HEMCHANDRA "VIKRAMADITYA" BHARGAVA

 

HEMU: The Great

 

source

There are many names worthy of note among the galaxy of personalities that graced the political stage of North India in the 16th century, but among them, few if any parallel the meteoric rise of the character we study today. Raja Hemchandra Bhargava, known in history as "Hemu", saw a rise to power seen rarely in the history of the subcontinent. A man of exceptional talent and raw willpower, driven, determined and gifted in the art of war, administration and commerce, this remarkable talent would have been held back from the centre stage of North Indian politics, owing to his common birth and lack of connections or claim to any noble or aristocratic origins. Born in a Gaur Brahmin family in Deoti in Rewari, Hemchandra began his career as a shopkeeper, dealing in saltpetre. Yet he was not to live this life of ignominy for long. He was first recognised for his talent and raised to the office of Shahna or Superintendent of the Delhi Market by Islam Shah, then ruler of the Sur dynasty. The latter (born Jalal Khan) had succeeded his father and most remarkable ruler of the Sur dynasty, Sher Khan "Shah" Sur, in 1545, after a brief tussle with his brother, the later styled Adil Shah.

source

From this office, Hemu rose through sheer dint of talent and perseverance to the office of Head of the Departments of Intelligence and Posts or Daroga-i-Dak-Chauki, and afterwards saw experience in high military command. In 1554, this patron of Hemu passed away and was replaced in quick succession by his son Firuz Shah Suri, who was then replaced by his uncle Adil Shah Suri. Under Adil Shah, Hemu, being one of the most steadfast and successful officers of the realm and as a Hindu, bearing no ambitions of pretensions for the throne, was raised to the office of Wazir. During this time, with the powers and responsibilities bestowed upon him by this high office, Hemu would embark on supposedly 22 campaigns and would emerge victorious in each one. Hemchandra stands, in the words of Qanungo (1923), pp. 418 "Unique among the characters of medieval history, who were to prove... In wielding the sword better than the Rajputs and Turks, and possessing much more intelligence than the average administrators of these martial races". But, the rise of such characters is seldom followed by a life of peace and prosperity. For that would be the rarest of rarities in history. Hemu, for all his talents, would not adorn on his cap of accomplishments the crowning jewel of crushing Mughal power and defeating the Mughal forces at the Second Battle of Panipat, 1556. Instead, he would meet an untimely end at the hands of Bairam Khan, Akbar's regent on the field of his defeat and undoing.

source

source

Military Career

Upon the ascension of Adil Shah in 1554, the Sur Empire faced immense tension and upheaval from within and without. Ibrahim Khan Sur, governor of Agra, Muhammad Khan Sur, governor of Bengal and Sikandar Sur, governor of Lahore among other nobles and chiefs declared rebellion and the former three declared sovereignty and assumed royal titles.

Battle of Chunar 1554

source

Among the first major actions which Hemchandra engaged in as Wazir of Adil Shah Sur, was against the rebel Taj Khan Karani. Having conducted operations against him personally, Adil Shah blundered in following his victory against the rebel at Chhibramau by a march to Gwalior, instead of crushing and ending the rebel once and for all. Taj Khan, marched towards Chunar, joining hands with his brother Imad, Suleiman and Khwaja Illyas then governor of Khwaja Tanda among other Parganas. They raided territory along the banks of the Ganga and Adil Shah was forced to march to Chunar in response. The two armies faced one another across the Ganga, and Adil was forced to trust Hemchandra with command of the troops, given his proven ineptitude in military matters. Commanding a force consisting of 100 elephants, Hemchandra crossed the river and put the rebels to rout, the latter fleeing to Bengal.

But this was merely the beginning of the chaos that ensued Adil Shah's ascension. Ibrahim Khan Sur was Adil's brother-in-law, had won over several of Adil's nobles and captured Delhi and Agra. Adil was thus restricted to Chunar, Ibrahim claiming the title of Sultan and having coins and khutba of his name. Sultan Ibrahim thus controlled Agra, "Sultan" Sikandar held Punjab and "Sultan" Muhammad held Bengal. 1555, saw the re-entry of the Mughals on the scene, Sultans Sikandar and Ibrahim clashing at Farrah the latter losing Delhi, and Sikandar facing successive defeats Machhiwara and Sirhind in 1555. 

Battle of Kalpi and Khanwa 1555

source

Sensing an opening, Adil Shah judiciously despatched Hemchandra at the head of his troops. Hemu first met Ibrahim Sur at Kalpi and crushed his force of brave 3,000 fighters. Next at Khanwa, the routed Ibrahim raised forces amongst the Lohanis (Afghan farmers) but again, was defeated by Hemu, ultimately taking refuge in the fortress of Bayana.

Siege of Bayana 1555

Having surrounded Ibrahim, Hemchandra began erecting batteries and pounded the fortress with his guns. Meanwhile, he reduced the countryside surrounding the fortress, in an attempt to starve out the defenders. Hemchandra, being full of vigour and ambition, made repeated assaults against the defenders, from time to time. For 3 months this continued, Ghazni Khan Sur, Ibrahim's father, managed to supply the latter during this time. But Hemchandra, so long absent from Chunar would have to rush to Adil Shah's defence, as the newly crowned Shamsuddin Muhammad Shah, Sultan in Bengal, marched to take Delhi with his forces.

Battle of Mundagar and Alwar 1555

The fire of ambition burned in the stomachs of nobles high and low in this time, and the Afghan nobility utterly failed the cause of their nation and their families. No other example suits this description better than Ibrahim Khan Sur. As Hemchandra raised his siege, Ibrahim emerged and raised forces anew at Mundagar. Hearing of this, Hemu returned to once again crush Ibrahim. Dismayed at repeated reverses Ibrahim acquired reinforcements from Haji Khan, the ruler of Alwar and attempted a reversal, only to be defeated again by Naharpal (Hemu's nephew). Sometime later Ibrahim found himself in Orissa, assassinated in 1555. 

