it may seem, follow the statement of 'Utbí, and conceive that the Rájá of Lahore was at this time in possession of Kanauj. There are certain details given which favour this notion. The son of this Purú Jaipál is, according to the Yamíní, Bhím-pál, who writes to Chand Rái, respecting the Musulmáns, as if he had long been in communication with them. This Bhím-pál speaks of his uncle having been forcibly converted, which uncle, as we have already seen, seems evidently to be the same as Nawása Sháh. We also find Purú Jaipál holding dominions on the other side of the Ganges during the next campaign on the Ráhib. We may suppose, therefore, that, without being de facto ruler throughout these broad domains, he may have held a sort of suzerainty or paramount rule, and was then in the eastern portion of his dominions, engaged in settling the nuptials of his son, Bhím-pál, or had altogether transferred his residence to these parts, to avoid the frequent incursions of his Muhammadan persecutors, who, in their late expedition to Thánesar, had shown that it was impossible for him to maintain independence in Lahore. Like as the reigning family was driven from Kábul to Bhera, and from Bhera to Lahore, so it seems now to have been driven from Lahore to Kanauj.

The Chandálbhor Phúr, or Púr, in some copies of the Yamíní, the ruler of Ásí, may, perhaps, indicate that the Rájá was a Chandel Rájpút, for Ásí is close to the spot where we find that clan now established. The name Phúr may have some connection with the legendary Fúr, or Porus, who opposed Alexander; for, be it observed, his capital is represented by Indian geographers to have been in the neighbourhood of Allahabad; and the Rájás of Kumáún, who are themselves Chandels, represent themselves to be descended from this Fúr, the ruler of Kanauj and Prayág. So addicted are the Asiatics to ascribe this name to Indian potentates that some Arabic authors name even Ráí Pithaurá as Puras. On this name and the analogies which it suggests, much might be added, but it would lead us beyond the immediate purport of this Note to discuss them.⁴⁶²

Chand Ráí, perhaps, also indicates the same lineage, for his dominions must have adjoined Bundelkhand, in which province are included Mahoba and Chanderí, the original seats from which the Chandels emigrated.

Thirteenth Expedition.—Battle of the Ráhib. A.H. 412.—'Utbí mentions no year for this expedition. Nizámu-d dín Ahmad attributes it to 410; Firishta to 412. The latter is the most probable. Mírkhond and Khondamír make no mention of it. 'Utbí places the scene on the Ráhib, which we know from Al Bírúní to be on the other side of the Ganges, and is either the Rámgangá, or the Sye— apparently the latter in the present instance.

The other authors place the scene on the Jumna, and we might consider their account to refer to some other expedition, were not Purú Jaipál mentioned in both, as well as the circumstance of the surprise by eight men swimming over the river. It is also worthy of remark that Al Bírúní gives the death of Púr Jaipál in 412 A.H., which makes it highly probable that he was slain in this very action, though that fact is not expressly mentioned in the Taríkh Yamíní.

Dr. Bird doubts this expedition altogether, because another expedition occurs against Kálinjar, and the two appear to have been in reality one. But here not even Firishta represents that Mahmúd went to Kálinjar, though he was engaged with the Rája of that place. 'Utbí's statement must be received as conclusive respecting a movement as far as the Ráhib; though he mentions nothing about Kálinjar or Nandá Rája. Indeed, in that author we nowhere find mention of that submission to the Sultán, on account of which the Ráí of Kanauj was sacrificed to the vengeance of the Hindú confederacy.

That Purú Jaipál should be found on the other side of the Ráhib, as 'Utbí says, or come to the aid of Nandá Rájá, according to Nizámu-d dín and Firishta, is confirmative of the probability previously noticed, that he had then established himself far to the eastward of Lahore.

The following is the statement of Nizámu-d dín:—

“It is said that when Sultán Mahmúd heard that a Rája named Nandá⁴⁶³ had slain the Ráí of Kanauj, for having recognized and submitted to the Sultán, he resolved to invade his territory. So, in A.H. 410, he marched again towards Hindústán. When he reached the banks of the Jumna, Púr Jaipál,^463a who had so often fled before his troops, and who had now come to assist Nandá, encamped in face of the Sultán; but there was a deep river between them, and no one passed over without the Sultán's permission. But it so happened that eight of the royal guards of Mahmúd's army having crossed the river together, they threw the whole army of Púr Jaipál into confusion, and defeated it. Púr Jaipál, with a few infidels, escaped. The eight men⁴⁶⁴ not returning to the Sultán, advanced against the city of Bárí,^464a which lay in the vicinity. Having found it defenceless, they plundered it, and pulled down the heathen temples.

