The history of India : as told by its own historians. Volume II/Note A.— The Hindu kings of Kabul

From Jatland Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Back to Index of the Book
The full text of this book has been converted into Wiki format by Laxman Burdak.
The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians

Sir H. M. Elliot Edited by John Dowson, 1867

Volume II: To the Year A.D. 1260

Appendix Note A.— The Hindu kings of Kabul

Introduction

[p.403]: Abu Rihan al Biruni has the following statement respecting this dynasty in his lately discovered Arabic work, entitled Tarikhu-l Hind: —

" Kabul was formerly governed by princes of Turk lineage. It is said that they were originally from Tibet. The first of them was named Barhtigin, ** * * * and the kingdom continued with his children for sixty generations. * ** ** * * The last of them was a Katorman, and his minister was Kalar, a Brahman. 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 Katorman'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 Brahman (s) Samand, then Kamlua, then Bhim, then Jaipal, then Anandpal, then Nardajanpal, who was killed in a.h. 412. His son, Bhimpal, 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 Anandpal wrote to Amir Mahmud, at the time enmity existed between them, is much to be admired. 'I have heard that the

1 [The Fragments, Arabes et Persans, were published in 1846 ; and this note must have been -written by Sir H. Elliot soon after.]

[p.404]: Turks have invaded your dominions, and have spread over Khurasan ; 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 Musulmans from the time that his son, Nardajanpal, 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 Rajput, 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 Hindi 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 Kabul Turkish kings this Kanak occupied. M. Reinaud both in his translation of Al Biruni in Fragments Arabes, and his --- [p. 405]: Memoire 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. 11. p. 10. Mr. Thomas, trusting to translations or abstracts of Al Biruni, 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 Rai 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 Katorman," is in the original Arabic of Al Biruni —

<Arabic> which M. Reinaud translates, " The last of them (the Turks) was Laktouzeman," which is certainly correct, provided the reading is admitted to be so ; but Mr. Thomas, after examining various copies of the Jami'u-t tawarikh and Binakit'i — the former of which is a translation, and the latter an abridgement of Al Biruni'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 Jami', in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society —

<Arabic> " and Kanak returned to his country, and he was the last of the Katorman kings."

The corresponding passage in the Persian Jami' in the British Museum is — <Arabic>

Binakiti has the following — <Arabic>

" and after him was Kanak, and he was the last of the Katorman kings."

All the copies of Binakiti which I have seen concur in this reading, and of three several copies of the Persian Jami'u-t tawarikh

[p.406]: which I have examined, two are in conformity with the extract given above, with the exception of reading Katoriyan for Katorman, and a third has — <Arabic>


" after Basdeo from among their rulers (i.e., of the Indians), one was Kanak, and he was the last of the Kayorman kings."

The omission of all notice of the Kabul Turkish dynasty, and the making Kanak succeed Basdeo, and the Brahmans succeed Kanak, without any notice or allusion to there being intermediate kings, is a culpable omission on the part of Rashidu-d din and Binakiti. The making Kanak the last of the Turkish dynasty does not seem authorized by the only original of Al Biruni's Tarikhu-l Hind which we possess, and Rashidu-d din 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 Biruni'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 Histbire des Mongols, mis a contribution un ecrit d'Albyrouny autre que celui-ci, et que ne nous est point parvenu. Malheureuse- ment, les manuscripts de I'ouvrage de Raschid-ed din different entre eux : au lieu de Lahtouzeman, ils portent Katourman, et on ne dis- tingue pas bien s'il s'agit la 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 Tarikhu-l Hind, that even that bears a closer resemblance to Katourman than Lahtouzeman. 1 Taking all circumstances into consideration, I am disposed to get rid of the name of Laktouzeman from the Tarikhu-l Hind, and to substitute for it, by two slight changes in the original, al Katorman, which repre-

1 [The name occurs only twice in Reinaud's printed extract. In the first instance, it is given as quoted above, but in the second it is <arbic> , Lakturzaman. See Fragments, p. 135.]

[p. 407]: sents 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 Katorman."

