Kallar: The first Hindu Shahi Establishment The
Abbasids led by caliph
al-Ma'mun defeated the Kabul branch of the Turk Shahis in 815 CE. Following the defeat, the Turk Shahis not only had to convert to Islam but also had to cede key cities and regions. Another campaign against the Gandhara branch seems to have followed soon, with the Caliphate reaching as far east as the Indus river and inflicting a critical defeat. A hefty annual tribute was imposed in territories. The Turk Shahis ended up in a precarious state and in , the last ruler Lagaturman was deposed by one of his ministers, a
Brahmin vazir called Kallar. The sole description of events comes from al-Biruni: None apart from al-Biruni mentions Kallar; nothing is known about his rule or territorial extent or even his regnal dates. mark on the hump, with
Nagari legend:
Śri Spalapatideva "Lord Commander-in-Chief".
Reverse: Horseman with
a in Nagari to left and symbol to right.Historians such as that of
Alexander Cunningham suggest that coin series bearing the obverse title 'Spalapati' ('Warlord) were minted by Kallar. According to
Edward Clive Bayley's misreading of the corrupted remains of a Bactrian legend as Arabic numerals, he proposed that another series of coins bearing the legend 'Samanta' ('Feudatory') were also minted by Kallar. He argued the 'Spalapati' series to have been minted for circulation in Persian regions of his territory and the 'Samanta' series for
Sanskrit-speaking regions. and it has been adduced that Kallar may have felt insecure about the legitimacy of his rule as long as the imprisoned Turk Shahi ruler Lagaturman was alive, and hence affirmed his claim to leadership by such indirect titles. The 'Spalapati' series may instead have been minted by the last Turk Shahi rulers, as 'Pati Dumi', who was defeated by the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun, is described by
al-Azraqi and al-Biruni as an '
Ispahbadh' ('Warlord'), equivalent to the Sanskrit title Spalapati. Rahman therefore believes that Kallar did not initiate any changes in the currency system of the last Turk Shahis and the Samanta series was minted by succeeding Hindu Shahi rulers. Numismatist and historian
Michael Alram's publications take note of this view; however some scholars attribute the entirety of the bull/horserider coinage, including the Spalapati series, to the Hindu Shahis.
Samanta mark on the hump, with
Nagari legend:
Śri Samantadeva.
Reverse: Horseman with
bhī in
Nagari to left and symbol to right. Al-Biruni notes that Samanta was the successor of Kallar and may have been his son, but their genealogical relationship is left undescribed. Like in the case of Kallar, there is a total lack of information on his rule or even his actual name and he seems to have replicated the Turk Shahi system of producing no name on their coinage. The Samanta series prototype was followed by all future Hindu Shahi rulers and even the Muslim Ghaznavids, who succeeded the Hindu Shahis.
Loss of Kabul In 870 CE,
Ya'qub ibn al-Layth, the founder of the recently formed
Saffarid dynasty marched onto Kabul. According to the
Tarikh-i Sistan, the Saffarids had come into conflict with the
Zunbil dynasty based in modern day Ghazni and after having defeated them, a son of the Zunbils had fled into the area corresponding to Kabul resulting in Yaqub's invasion. It has been attested to by several sources that Ya'qub had brought forth idols and elephants to the Abbasid Caliph
al-Mu'tamid from Kabul, however, it not clear whether this is indicative of the city or of the Kabul Valley, though according to Rehman the latter was most probable. The
Rawżat aṣ-ṣafāʾ states that the ruler of Kabul was made prisoner; it remains unclear whether this was Samanta. The region was in Saffarid control until 878 CE before being recaptured by Lalliya, the successor to Samanta.
Khudarayaka: Governor of the Kabul Valley weight standard.
Obverse: Recumbent bull with
Nagari legend (
Śrī Khūdarayakah, "The fortunate small
Raja"),
trisula mark on the hump of the bull.