The Sultán advanced from hence to the territory of Nandá, who, resolving on battle, collected a large army, which is said to have consisted of thirty-six thousand horse, one hundred and five thousand foot,^464b and six hundred and forty elephants. When the Sultán approached his camp, he first sent an ambassador, calling upon him to acknowledge fealty, and embrace the Muhammadan faith. Nandá refused these conditions, and prepared to fight. Upon this, the Sultán reconnoitred Nandá's army from an eminence, and observing its vast numbers, he regretted his having come thither. Prostrating himself before God, he prayed for success and victory. When night came on, great fear and alarm entered the mind of Nandá, and he fled with some of his personal attendants, leaving all his baggage and equipments. The next day the Sultán, being apprized of this, rode out on horseback without any escort, and carefully examined the ground. When he was satisfied that there was no ambush or strategical device, he stretched out his hands for plunder and devastation. Immense booty fell into the hands of the Musulmáns, and five hundred and eighty of Nandá's elephants, which were in the neighbouring woods, were taken. The Sultán, loaded with victory and success, returned to Ghaznín.”^464c —Tabakát-i Akbarí.

Fourteenth Expedition.—Kírát, Núr, Lohkot, and Láhore.^464d A.H. 413. We now lose the guidance of 'Utbí, and are compelled to follow the more uncertain authority of later writers. It has been questioned whether this expedition ever took place. Elphinstone and Reinaud take no notice of it, and Bird says that it is a mere repetition of the previous one to Bálnát; and “the narratives evidently refer to the same places and transactions.” Even if they did refer to the same places, there is no reason why the transactions should not have been different. As Firishta asserts that Kuriat⁴⁶⁵ and Nardein lie apparently between Turkistán and Hindústán, it is evident that he thought he was dealing with places which had not yet been mentioned. His authority for assigning this position to the tract is not the Tabakát-i Akbarí, in which it is merely stated that the country has mountain passes, is very cold, abounds with fruit, and that its inhabitants worship lions. This latter, no doubt, alludes to the worship of Sákya Sinha (lion) the Buddha. But, though Firishta had little authority for his assertion, it is evident that he was correct in making it Kuriat. First, we must restore the true reading of Nardein. The latter, in the Tabakát-i Akbarí and Kanzu-l Mahpúr is correctly given as “Núr;” and “Kuriat” in the same works, in the original of Firishta, is correctly given as “Kírát.” Now, the position of Kírát and Núr is ascertained by referring to Al Bírúní's account of the Kábul river, which is thus described by him: “This body of water—the Kábul river—passes through the country of Lam-ghán, near the fort of Dirúna, and is then joined by the waters of Núr and Kírát.^465a When it reaches opposite Pesháwar, it forms a considerable stream,” etc. Here, then, we must look for the waters of Núr and Kírát, between the towns of Jalálábád and Pesháwar, and we shall find that the country alluded to is that drained by the Kuner and Landye rivers—that is, Swát, Bajaur, and part of Káfiristán. This tract exactly corresponds with the description given in the Tabakát-i Akbarí; and plenty of Buddhist remains survive to explain the allusion to the worship of lions.

On the supposition that Núr and Kírát were in the neighbourhood of Bajaur, there is no difficulty in tracing the progress of the conqueror during this invasion. On his way from Ghaznín, he makes an incursion across the Kábul river, and while his general is engaged in capturing Núr and building the fort, to overawe the wild inhabitants, he himself proceeds to the impregnable Lohkot, by the same road which he had previously travelled; and then returned to Ghaznín after visiting Lahore.

As the Habíbu-s Siyar gives no account of this expedition, the following narrative is taken from Nizámu-d dín Ahmad. Firishta adds to it that the king of Lahore fled to Ajmír, and that Mahmúd, before returning to Ghazní, nominated commanders to the conquered provinces of Hindustán, and left troops for their protection. This author is mistaken in speaking of the stone which was found at Nárdín, and was represented to be four thousand years old. He has in this respect, from similarity of name, confounded this expedition with that against Ninduna or Nárdín, in the Bálnát hills.