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

The Katormans, 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 Kafiristan, 1 and that the ruler of Chitral to this day bears the title of Shah Kator, 2 and I have heard the same designation given to the chief of Gilgit. The country of Kator is also spoken of by Sadik Isfahani, as being the country of the Siyahposhes, or black- vested, on the borders of Kabul. 3

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. 4 We find at the period of Timur's invasion of India, the Katorians making themselves conspicuous for their opposition to that monarch. After leaving Inderab he entered their difficult country by way of Khawah, 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 Abu-1 Fazl Baihaki 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 Tarikh-i Yamini that Mahmud was in the practice of doing with conquered nations, as exemplified in his treatment of the Khiljis, Afghans, and Indians. It is evident from the extracts given in this work from the Tabakat-i Akbari and the Tarikh-i Mas'udi, that a body of Kator troops was kept in pay, and that the Tilak mentioned therein was the commander of these foreign troops,

1 Elphinstone's Kabul, vol. ii. pp, 376, 387.

2 Burne's Bokhara, vol. ii. p. 209 ; and Journal A. S. Bengal, vol. vii. p. 331.

3 Takwimu-l-buldan , p. 127. 4 [For other references to the Kators, see Thomas's Prinsep, I. 314. Lassen, Ind. Alt. III. 890, 1176. Masson's Narrative, I. 193. Vigne, Ghazni, etc., p. 235. Trampp, in Journ. R. A. 8. xix. I. Jour, des Sav. Vol. V., 1855, where M. Viv. de St. Martin attempts to identify them with the Cadrusii of Pliny VI. xxiii.]

[p.408]: which were rated as Indian, lie 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 Kumaun 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.

Little Yue-tchi are ancestors of Jats

A curious coincidence of names seems worth noticing in this place. It will be observed that Al Biruni makes the Turk kings of Kabul 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 Hindu-kush, and established themselves in Afghanistan. Fa-Hian speaks of these barbarians having occupied, long before his visit to India, the province of Peshawar.

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-Remusat 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 down-fall of the former. A few years before Christ, the Yue-tchi chief, named Khieou-tsieou-hy, after subjugating the other independent rulers of his owm tribe, proclaimed himself king, and conquered the countries situated between the Oxus, Hindu-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

[p. 409]: call Ki-to-lo, which Klaproth has converted into Ghidor, descended to the south of the Hindu-kush " in following the valley of the Indus" (?), and invaded India on the north. Among other regions he reduced the province of Peshawar ; but being himself compelled to return westward, left the government of the conquered country to his son. 1 M. Reinaud is of opinion 2 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 Kabul, 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 Jats, 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 I and ther being as usual convertible. Here we seem to have the origin of the name Kitor, the establishment of a prince of that name between Kabul and the Hindu-kush, on the very site of the modem Kafiristan, or land of Siyah-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 Katorman, 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 Biruni asserts the Turkish dynasty of Kabul 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, Duraris, 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

1 Nouveaux Melanges Asiatiques. Tom. i. p. 223. Laidlay's Translation of Fa-hian. Foe-lcom-ki, p. 81. Tableaux Bistoriques d' FAsie. p. 134.

2 Memoire sur l'Inde, p. 83, from which work the preceding abstract of Tue-tchi history is taken.

[p.410]: 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 Bast. He is called by Al Biruni "Barhtigin;" tigin being a common Turkish affix, signifying " the brave," as Alp-tigin, Subuk-tigin. 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. 1 Al Biruni 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 Biruni mentions that Kanak was of the number of these kings, and that he founded the Vihar, or Buddhist monastery at Peshawar, called after his name even in Al Biruni's time, and which, probably, occupied the site of the present conspicuous building, called the Gor-khattri, 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 Tarikhu-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 Rajatarangini 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 Rajput families trace their lineage.