Battle of Tughlaqabad 1556

As Hemchandra traversed the terrain of the turbulent North Indian landscape, so did the Mughals regain lost ground and march against the Afghan power in North India from the west. By the beginning of 1556, Humayun had regained Delhi, and his generals now tussled with the local Afghan resistance. Hemu realised that now was as good a time as ever. He had already delayed his plans by six months, watching closely the movements of Khizr Khan and Suleiman in Bengal and Bihar. At the head of 50,000 horses, 1,000 elephants, 51 artillery pieces and five hundred falconets, Hemchandra proceeded towards Delhi, the might of his host melting all opposition before him. On the 6th of October, Mughal governors at Kalpi and Agra, Abdullah Uzbek Khan and Sikandar Khan Uzbek fled at the sight of Hemchandra's host.

Pursuing these foes Hemchandra arrived at Tughlaqabad, five miles east of Qutb Minar. Here, the Governor of Delhi, Tardi Beg Khan, having consulted with neighbouring chiefs and nobles, who argued in favour of awaiting reinforcements, decided to give battle on the 7th of October, 1556. The Mughal army drew up on the field of battle as thus: Abdullah Uzbek commanded the centre, Iskandar Beg the left, Haidar Muhammad the right, and Tardi Beg the centre. The battle opened with the Mughal's Turki cavalry engaging the Hindu-Afghan van, slaying 3,000 men and capturing 400 elephants. These men pursued the retreating elements of Hemu's van to their camp. This folly of the impetuous cavalry left Tardi Beg undefended in the centre. Abul Fazl himself lauds Hemchandra as a king without equal in his era. His officers, his soldiers, veterans of many wars, hardened men of great ability. And his artillery, knowing no equal except the ones made in Turkey itself. 

Hemu who had been holding back his reserves in the centre, now sent forth his horse and 300 elephants, before the advance of these troops, the Mughal force melted. The previously victorious Turkis returned to see the field firmly in enemy hands, their generals and comrades slain and routed and followed suit.

Having taken control of Delhi, Hemchandra Bhargava crowned himself "Vikramaditya" meaning "Sun of Valour" or "Vikramjit" meaning "Valourous Conqueror" and "Samrat" meaning "Emperor" (according to Marc Jason Gilbert, 2017) or "Raja" meaning "King".

Battle of Panipat

source

The city of Panipat bears the testimony of the phrase " History repeats itself ". After three decades the blood-stained ground of Panipat which decided the fate of the Lodhi rulers of Delhi, now lured the opposing sides vying for dominance and possession of the land of Hindustan. It is here that the future of an Empire will be forged. The stage of the battle was set. Panipat was ready to quench the thirst for blood. The opposing forces were ready and after the battle, the new history in the realms of Hindustan eagerly awaited a new era of a new Empire. 

Background of the Battle

For Akbar, Hemu (Himu) posed the immediate problem. After successfully defeating the Mughal Governor, Tardi Beg Khan, Hemu`s confidence and zeal for power quadrupled. The rising power of Hemu was haunting the young Akbar. Hemu after winning the soil assumed the title of Vikramjit. Akbar was in a desperate position now. Tardi Beg as discussed added to the fears of his followers. In the middle of a severe famine in Delhi, the forces were against each other, the conquest was conducive, and the battle was inevitable. According to Sir Jadunath Sarkar," Himu was the best military genius on the Afghan side after Sher Shah's death, he was far-sighted in his strategic plans, keen-eyed and quick in his tactical decisions, cool in holding his strength in reserve and fearless of danger in encouraging his troops by his example". [ Military History of India, Jadunath Sarkar, pp. 77]. Additionally, Hemu had already fought 22 battles against the domestic enemies and remained undisputed [ notes Abul Fazl]. Hemu defeated Sultan Muhammed, the ruler of Bengal and then he crushed the ambitious Ibrahim Suri. Hemu was indeed an able military commander and a force to reckon with. When the royal city of Delhi and Agra was lost to Humayun after his long return in 1555, Hemu marched with a large army and regained the lost territories. The sudden demise of Humayun in 1556 added a new problem in the house of the foreigners. Consequently, Hemu defeated Tardi Beg and mounted a heap of worries in the camp of the foreign forces leaving Akbar with no choice but to battle. 

Hemu's Brilliance

One of the most important things which are worthy of praise is the brilliance of Hemu in managing the resources. During the year 1556-57, as the Mughals and Afghans were heading against each other, the region of Delhi and its surrounding was facing severe famine. The region was deprived of rains, and on top of it, the conditions were worsened by the unending warfare. Malnutrition was spreading into a plague. In the words of Abul Fazl "at this time there was a great scarcity in the cities and the villages of India, and there was a terrible famine. Men took to eating one another. Some would join together and carry off a solitary man, and make him their food. There was no trace of single corn". With the brilliance and great managerial skills that Hemu possessed. He overcame this situation. Hemu managed his grain market efficiently. At the time when people were facing difficulties in garnering food. Hemu was able to feed his elephants. While camped at Bayana, which was miles away he was able to feed his five hundred war elephants rice, sugar and butter. [ India's Historic Battles, Kaushik Roy, pp. 70]. Badauni writes " the people died with the word " bread" upon their lips, and yet Hemu fed his elephants upon rice, sugar and butter". [ Badauni, Elliot and Dawson, vol I, pp. 549-51]. Notably, Badauni has shown the brutality of Hemu but he ignores his management skills. Such statements regarding the brutal and disgusting nature of Hemu have not been shown by any other historian except Badauni. 

