LESSON 4 POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS (8TH-12TH CENTURIES)

Political condition after the death of (606-647) saw the rapid disintegration of his . The whole empire of Harsha, which covered a large part of northern India, was split up into numerous kingdoms. The common feature of these kingdoms was the rapid growth of a system which has been called by the modern scholars as feudalism. Feudalism originated in the Gupta period. In the subsequent years which followed the eclipse of the the spread of feudalism was quite noticeable and during this period “military governorship was conferred on important chiefs.” We are further told : “In the age of Harsha and of imperial Kanauj, high ranking civil as well military offices came to be bestowed upon persons holding feudal title.” Thus, feudalism, which became a dominant productive system during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, had originated and spread much before the invasions of the Turks. Rise of Feudalism In the period under review feudalism became a universal phenomenon, particularly in Northern India. Recently two outstanding research works, Indian Feudalism by R.S. Sharma, and Society and Culture in the Northern India by Prof. B.N.S Yadav, have thrown ample light on the various aspects of feudalism. B.P. Mazumdar’s The Socio-Economic History of Northern India also provides us valuable information on this problem. B.P. Mazumdar calls this period “as the hey day of feudal anarchy.” The writings of D.N. Jha and K.M. Shrimali also deserve our attention. One of the significant features of the prevailing political system was the complete fragmentation of political power from top to bottom. The basic changes in the economic structure and relationship did have their implications on the political structure. With the shifting of economic power to the vassals the supreme political authority i.e., the king was not in a commanding position to concentrate all political power in his hand. The result was obvious K.M. Shrimali rightly points out : “The growing bardic sycophancy, however, had begun to create an aura around kings, treating them as rulers of rulers and ascribing divinity to them. As a result of this image building the king was increasingly becoming more of a private person than the real head of the state.” The vassal was usually called as samanta, rauta, thakkur, etc. The vassal was granted land by the ruler. In lieu of this land grant he was expected to send military contingent to the ruler. Apart from this obligation the samanta was left free with full powers to administer his territories. If the samanta remained loyal to the fuller and committed to his military obligations there was no interference from the above. However, the division of political power was not restricted to this level alone. Feudal lords had their own sub-vassals. The increase in the number and power of these samantas and sub-samantas weakened the central authority. It resulted in the emergence of a political system which deprived the ruler of administrating his territory directly and effectively. Prof. Mohammad Habib thus remarks : “the strength of Hindustan was divided among a multitude of factious Rais, Sub Rais, local chiefs and village headmen, between whom anything like sensible co-operation was impossible.” Weak Administration With the emergence of a new political order, which saw the sharing and shifting of political authority, the need of making the central administration really imposing was no longer there. The role of centre was

25 rapidly marginalized. As already stated the land was assigned to the samantas, which provided a solid base for their political power; the rulers were reduced to a nominal position and virtually lost the power to intervene effectively in the affairs of the territories that were under the control of the samantas. Whatever structure that existed at the top was retained nominal. Under these prevailing conditions nothing was done to gear up the administrative machinery. The more powerful rulers concentrated their energies on settling scores with their neighbours. Continuous warfare did not give them any opportunity to look seriously into the administrative problems. Left practically free the samantas had framed their own rules and regulations and conducted the affairs of their territories in their own way. The multiplicity of the administration within a state created a complex situation : all this finally led to the weakening of the entire administrative machinery. Out-dated Military System Moreover, the approach of the Indian rulers to the military system was out-dated. While the Turks had raised well-trained standing army consisting mainly of the cavalry the Indian rulers were religiously sticking to the traditional methods of warfare. The army of an Indian ruler consisted largely of the troops supplied by his vassals or the samantas. Obviously such an army supplied from various pockets could not work in cohesion in a battlefield. The idea of raising a standing army remained more or less alien to the Indian rulers. Further, these rulers neglected their cavalry. A fragmented and slow-moving army was hardly an answer to the well-trained horses of the Turks. Social Condition The society was divided into exploiters