Reverse: horseman with (
ma) in
Nagari to left,
عدل (
’adl, "
Justice") in Arabic to right. It is unknown what arrangements Ya'qub made for the governance of Kabul after his victory and imprisonment of the then ruler; we only have
Tarikh-i Sistan noting that Kabul was under an unnamed Ya'qub governor as late as 878/879. It is speculated that this governor was some blood relation of Samanta who was favourably inclined to Islam and went on to take the title of Khudarayaka (lit. Small King) as ascertainable from a series of coins. As has been the case with previous rulers, there is a lack of information including about his actual name, course of rule and eventual fate. The unavailability of his coins in or around Gandhara points to his lack of control over the region, which did not come into contact with Ya'qub's expeditions and were likely held by Samanta's relatives.
Lalliya Re-conquest of Kabul and invasion of Ghazna Lalliya was the first Shahi noted by Kalhana, he is depicted as a great ruler with enormous strength to the standard where kings of other regions would seek shelter in his capital
Udabhanda, transferred there from the previous capital of Kabul. Ya'qub is not known to have annexed or invaded the country of Gandhara and it is assumed by Rehman that it was under the kingship of Lalliya. Khudrayaka, the Saffarid governor of Kabul, is noted to have ended his reign in 880 CE, although it is unknown what brought about his downfall. It is assumed Lalliya was implicated in it as when Kabul is next mentioned in 900 CE, it is described as reverting back as Shahi territory.
Amr ibn al-Layth succeeded Yaqub as the Amr of the Saffarid dynasty in 879 CE. The
Tarikh-i Sistan records 'two Indian kings', reconstructed as Toramana and Asata and described as governors and sons of Lalliya, who are stated to have taken advantage of Amr al-Layth's preoccupation with rebellions in Khorasan and to have successfully invaded Ghazni in 900 CE, defeating the Saffarid governor named as Fardaghin, though the
Tarikh does not make it clear whether it was the region of Zabulistan or of the city.
Conflict with the Utpala dynasty Kalhana notes that Lalliya was a significant ally of one Alakhana against the machinations of the
Utpala dynasty, whose ruler
Samkaravarman invaded the Hindu Shahis c. 902 CE. Kalhana further states that Lalliya's 'mighty glory outshone the kings of the north'. Samkaravarman was killed by a stray arrow in
Urasā. A year later, his successor
Gopalavarman invaded Shahi territory to depose a rebellious Shahi, and installed Lalliya's son Toramana with the new name of "Kamaluka".
Kamaluka Nothing definite is known about the reign of the Hindu Shahi ruler Kamaluka, except that he was succeeded by his son, Bhimadeva. Concurrent to his reign, the Saffarids rapidly lost their power to the
Samanids and sometime after 913 CE, the power vacuum led to the rise of a friendly dynasty in Ghazni, the
Lawik dynasty, which flourished until 962 CE and engaged in marital ties with the Hindu Shahis. There are various unsubstantiated speculations regarding the end date of Kamaluka's reign, ranging from 900 to 950. A
vakka deva elephant-and-lion series has been attributed by Rahman to Kamaluka. However, based on the
Mazar-i-Sharif inscription which mentions Sri Sahi Veka and has been dated to 959 CE by
Ahmad Hasan Dani, Dani suggests him to be a distinct Hindu Shahi ruler, ruling concurrently with Bhimadeva in northern Afghanistan. Khaw agrees with Dani regarding the dating of inscription but doubts existence of Hindu Shahi rule in the territories which would be then under Samanids.
Bhimadeva Śri Bhīmadeva.