The Battle

In the words of Abul Fazl who has commented on the clash of Mughals and Hemu. He says :

" Two armies so collided,

 that they struck fire out of water; 

You'd say the air was all crimsoned daggers,

 their steel had all become solid rubies".

source

At this juncture, the counsellors of the Mughals were infected with the terrible fear of the military brilliance of Hemu and suggested a retreat to Kabul rather than facing the battle. But Bairam Khan insisted on fighting and eliminated their advice. Akbar certainly agreed with him. The fear of Hemu was so instilling that Bairam Khan gave an inspiring speech to his officers, to fight the army of Hemu. The second battle of Panipat was fought on 5th November 1556, between the king of Delhi Raja Hemachandra or Bikramjit or Vikramaditya and the Mughal prince Akbar with his protectorate Bairam Khan. Hemu had consolidated his position after the victory at Delhi and Agra. He distributed the wealth acquired among his soldiers and prepared to counter the Mughals. 

Both the armies were deployed in three divisions. Both the forces relied upon Ottomon-type artillery. Both the armies were at the same tactical level. In terms of numbers, Hemu's forces had superiority, with 50,000 cavalries, 1000 elephants, 51 canons, and 50 falconets. [ India's Historic Battles, Kaushik Roy]. A large chunk of his army was composed of Afghans, Rajputs and Brahmins from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Hemu's army consisted of 30000 Rajputs and Afghan cavalry and 500 war elephants. [Military History of India, JN Sarkar, pp.79]. The figures regarding the troops provided by Kaushik Roy seem exaggerated. On the other hand, Sir Jadunath Sarkar's figure is plausible.  He had, however, no guns.[ AL Srivastav, The Mughal Empire pp 150]. On the contrary, Mughals had only a small contingent comprising 20,000 men under the command of Ali Quli Khan and their matchlocks. 

source

Hemu sent his advance guard of artillery to tackle the Mughal forces which were led by Ali Quli Khan Shaibani. Under Ali Quli Khan Shaibani the lucky Mughal army successfully countered the advance guard and captured the Raja's artillery. Hemu made brave counterattacks and fought fiercely but unfortunately, a stray arrow struck Hemu in the eye and made him unconscious. This caused chaos in the army of Hemu. The leaderless army assumed that their king is dead and started running and scattered throughout the battlefield. They made no effort to resist the Mughals. Unfortunately, this was a watershed moment in the battle. The day proved fatal for the Hemu's army and the Mughals won the day. The elephant carrying injured Hemu fled into the jungle. It was brought by Shah Kulf Khan Mahram to the prince and his protectorate. According to V A Smith, Akbar smote Hemu with his scimitar. The victory at battle gifted Akbar the possession of Delhi as well as Agra. The immense treasure was taken with the family of Hemu and Hemu's old father was also slain. The brilliant leadership, genius tactics, efficient use of resources and great military career, indubitably makes Raja Hemachandra one the greatest yet most unpopular hero in the annals of India.

source

Conclusion

History is a divisive subject. Different historians and scholars have varied opinions. Sometimes some issues remain hidden beneath the floors of the timeline. There may be rulers who are presented profoundly based on the evidence found. Largely these rulers tend to shadow, the other prominent personalities. Presenting such personalities and research works remain negligible. This results in the glorification of a handful of personalities. There exists a modern approach which emerged in the 19th century which focused on great or influential men in history and talked about their achievements. This theory came to be known as the Great Man theory. The same happened with Indian history where few men were put to centerpiece and the rest remained completely bereft of the scope of their study.

Hemchandra Vikramaditya is a shining example of such a personality. Known by many names such as Hemu/Himu/ Bikramjit/ Samrat Vikramaditya, the Hindu Raja embodied far more superior qualities as a leader of men, a monarch, an administrator, and a soldier, than his contemporary counterparts. Yet Hemu remains hidden and obscure. Hemu was a brilliant strategist and military leader who won twenty two battles, yet few know of his exploits at Kalpi, Bayana, Chunar or Tughlaqabad, where he humbled the pride of until then seemingly invincible Afghan and Mughal forces. Since the rise of the Delhi Sultanate, he was the first and the last Hindu king to crown himself, in the city of Delhi itself. He also held the title "Vikramjit" / "Vikramaditya", a legendary moniker, hearkening back to the Guptas themselves, who had once driven "Mlechha" armies before them. He was a gifted leader, in that he held together the loyalty of his men, a great number of whom were of the very same Afghan stock that once terrorised Hemu's co-religionists in North India committing loot and rapine at the edge of the sword. Hemu earned their loyalty and trust as a general by leading with example. He was in the true sense, to use Sir Jadunath Sarkar's words, a "heavenly born general", who knew no defeat in 22 battles. The goddess of fortune left his side in the tragic battle of his undoing, yet even in the midst of the terrible Second Battle of Panipat, he inspired courage and rallied his men, until he was shot through his eye by a Turki arrow. Few soldier kings bore as many wounds to their being as Hemu, other than perhaps Maharana Sanga himself. Hemchandra was and still remains an important character in the story of the 16th century. To read and present his incredible story is both inspiring and almost an obligation to the past.