“About this time, the king learned that the inhabitants of the two mountainous tracts (darra) of Kírát and Núr, were all worshippers of idols, and possessed some very strong positions. The Sultán immediately gave orders that his forces should be collected; and having taken many blacksmiths, carpenters, and stone-cutters with him, he proceeded towards those places. When he approached the country, he first attacked Kírát. This place was very cold, and abounded with fruit; and its inhabitants were worshippers of lions. The chief of that forest, however, made submission, and accepted Islám. All the other people also followed his example. Sáhib 'Alí⁴⁶⁶ ibn Ílár, a Muhammadan, was sent to reduce Núr, which he accomplished. He founded a fort at this place, and left 'Alí bin Kadr Júk^466a as governor of it. Islám spread in this part of the country by the consent of the people and by the influence of force.

“In A.H. 412,^466b the king advanced toward Kashmír, and invested the stronghold of Lohkot.⁴⁶⁷ He stayed before it one month, but finding the fort, on account of its strength and loftiness, altogether impregnable, he decamped and proceeded towards Lahore and Bágar. He directed his followers to plunder the hill country, and immense booty was collected. The Sultán returned in the commencement of spring to Ghaznín.”—Tabakát-i Akbarí.

Fifteenth Expedition.—Gwáliár and Kálinjár. A.H. 414.—This is another expedition resting only on the same authorities, and respecting which also doubts have been entertained, but there seems no reason to suppose that the restless bigotry of Mahmúd did not undertake this new expedition. It does not appear that he had yet visited Kálinjár, though he had been twice in the neighbourhood. The mention of Gwáliár in connection with it seems to separate this altogether from the other expeditions towards Bundelkhand and the Lower Doáb.

The following is from the Tabakát-i-Akbarí:—

“In A.H. 413 (1021 A.D.) Mahmúd again undertook an expedition against the territory of Nandá. Having reached the fort of Gwáliár, he besieged it. Four days after, the chief of the place sent messengers promising thirty-five elephants, and solicited protection. The Sultán agreed to the terms, and from thence proceeded to Kálinjár. This is a fort unparalleled in the whole country of Hindústán for its strength. He invested this fort also, and, after a while, Nandá, its chief, presented three hundred elephants, and sued for peace. As these animals were sent out of the fort without riders,^467a the Sultán ordered the Turks to seize and mount them. The enemy perceiving this, was much surprised, and Nandá sent a copy of Hindí verses in praise of the Sultán, who gave it to the learned men of Hind and other poets who were at his court, who all bestowed their admiration upon them. He was much pleased with the compliment, and in return conferred on him the government of fifteen forts,^467b besides some other presents. Nandá acknowledged this favour by sending immense riches and jewels to the Sultán, who then victoriously and triumphantly returned to Ghaznín.

“In A.H. 414, Mahmúd mustered all his forces, and found them, besides those which were employed on duty in the different parts of his kingdom, to consist of fifty-four thousand horse and one thousand three hundred elephants.”—Tabakát-i Akbarí.

Sixteenth Expedition.—Somnát. A.H. 416-7.—The accounts of this celebrated expedition are given in great detail by most authors. Those who follow [Ibn Asír and] Mírkhond make it commence with 416 H. Those who follow Firishta with 415 H. Dr. Bird has given good reason for preferring the former year, where he shows the necessity of paying attention to the Indian seasons in examining these expeditions. A few additional circumstances, not to be found in the Habíbu-s Siyar, are mentioned by other authors, and are shown in the following extracts.

Though the position of Somnát is well-known in the district of the Guzerát peninsula, now called Bhábrewár, yet by some extraordinary mistake, in which he has been followed by Rampoldi, D'Her-belot considers it to be the same as Viziapur in the Dekhin.