Reverse: Horseman holding banner;
na in Nagari to left; trace of symbol to right. Mentioned as 'Bhima' in al-Biruni's list, and identified with the
Śri Bhīmadeva coin series, Bhimadeva was one of the most accomplished rulers of the Hindu Shahis alongside Lalliya. His rise to power was concurrent with the growth of neighbouring Hindu kingdoms such as that of the
Pala Empire. According to the Khajuraho stone inscription, the
Kangra Valley was under the authority of a Shahi king assumed to be Bhimadeva, and it is further presumed that the city of Bhimanagar in present-day Kangra was named after him. The
Rajatarangini states that Bhima's daughter was married to the
Lohara king of Kashmir, and his grand-daughter noted as
Didda became the queen and last ruler of the Utpala dynasty.
Victory over the Samanid Empire In the final years of Bhima's reign in c. 962,
Alp-Tegin, a rebel Turkish chief of the Samanid Empire, had annexed the regions of Zabulistan and Kabul with the aim of waging holy war against the Lawik dynasty and the Hindu Shahis. The Lawik king fled to the Shahi domain in hopes of gaining reinforcements to conquer the lost territory and in c. 963 Bhimadeva was successful in capturing Ghazni. This victory is engraved in the Hund Slab Inscription dated to c. 989 CE during the reign of the succeeding Shahi Jayapala. {{blockquote|...To the north of the Indus, which is a mass of complete merit here on earth, there is (a city) by name
Udabhandra, which has been made their home by learned men forming communities, just as
Meru (was made their home) by the immortal (gods) and other (supernatural beings)... ...Therein dwelt the chief of kings, Bhīma, of terrible valour (or with valour like that of
Bhīma, the legendary hero), by whom, having conquered his enemies' troops, the earth was protected... ...The king of that (country) is (now) Jayapaladeva, who, through his body, origin, and birth, has become the sole hero, whose very pure fame, having left heaven, has attained the eternal abode of Brahman.... Bhima's death is chronologically placed within the span of 964 to 965 CE. The Hund Slab Inscription attributes his passing to him 'burning himself through Shiva's desire but not through the terrible enemy', suggesting a ritualistic suicide, and the absence of any noted political setbacks further supports the inference that his death occurred under such circumstances. In c.965 CE Ghazni was recaptured from the Lawik dynasty by
Abu Ishaq, the successor of Alp-Tegin, after Bhimas death.
Jayapala Bhimadeva's successors would all have the surname of "Pala", and Muslim sources give hazy indications of a successional dispute, leading several scholars to suggest that a new dynasty had gained power. Rahman states that there exists insufficient evidence in favour of such a hypothesis. One Vijayapaladeva (r. 942 or 963) is obtained from the Ratnamanjari Inscription where he is held to be the 'supreme sovereign' or
Maharajadhiraja. Rahman proposed that Vijayapaladeva had to have either belonged to the Kabul branch or had been a local Shahi feudatory. Khaw disagrees and instead equates Vijayapaladeva with one Thakkana Sahi, mentioned by Kalhana as a rebel who had to be captured by queen
Didda of Kashmir. For Khaw, this identification fits within the narrative of Muslim sources; Jayapala ascended only after this threat was neutralized.
Resisting the Ghaznavids Bilgetegin succeeded Abu Ishaq Ibrahim on the occasion of his death in November 966, and ruled for about nine years, before being assassinated during his invasion of
Gardiz, the last bastion of the Lawiks. His successor
Piri was described as a drunkard whose oppressive rule led the citizens of Ghazna to request the return of Lawik. Lawik mounted yet another expedition with help from the "son of Kabul Shah" and met the Muslim forces in the area of
Charkh. Both breathed their last in the war and the Muslim forces imposed an overwhelming victory, despite their numerical inferiority.
Sabuktigin became the undisputed leader of the Ghazni region, as he would go on to overthrow Piri. Kabul was lost forever and the foundation stone of the
Ghaznavid Empire was cast. In 986–987, Jayapala marched towards Ghazni and met with Sabuktigin's forces at Ghuzak. The war remained largely inconclusive for days before the tide turned against the Shahis: Jayapala was forced to propose a peace treaty.