References: Roy Bhushan, Nirad, "The Successors of Sher Shah", 1934, pp. 63-94

Majumdar, R.C, "History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume VII, The Mughul Empire", 1974, pp. 97-106

Lalla, N.N, "The Foundation Of The Mughal Empire", 1923, pp. 448-449 Beveridge, H, "The Akbarnama Vol II", 1907, pp. 62-70 Sources: Chandra, Satish (2004). Medieval India: From Sultanate To The Mughals, Part II: Mughal Empire 

Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra (1984). "Hemu: A forgotten Hindu Hero". The History and Culture of the Indian People. Vol. Volume 7
Qanungo, Kalika Ranjan (1965). Sher Shah and his Times
Richards, John F. (1995). The Mughal Empire (The New Cambridge History of India) Roy, Kaushik (2004). India's historic battles : from Alexander the Great to Kargil
Sarkar, Jadunath (1960). Military History of India
Tripathi, Ram Prasad (1960). Rise and Fall of the Mughal Empire
Smith, Vincent Arthur (1917). Akbar the Great Mogul, 1542–1605

Gulcharan Singh,The Battles of Panipat

Ghurid defeat against the Chaulukyan Arms

source

 

The history of any nation, people or ethnicity, is nigh incomplete without war. War, has been a constant feature of human history, societies and polities. The Indian subcontinent, unsurprisingly, has also experienced war since time immemorial. Many powers tried, failed or succeeded at crossing the north western passes into the subcontinent and wrestling power from local magnates. At times, the power vacuum created by the absense of a major polity pooling together the vast resources of North India, played a major role in inviting such campaigns, as well as strife from within. We turn our attention here, to one such campaign, in the 12th century CE. As Islam grew into a world religion and the Caliphate expanded from its Arab heartland to Central Asia and towards the east in North Africa, the Arabs made inroads towards "Al-Hind", and while they saw minor success and major failures, the Turks would succeed where the Arabs failed. Sir Wellesley Haig pointed out "the rise of Islam is one of the marvels of history". After 622 CE, it set its foot from the Atlantic to the Indus and from the Caspian Sea to the Nile. India remained no exception. It was in 712 CE, when the Arabs had conquered Sindh. But afterwards, the Arabs could not expand their dominion further into the subcontinent. The real expansion took place after some 4 centuries, not by the Arabs but by the Turks

Dr Lane Poole describes the expansion of the Turks as "the master movement in the Mohemmadan Empire in the tenth and eleventh centuries". (Lane Poole, Medieval India). In the context of India, in the 11th century emerged Mahmud of Ghazni, who consolidated his power, and led as many as a dozen incursions into the mainland of present day India. But finally took his last breathe in 1030 CE. The demise of Mahmud andthe rule of weak successors played a significant role in the decline and decay of the Ghaznavids. The rule of his  successors lasted till 1186 CE. This ushered the age of a new power, the Ghurids. Alaudin Hussain of Ghor also known as Jahan-Suz (burner of the world) demolished the house of Ghazni and further weakened its ruler. After the demise of Alaudin Hussain, his son Ghiyasuddin succeeded to the territory of Ghor. He established his control over Ghazni and later handed it to Muhammed Ghori.

Muizuddin Muhammad bin Sam known as Shihabuddin or Muhammad of Ghor led many successful battles. He carved out an empire in India after defeating Maharaja Prithviraj Chauhan III or Rai Pithora in 1192 CE at the 2nd Battle of Tarain. Later he consolidated his power by defeating Maharaja Jai Chand of the Gahadvala dynasty in the fateful battle of Chandawar in 1194 CE. 

Generally, in popular history, this episode is considered as the final major disaster for the Rajput kingdoms of the 12th century in North India, to be followed by a 100 years of struggle and defeat, until the eventual rise of Rana Hammir Singh Sisodia of the Sisodia cadet branch of the Guhila line. It is believed that none of the Rajput rulers were able to check the advance of the Ghurid power in the 12th century CE. 

Today we cast light upon a lesser known episode in this series of events. One which challenges the narrative of these times and shatters the image of Turki-Afghan invincibility against Rajput arms. The Battle of Kasahrada or Kaydara 1178 CE, is the incident that we are concerned with. 

Rise of the Ghurids

The Ghaznavid ruler Yamin ud Daulah Bahram Shah ruling between the region of Kabul and Herat strengthened his power and ruled from 1118-1152 CE. During the same period, after accepting the authority of Seljuqs, Alauddin Hussain rose to power. In 1149 CE, he fought a battle against Bahram Shah Ghaznavid near Tiginabad or Qandahar. The Ghur infantry relying heavily on their protective shields defeated the Ghaznavid army which was dependent upon elephants in the battle, making Bahram Shah to flee to the Punjab. After seven day plunder and destruction in Ghazni by Alauddin, he earned the title of Jahan Suz or" The burner of the World". Khusraw Shah assumed the role of Bahram Shah but his rule was limited to Lahore. He ruled there till 1160. From 1160-86 CE, the last ruler of the Ghaznavid dynasty,Khusraw Malik came to power. 

Minhaj-i- Siraj in his Tabaqat-i-Nasiri says that " Muhammad Ghori was appointed the governor of Ghazni in 1173 CE by his elder brother Ghiyasuddin Muhammad. Muhammad Ghori led his first expedition into India in 1175 CE. Ghori defeated the rulers of Mutan and Uch. His victory made him confident about his army and he led another expedition on Indian soil. In 1178 CE, he moved forward against Anhilwara or Patan, the capital of Vaghela ruler of Gujarat. Unlike his earlier victory over Multan and Uch which shattered the rulers of these territory. The Battle also known as Battle of Kayadara (Kasahrada or Gadararaghatta) proved to be a fatal mistake by Ghori in which he was defeated by the Confederacy of Rajputs.