and exploited. The exploiters constituted the ruling class. They controlled the means of production (land) and lived a prosperous and luxurious life. The exploited were the toiling masses, who worked day and night only to lead a life of semi-starvation or near starvation. Besides this a peculiar feature of Indian society was the caste system. Caste System In the initial state of its development perhaps the caste system was not socially very rigid. But in due course of time the caste system shunned its flexibility and it had become stiff. This is specially true in the case of early . This change took place perhaps because of the intensification of the contradictions between the upper castes and the lower castes. The former tried to make the caste- system more and more suited to their class interests. But on the other hand the discontent of lower castes resulted in popular movements. The role of is quite significant. It showed to the people an alternative path, which was free from caste hierarchy and rituals. Consequently, it had gained widespread popularity. Thus, for decades Buddhism played a useful role against the oppressive mechanism of the caste system. But in the post-Harsha period Brahaminism had once again established its supremacy. This was possible because of certain socio-economic changes. The emerging landed aristocracy (feudal lords) patronized the Brahmins which proved more suitable and convenient to their class interests. The revival of Brahaminism resulted in the rigidity of the caste system. Though the caste system has retained its essential features in the course of Indian history but never it appeared in such an ugly form as we see after the mid-seventh century. Brahmins at the Apex The Brahmins, who theoretically, occupied the highest position in the caste hierarchy, benefitted from the changes that took place in the post-Harsha period. Taking the full advantages of the changing

26 circumstances, which saw the emergence of feudal lords or vassals who extended their patronage to them, the Brahmins tightened their grip on the socio-religious order of the day. aply remarks: “The brahman really came into his own in the post-Gupta period when Buddhism began to decline and the brahman’s religious authority was backed both by an economic base and by his indispensability for the legitimation of power.” (The Past and Prejudice, p.29). The Brahmins were unscrupulous enough to distort learning and education which were used to bestow numerous privileges on the members belonging to their own-caste. The Brahmins claimed “reverence from all varnas by the mere fact of birth, expounding the duty of all classes, freedom from death sentence, exemption from taxes, precedence on all roads, lesser punishment for certain offences in comparison with the other castes, a shorter period of mourning, etc. Alberuni says that “if a Brahmin killed a man, the former had only to fast, pray and give alms.” Position of the Kshatriyas Next to the Brahmins stood the Kshatriyas in the caste system. They were master of the land, and generally .the rulers belonged to this caste, The system which they inherited narrowed their outlook. Continuous warfare became their main preoccupation. They made war a social virtue. To quote professor Romila Thapar: “war became a grand pageant, and death on the battlefield the highest possible honour. Heroic virtues were instilled into the child from birth and a man who shirked fighting was held /contempt...... women, too, were taught to die, should her husband be killed.” Making war a social virtue the Kshatriyas entered into an era of senseless military confrontation even on a slight pretext. Continuous warfare involving indiscriminate killing certainly weakened the structure over which they were sitting. In their private life the Kshatriyas did not observe simplicity since they owned means of production (land) and wielded political power. Like contemporary ruling classes they led a luxurious life and did not hesitate to spend liberally. Many of them used to indulge in reckless drinking of wine, others led a highly sensual life. B.P. Mazumdar observes : “to a modern man the kings as well as their court-Poets, who composed the laudatory verses for copper-plates and inscriptions, appear to be shameless. They took pride not only in capturing the womenfolk of defeated countries but also in openly proclaiming before the world their dalliance with them.” As far as the economic conditions were cencerned the Kshatriyas generally lived a happy and prosperous life. All this was possible because they owned land and could exploit it to the maximum for maintaining their social as well as political status. Declining Status of the Vaishayas The social condition of other castes which were placed in the lower order was far from satisfactory. The position of the Vaishayas, who constituted the business community received a setback. This was firstly because of the emergence of feudalism and secondly to the revival of Brahaminism. The former had affected its economic position, while the latter gave a blow to its rising social status. It is interesting to note that Alberuni did not find any difference between the Vaishayas and Sudras. This may be an exaggeration but it certainly shows the declining position of the Vaishayas in the Society. Commenting on the condition of the Vaishayas Prof. B.N.S. Yadav points out: “As in the feudal societies, the merchant class ‘was here also generally scorned by the elite. In the areas under the observation of Alberuni the distinction between the Vaishayas and the Sudras had to a considerable extent, faded away by the A.D. In the wake of the rise and growth of the feudal tendencies and the consequent economic decline during the first phase of the early medieval

