Ghaznavid invasion Early during his reign, Bhīma faced an invasion by
Mahmūd of Ghazni, whose plunder of the
Somnāth temple has been described in detail by the medieval Muslim historians. According to
Ali ibn al-Athīr, Mahmūd started out from
Ghazni on 18 October 1025. At
Multan, he planned his march in detail and gathered supplies. He left Multan on 26 November, with a large army well-equipped to cross the
Thar Desert, and reached the Chaulukya capital in December 1025. According to the Muslim accounts, Bhīma fled his capital
Aṇahilapāṭaka (called Nahrwāla by the medieval Muslim historians). He took shelter in
Kanthakot, allowing Mahmud to enter the Chaulukya capital unopposed. Mahmūd's sudden invasion, coupled with the lack of any fortifications in Nahrwāla, may have forced Bhima to abandon his capital. Other residents of the city also appear to have evacuated it, as the Muslim historians do not mention any massacre or looting in the Chaulukya capital. Mahmūd rested at Nahrwāla for a few days, replenished his supplies, and then left for Somnāth. A relatively small force of 20,000 soldiers unsuccessfully tried to check Mahmūd's advance at
Modhera. Historian A. K. Majumdar theorizes that the
Modhera Sun Temple, might have been built to commemorate this defence. The upside down inscription in the cella of the temple proper evidences the destruction and reconstruction probably shortly after 1026. was constructed around a year after Mahmud's invasion Mahmūd then advanced to
Delavada. Although the town surrendered without offering any resistance, Mahmūd massacred all its residents. Finally, Mahmūd's army reached Somnāth on 6 January 1026. The Muslim historians suggest that the town was well-defended, probably by a fort guarding the temple. According to
Abu Sa'id Gardizi, the commander of the defending force fled to a nearby island. Other defenders put up a resistance, but Mahmūd managed to capture the fort by 8 January. Mahmūd then desecrated the temple, and looted a huge amount of wealth including jewels and silver idols. During his return journey, Mahmūd came to know that a powerful Hindu king named Param Dev had gathered a large army to fight him. Gardezi, in his ''Kitab Zainu'l-Akhbar'' (c. 1048), states that Mahmūd chose to avoid any confrontation with this king. The invader was carrying back a large amount of looted wealth, which may have motivated him to avoid a battle. Mahmūd decided to return via
Mansura in
Sindh, although the route connecting Gujarat and Sindh was more dangerous than the desert route to Multan. Later Muslim historians also mention this incident. The 16th century historian
Firishta identified Param Dev with Bhīma I, calling him the king of Nahrwāla. Historian A. K. Majumdar agrees with this identification, arguing that "Param" might be a Muslim mistranscription of "Bhīma". Scholars who are critical of this theory identify Param dev with the
Paramara king
Bhoja, who ruled the neighbouring territory of
Mālwa. K. N. Seth and Mahesh Singh point out that Bhīma had ascended the throne recently, and was not a powerful ruler at the time of Mahmud's raid. In fact, as attested by the Muslim historians, he had fled his capital and hid in Kanthkot. The Muslim historians before Firishta, such as Gardizi and Nizamuddin Ahmad, mention the king of Nahrwāla and Param Dev as two distinct kings. Unlike Bhīma, Bhoja was a powerful and famous ruler at that time. Bhoja was also a
Shaivite, and according to the
Udaipur Prashasti, had constructed a temple dedicated to Somanātha (an aspect of Śiva). Thus Mahmīd's desecration of the Somnāth temple in Gujarat would have motivated Bhoja to lead an army against him. Based on these evidences, several scholars identify Param Dev with Bhoja. "Param Dev" is probably a corruption of "Paramara-Deva" or of Bhoja's titles
Paramabhattakara-
Parameshvara.
Invasion of Sindh According to the 12th century scholar
Hemacandra, who was patronized by the Caulukyas, Bhīma defeated Hammuka, a ruler of
Sindh. This claim has also been repeated by the 14th century chronicler
Merutuṅga. Hemacandra's account of Bhīma's war against Sindh goes like this: one day Bhīma's spies told him that the kings of
Andhra,
Puṇḍra and
Magadha obeyed him. On the other hand, Hammuka (the king of Sindhu, that is, Sindh) and
Karṇa (the king of
Cedi) not only refused to acknowledge his supremacy, but also defamed him. Bhīma then marched to Sindh, bridging and crossing the
Indus river in the process. He defeated Hammuka, who was forced to acknowledge his supremacy. Later, he also defeated Karṇa. There is no epigraphic evidence of Bhima having defeated the king of Sindh. In absence of any corroborating evidence, the historical accuracy of this account is uncertain. Historian A. K. Majumdar theorizes that Hammuka might have been a descendant of the
Saindhava dynasty, which probably originated from Sindh. This dynasty is known to have last ruled western Saurashtra in 915. Like Hammuka, the names of its rulers ended in -ka: Ranaka, Jaika and Agguka.
Paramāras of Arbuda ,
Mount Abu The
Paramāra branch of Arbuda had been feudatories of the Caulukyas since
Mūlarāja's reign. However, sometime before 1031, the Abu Paramāra ruler Dhandhuka rebelled against Bhīma. Bhima defeated him, and appointed Vimala as the new
daṇḍapati (governor) of Arbuda. Vimala commissioned the
shrine of
Adinātha at
Mount Abu in 1031, so Dhandhuka's rebellion must have happened before this year. Dhandhuka took shelter with
Bhoja, the
Paramara king of
Mālava. According to Jinaprabha Suri's
Tirtha Kalpa, Bhima later restored Dhandhuka as his vassal. A 1042 inscription of Dhandhuka's son Pūrṇapāla states that he was ruling over Arbuda-
maṇḍala as a
Mahārājadhirāja ("king of great kings"), after having defeated his enemy. This suggests that the Paramāras of Arbuda may have again rebelled against Bhīma's authority. However, the area was back under Bhīma's control by 1062, as attested by an inscription of Vimala.