 

source

The Chaulukyas of Gujurat 

The Ghurids in their attempt to advance further into the subcontinent, would come into conflict on the fields of Kaydara, in 1178 CE, against the Chaulukyas of Gujurat. According to A.Majumdar (1956), legendary tradition states, the Chaulukyas were created by the "chaluka" or water pot of Lord Brahma. Such is attested in the Vadnagarprashasti of Kumarapala c.12th century CE. The same story more or less is repeated by other sources such as Dvyasrayakavya (Abhayatalika Gani) and Prabandhachintamani (Merutunga). The bardic traditions on the other hand trace their origin to the Agnikula myth, as recorded by James Tod in his Annals and Antiquities, in many cases the first instance of recording of bardic tales.

The founder of the dynasty Mularaja I, ascended the throne in around 998 CE, supposedly by killing his uncle. He expanded a small principality (around Sravasti-mandala) of Chaulukyan rule to a consolidated kingdom stretching from Lata to Mt. Abu. Under a later Chaulukyan ruler, Jayasimha Sindharaja, the Chaulukyan realm was expanded to its virtual zenith, controlling the entirety of modern day Gujurat, parts of Southern Rajputana and Malwa.

Mularaja II, whose armies crushed the "Turushkas" at Kaydara in 1178 CE, succeeded his father Ajaypala, in 1175 CE and reigned for a mere 3 give or take.

Source

The Battle: 

source

After the initial victories, Muhammad Ghori embarked upon his ambition of exploits and conquest in a similar fashion of Mahmud of Ghazni. Little did he know that for his army, it will be a fatal mistake. Unable to expand to the west, the Ghurids under Shihabuddin marched towards the east. The Ghurids managed to defeat the army of Multan and Uch establishing their control almost in the whole of Sindh.

Further, the Ghurid army captured Nadol, and moved to the foothills of Mount Abu. It was at this place, that Ghurids, with the combined efforts of Dharavarsha Paramara of Abu, Kirtipal Chauhan of Jalor and Kelhana Chauhan of Nadol were taken down and suffered the formidable opposition. The Sundha Hill inscription mentions that “ Chahamana Kelhana, destroyed the Turushkas and then they erected a golden Torana, like a diadem for the abode of holy Somesa”. In the same inscription Kirtipala is credited to have routed the army of Turushkas at Kasahrada. Again, this battle is mentioned in the Kiradu inscription of Bhima, in which it refers the invaders as “Turushka”. At the battlefield, the Ghurids were challenged by the Chaulukya army coupled with the armies of Nadol and Jalore. In the ensuing battle the Ghurids were totally defeated. Shihabuddin Muhammad Ghori who led the army was maimed in the battle, and fled from the spot, and with great difficulty managed to reach Ghazni.

In 1175 Bala Mularaja or Mularaja II ascended the throne. According to Gujarati poet Someshwara, who served in the court of Solanki kings mentions that Naikidevi acted as a regent. And it was Naikidevi who repulsed the army of mlechhas (Ghurids) and defeated the Turushkas (Turks). Balachandra, a contemporary of Someshwara states that "king Mularaja was an infant”. Further from Udayaprabha Suri’s Sukritakirtikallolini, it is conveyed that Mularaja's mother Naikidevi gave him an army to play with and with that army he defeated Hammira (Emir) and his Turushka army. [Chalukyas of Gujarat, AK Majumdar, pp131]. The same has been mentioned by Arisimha who refers to Mularaja's victory over the Muslims.

A detailed description of the battle is provided by a Jain scholar named Merutunga who was a medieval scholar from Gujarat. Merutunga states that “ Mularaja's mother queen and the daughter of Paramardin, Queen Naiki fought at a ghat called Gadararaghatta and conquered the king of Mlechhas with the help of mass of rain clouds which shed rains out of season attracted by her virtue". The latter part of his narrative justifying the cause of victory due to rains seems untenable. But the defeat of Ghurids by the hands of Mularaja remains evident. Notably, Merutunga unlike rest of the chroniclers asserts that the invaders suffered defeat at the hands of queen  Naikidevi.[ Chalukyas of Gujarat, AK Majumdar, pp132]

Many Muslim chroniclers too mention the invasion of Gujarat by Muizzuddin Muhammad Ghori.

Minhaj-i-Siraj in his Tabaqat-i- Nasiri states that in year 574 AH ( 1178 CE)“ Muizzuddin marched an army towards Nahrwala through Multan and Uch. The Rae of Nahrwala was young but he had numerous forces and many elephants and during the battle the army of Ghori was defeated and sent back”.

Nizamuddin Ahmed in his Tabaqat-i-Akbari states that “Muizzuddin came to Uch and Multan and marched towards Gujarat, after the severe battle the Sultan was defeated and returned to Ghazni”.

Badauni states that “in the year 574 AH, Muizzuddin was defeated by ruler of Gujarat and with great difficulty reached Ghazni".

Ferishta in his account mentions that “ the army of Muizzuddin was defeated by the army of Brahma Dev of Gujarat”. Also it is pertinent to note that these Muslim chroniclers recorded the battle much later in time. So we often tend to see deviation and a modicum of separation of the narrative regarding the name of the ruler of Gujarat who actually resisted the invaders. But it is clear that Muhammad Ghori did suffer a severe defeat before carving an empire in the heartland of India by the rulers of Gujarat.

source

Aftermath

The loss at Kaydara was a bitter pill to swallow for the Ghorids. The defeat crushed any immediate ambitions of expansion in the region and subsequent Muslim armies were haunted by the Kaydara episode which served as a reminder of what awaited blind ambition. Mularaja II would not rule for a long time. Having ascended the throne as a minor he would rule for a brief 3 years, roughly. Being guided in his duties by his mother Queen Naikidevi. The Chaulukyas of Gujurat would remain a formidable force until the late 12th century, when powerful neighbouring powers, weak monarchs and internal rebellions would diminish the majesty of the Kingdom to unprecedented lows.