27 period the social and economic status of the Vaishayas generally suffered decline.” (Society and Culture in Northern India in the Twelfth Century, p. 38) Plight of the Sudras The sudras were placed in the last or the fourth category of the varna system. They comprised of “the majority of agricultural labourers and petty peasants, artisans and craftsmen, and also some vendors, manual workers, servants and attendants, and those following low occupation. They were divided into several caste groups.” But the overwhelming section of the Sudras was engaged in cultivation and agricultural labour.” The sudras led a miserable life. Their economic condition was deplorable. Also they were despised by the upper castes. Education was barred to them. Any violation of the restrictions, imposed by the Brahmins, meant death or severe punishment for sudras. Sometimes the sudras could organize themselves to liberate themselves, as evident from the “armed revolts” of the Kaivartas in in the time of Mahipala and Rampala. But these instances however inspiring were rare. Antyaja or Untouchables The most miserable condition was of those who were not given any place, even the lowest, in the caste-system. They were kept outside the caste hierarchy. They were not even permitted to live within the city-walls or inside the fortified villages. The upper most of these groups were termed as antyaja or untouchables while the rest of the groups were given no label. Alberuni mentions following eight groups of the antyaja. 1. Fuller of Washerman, 5. Sailor, 2. Shoemaker, 6. Fisherman, 3. Juggler, 7. Hunter or wild animals and birds 4. Basket and shield maker, 8. Weavers. Besides these groups Alberuni refers to other groups who were the worst victims of the caste system. They were hadi, doma, chandala and bhadatu. They lived an awful life. They were responsible for looking after the sanitation of the villages and other “dirty work” but they lived a very miserable life. Untouchability continued to receive sanction from the contemporary scholars. The sudras, antyaja and chandala etc., continued to be regarded as untouchables. Kalhana’s Rajatarangani reveals that “the horror of untouchability had increased in his age.” Impact of Social Organization A social organization based on caste system was bound to create an unhealthy and suffocating atmosphere. It generated a narrow outlook and petty mentality in the ruling class, which was prone to reject anything which was reasonable, rational and scientific. The contemporary Indian society had become insular. Alberuni thus writes : “The believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no king like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs.” This self-glorifying and conceited attitude had a serious effect on the contemporary society which refused to grow and turned into a store of superstition and prejudices. Commenting on the social conditions prevailing in the contemporary medieval society on the eve of the Turkish invasion Dr. P. Saran remarks :

28 “This spirit of exclusive superiority was created and maintained by a process of intellectual fraud, in as much as almost the entire literature of the period was utilised for this purpose and the masses were asked to follow it blindly in the name of Holy Writ, to question whose authority was an unpardonable sin.” During the early medieval period we find the beginning of child marriage and system. Moreover, widow remarriage had become a thing of past. Commenting on the prevailing conditions in the early medieval period Prof. Mohammad Habib makes the following remarks: “This division of Indian society into castes and sub-castes with impossible barriers between them, and the principle of discrimination as the basis of society, could not fail to lead to the unhappiest results. Indian culture had once been on the offensive, it had penetrated into the heart of Central Asia in the form of Buddhism and it had also gone to the islands of the Pacific Ocean. But for centuries before the Ghorian invasion Indian culture had been on retreat. Within the country itself the Thakur class with its monopoly of power had completely alienated the workers and peasants.” The social conditions thus prevailing in the period under our study created a wide gulf between the rulers and the ruled. Prof. D.D. Kosambi aptly remarks, “.... the people had no interest preserving their rulers”. Consequently, the masses did not bother to rise against the Turks. The indifference thus shown by the common people mainly facilitated the victory of the Turks against the rulers of India. No system can last for long without keeping the confidence of the toiling people. Economic Condition The most significant economic features of the period under our study were as follows : (i) Self-sufficient village