Mahmud, son of Sabuktigin and a battle commander, wished to inflict a decisive defeat, but had to concede when Jayapala threatened to incinerate all valuables. A war indemnity of one million Shahi dirhams and fifty war elephants was agreed upon and some frontier forts were ceded to the Ghaznavids. Accordingly, Jaypala made his way back with Ghaznavid commanders who were to take charge of the ceded forts, while some of his relatives and officials were left with Sabuktigin as hostages. Once Jayapala reached his own territories, he called off the treaty and threw the commanders into prison, hoping to force Sabuktigin into exchanging hostages. Sabuktigin refused to believe that the treaty had been breached, but once it was established beyond doubt, he plundered the frontier town of
Lamghan: temples were demolished and houses burnt down. In response, Jayapala secured troops from unidentified Rajas, and met with the Ghaznavids near Kindi (modern day
Kandibagh?). The Ghaznavids breached the enemy lines repeatedly using light attacks and followed them with an all-out assault, routing the Shahis who had to flee beyond the Indus despite their overwhelming numerical superiority. The entire span of territory up to Peshawar was lost, and Sabuktigin installed his own tax-collectors; local tribes were ordained into Ghaznavid arms too. A
ribāṭ was commissioned at Kindi to commemorate the victory. However, Peshawar and adjacent regions returned to the Shahis sometime soon, probably during what would be a long interlude in the Ghaznavid-Shahi conflict. Circa 990–991, Mahmud would be imprisoned by his father Sabuktigin on grounds of fomenting a rebellion. Jayapala probably tried to leverage the rift in his favor by promising to rescue Mahmud, marry off his daughter to him, and further, allot sufficient wealth and troops. Mahmud did not respond favorably and noting the Shahi to be a non-Muslim, proclaimed his absolute devotion to Sabuktigin and pledged to attack Jayapala upon release.
Annexation of Lahore Around the same time, Jayapala was challenged by Bharat, a Raja of
Lahore who wished to wrest control of
Nandana,
Jailam and
Takeshar. Anandapala, then governor of Punjab and son of Jayapala, was ordered to intercept Bharat's forces and in the ensuing battle, Bharat was imprisoned and Lahore annexed; however the nobility of Lahore pleaded on behalf of their old king, who was reinstated as a feudatory after payment of tributes. About a year hence, Bharat's son Chandrak deposed him on the grounds of waging an ill-thought-out campaign against the Shahis, and became the new feudatory. For reasons which are not clear, c. 998999 (eight years after the usurpation), Jayapala declared war against Lahore on the pretext of protecting his suzerain Bharat and dispatched Anandapala. Chandrak was ambushed and kidnapped around the battleground of Samutla, and Lahore was annexed by the Shahis. Rahman speculates that the Shahis were trying to balance their losses to the Ghaznavids using any pretext.
Death In 998 CE, Mahmud ascended the Ghaznavid throne at Ghazni, and went on an annexation spree. Soon, Mahmud turned his eyes on the Shahis, allegedly resolving to invade their territories every year. In what was the last battle of his life, Jayapala met with Mahmud in the
Battle of Peshawar on 27 September 1001; one Shahi governor of the Bardari province named Adira Afghan is held to have switched sides and aided in the safe and quick passage of Mahmud's troops across Shahi provinces. Mahmud saw through Jayapala's tactics of delaying the conflict in the hope of receiving reinforcements and declared war immediately. Soon, the Shahis were in a state of disarray with Jayapala and fifteen of his relatives taken as prisoners. About one million Shahi forces were taken as slaves. The war-spoils awed contemporary chroniclers: the royal necklaces alone were valued at over six million Shahi dirhams. Mahmud continued his raid as far as
Hund, as his forces chased fleeing troops and decimated pockets of resistance. Within a few months, the entire Shahi territory to the west of the Indus had submitted to Mahmud. Jayapala was eventually released but Muslim chroniclers differ about the specifics.