source

Conclusions The Battle of Kaydara, 1178 CE, is for military historians an interesting paradox of the 12th century. Here, the sturdy, better mounted forces of the Turks, failed against traditionally understood to have been poorly mounted forces of the Indian subcontinent. The typical paucity of sources for the period in Indian history leaves room for speculation as to the nature of the victory. Did the sheer size and weight of a frontal assault by the Rajput forces tremble the morale of a logistically deficient Turkic force? Did the Turks instead charge upon a Rajput wall of spears and archers in the rear, being decimated in the process by hails of arrow volleys? Once again, paucity of sources leave the nature of the victory up for imagination. This paucity itself is the cause for controversy as well. For example, Muslim sources of the period and later on, claim that it was Bhima II, a successor of Mularaja II, who was responsible for the defeat of the "Turushkas". Meanwhile, all contemporary Rajput sources such as the inscriptions of the period, applaud Mularaja II, as the vanquisher of the Turkic foes. In all likelihood, the explanation by A. Majumdar (1956) is the one that is closest to the truth, being that, the Turks were indeed defeated by an army under the reign of Mularaja II, or Bala Mularaja as he is popularly known, but the Muslim historians, given the young age of the minor king and the limited time for the reign of this youthful foe, mentioned instead the one who ruled over the Chaulukyan relams later on, as the enemy who crushed Turkish forces as Kaydara 1178 CE.

source

Sources: Asoke Kumar Majumdar, Chaulukyas of Gujarat (pp. 131–137) Dasharatha Sharma, Early Chauhān Dynasties (pp. 138-139) R. B. Singh, History of the Chāhamānas (pp.259) Bhatia, P, The Paramāras (c. 800 - 1305 A.D.) (pp. 176) R. C. Majumdar, Ancient India SAA Rizvi, The Wonder That was India II M S Commissariat, A History Of Gujarat Vol I Wilberforce-Bell, Harold, The history of Kathiawad from the earliest times KM Munshi, History of Gurjaradesa

Origins of The Sungas

 THE SUNGAS : THEORIES OF THEIR ORIGIN

Before discussing the origins of the Sungas, let us quickly understand the circumstances and conditions which led to the establishment of Sunga empire. The Mauryan empire which lasted for centuries and achieved its greatest success under the reign of Asoka the great, started showing signs of decay after his demise in 232 BCE. The Yuga Purana section of Gargi Samhita mentions about the decline of the Mauryan empire.It says the Mauryan empire collapsed after the death of its ruler named Salisuka who reigned in the Madhyadesha.

 The weakening of the empire resulted in the power vacuum which ultimately gave the fillip to the rise of Sunga Empire in around 187-184 BCE. There are different views regarding the emergence of the Sungas which talk about the social and political factors resulting in the overthrow of the Muaryans. One of the most popular narrative speaks about the coup d' etat.

For the period concerning the Sungas rule we have primary literary evidences such as, the Gargi Samhita, the Mahabhasya of Patanjali, the Duvyavadana, the Malvikagnimitra of Kalidasa and Harshacharita of Bana supply details and facts about the Sungas. There remains however a dearth of epigraphic and numismatic evidences. Information about later Sungas are supplied by the inscriptions found at Ayodhya, Bhilsa, Barhut and coins at Kosmabi, Ayodhya, Ahichhatra and Mathura. Again we observe that numismatic evidences are at times difficult to interpret.

Reason for the coup d'etat

Pushyamitra, who was a Senapati or Commander in the army of Mauryas assasniated the last of the Mauryas and cemented his rule which lasted for 112 yrs. According to Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad Sastri ( 1910, p. 259)" a reaction promoted by the Brahmanas had sapped the foundations of the Maurya authority and dismembered the empire". Further to bolster this, it has been told that Asoka's Edict against the animal sacrifice played a big role as it is believed that it was directed against the Brahmanas. Moreover, it was an edict which was promulgated by the Sudra rulers. ”Having referred to the prohibition of animal sacrifices Pandit Sastri says :"this was followed by another edict in which Asoka boasted that those who were regarded as gods on earth have been reduced by him into false gods. If it means anything it means that the Brahmanas who were regarded as Bhudevas or gods on earth had been shown up by him."

Another narrative speaks about  coup d'etat having a different reason concerning the maladministration and feeling of discontent due to the failures of weak Mauryan rulers who were unable to protect the empire against the Greek invasions. According to ‘Yuga- purana’ (a section of Gargi Samhita) that ‘the viciously valiant Greeks over- ran Saketa or Oudh, Panchala, Mathura, and reached Pataliputra.’ This resulted a feeling of chaos in the administration. Fortunately for India the invaders were unable to reap the fruits of their military successes, as they had to hasten back to home on account of ‘a dreadful war having broken out amongst themselves". The memory of the Greek invasion was still green when Pushyamitra’s sacrificial priest, Patanjali, was writing his Mahabhashya on the grammar of Panini, and illustrated the use of the imperfect tense in Sanskrit by referring to an event of recent occurrence and gave the following examples : arunad- Yavanah Saketam ; anmad- Yavanah Madhyamikam. Under these circumstances Pushyamitra seized the opportunity and laid the foundations of a new ruling house.

According to Vincent Smith this dynasty was founded in 183 B.C by Pusyamitra, who was the commander- in-chief of the Maury a king Brihadratha. While his master was inspecting a guard of honour Pushyamitra treacherously brought about his death and usurped his throne and declared himself as the sovereign of the Maurya dominion. Banabhatt has referred to this incident in his Harsacharita.