According to Hiuen-thsang, Kanika or Kanishka reigned over

1 Memoire sur l’Inde, p. 73.

2 Mem. sur l'Inde, p. 73; Thomas' Prinsep, Index "Kanishka;" Jour. Beng. As. Soc, Vol, xxiii.

[p.411]: the whole valley of Kabul, the province of Peshawar, the Panjab, and Kashmir. He crossed the Hindukush and Himalaya, and subjected Tukharistan and Little Tibet. He received the title of the Lord of Jambu-dwipa, 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 Manikyala, 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.1

The Yue-tchi evidently established themselves in Kabul 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 Katorman 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 Biruni, respecting the occupation of Kabul by the Turks, is in strict conformity with Biladuri and Tabari, 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 Hindus. Mr. E. Thomas

1 M. Raoul-Rochette, Journal des Savants, ann. 1836, p. 70. [Thomas' Frinaep. I. 150, and Index, v. Manikyala.]

[p. 412]: has considered this subject at considerable length, in another excellent paper by him, on the Coins of the Ghaznivides.1

The first in order is Mas'udi, who visited the valley of the Indus in 303 A.H.= 915 A.D. He says nothing of the political and religions 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 Kabul by the same title as he held when the Arabs penetrated for the first time into those regions.

Istahkri, who wrote within six years after Mas'udi travelled in India, says : — <arabic>

" Kabul has a castle celebrated for its strength, accessible only by one road. In it there are Musulmans, 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 varies1 from the Lucknow one, which bears the name of Ashkalu-l Bilad. In the former, Hindu infidels " is converted into " Infidels and Jews." The latter reads : — <arabic>

The statement of Al Biruni, in his Kanun-i Ma'sudi, written less than a century after this, is : — <arabic>

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 Istakhrl and Ibn Haukal. There is no occasion to

1 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. ix. p. 267.

2 Ibid, p. 286.

[p.413]: 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 Kabul, the statement of Ibn Khallikan should be noticed, who states in his article on " Ya'kub bin Lais," that Kabul, in the times of that prince, was inhabited by a Turkish race who appertained to a tribe called Durari. 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 Kamlua. It is possible that the term Durari may have connection with Darra, a hill pass, and that allusion may be to the country to the north of Kabul, just in the same way as in modem times the inhabitants of those same tracts are styled in Kabul "'Kohistanis," 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 'Irak, on the part of the Khalif 'Usman. 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 Sijistan to be invaded by one of his cousins, 'Abdu-r Rahman, son of Samra. 'Abdu-r Rahman advanced to the city of Zaranj, and besieged the Marzaban, or Persian governor, in his palace, on the festival of the Id. The governor solicited peace, and submitted to pay a tribute of two millions of dirhams and two thousand slaves. After that, 'Abdu-r Rahman subdued the country between Zaranj and Kish, which was then styled Indian territory, and the tract between Ar-Rukhaj (Arachosia) and the province of Dawar — in which latter country he attacked the idolaters in the mountain of Zur, who sued for peace ; and though he had with him 8,000 men, the booty acquired during this incursion was so great, that each man received four thousand pieces of silver as his share. Their idol of Zur was of gold, and its eyes were two rubies. The zealous Musulmans cut off its hand and plucked out its eyes, and then

[p.414]: remarked to the Marzaban how powerless was his idol "to do either good or evil." In the same expedition, Bust was taken. After this, 'Abdu-r Eahman advanced to Zabul, and afterwards, in the time of Mu'awiya, to Kabul.' 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 Abu Sufra, whose army chiefly consisted of the tribe of Azd, which was very powerful in Khurasan, and contributed largely to the downfall of the Ummayides — advanced on the Indian frontier as far as Banna (Banu) and Alahwaz [or "Alahwar" =Lahore?] two places situated between Kabul and Multan. Firishta makes him penetrate as far as Multan, 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 Khurasan many prisoners who were compelled to become converts to the faith. Muhallab had been detached from the main army which had invaded

1 Biladuri, quoted in Memoirs, p. 173, and in Gesehichten der Chalifen, vol, i. Anhang, p. a. Tarjuma-i Futuhat of Ahmad bin 'Asmi Kufi [I have found two Persian extracts from the Futuhdt of Ahmad among the papers. They are short and important, so I give translations. — Ed .]