Unsuri, a court-poet of Mahmud notes that he was sold in the slave market;
Minhaj ad-din and
al-Malik Isami adds a price of 80 dirhams. Others like al-Ansab note that Mahmud had rejected his request for pardon but allowed him to be free in lieu of a payment of 2.5 million dirhams and 50 war-elephants around March 1002, which Rahman finds more likely. Jayapala returned to Hund and immolated himself in a pyre after abdicating the throne in favor of Anandapala.
Anandapala Anandapala ascended to the throne around April 1002. His capital city remains unknown but was likely
Nandana. Anandapala had entered into marital relations with Tunga, the prime-minister of Didda, then-ruler of Kashmir and had at least two sons. He commanded significant fame as a patron of scholars though texts from his court are not extant. Circa April 1006, Mahmud requested Anandapala to consent to the passage of his troops via his territories to reach
Daud, the ruler of Multan. He declined the request and even went to the extent of stationing troops on the banks of Indus to prevent Mahmud's crossing, an enraged Mahmud waged a complete war upon the Shahis and compelled Anandapala to escape to Kashmir before eventually finishing his original objective of conquering Multan. All these territories of "Hind" were left under the governorship of a certain Sukhapala, a member of Hindu Shahi dynasty and convert to Islam. However, a couple of years hence, Sukhapala renounced Islam (c. late 1006) and declared rebellion. At this juncture, Anandapala tried to make space for himself by promising to aid Mahmud in containing Turk rebellions at the other side of his empire; apparently, he did not want a ruler who had defeated him, to be defeated by another. It is unknown whether Anandapala's offer was accepted but Mahmud stalled his chase of Ilaq Khan and turned his attention to the Shahis; Sukhapala offered negligible resistance before fleeing into Kashmir from where he was captured, fined, and imprisoned to death. It is likely that Anandapala was installed as the next Ghaznavid vassal. C. December 1008, Mahmud mounted an invasion of Hindu Shahis for reasons which are not clear. Anandapala sent a large army, supplanted with neighboring troops under the commandership of his son, Trilochanapala, who arrived in the plains of
Chach but failed to prevent Mahmud's troops from crossing across the Indus. The
Battle of Chach ended with the defeat of the Hindu Shahis. Mahmud chased the fugitive troops for months, seizing
Nagarkot to collect his war-spoils, in the process and even took a son of Anandapala as hostage. Governors were installed across the conquered provinces and Mahmud would return to Ghazni. This would be the last military conflict of Anandapala; the next year, Anandapala sent an embassy to Mahmud. The proposal of peace was accepted and in return, Hindu Shahis were to accept tributary status, provide (limited) military support, guarantee passage of troops, and remit an annual tribute. Mahmud sent his own agents to oversee the enforcement of the peace treaty and within a year, normal trade relations had resumed. The death of Anandapala is not recorded in any chronicle; however, it can be ascertained to be c. late 1010 to early 1011. The fate of the son taken back to Ghazni remains unknown.