[From the Kámilu-t Tawáríkh of Ibn Asír⁴⁶⁸: —

“In the year 414 H. Mahmúd captured several forts and cities in Hind, and he also took the idol called Somnát. This idol was the greatest of all the idols of Hind. Every night that there was an eclipse the Hindús went on pilgrimage to the temple, and there congregated to the number of a hundred thousand persons. They believed that the souls of men after separation from the body used to meet there, according to their doctrine of transmigration, and that the ebb and flow of the tide was the worship paid to the idol by the sea, to the best of its power. Everything of the most precious was brought there; its attendants received the most valuable presents, and the temple was endowed with more than 10,000 villages. In the temple were amassed jewels of the most exquisite quality and incalculable value. The people of India have a great river called Gang, to which they pay the highest honour, and into which they cast the bones of their great men, in the belief that the deceased will thus secure an entrance to heaven. Between this river and Somnát there is a distance of about 200 parasangs, but water was daily brought from it with which the idol was washed. One thousand Bráhmans attended every day to perform the worship of the idol, and to introduce the visitors. Three hundred persons were employed in shaving the heads and beards of the pilgrims. Three hundred and fifty persons sang and danced at the gate of the temple. Every one of these received a settled allowance daily. When Mahmúd was gaining victories and demolishing idols in India, the Hindús said that Somnát was displeased with these idols, and that if he had been satisfied with them no one could have destroyed or injured them. When Mahmúd heard this he resolved upon making a campaign to destroy this idol, believing that when the Hindús saw their prayers and imprecations to be false and futile, they would embrace the faith.

“So he prayed to the Almighty for aid, and left Ghazní on the 10th Sha'bán, 414 H., with 30,000 horse besides volunteers, and took the road to Multán, which place he reached in the middle of Ramazán. The road from thence to India was through a barren desert, where there were neither inhabitants nor food. So he collected provisions for the passage, and loading 30,000 camels with water and corn, he started for Anhalwára. After he had crossed the desert, he perceived on one side a fort full of people, in which place there were wells. People came down to conciliate him, but he invested the place, and God gave him victory over it, for the hearts of the inhabitants failed them through fear. So he brought the place under the sway of Islám, killed the inhabitants, and broke in pieces their images. His men carried water away with them from thence and marched for Anhalwára, where they arrived at the beginning of Zí-l Ka'da.

“The chief of Anhalwára, called Bhím, fled hastily, and abandoning his city, he went to a certain fort for safety and to prepare himself for war. Yamínu-d daula again started for Somnát, and on his march he came to several forts in which were many images serving as chamberlains or heralds of Somnát, and accordingly he (Mahmúd) called them Shaitán. He killed the people who were in these places, destroyed the fortifications, broke in pieces the idols, and continued his march to Somnát through a desert where there was little water. There he met 20,000 fighting men, inhabitants of that country, whose chiefs would not submit. So he sent some forces against them, who defeated them, put them to flight, and plundered their possessions. From thence they marched to Dabalwárah, which is two days' journey from Somnát. The people of this place stayed resolutely in it, believing that Somnát would utter his prohibition and drive back the invaders; but Mahmúd took the place, slew the men, plundered their property, and marched on to Somnát.

“He reached Somnát on a Thursday in the middle of Zí-l Ka'da, and there he beheld a strong fortress built upon the sea shore, so that it was washed by the waves. The people of the fort were on the walls amusing themselves at the expense of the confident Musul-máns, telling them that their deity would cut off the last man of them, and destroy them all. On the morrow, which was Friday, the assailants advanced to the assault, and when the Hindús beheld the Muhammadáns fighting, they abandoned their posts, and left the walls. The Musulmáns planted their ladders against the walls and gained the summit: then they proclaimed their success with their religious war-cry, and exhibited the prowess of Islám. Then followed a fearful slaughter, and matters wore a serious aspect. A body of Hindús hurried to Somnát, cast themselves on the ground before him, and besought him to grant them victory. Night came on, and the fight was suspended.

“Next morning, early, the Muhammadans renewed the battle, and made greater havoc among the Hindús, till they drove them from the town to the house of their idol, Somnát. A dreadful slaughter followed at the gate of the temple. Band after band of the defenders entered the temple to Somnát, and with their hands clasped round their necks, wept and passionately entreated him. Then again they issued forth to fight until they were slain, and but few were left alive. These took to the sea in boats to make their escape, but the Musulmáns overtook them, and some were killed and some were drowned.

“This temple of Somnát was built upon fifty-six pillars of teak wood covered with lead. The idol itself was in a chamber; its height was five cubits and its girth three cubits. This was what appeared to the eye, but two cubits were (hidden) in the basement. It had no appearance of having been sculptured. Yamínu-d daula seized it, part of it he burnt, and part of it he carried away with him to Ghazní, where he made it a step at the entrance of the Jámi'-masjid. The shrine of the idol was dark, but it was lighted by most exquisitely jewelled chandeliers. Near the idol was a chain of gold to which bells were attached. The weight of it was 200 mans. When a certain portion of the night had passed, this chain was shaken to ring the bells, and so rouse a fresh party of Bráhmans to carry on the worship. The treasury was near, and in it there were many idols of gold and silver. Over it there were veils hanging, set with jewels, every one of which was of immense value. The worth of what was found in the temple exceeded two millions of dínárs, all of which was taken. The number of the slain exceeded fifty thousand.”⁴⁷¹ —Ibn Asír.]