Conquest of Sijistan by 'Abdu-r Rahman Samrat under the Khalif Usman. — 'Abdu-llah, son of 'Amir, wrote for his nephew on the father's side, 'Abdu-r Rahman Samrat bin Jandab bin 'Abd Shamsh bin 'Abd Sinaf, and having fitted out an army for him, sent him to Sijistan. 'Abdu-r Rahmin led his forces to Zaranj. The people of the city offered battle, and a fierce fight ensued between the opposing parties. The city was taken, and the Musulmans obtained great spoil, carrying off many captives from Sijistta, and incalculable wealth. 'Abdu-r Rahman then marched to subdue Kabul.

Conquest of Kabul: When 'Abdu-r Rahman came in sight of Kabul, the ruler of the place (Kabul Shah), who was lame, was in the city. He came out and fought several engagements with the Musulmans, but retreated into the city, and came forth no more. 'Abdu-r Rahman besieged it, and remained seated before it, fighting with the garrison for a whole year. He and his soldiers had to endure many hardships during the siege, but at length they carried the place by assault; and when they entered it, they put the fighting men to the sword, and made the women and children prisoners Kabul Shah was taken captive, and brought before 'Abdu-r Rahman ; but when he was ordered to be beheaded he turned Muhammadan, and repeated the creed. ' Abdu-r Rahman treated him with honour and kindness. The plunder and the captives which had been taken in Kabul, Zaranj, and Sijistan, was collected, and a fifth portion was set apart and sent to 'Abdu-llah bin 'Amir, with a report of the conquest of Sijistan and Kabul.]

[p.415]:

Kabul from Merv, under 'Abdu-r Rahman bin Shimar, and had made converts of twelve thousand persons. Muhallab subsequently made himself conspicuous as governor of Alahwar, 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 Muhallabis, often occur in the history of the later members of the Ummaya family, until they were nearly exterminated at Kandabil in 101 h.1 Grildemeister doubts the truth of this expedition, as Sijistan had not yet been conquered ; but he forgets that the Musulmans did not penetrate to India through Sijistan, but through Kabul.

In Biladuri'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 Kikan, 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 Musulmans who adopted the practice." 2

About the same time, 'Abbad, the son of Ziyad, made an incursion on the frontier of India, by way of Sijistan. He went through Rudbar to the Hindmand (Helmand), and after staying at Kish, he crossed the desert, and reached Kandahar. Although the country was conquered, many Musulmans lost their lives in this expedition.3

Biladuri informs us that under the Khilafat of Mu'awiya, 'Abdu-r Rahman, son of Samrah, penetrated to the city of Kabul, and obtained possession of it after a month's siege. He conquered also the circumjacent countries, especially Ar-Rukhaj (Arachosia). The king of Kabul made an appeal to the warriors of India, and the Musulmans were driven out of Kabul. He recovered all the other conquered coimtries, and advanced as far as Bust, but on the approach of another

1. Erpenii Elmacin Sistoria Saracenica, ann. 101.

2 Biladuri, see Vol. i. p. 116. Briggs, Firishta, vol. i. p. 4. The Chinese authorities seem to allude to this expedition. Memoires concernant les Chinois, Tom. XV. p. 474. See also Tom. ivi. p. 372-5. Hammer, Gemdldeaaal der Lebensteschre-ibumgen, vol. ii. p. 9.

3 Biladuri, ut supra. "Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen, vol. i. p. 292.

[p.416]:

Musulman army, lie submitted, and engaged to pay an annual tribute.1

The Kabulis subsequently profited by the contests which distracted the Khilafat, and the tribute was withheld ; but in 64 A.H. = 683-4 A.D. 'Abdu-1 'aziz, the governor of Sistan, declared war against the king of Kabul, 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 Kabulis to recover their lost independence.