economy, (ii) feudalization of land system, (iii) decline in trade and commerce. Self-sufficient Village Economy The self-sufficient village economy means that production is restricted to meet the immediate need of a village community. In other .words, we may say that production was essentially for the purpose of local consumption and did not intend to meet the requirements of a wider market. For performing the task of production a village contained in itself various component groups of workers, wherein worker in the group was assigned a duty, which was determined by the fact of his birth. The groups of workers usually consisted of peasants, blacksmiths, potters, cobblers, etc. Thus the village was self- sufficient for the daily needs and services. This was indeed a significant and important feature of the economy of India during the period under our study, and remained so down to the nineteenth century. However, we should also note that self-sufficient village economy does not mean that it was entirely a closed system. We have important exceptions, as noted by Prof. D.D. Kosambi, like commodity production in metals, salts, coconuts, cotton, tambula (pan), areca nuts, etc. Moreover, the villages existing on the seashores and very near to the towns differed in their economic activities with their counterparts. Feudalization of Land System The second important feature of the early medieval period was the feudalization of land. As already stated the process of feudalization of land had originated in the Gupta period itself. It continued to flourish in the territories under the rule of Harsha (606-647), but it became a universal phenomenon from the ninth century onwards. This new system led to the rise of class of landowners who stood

29 between the state and the peasantry. These landowners or feudal lords are referred in the contemporary literature as samants, rautas, thakkurs etc. The landowners or feudal lords obviously occupied a key position in the feudal order. The landowners shared the political power with the rulers. And this new relationship acquired a special significance in the emerging economic structure. Hence onwards, it was not the ruler at the top who controlled the destiny of his people but feudal lords who kept the entire population under subjugation in their respective territories by virtue of their economic power. This hold on economic productivity gave them enough resources to maintain their military strength. In order to meet their personal and military expenditures they not only taxed the peasantry heavily but exploited them in numerous other ways. Under feudalism exploitation of the basic producer, i.e., agricultural labourers and peasants continued. The basic producers were condemned to lead a life of utter poverty almost bordering on semistarvation. Commenting on their miserable economic condition Dr. B.P. Mazumdar points out : “Their needs were very few, they-did not aspire for luxuries; they earned enough only for two square meals a day, one or two pieces of cloth to hide their nakedness and some kind of shelter over their head. Contemporary literature shows that even these were not available to many.” Moreover, continuous warfare and deterioration of law and order contributed further to make the life of peasants more miserable and insecure. However, certain scholars have tried to show that India was a rich country when it was attacked by the Turks. To prove this contention they cite examples of the temples which possessed fabulous wealth. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals or institutions, does not mean that the country was prosperous. The economic position of a country should be judged by the standard of living of its common people, the toiling masses. In this respect on the basis of the evidences in the contemporary literature it can be said without any hesitation that the toiling masses led a life of semi- starvation. Decline in Trade and Commerce The third important feature of the economic life was the decline in trade and commerce. The emergence of self-sufficient village economy and feudalization of land adversely affected trade and commerce. Particularly, the smaller merchants and traders were squeezed by “innumerable restrictions and imposts, levied by a host of thakkurs, Rais and other varieties.” Moreover the chaotic political conditions in turn also hit trade and commerce of the country and restricted its economic growth. All this contributed to the slackening of the economic development of the various contemporary kingdoms of the early medieval India.