The following is from the Táríkh-i Alfí:—

“It is said that the temple of Somnát was built by one of the greatest Rájas of India. The idol was cut out of solid stone, about five yards in height, of which two were buried in the earth. Mahmúd, as soon as his eye fell on this idol, lifted up his battle-axe with much anger, and struck it with such force that the idol broke into pieces. The fragments of it were ordered to be taken to Ghaznín, and were cast “down at the threshold of the Jámi' Masjid,' where they are lying to this day. It is a well-authenticated fact that when Mahmúd was about to destroy the idol, a crowd of Bráhmans represented (to his nobles) that if he would desist from the mutilation they would pay several crores of gold coins into his treasury. This was agreed to by many of the nobles, who pointed out to the Sultán that he could not obtain so much treasure by breaking the image, and that the proffered money would be very serviceable. Mahmúd replied, “I know this, but I desire that on the day of resurrection I should be summoned with the words, ‘Where is that Mahmúd who broke the greatest of the heathen idols?’ rather than by these: ‘Where is that Mahmúd who sold the greatest of the idols to the infidels for gold?’” When Mahmúd demolished the image, he found in it so many superb jewels and rubies, that they amounted to, and even exceeded an hundred times the value of the ransom which had been offered to him by the Bráhmans.

“According to the belief of the Hindús, all the other idols in India held the position of attendants and deputies of Somnát. Every night this idol was washed with “fresh” water brought from the Ganges, although that river must be more than two hundred parasangs distant. This river flows through the eastern part of India, and is held very sacred by the Hindus. They throw the bones of their dead into it.

“It is related in many authentic historical works that the revenue of ten thousand populated villages was set apart as an endowment for the expenses of the temple of Somnát, and more than one thousand Bráhmans were always engaged in the worship of that idol. There hung in this temple a golden chain which weighed two hundred Indian mans. To this were attached numerous bells, and several persons were appointed whose duty it was to shake it at stated times during day and night, and summon the Bráhmans to worship. Amongst the other attendants of this temple there were three hundred barbers appointed to shave the heads of the pilgrims. There were also three hundred musicians and five hundred dancing-girls attached to it; and it was customary even for the kings and rájas of India to send their daughters for the service of the temple. A salary was fixed for every one of the attendants, and it was duly and punctually paid. On the occurrence of an eclipse multitudes of Hindús came to visit this temple from all parts of Hindústán. We are told by many historians that at every occurrence of this phenomenon there assembled more than two hundred thousand persons, bringing offerings. It is said in the history of Ibn Asír and in that of Háfiz Ábrú⁴⁷² that the room in which the idol of Somnát was placed was entirely dark, and that it was illumined by the refulgence of the jewels that adorned the candelabra. In the treasury of this temple there were also found numberless small idols of gold and silver. In short, besides what fell into the hands of his army from the plunder of the city, Mahmúd obtained so much wealth in gold, jewels, and other valuables from this temple, that no other king possessed anything equal to it.

“When Mahmúd had concluded his expedition against Somnát, it was reported to him that Rája Bhím, chief of Nahrwára, who at the time of the late invasion had fled away, had now taken refuge in the fort of Kandama,⁴⁷³ which was by land forty parasangs distant from Somnát. Mahmúd immediately advanced towards that place,^473a and when his victorious flags drew near the fort, it was found to be surrounded by much water, and there appeared no way of approaching it. The Sultán ordered some divers to sound the depth of the water, and they pointed him out a place where it was fordable. But at the same time they said that if the water (the tide) should rise at the time of their passing it would drown them all. Mahmúd, having taken the advice of religious persons, and depending upon the protection of the Almighty God, proceeded with his army, and plunged with his horse into the water. He crossed over it in safety, and the chief of the fort having witnessed his intrepidity, fled away. His whole property, with numerous prisoners, fell into the hands of the army of Islám. All men who were found in the fort were put to the sword.^473b

“After this conquest, Mahmúd proceeded to invade the territory of the Bhátís, whose chief, being apprised of his intentions, proffered his obedience and submission.^473c The king left him in possession of his dominions, and returned to his own capital of Ghaznín.”— Táríkh i-Alfí.