Amongst the earliest attempts against Kabul may be noticed that of 'Abdu-llah, governor of Sistan, in 78 a.h.=697-8 A.D., or according to some, in the following year. When he arrived at Nimroz, Hajjaj desired him not to linger in Sistan, but to march without delay towards Kabul 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.3

To wipe out the disgrace which the Muhammadan arms had sustained, 'Abdu-r Rahman bin Muhammad bin Asha's, was despatched to Kabul by the famous Hajjaj in 81 a.h.= 700-1 a.d. ; 4 or in the preceding year, according to some authors, he was sent at the head of forty thousand men into Sistan, and having there united to his own troops the troops of the province, marched without delay against the prince of Kabul. 'Abdu-r Rahman returned to Sistan laden with booty, but incurred the displeasure of Hajjaj 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

1 Memoire sur l'Inde, p. 179.

2 Memoire sur l'Inde, p. 178.

3 Tarikh-i-Alfi, Ann. 68, p.m. Muhammad. See the extracts from that work in a subsequent volume of this compilation. Price's Mahommedan Bist,, Vol. i.. p. 454,

4 Mem. sur l'Inde, p. 179; Weil, Oeschichte der Chalifen, Tom. I. p. 449; Ockley's History of the Saracens. [82 a.h.] Bohn's Edit. p. 490.

[p. 417]: 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 Rahman 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 Hajjaj to deliver up his guest. 'Abdu-r Rahman frustrated the vindictive designs of his enemy by throwing himself down from a precipice while he was on his way — a.h.- 84.1

The interest which this contest excited throughout the Khilafat seems to have invested the Prince of Kabul 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. Ockley2 calls him " Zentil ;" Weil,3 "Zenbil;" Reinaud,4 "Ratbyl" and " Zenbyl." Wilson,5 " Rateil, Ratpeil, Ratbal, Rantal, Zantil — variations easily accounted for by the nature of the Persian letters." E. Thomas,6 "Ratpil;" Price,7 "Eeteil," "Ratteil," or "Retpeil."8

Price observes that the name bespeaks him to be either a Tartar or Hindu, and that the real name might perhaps have been Vittel, still common among the Hindus. Wilson considers it as a genuine Indian appellation ; Ratna-pala or Rutun-pal.9

1 Price's Mahommedan History, Vol. i. pp. 455-463.

2 History of the Saracens, Bohn's Edit., p, 490.

3 Gesehichte der Chalifen, i. pp. 449, 461.

4 Me'moire sur l'Inde, pp. 71, 72, and 178.

5 Ariana Antiqua, p. 133,

6 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. xii. p. 344.

7 Retrospect of Mahommedan History, Vol. i., pp. 454-6.

8 [The Mujmalu-t Tawarikh (Paris MS. p. 274), says : — <arabic> .."The kings of Kabul and Sind are called Ratbil." Ibn Khurdadba (Oxford MS. p. 26), has <arabic>...which M. Barbier de Meynard {Journ. Asiatique, 1865, p. 251), renders "Je roi de Sistdn Rotbil" Masudi (Paris Ed. ii. p. 87), has "Zenbil qui est reste commnn jusqu' t ce jour." The various readings of the Jdmi'u-l HiMydt have been noticed in a previous page, iuprd, 178.']

9 Ariana Ant. p. 133.

[p.418]: Mas'udi, in his chapter in the Muruj, 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 Kabul by this epithet, which he makes common to all. In this he is borne out by Tabari, and M. Reinaud is induced therefore to consider the word significative.1 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 Khilafat, just as the Hadika Sandi speaks of Jaipal being the king of India in the time of Bahram, and Hatifi speaks of Rai Pithaura as the same even in the time of Timur.

The Jami'u-l Hikayat ascribes the name to a contemporary of Ya'kub 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 Kabul, though at the period spoken of those countries were not united under one dominion.

Khaki Shirazi says : — " In the year twenty-two the province of Sijistan was conquered for 'Umar-bin Khattab, by the hands of 'Amru bin al Tamimi ; and in the same year Makran was subdued by Abdu-llah bin 'Abdu-llah Anan, who marched against it from Kirman. The ruler of that province, whose name in the language of the country was Zambil, was also ruler of Sind, and was killed."

In the opening of the history of Mas'ud the Ghaznivide, by Abu-1 Fazl Baihaki, reference is made to the Palace of Ranbal, where it certainly seems to apply to an individual rather than a class.'