30 LESSON 5 INDIAN KINGDOMS, 1000-1200 During the eleventh and twelfth centuries India saw the emergence, growth and the eclipse of many dynasties. Some of these dynasties ruled over the kingdoms which were quite extensive in area and had sufficient resources. Keeping in view their position and role in the contemporary period of the early medieval Indian history we have chosen the following dynasties for our discussion Brahmanshahis : By the end of the ninth century the Brahmanshahi rule was founded by Kallara, who dethroned the last ruler of the Turkshahi dynasty. The area under their rule extended from Kabul to . This kingdom was known as . The new rulers of Gandhara, who came after overthrowing the Turkshahi dynasty, were Brahmins by caste. This was an exception from the norms of caste system as generally the contemporary ruler of India belonged to Kshatriya caste. Hence the new dynasty was called the Brahmanshahi of Gandhara. Towards the end of the tenth century the Turks, under the leadership of Subuktagin, who was the ruler of , came into conflict with the neighbouring Indian kingdom, Gandhara. At the time of Turkish invasion led by Subuktagin the ruler of Gandhara was Jaipal. The Brahmanshahi rulers did not surrender tamely. On the contrary they put up a tough resistance to the invaders. Especially Anandpal, the son of Jaipal, succeeded in mobilizing the various rulers of Northern India to meet the challenge of the Turks at the battle-field of Waihind (1008). The combined armies of the Indian rulers after the initial success in the battlefield were routed. The last ruler of the Brahmanshahi dynasty was Bhim, who succeeded Anandpala in 1012. He was called by a contemporary historian as Bhim-i-nidar (Bhim, the fearless). The rulers of the Brahmanshahi dynasty were brave and dignified. Alberuni, the great scholar and historian of the contemporary period, praises them in the following words : “They were men of noble sentiment and noble bearing. In all their grandeur they never slackened in the desire of doing what is good and right”. Ultimately the kingdom of Gandhara could not stand the repeated onslaughts of the Turks. And its territories were annexed by Mahmud of Ghazni, the son of Subuktagin, in 1021-22—the only annexation which the mighty Turkish invader made in India. Pratiharas : Another important dynasty was of the Pratiharas. About the origin of the Pratiharas there is lot of controversy. According to Dr. P. Saran, Nagbhat II (800-834) had left Rajputana and made Kanauj the capital of his newly conquered kingdom. However, the rise of the Pratiharas actually starts under Mihir Bhoj (836-85). He was an expansionist, and added new territories to his already extensive kingdom. He was succeeded by his son, Mahendrapala (885-915), who besides being a great warrior, was also a patron of letters. Rajshekhar was the noted poet and dramatist of his court. In the mid-tenth century the Pratihara kingdom was in deep crisis and its rulers found it difficult to curb the forces of disintegration, which considerably weakened its political authority. Soon new minor kingdoms started emerging out of the declining one. Subsequently, the area under the direct rule of the Pratiharas shrank considerably. They ceased to be a political force when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Kanauj in 1018. The Pratiharas were dislodged by the Rashtrakutas. The last ruler of this dynasty was Lakhanpala. Ultimately, the Pratiharas suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Mahmud of Ghazni in 1018. Gahadwalas : The Gahadwalas rose to power in closing years of the 11th century. Particularly Govindchandra (1114-1154) extended the territory of Gahadwala kingdom upto Mongher (). The

31 last important ruler of the Gahadwala dynasty was Jai Chand, who was knocked down by Muhammad Ghuri, the founder of Turkish empire in India. The battle of Chandwar (district , U.P.), in which Jai Chand was decisively defeated, sealed the fate of the Gahadwalas. After this event the Gahadwalas tried to regain power, but none of the minor rulers were able to turn the tide. Even their regained territories were lost finally to the Turks. Chandellas : The Chandellas were the rulers of Khajuraho-Mahoba. Its ruler Vidyadhara tried to resist the onslaught of the Turks under the leadership of Mahmud of Ghazni. The Chandella kingdom had passed through many ups and downs. Another distinguished ruler of the Chandella dynasty was Madanvarman (1129-1163), who not merely defended his kingdom against the inroads of his neighbours but also expanded it. His rule saw a “consolidated empire with enlarged boundaries exercising political influence over a large portion of Central India.” However, his grandson Paramardi who ruled from 1165 to 1202 had to suffer defeat at the hand of his neighbour Prithviraja of Sakambhari-. Again Paramardi was confronted with another invasion by the Turks. He was not willing to surrender before the invading army and, therefore, offered stubborn resistance when Qutubuddin Aibak beseiged Kalinjar in 1202. Paramardi suddenly died at a time when the negotiations with the Turks were inconclusive. His prime minister, Ajaydeva initially continued the hostilities but finally surrendered the fort of Kalinjar to the Turks. This surrender had shaken the very foundation of Mahoba-Khajuraho kingdom. Tomaras : Adjacent to the possessions of the Ghaznavi Turks in the Punjab was the kingdom of the Tomaras of . The Tomaras had more than once resisted the onslaughts of the Turks. They prevented the Turks to make further inroads into their kingdom. Under the leadership of Gopala the Tomaras “captured , and Nagarkot”. However, the Tomaras received a serious set-back because of the hostile attitude of their neighbours particularly the , who made an attack on their territories of Tomara kingdom. At the same time the Chauhans were not prepared to continue a policy of hostility towards the Turks, and they appeared to have entered into some sort of an