The Mauryan Descent Theory:

This theory advocates that Pushyamitra (the founder of Sunga dynasty) was a direct descendant of Mauryas. This theory states that there exist no decline of Mauryan empire and hence the empire continued under Pushyamitra. This theory demolishes the narrative regarding the coup d'etat by Pushyamitra and the usurpation of power from the last ruler of Mauryan Empire. Evidently, this theory holds no water and has been discredited. According to Hemchandra Raychaudhary the Mauryan empire experienced a gradual decay. And this decline has been mentioned in the Yuga Purana section of Gargi Samhita.(see above)

Even if we presume that the former assertion is true Pushyamitra Sunga was a descendant of Mauryan empire, we cannot overlook the evidences rendered by the various sources viz; Harshacharita (Banabhatta) and prominently Yuga Purana which has mentioned the decline of Mauryas in its Gargi Samhita. Had it been continued, it seems untenable to mention the decline of the Mauryas. The theory of gradual decline seems reasonable and continuation of the Mauryan rule holds no water. Hence this theory can be easily refuted.

Man on a relief, Bharhut, Shunga period

Shungas as Kshatriyas :

 A different school of thought asserts that the Shungas were Kshatriyas that assumed the gotras of their Brahmin teachers and initiators. Among the scholars that prescribed this view was JC Ghosh, who elaborated his argument in the IHQ, XV, pp. 629-630 :  "Panini says, “The affix 'an' comes after the words Vikarna, Shunga and Chagala, when the sense is a descendant of the family of Vatsa, Bharadvaja and Atri respectively.” (IV. I. 117). There are no rules for the wholesale, or partial elision of this affix in the plural. So the forms, according to this rule, will be Shaungah, and in the plural Shaungaah, when Shunga is a Bharadvaja, when non-Bharadvaja, they will be Saungi and Saungiyah..."  "Shaungah in the singular and Shungah in the plural can be, however, supported under vartikah on Panini, IV. I. 168, read with IV. I. 170 and II. 4. 62., if the Shungas are assumed to be Ksatriyas. So the Sunga kings were not Brahmanas, but Ksatriyas."  He then goes on to quote verses from the Harivamsa and interprets the "dvija" reviver if the Ashwamedha sacrifice to be a Kshatriya :  "The Harivamsa says that the Asvamedha sacrifice fell into disuse among the Ksatriyas after Janamejaya, owing to Brahmasrapa (curse of a Brahmana), but it would be reintroduced by an upstart (audbhijja) commander (senani), a dvija of the Kashyapa gotra, in the Kaliyuga.." (edited)

"The word dvija in the above verse is interpreted as ‘Brahmana’. But doubts have arisen in our mind as to its correctness. The word literally means ‘twice-born', which includes Brahmana, Ksatriya and Vaisya. The verb "pratyaharisyati" i.e. ‘will reintroduce’ can hardly be applicable to a Brahmana here, as the sacrifice already existed among them. The necessity for its reintroduction arose among the Kshatriyas, who were deprived of their right to perform it. So it must have been revived by a Kshatriya king. The word dvija should, therefore, be interpreted accordingly. Whoever this senapati might have been, there is no doubt that he was a Kshatriya. The mention of an arsa-gotra is no bar to this conclusion. In the Srauta-sutras, the pravaras (not gotras) of the purohitas have been prescribed for the Ksatriyas and the Vaisyas. But the custom of mentioning arsa-gotras by the Kshatriyas must have come into vogue earlier than Buddha, for he was called Gautama by his gotra-name"

There are several issues here pointed out by Bela Lahri, among them the fact that contemporary sources such as Patanjali refer to the "Brahmana-rajya", meanwhile Taranatha, refers to him with a similar epithet. Contemporary sources that consciously made the decision to refer to the King by his Brahmin roots. Further more, the quotation used by Ghosh from the Harivamsa, mentions the word "dvija" for a "senani" of the Kashyap lineage who would reestablish the Ashvamedha in the Kali age. The interpretation of the word "dvija" here must necessarily be Brahman, as stated by Lahri.

Lahri opines that ; "The above Harivamsa passage clearly shows that the word dvija there can only signify a Brahmana, not a Kshatriya. For, in connection with the horse-sacrifice, it is said that, after its performance by King Janamejaya, no other Asvamedha would be performed in future by the Kshatriyas. Then it is stated that it would be revived by the ‘Brahmanas’ and that an upstart Brahmana (dvija) senani of the Kashyapa lineage would re-establish it in the Kali age. The Brahmana senani who revived the Ashwamedha is almost certainly Senapati Pushyamitra who is known to have performed two horse-sacrifices. The term audbhijja (literally, ‘plant-born’) is also significant, for 'Shunga', the family-designation ascribed to Pushyamitra by the Puranas, is the name of the fig-tree or hog-plum. That the family of the so-called senani of the Harivarmsa really became an imperial dynasty is indicated by the next verse in which it is said that one of his descendants performed a Rajasuya sacrifice."

Thus, we can safely conclude that the evidences put forth by Ghosh are not sufficient to show that the Shungas were Kshatriyas. On the other hand, counter evidence supporting the prevailing theory that they were Brahmans outweighs the argument in favour of Kshatriya origin.

Sungas As Brahmins

 As we have shown that different scholars have opined different opinions regarding the lineage of the Pushyamitra and back in the days it remained a highly debatable controversy. But the modern historians have agreed and concluded that the Sungas were Brahmins. The earliest opinion was pushed forward by Hari Prasad Sastri who earlier pointed out that the Sungas were Iranians as they had their names ending with MITHRA which in Persian means The Sun, however later on he too admitted that his opinion was untenable and he advocated the theory that Sungas were indeed Brahmins. As we read more about the origin of Sungas under the Brahmanical origin, we bump with another major difficulty in assigning the apt Gotra to the Sungas. Till now it is cleared that Sungas were Brahmins but there are two conflicting opinions emanating from the two different primary evidences. Lets see this in some detail.