The Ranbal of whom we have been speaking as the opponent,

1 Mem. sur l'Inde, p. 178.

2 [Tabari, the Mujmal, and Mas'udi are all clear as to the import of the name, and its use as a dynastic royal title. Weil says it is " a general name for the king of the Turkomans, but more especially for the prince of Kabul and the territories between Hirat and Kabul. — Oeichichte, p. 449."]

[p.419]

ally protector, and betrayer of 'Abdu-r Rahman, must have been one of the Turkish dynasty of Kabul, 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 Hindu 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 Hindus 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 Khilafat of Hasham, part of the dominions of Kabul was taken, but the capture of the town itself is not noticed.1

The lieutenants of the Khalifs Al Mahdi and Ar Rashid took tribute from the Ranbal of Sijistan, proportioned to the strength or weakness of that prince, and named governors to the countries where Islam prevailed — a.h, 158-193=:a.d. 775-809. "When Al Mamun was made governor of Khurasan, he demanded double tribute. He took Kabul, and the king submitted, and professed Islam. An agent on the part of Mamun resided in that city, and a post was established which enabled Al Mamun to procure from it fresh myrobalans.2

After this we read nothing of Kabul till the time of the Saffarides — A.H. 256=A.D. 868-9.3 In the succeeding year4 Ya'kub Lais took Kabul, and made its prince a prisoner. The king of Ar Rukhaj was put to death, and its inhabitants forced to embrace Islam. Ya'kub 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 Baghdad for presentation to the Khalif.5

This Muhammadan conquest appears to have been more durable

1 Gladwin's Ayin Akberi, Vol. ii. p. 209. Price's Mahommedan History, Vol. i, p. 567. ' Biladuri, quoted in the Mem. sur l'Inde, p. 196-7.

3 Historia priorum regum Persarum,ete.,f. 19.

4 Tabakat-i Nasiri.

5 Ibu Asir, Kitdbu-l fihrist, and Ibu Khallikan, quoted in Mem., sur l'Inde. p. 209.

[p.420]: than the preceding ones, for we find coins of Ya'kub struck at Panjshir, to the north-east of Kabul, in the years 260 and 261 h.1

By referring to the passages given above from the geographers, we shall learn the state of the occupancy of Kabul from the time of the Saffarides to that of the Ghaznivides, which commenced as early as the time of Alptigin, according to the statement of Abu-l Fazl, and it is probably to his time that the story related by Al-Biruni refers, where he states that when the Espehhed, or general-in-chief, had the gates of Kabul opened to him, the inhabitants imposed upon him the condition not to eat cow's flesh or indulge in unnatural crimes.2 Neither condition is strictly observed by the modern occupants.

Identification of the Kabul kings

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


Barhtigin has been already sufficiently remarked upon.

Kanak — Katorman. — 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 TarihkJiu-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 Tarikhu-l Hind, and consider the Katorman or Laktuzaman as the last. In the more modern narratives of Rashidu-d din and Binakiti we must place a full stop after " Kanak returned to his country." Then proceed, " the last of the kings was the Katorman." This requires

1 Fraehu Summarische Vehersieht, etc., ani. Bulletin de PAeaiemie, Tom. x. p. 81.

2 Memoire sur l'Inde, p. 246.

[p.421]: no violent alteration of its text. Indeed the mere omission of .... (arabic) 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 Biruni, who knew well enough what he was writing. For instance, Binakiti wishing to reduce the narrative of the Jami', makes it appear that Ujen was the predecessor of Kanak. Haidar Razf, 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 Mahabharata, and the latter Jarasandha), 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. 1

Syal Jats

Kalar " is, we have little doubt, the Syalapati of our coins. There is less difference in sound between Syala and Kalar than would at first be imagined ; so that if our translator, Al Biruni, 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.

1 [Mr. Thomas, who might naturally desire to reply to these early criticisms on his confessedly initiatory essay on the coins in question, agrees with me in thinking that Sir H. Elliot's text should he preserved intact in the present publication, without comment or controversy on his part. This kind of knowledge is happily progressive, and many valid advances may he admitted to have been made between the theories of 1847 and 1868, without compromising the original author, or his censor of days gone by. Many of the objections here advanced have already been answered, in anticipation, by Mr. Thomas, in his edition of Prinsep's Essays (London, 1858), an extract from which will be found below (p^ 428).]