alliance with the Ghaznavi rulers against their common enemy, the Tomaras. After some time the Tomara kingdom became internally very weak. Therefore it was not possible for it to resist outside pressure with dignity and honour. The result was that it was just reduced to the status of dependency of the Chauhans. At the time when Mohammad Ghuri invaded India it was not a sovereign state. Aibak succeeded in capturing Delhi in 1193. Chauhans : One of the most prominent dynasties which flourished during the early medieval India period was of the Chauhans. The Chauhans, who had long been the rivals of the Tomaras, steadily increased their power in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. They clashed very early with the Turkish invaders. In 1079 or there abouts Durlabharaja III of Sakmbhari lost his life at the hands of the Ghaznavi commander Ibrahim, who succeeded in reaching as far as the western coast of India. Durlabharaja III’s nephew, Prithviraja I continued the struggle against the Turks. However, he appears to have suffered at the hands of Bahlim who rebelled against the Ghaznavi ruler Bahram Shah (1117- 1157), and established himself as an independent ruler at Nagor. Bahlim raided the Chauhan’s territories more than one. These raids were more than avenged by (1130-1150), the son of Ajayaraja. He not only defeated the Turkish invaders in a battle near Ajmer, but also carried his raids into their territories. During the reign of his illustrious son, Bisal or Vigraharaja IV (1153-64), a Turkish attack was beaten off. Bisal was not only a brave and competent fighter but he was also an accomplished poet. He was also a patron of learning. During the reign of Bisal the Chauhans succeeded in capturing the strong forts

32 of Hansi and Delhi, the former probably from the Turks and the latter from their allies, the Tomaras, who continued thereafter to rule at Delhi as feudatories of the Chauhans. To Bisal must be given the credit of having realised the danger from the Turks. When the Ghorians took possession of the territories in the Punjab there was bound to be the clash between them and the Chauhans. The Chauhans had a long tradition of fighting against the Turks-. Actually the appropriate time for crushing the Turks came in 1178 when Mohammad Ghuri attacked the dominions of Chalukyas of . The latter asked for help against the Turks. Unwise counsel made Prithviraja III (1179-92) to hold back. Though Mohammad Ghuri was defeated by the Chalukyas of Gujarat at the battle of Kayadara, (a village near Mount Abu) the Chauhans did nothing to take advantage of the situation at that crucial moment. After some time the Chauhans engaged Mohammad Ghuri at the battlefield of Tarain in 1191. The Rajputs were able to keep the morale of their army. Displaying their exemplary bravery in the battlefield the Rajputs put the Turks to rout. Mohammad Ghuri just managed to survive physically. In a precarious condition he was rushed to Ghazni. But soon the tables were turned against the Chauhans. Mohammad Ghuri again appeared after a year to take avenge of his defeat. At the second battle ofTarain (1192) a crushing defeat was inflicted on Prithviraj III. Finally, all the territories under the Chauhans were captured by the Turks. Chalukyas : The of Gujarat shot into prominence in the early period of medieval Indian history. The Chalukyas of Gujarat played a significant role in resisting the Turks. The Chalukya kingdom was established by I in the middle of tenth century. It had steadily increased its power especially under Jayasimha Siddharaja (1093-1143) and Kumarapala (1143-72). During this period the Chalukya kingdom was the strongest in Western India comprising Gujarat, Saurashtra, , Abu and . Kumarapala was followed by an unpopular successor, Ajayraja, who died in 1178. He was followed by two infants-Mularaja II and Bhima II who succeeded to the throne one after the other. Mohammad Ghuri’s invasion of the Chalukya kingdom in the reign of Mularaja II (1178-79) was repelled by his mother with the help of her feudatories, prominent among them were the Chauhans of Nadol and the Paramaras of Abu. Mularaja II died within twelve months of his accession to the throne. The next ruler, Bhima II (1179-1241) soon found that it was not easy to rule over such an extensive kingdom, which saw the rapid rise of the political power of the feudatories. Taking advantage of his youth and inexperience and the growing weaknesses of the Chalukya’s central administration, feudatories began establishing independent principalities. For a short period, Bhima II was perhaps even deprived of his throne. Lavanaprasada and Viradhavala of Dholka helped him in recovering some of his lost power but soon they themselves usurped the political power. Bhima II headed a kingdom which was strong in man-power and rich in material resources. However, he did not seem to have realised the gravity of the situation. As long as his own territory was not attacked he did not involve himself in the fighting between the native Indian rulers and the Turks. In this way he gave no provocation to the Turks. Probably the internal weakness of his administration was the chief cause of this policy of aloofness. However, when they were left with no alternative the Chalukyas were forced to change their tactics, but it was then too late. Nothing could make up for the opportunities they had lost. In 1299 Gujarat was occupied by the Khaljis. Paramaras : To the east of the kingdom of Gujarat lay the territories of the Paramaras of Malwa. Its founder was Upendra or Krishnaraja (790-817). He was originally a vassal of the Pratiharas. One of the rulers of this dynasty was Siyaka Harsha (844-93). In the later part his reign Siyaka Harsha