Firstly, Hemchandra Raychaudhary opines that  the name of the family was Baimbika. He draws attention to a verse in the Malavikagnimitra (iv 14) where Agnimitra calls himself a Baimbika. In the Baudhayanasrautasutra, ' Baimbikayah' are mentioned amongst the Kasyapas, and Raychaudhuri connects this with the mention of a Kasyapa Senani in the Harivamsha (Bhavishyat Parva, ch. ii 40). It should however be noted that the form in the Malavikagnimitra is Baimbhika whereas in Baudhayanasrautasutra it is Baimbiki. Raychaudhuri further remarks, ‘It may be remembered in this connection that the dynastic designation Sunga is applied to Pushyamitra and his progeny only in the Puranas. It is not used in reference to the Senani and his son in the Divyavadana, the Malvikagnimitra or even in the Harshacharita which mentions the dynastic revolution involving the overthrow of the last of the Imperial Mauryas.’ (IC. vi p. 410). He concludes, ‘the possibility is therefore not precluded that the Puranas may have included under the name Sunga, two distinct groups of kings, viz. the line of Pushyamitra which is styled Baimbika by Kalidasa and the real Sungas who succeeded this line and are referred to by Bana and the Bharhut inscription of Dhana- bhuti’ (iibid. p. 411). In spite of these forceful arguments we have preferred to designate Pushyamitra as a Sunga for two reasons. Firstly, the word Baimbika in the Malvikagnimitra has been translated as ‘a gallant lover’ by Apte, and there is nothing to show that it was a proper name. Secondly, Dhanadeva of the Ayodhya inscription who is a descendant of the senapati, is apparently a Sunga as he is closely associated with the Sunga branch of Kosala, founded by Muladeva.

The another theory of origin of Sungas as Brahmins is the most plausible due to the evidences found in several texts. These texts mention that Sungas were of Brahmin descent. Alternatively, Panini in his Ashtadhyayi mentions the gotra of Sungas and has assigned them Bharadwaj gotra. The same text was used by Patanjali who was apparently a member of Pushyamitra court meaning Patanjali who composed Mahabhashya . Using earlier work of Panini, it has been clearly stated that Sungas gotra was Bharadwaj and not Kashyapa as mentioned above. This has been mentioned in the Vol IV of 1 chapter in 117th verse by Panini. Hence the Bharadwaj Gotra theory supplied by Panini seems more plausible considering the fact that Patanjali was a contemporary of Pushyamitra.

Mention of Bharadwaj Gotra

The study of legal doctrines of Manava Dharma Sastra has indicated that the Dharma Sastra was composed during the time of Pushyamitra. This was published in the Calcutta Weekly Notes in 1911. The essay has discussed about the hostility of Brahmin Sunga ruler against the Mauryas who were of low caste. This was confirmed by the 100th sloka of the last chapter of Dharma Sastra. Further the Brahmin caste of Sunga is asserted by Taranatha. He describes Pushyamitra as the royal Purohita and later calls him a brahman king. Also the family of Sungas is mentioned amongst the Samavedic Brahmins in the Vamsa Brahmana.

Besnagar Pillar Inscription

Conclusion;

Indian history is replete with examples of unanswered questions and issues that lie in the quagmire of inconclusive arguments and academic back and forth. This is due to a magnanimity of sources. The sources concerning the Shungas, are no different and this has sprouted multiple theories regarding their origins. The Shungas remain an important chapter in the history of ancient India following the collapse of Mauryan power caused by its founder, the senapati Pushyamitra Shunga. After overthrowing his erstwhile Emperor Brihadratha, the last Mauryan ruler, Shunga embarked on campaigns of conquest and reestablished several Royal traditions such as the Ashwamedha yajna, that had fallen out of use under centuries of non-Brahminical rulers. Here we discuss the origins of this house that gave the throne of Pataliputra supposedly 10 kings and for more than a century kept would be conquerors of the middle Gangetic plains at bay.

The origins of certain dynasties being such a topic. This Shungas, have been speculated by academics to be Kshatriyas, by academics such as JC Ghosh as well as successors of the Mauryans. Their gotra has been speculated upon as well, and among other things, the land of their origin is another subject which has been speculated upon based on available evidence and varying interpretations. 

Scholarship from KP Jayswal and Bela Lahri however seems to be suggestive of a more definitive answer. Lahri asserts, after countering previous scholarship thoroughly in their work, that the Shungas were Brahmin of Bharadvaja gotra, their founder being a senapati in the army of the Mauryans, who slew the last Mauryan ruler Brihadratha, and proclaimed himself ruler. Albeit he did not assume the Royal title, he was seemingly recognised as Brahman Rajya by his contemporaries such as Patanjali. 

Jayaswal looks at the evidence provided from the Harivamsa and Taranatha, showing how the sources when interpreted by application of the context of their rise, shows that the Shungas could not have been Kshatriyas.

SOURCES:

 Hemchandra Raychaudhuri,"Political History of Ancient India : From the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty", 1972, pp. 328-329

KP Jayswal, "Revised Notes on the Brahmin Empire", The Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol IV.I, 1918, pp. 256-260

Bela Lahri, "Indigenous States of Northern India", 1974, pp. 29-35

Sircar, Dines Chandra, "Select Inscriptions Bearing On Indian History And Civilization, Vol.1", Ed., 1942, pp. 91

JC Ghosh, Indian Historical Quarterly, 1939,  XV, pp. 629-630