From the Tabakát-i Akbarí:—

“When Mahmúd resolved upon returning home from Somnát, he learned that Parama Dev, one of the greatest Rájas of Hindústán, was preparing to intercept him. The Sultán, not deeming it advisable at the time to contend with this chief, went towards Multán, through Sind. In this journey his men suffered much in some places from scarcity of water, and in others from want of forage. After enduring great difficulties, he arrived at Ghaznín in A.H. 417.

“In this year, Al Kádir Bi-llah wrote a letter to him, accompanied with standards (signalising him as sovereign⁴⁷⁴) of Khurásán, Hindústán, Nímroz, and Khwárízm, and granted titles to the Sultán, his sons and brothers. To the Sultán he gave the title of Kahfu-d daulat wau-l Islám (Guardian of the State and of the Faith); to Amír Mas'úd that of Shahábu-d daulat and Jamálu-l Millat (Lustre of the State and Ornament of the Faith); to Amír Muhammad of Jalálu-d daulat and Jamálu-l Millat (Glory of the State and Ornament of the Faith); and to Amír Yúsuf, of Azdu-d daulat and Muwaiyidu-l Millat (Support of the State and Maintainer of the Faith). He at the same time assured Mahmúd that he would recognise the person whom he should nominate as his successor. This letter reached the Sultán in Balkh.”^474a —Tabakát-i Akbarí.

The difficulties experienced in the desert are thus related by Minháju-s Siráj Júzjání. From the mention of Sind and Mansúra, it is evident that Mahmúd returned by a much more westerly course than he pursued in coming; and if we compare this narrative with the one given in the Jámi'u-l Hikáyát (v. sup. p. 192), we shall be confirmed in this view, for the river there mentioned can be no other than the Sind or Panjnad.

From the Tabakát-i Násirí:—

“On his return from Somnát through the territory of Sind and Mansúría, he resolved to take his army by way of the desert. On his demand for guides, a Hindú came forward and promised to lead the way. When the army of Islám had for some time^474b marched behind him, and it became time to call a halt, people went in search of water, but it was nowhere found. The Sultán summoned the guide to his presence, and asked him where water was procurable. He replied, “I have devoted my life for the sake of my deity Somnát, and have brought thee and thy army into this desert, where no water is, in order that all may perish.” The Sultán ordered the guide to be killed, and the army to encamp. He rested patiently until night came on, and then the Sultán went aside from the camp, and prostrating himself on the earth, entreated with the deepest supplication Almighty God for aid in this extremity. When about a quarter of the night had elapsed, a light shone to the north of the camp. The Sultán ordered his army to march in that direction, and when day broke the Omnipotent led them to a place where there was a supply of water. Thus did all the Musulmáns escape from this imminent danger.”⁴⁷⁵ —Tabakát-i Násirí.

From the Rauzatu-s Safá:—

“It is related that when Sultan Mahmúd had achieved the conquest of Somnát, he wished to fix his residence there for some years, because the country was very extensive, possessed many unusual advantages, as well as several mines which produced pure gold. Indian rubies were brought there from Sarandíp, one of the dependencies of the kingdom of Guzerát. His ministers represented to him that to forsake Khurásán, which had been taken from his enemies after so many battles, and to make Somnát the seat of government was very improper. In short, the King made up his mind to return, and ordered that some man should be appointed to hold and carry on the administration of the country. The ministers observed that it was impossible for a stranger to maintain possession, and therefore he should assign it to one of the native chiefs. The Sultán accordingly held a council to settle the nomination, in concurrence with such of the inhabitants as were well disposed towards him. Some of them represented to him that amongst the ancient royal families no house was so noble as that of the Dábshilíms, of whom only one member survived, and he had assumed the habit of a Brahman, and was devoted to philosophical pursuits and austerity.⁴⁷⁶ —Rauzatu-s Safá.^476a