33 clashed with Rastrakutas. His successor Vakpati alias Munja (894-920) was a brave fighter. He showed his interest in architecture and is credited with the construction of some temples. The Paramaras of Malwa were so placed that they had to fight against most of the northern as well as southern powers, namely, the Rastrakutas, the Chalukyas of Kalyani, the Yadavas of Devagiri, the Chalukyas of Gujarat, the Chandellas of Mahoba, and the Chauhans of Nadol and Sakambhari-Ajmer. Continuous warfare weakened their power. (1015-65) was undoubtedly the most prominent ruler of the of Malwa. He defeated the Chalukyas of Kalyani and Gangeydeva of Tripuri. It was during his time that Mahmud of Ghazni plundered the famous temple of Somnath in 1025. Bhoja preferred to adopt the policy of aloofness, and, subsequently, he did not come into armed conflict with the Turks. Mahmud of Ghazni also avoided any confrontation with Bhoja, since the main aim of the mighty invader was to denude Somnath of its wealth rather than to embark on an expansionist policy with a view to consolidating his rule. Bhoja was a versatile writer. He wrote many works on a variety of subjects like poetry, grammar, religion, medicine, architecture, etc. He extended his patronage to men of letters. He was a great builder of temples. He also founded a city of Bhojpur not far away from Bhopal. After the death of Bhoja the kingdom of Malwa retained its independence for a fairly long time. However, in the closing years of the 12th century Malwa was no longer a political force. Finally it was annexed by the Khaljis. Kalachuris : Another important clan which rose to some political prominence was of the Kalachuris. Two of their branches ruled at Gorakhpur. But their most important branch was that of Tripuri (modern Tewar) in Dhala (in Jabalpur region). Another early ruler of Dhala, who fought against the Turks was Gangeyadeva (1019-41). He was in possession of Benaras in 1034 when the Ghazani governor Niyaltigin plundered it. In the subsequent years we find the Kalachuris engaged in a struggle for supremacy with the Chandellas of on the one side, and the Paramaras on the other. Jayasimha Kalachuri, who came to the throne about 1139, repulsed an attack led by the Ghaznavi ruler, Khusrau Malik. He was succeeded by Vijayasimha who ruled at least upto 1195. Like his predecessors, he seems to have continued fighting against his neighbours. Cholas : In the Southern India the most important kingdom was that of the Cholas. The Chola kingdom right from the beginning assumed a key position in the politics of South. It produced many outstanding rulers but it reached at its zenith under Rajaraja, who ascended the throne in 985. Rajaraja followed an expansionist policy, and subsequently added new territories to the Chola kingdom. Not only that Rajaraja expanded the boundaries of his kingdom he contributed to its all round growth also. Rajaraja ruled for thirty years. Finally he died in 1016. Another prominent ruler of the was Kulottunga III. He started his reign in 1178. He was the last effort to check the disruption of the Chola kingdom. However, after his death in 1218, the Chola kingdom was seriously faced with the forces of disintegration. With the passage of time the crisis further deepened. Ultimately, the Chola rule came to an end at the beginning of the 13th century. Chalukyas (Western) : Another great power of the Southern India was the Western Chalukyas. The rulers of the Chalukyas dynasty were in constant conflict with their neighbours, the Cholas. Many bloody wars took place between these two powers. Somesvara I was a renowned ruler of this dynasty who succeeded his father Jayasimha II in 1042. He was so powerful that even the famous ruler of Malwa, Bhoja, submitted before him. Somesvara I “extended his power across Vidarbha and part of modern , into and Kalinga and imposed his sovereignty on the Nagavamsi ruler, Dharavarasha of Chkurakuat.” He died on the 29th March, 1068.

34 The last ruler of the Chalukyas kingdom was Somesvara IV (1184-1200). He was hard pressed by the Hoysalas under Ballala (1173-1220). A series of engagements were fought. The last and the decisive battle was fought in 1190 the Chalukyas were completely routed in the battlefield which resulted in the eclipse of their rule. Conclusion One thing clearly emerges that constant warfare was the chief feature in this period. This considerably weakened these kingdoms internally, and when the rulers of India were confronted by a superior military power they were forced to surrender. But it will be too hasty to conclude that constant warfare was the key factor which spelled ruin for the rulers of India. The contemporary Turkish rulers also fought continuously against each other. However, when they attacked India they succeeded in their aims and objectives.

35