[p.422]: It is to be observed that the Jami'u-t Tawarikh and its followers omit all notice of Kalar, making Samand the immediate sucoessor of Kanak.

The Syala or Syal-pati (....? in Greek), of whom so many coins are found in Afghanistan, was probably a leader, and, perhaps, even the progenitor of the Syal Jats of Jhang Syal and other localities in the Panjab.

Samand. — Coins of Samanta, or Samanta Deva, are found in great profusion not only in Afghanistan, but throughout the Panjab and the whole of Northern India, and one has even been found is the province of Posen.1 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 ;2 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 Rai Pithaura.

Professor Wilson attributed these coins to a Rajpiit prince, who lived many years afterwards. M. Reinaud never hesitated to recognize in these medals the name of the king of Kabul, and his opinion was confirmed by the examination which M. Adrien de Longperier made of them.3

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

1 M. Longperier in Fragments Arabes et Persans, p. 223.

2 Journal Royal Asiatic Society, vol. vs.. p. 181.

3 Memoire sur l'Inde, p. 212. Journal Asiatique, Feb. 1845, p. 192, and Frafgments Arabes et Persans, p. 219,

[p.423]: 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 Sri Samant Deva are to be referred to the Samand of Abu Rihan ; 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'.1

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 Amir; and that after being used concurrently with Sri Hami'r 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 Rai Pithaura, and his three hundred Samants, or stalwart knights.

Kamlua. — 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. We must reject this, it being not worthy of the least credit ; and the discovery of the name of Kamlua in another history sets the question at rest, and establishes the correctness of Al Biruni.

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 Jami'u-l Hikayat 1 it will be found that he was a contemporary of 'Amru Lais, who reigned between 265-287 A.H.= 878-900 A.D. Kamlua is there called the Rai of Hindustan, and he must have ruled sometime within this period. If we admit that these names represent a continuous series of

1 [Longperier reads the name with a long a—Samanta, See Fragments Arahes et Fersans, 221-223.] 2 Jour. R. A. S., ix. p. 180. = See supra, p. 172.

[p.424 ]: successive monarchs, and not rather those who alone were conspicuous, we shall have to place the commencement of Kamlua'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 Jami'u-l Hikayat, wherein we learn that Mahmud was only fourteen years old when the defeat of Jaipal occurred near the miraculous fountain, which — as he died in a.h. 421, 1 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 Subuktigin. Jaipal died in 1002 A.D., and it is evident from the statement in the Tarikh-i Yamini, that he was then a very old man. He had opposed Subuktigin, while yet that warrior was only general of Alptigin, and therefore before 976 A.D., making his reign at least a quarter of a century. If we assume that Kamlua's reign commenced in 890 A.D., being about the middle of that of 'Amru Lais, we shall have to divide the period extending from 890 to 1002 A.D., between the reigns of Kamlua, Bhim and Jaipal, 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 Samand, and Samand and Kamlua — 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 Muluk, where we meet with the name of Lomak.

Syala, Khedavayaka, Varka, and even Ranbal may have been individuals of the Kabul series, either Turk or Hindu, though not honoured with distinct mention by Abu Rihan. Numismatists, '

1. April, 1030. See the inscription on his tomb in Thornton's Gazetteer of the Countries adjacent to India, vol. i. p. 200, [and Journ. R. A. S., xvii. p. 161.]

[p. 425]: indeed, are now so certain that these coins do belong to the Kabul 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 Samand occurred in 935 A.D., 1 but his computation does not rest on any such specific dates as the two mentioned above, and he considers that, under any circunjstances, it is imperfect, and that " the utmost the materials at our command enable us to assert with any degree of certainty is that Syala's usurpation took place early in the tenth century ;" but even this certainty is dispelled by the establishment of the fact that Kamlua was, unquestionably, a contemporary of 'Amru 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 Musulmans held the castle, it is evident that the Brahmans were only occasionally dominant, and did not hold their power without long and frequent interruptions.