Trilochanapala and Bhimapala Al-Biruni held that Trilochanapala had a favorable attitude towards Muslim subjects, unlike his father. Trilochanapala did not dishonor Anandapala's treaty, but when Mahmud wished to march towards
Thanesar via Hindu Shahi territories, he proposed that the city be spared in lieu of a negotiated peace treaty. Mahmud rejected the request and sacked Thanesar with an uneventful passage via Shahi territories. However, as a consequence or otherwise, Trilochanapala soon stopped paying the annual tributes to Mahmud and declared war. riding an elephant following his conquest in India. In November 1013, Mahmud progressed towards Hind to contain Trilochanapala but failed to make it across the snow-laden passes. Taking advantage of this delay, Trilochanapala tasked his son Bhimapala with arranging Shahi troops and went to Kashmir, where he received a battalion from king
Sangramaraja of the
Lohara dynasty, commanded by Tunga. The face-off happened in the middle of the following year. Bhimapala initially went about exploiting the local topography of a narrow mountain-pass in his favor, and launched stinging guerrilla attacks on Mahmud's troops—to the extent of being referred to by Uth'bi as "Bhima, the Fearless", until he got confident of his numerical superiority and switched to open-warfare; in the mayhem that followed this tactical blunder, the Shahis were routed and Bhima had to flee. The fortress at
Nandana was sacked for war-spoils and a Ghaznavid governor was installed, while Mahmud went searching for Trilochanapala. Trilochanpala, in the meantime, had set up his base with Kashmiri forces on the banks of the
Poonch River. An initial round of success against a Ghaznavid reconnaissance party contributed to Tunga's pride and he then mounted a disastrous maneuver without consulting experienced Shahi generals, ensuring another crippling defeat coupled with a total loss of territory, west of Tausi. Rahman noted this campaign to be the death-blow for the Hindu Shahis — "it was no longer a question of whether but a question of when" the Shahis would perish. From the outset of his rule, Trilochanapala had chosen to expand into the
Siwalik Hills to make up for the territories lost in his predecessors' conflicts with the Ghaznavids: this brought him into multiple conflicts with Chandar Rai of Sharwa. But the fatal encounter with Mahmud ensured that Trilochanapala had nowhere but the Siwaliks to retreat into and compelled him to enter into a peace treaty, even offering his son to be married to the daughter of Chandar. The offer was accepted but Bhima was imprisoned when he went to bring the bride home and Chandar asked for reparations. This brought an end to Trilochanapala's imperial ambitions in the Lower Himalayas for the time being though stray conflicts continued. When Mahmud sacked Sharwa while returning from his
Kanauj campaign (c. 1017), Trilochanapala is noted to have taken refuge with
Paramara Bhoja. Sometime soon, significant polities in the
Doab entered into treaties with one another and with the Hindu Shahis to ward off future invasions of a similar scale. Mahmud did not take kindly to these alliances and returned in October 1019. Trilochanapala's men were tasked by
Vidyadhara of Chandela to prevent Mahmud's troops from crossing across the
Ramganga (somewhere around
Bulandshahr) and they took positions at the eastern bank but failed to execute the task. Subsequently, Trilochanapala planned to move away, probably to join Vidyadhara's forces for the main faceoff, but a swift charge by Mahmud's troops inflicted yet another resounding defeat. Bulandshahr was sacked and two of his wives and daughters imprisoned. He tried to enter into a peace-treaty but in vain, causing him to flee to Vidyadhara. It is not known whether he made it to the camp but Vidyadhara is noted to have deserted his posts by then. In 1021, Trilochanapala, by then a ruler of little significance in all probabilities, was assassinated by his mutinous Hindu troops for reasons unknown. Bhimapala, who must have escaped the Rais sometime in between, succeeded him and continued to rule until 1026; nothing is known about his rule or territories.
Unsuccessful renaissance of
Mas'ud I of Ghazni (r. 1030-1040 CE), derived from Hindu Shahi designs, with the name of Mas'ud () around the head of the horserider.
Adab al-Harb—a manual of state-craft produced during the times of
Iltutmish, which contains a host of unique information about the Ghaznavids—note that in 1040, one Sandbal, a grandson of the Kabul Shah, marched towards Lahore seeking to utilize the
imprisonment of Masʽud I and resulting political instability to his favor. The armies met at Qadar Jur (var. Qalachur) and despite the Shahis having numerical superiority, they were defeated as their troops left the battle in a state of panic once Sandbal was assassinated by a Turk archer. He seemed to have been based around the Siwaliks and might have been a Shahi heir — many contemporary Muslim chronicles do mention a Hindu triumvirate to have unsuccessfully attacked the Ghaznavids around the same time but mention only two of the names, both petty Siwalik chieftains and not Sandbal. Some Shahis migrated into Kashmir and gained prominent positions in their court. == Culture and architecture ==