With respect to the name of Somnát, Firishta observes “that Soma was the name of a prince, after whom the idol Nát was called—Nát signifying among the Hindús lord or chief—and is rendered applicable to idols. Thus we have Jagnát, the lord of the creation.” Bird, in one part of his work, says that it is derived from the Sanskrit Swayambhú Náth, “self-existing lord;” but in another part, more correctly, from Soma Náth, “the moon-lord,” or “regent of the moon,” which was one of the names under which Mahádeva was worshipped. It is evident from the statement of Al Bírúní that Somnát was no idol, but the lingam or phallic emblem of that deity. The embellishments of the story have been commented on by Wilson. “The earlier Muhammadan writers say nothing of the mutilation of its features, for, in fact, it had none; nothing of the treasures it contained, which, as it was solid, could not have been within it. * * * Firishta invents the hidden treasure of rubies and pearls with quite as little warrant. Somnáth was in fact a linga, a náth, or deity ascribed to Soma, the moon, as having been erected by him in honour of Siva. It was one of the twelve principal types of that deity, which were celebrated in India at the time of the first Muhammadan invasion.” That there were, however, precious stones upon this lingam we know from the account of Al Bírúní, who tells us that the top was garnished with them and with gold. He also informs us that the name of “moon-lord” was derived from the fact of the stone being washed with more particular ceremony twice during the month, at the full and new moon.

The resemblance which the Muhammadan authors wish to establish between this lingam and the Arabian Lát seems to be a mere fancy; for though there was doubtless at one time considerable connection between these parts of India and Arabia, it does not appear to have been exemplified in this particular instance.

There is one other matter which seems to require a passing notice in this place, as of late years it has engaged some attention. I allude to the removal of the Somnát gates.

Seventeenth Expedition.—Játs of Júd. (A.H. 417.—This expedition is also recorded only by the later authorities, but the attack upon the Játs is not in itself improbable, though some of its attendant circumstances are. It is probable that, on the dissolution of the kingdom of Láhore, the Játs of the Júd hills acquired considerable power, and by predatory incursions were able to harry their neighbours. Their advance so far from their own country to attack the Muhammadan army, and the strength of the force with which they opposed it, show that they possessed no inconsiderable power. From a passage quoted by M. Reinaud from the Kámilu-t Tawáríkh, (416 H.), it appears that they had invaded the principality of Mansúra and had forced the Musulmán Amír to abjure his religion.⁴⁷⁷ It does not quite appear what particular portion of the hilly country is here meant, but most probably the Salt range, on the part nearest to Multán. The Játs have now moved further to the north and east, but some of their clans point to the Salt range as their original seats.

The chief improbability, and it is almost insurmountable, consists in Mahmúd's being able to organise a powerful fleet of fourteen hundred boats at Multán, and in being opposed by at least four thousand boats manned by mountaineers. Even in a time of the briskest trade, fourteen hundred boats could not be collected in all the rivers of the Panjáb. It is also remarkable that Mahmúd should choose to fight at all on the river, when his veteran troops would have been so much more effective on land than on water. If he could have equipped so large a fleet on a sudden emergency, it adds to the surprise which Elphinstone invites us to entertain, that Mahmúd. neither in going to or returning from Somnát availed himself of the Indus. On his return, however, he does seem to have come for some way on the banks of the Indus.

As the year 417 H. began on the 22nd Feb., 1026, there was ample time for Mahmúd to have returned to Ghazní in order to escape the heats and rains of Hindústán, and return again to Multán before the Ghazní winter, all within the same year.

The following account is taken from Nizámu-d dín Ahmad:—

“In the same year (417 H.), the Sultán, with a view to punish the Játs, who had molested his army on his return from Somnát, led a large force towards Multán, and when he arrived there he ordered fourteen hundred boats to be built, each of which was armed with three firm iron spikes, projecting one from the prow and two from the sides, so that anything which came in contact with them would infallibly be destroyed.⁴⁷⁸ In each boat were twenty archers, with bows and arrows, grenades,^478a and naphtha; and in this way they proceeded to attack the Játs, who having intelligence of the armament, sent their families into the islands and prepared themselves for the conflict. They launched, according to some, four, and according to others, eight thousand boats, manned and armed, ready to engage the Muhammadans. Both fleets met, and a desperate conflict ensued. Every boat of the Játs that approached the Moslem fleet, when it received the shock of the projecting spikes, was broken and overturned. Thus most of the Játs were drowned, and those who were not so destroyed were put to the sword.^478b The Sultán's army proceeded to the places where their families were concealed, and took them all prisoners. The Sultán then returned victorious to Ghaz-nín.”— Tabakát-i Akbarí.