Paramāras of Bhinmal Bhima defeated and imprisoned Kṛṣṇa-deva, a ruler of the Paramāra branch of
Bhinmal. However, the
Naḍḍula Cāhamānas defeated Bhima, and freed Krishna-deva. This is attested by the
Sundha Hill inscription of the Cāhamānas. Subsequently, Kṛṣṇa-deva ruled independent of Bhīma; his inscriptions describe him as a
Mahārājadhirāja.
Cāhamanas of Naḍḍula The
Cāhamānas of Nāḍḍula ruled the territory to the north of the Caulukya kingdom. According to their
Sundha Hill inscription, the Cāhamāna king
Aṇahilla defeated Bhīma. Aṇahilla probably repulsed an invasion from Bhīma. The Sundha Hill inscription as well as another Chahamana inscription state that the later king
Anahilla also defeated the
elephant force of Bhima. Anahilla is also said to have destroyed Bhima's army and captured a large part of his territory. His sons
Balaprasada and
Jendraraja also took part in the war against Bhima. Balaprasada forced Bhima to release Krishna-deva (the Paramara ruler of Bhimal) from the prison. Jendraraja defeated Bhima's force at Shanderaka (modern
Sanderao). The location of the battles suggests that Bhima was the aggressor in this war, and the Chahamanas repulsed his invasion. The war continued during the reign of Bhima's successor Karna.
Paramaras of Malwa Bhima formed an alliance with the
Kalachuri king
Lakshmi-Karna, and played a significant role in the downfall of
Bhoja, the
Paramara dynasty of
Malwa. This achievement has been recorded by several Chaulukya chroniclers and inscriptions. The most detailed account of the rivalry between Bhima and Bhoja is given by the 14th century chronicler Merutunga. However, it is hard to separate the historical truth from fiction in Merutunga's legendary account, which goes like this: Bhima and Bhoja were initially friends, but Bhoja made a plan to invade Gujarat. When Bhima's spy informed him about Bhoja's plan, Bhima sent his ambassador Damara to Bhoja's court. Damara instigated Bhoja to attack the
Chalukyas of Kalyani, who had killed the earlier Paramara ruler
Munja. Thus, Damara managed to divert Bhoja's attention away from Bhima's kingdom. While Bhoja was facing a war with the Kalyani Chalukyas, Damara lied to him that Bhima had also started a march against him. This worried Bhoja, who begged Damara to convince Bhima to abandon his march towards Malwa. Damara agreed to do so if Bhoja gifted Bhima an elephant couple, which Bhoja did. Merutunga further states that while Bhima was engaged in a war against the king of Sindh, Bhoja's
digambara general Kulachandra sacked the Chaulukya capital Anahilapataka. Subsequently, Merutunga mentions several incidents that suggest that the two kings maintained diplomatic ties. One day, while Bhoja was worshipping his family deity at a temple on the outskirts of his capital
Dhara, the goddess warned him that he was surrounded by enemy soldiers. Bhoja was nearly killed by the Gujarati soldiers Aluya and Koluya, but managed to escape. Merutunga finally describes Bhoja's death as follows: One day, the Kalachuri king Karna challenged Bhoja to a war or a temple-building contest. Bhoja chose the second option, and lost the contest to Karna. However, Bhoja refused to acknowledge Karna's supremacy. As a result, Karna invaded Malwa from the east, supported by 136 vassals. He also asked Bhima to invade Malwa from the east. Bhoja died of a disease, as these two kings invaded his kingdom. After his death, Karna captured his capital and all his wealth. According to Merutunga, it was Karna who captured Dhara after Bhoja's death. Other Chaulukya chroniclers claim that Bhima captured Dhara. It is possible that Bhima raided Dhara at a later date. One particular chronicle
Kirti-Kaumudi claims that Bhima captured Bhoja, but generously released him and spared his life. This is not corroborated by historical evidence.
Kalachuris of Tripuri Bhima and the
Kalachuri king
Lakshmi-Karna remained allies until Bhoja's death. Subsequently, there seems to have been a dispute between them over sharing the spoils of their victory. The Chaulukya chroniclers claim that Bhima subdued Karna easily, but such claims are of little historical value. The 12th century writer
Hemachandra claims that Bhima sent his ambassador Damodara to Karna, demanding his share of the Paramara assets. Damodara's description of Bhima's power scared Karna, who started praising Bhima and gifted him Bhoja's golden throne. The 14th century chronicler Merutunga claims that Bhima demanded half of Bhoja's kingdom from Karna. When Karna refused, Bhima's ambassador Damara entered Karna's palace with 32 foot soldiers and abducted Karna as the Kalachuri king slept. Karna ultimately made peace by surrendering a golden shrine to Bhima. These accounts by the Chaulukya chroniclers appear to be historically inaccurate, as Karna was too powerful to be subdued by an ambassador of Bhima. Hemachandra does not mention Bhima's conflict with Bhoja at all, and Bhima's allies named by him in the struggle against Karna are all fictitious. Merutunga's account seems to be derived partly from Hemachandra's
Dvyashraya and partly from
Kirti-Kaumudi. That said, there is some historical evidence of a conflict between Bhima and Karna. Karna's
Rewa stone inscription claims that when he approached the Gurjara country (that is, Bhima's kingdom of Gujarat), the Gurjara women shed tears and became widows. It is possible that Bhima gained some advantage over Karna, after the Kalachuris were decisively defeated by the
Kalyani Chalukya king
Someshvara I. == Personal life ==