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

M. Reinaud considers that this Bhim is the one mentioned by 'Utbi and Firishta as the founder of Nagarkot ; 2 but there is more reason to believe the hero of the Mahabharata to be the one indicated.

Jaipal 1. — It is strange that no coins of Jaipal are found. Firishta calls him the son of Ishtpal,3 and distinctly avers that he was a Brahman, and Biruni also includes him in that dynasty ; but the introduction of the term Pal, which is now continued to the close of the dynasty, might incline us to suppose that a new family had commenced.

1 Journal Royal Asiatic Society, vol. ix. p. 179. 2 Memoire sur l'Inde, p. 257. 3 [Briggs' translation says "Hutpal," but the lithographed text has "Ishtpal"]

[p.426]: This seems in other respects not improbable, for in the opening of the Tarikh-i Yamini we find Jaipal's western border extended no further than Lamghan, Kabul being already in possession of Subuktigin. It seems probable, therefore, that the succession of the real Kabul sovereigns ceased with Bhim, 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 Kabul. It is a mistake to suppose that Jaipal was king of Dehli. It does not appear that any such place existed in his time, and Abu-l Fida's determination of its latitude and longitude on the authority of the Kanun-i Mas'sudi is a misquotation, which it is of importance to correct, for there is nowhere mention of Dehli either in that work or in the Tarikhu-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 Kabul.

The assertion that he was a Brahman probably arises from ignorance on the part of Firishta. Al Biruni 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 Bahmani sovereigns of the Dekhin, though they were called after one. The term Brahman, in the conception of a Musulman, 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 Rajput, and some reasons have been assigned in the note on Mahmud's invasion for considering him a Bhatti.

Anandpal. — Mr. Thomas observes' that the coins of Anandpal are common, and are plentiful in the Panjab and the northern parts of the Ganges Duab. 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 Anandpal not Anangpal. 'Utbi calls him Andpal.

Jaipal II. — This is not the name given by Al Biruni, where it appears more like Tardijanbal, and in the other authors who mention him it goes through various forms. Tadan Jaipal, Nanduwa

1. Jonr. R. A. S., ix. p. 121, [and later, Prinsep's Essays, i. 330.]

[p. 427]: Jaipal, Turu Jaipal, Parou Jaipal, Nardajanpala, Niranjanpal,Tasdar Jaipal, and many more. 1 The latest reading proposed by M. Reinaud is Trilochan Pal, after the "three-eyed" Siva. Persian authors generally call him Nabira Jaipal, or the grandson of Jaipal, and in that relationship no doubt he stood to the first Jaipal. Hence Dow calls him " Pitterugepal." The real name was, perhaps, Pur Jaipal, or Jaipal junior, Jaipal the son or grandson. Al Biriini tells us that his father Anandpal was an inveterate enemy of the Musulmans from the time that Pur Jaipal was taken prisoner, but Pur Jaipal himself was well disposed towards them.

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

Abu Rihan 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 Mahmud during the Kanauj campaign in 409 h.

Bhim Pal. — In him we have the last of the dynasty of Kabul and Northern India. As he is mentioned by Abu Rihan, 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 Muhammadans, though before he ascended the throne we find him taking an active part in defending his father's dominions, under the name of Nidar Bhim, "Bhi'm the Dauntless." 2 From his letter to Chand Rai, which is recorded by 'Utbi, 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. 3

From a statement in the Tarikhu-l Hind, we may infer that his capital was Bari, to the east of Kanauj. Neither of Bhim Pal, nor of any other of the Pal family, are any coins extant.

Bhim Pal survived his father five years, and died, therefore, in 417 A.H., the eventful year of the capture and plunder of Somnat. Haidar Razi gives nine years as the period of his reign.

1 [See supra, pp. 45-47.] 2. [Supra, p. 38.] 3 [Supra, p. 48.]

Retrieved from "http://www.jatland.com/w/index.php?title=The_history_of_India_:_as_told_by_its_own_historians._Volume_II/Note_A.—_The_Hindu_kings_of_Kabul&oldid=286294"