LATE RADHAKRISHNA CHOUDHARY

 

 

V

 

TURKISH INVASION OF BIHAR AND THE DECLINE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIKRAMASILA, 1199-1204

 

At the time of the early Turkish invasion, Bihar consisted roughly of two broad political divisions – Magadha (south Bihar) and Mithila (north Bihar).(172) The political instability in the last quarter of the twelfth century AD in Bihar and Bengal was further aggravated by religious antagonism between the Buddhists and non-Buddhists.(173) The Maner CP(174) is an evidence of the fact that long before Bakhtiyar’s inroad, the Turks were active in the western part of Bihar and the people of Maner were subjected to a tax called Turuskadanda as early as 1124 AD. Taranatha hints that the Turks had led looting raids into Magadha before its subjugation by Bakhtiyar. These incursions were largely raids aimed at obtaining booty. Bakhtiyar got a Jagir comprising two fiefs near Chunar(175) in 1197 AD across which lay the territories of Magadha. After collecting some soldiers, he raided Bihar between 1177 and 1199. He was authorised by Qutubuddin Aibak to extend Turkish influence and authority further eastward in Bihar. Maner served as the military base for the conquest of the town of Bihar in 1199 AD and Minhaj’s account of the coquest of the walled city of Bihar is from one of the survivors of the attacking party whom he met in 1243 AD (=AH 634) at Lakhanauti. Minhaj does not mention the name of the native ruler of Bihar who resisted the Turkish forces and the walled town, the Odantpur monastery (the Adwada Vihar) was conquered. Bakhtiyar entered the city with a small cavalry force of two hundred armed sturdy men and took the enemy unawares at the western gate of the Fort.(176) Minhaj’s account is also contradictory and the mistake committed by Minhaj has been uncritically upheld by all the later historians like Feristha, Nizamuddin Ahmad, and Ghulam Hussain Salim. Bakhtiyar was empowered for further annexation and he made further territorial acquisitions between 1199 and 1203 AD. The Buddhist monks aided the Turks by acting as spies.

Sumpa(177), on the authority of the Kashmira scholar Sakyabhadra (1144-1225) of Vikramasila, tells us that the monasteries of Odantapuri and Vikramasila were destroyed by Turks and all the monks were killed. Sakyasri is said to have been in Magadha in about 1200 AD imploring the Pala rulers to save Vikramasila where he was serving. Sumpa tells us that Nalanda continued to exist.(178) Minhaj, nowhere mentions Vikramasila by name and the historians hitherto have not cared to see that the destruction of the University of Vikramasila was not due to the attack of Bakhtiyar but due to the intolerance of the rival Tirthikas and Buddhists. It is not possible, in the present state of our knowledge, to accept the comtention that Bakhtiyar “advanced to Bengal from the town of Bihar through Gaya, Vikramasila and Rajmahal”.(179) Minhaj does not indicate the route of his march. He does not say to whom Bihar belonged nor does he refer to any battle waged for its conquest. Both Minhaj and Dharmaswami were contemporaries but they do not complement or supplement each other. Both of them were writing independently and in their own way. While Minhaj mentions only Odantpur, Dharmaswami affirms that Vikramasila stood deserted and destroyed. All these have to be taken into consideration while dealing with the problem.

Bakhtiyar’s route in his Bengal campaign is a point of importance. It is apparent that he started from Odantpur, he took recourse to Jharkhand route. An old Portuguese map of 1600 shows a principal road passing through Patna, Munger, Rajmahal to Suti in Bengal.(180) He avoided the northern route because of the unsubdued nature of the Tirhut Kingdom and preferred the unfrequented hills and jungles of the Jharkhand region and delivered a surprise.(181) He took his route to Nadia via Jharkhand. It has been suggested that Bakhtiyar passed through north Bihar. The most plausible explanation seems to be that Bakhtiyar(182) followed the southern route in his onward march to Bengal and the northern riverine route on his soldiers’ return journey. He was not in possession of Tirhut when he was marching towards Bengal and that is why he preferred a less frequented route. Whatever route he might have followed, the fact remains that he laid the foundation of Turkish rule in Bihar and Bengal and the last vestige of the Hindu rulers was wiped out though flickering lights in the kingdoms of Pithi, Japila and Tirhut continued for some time to come.

Vikramasila was the vestige of Buddhism in Bihar and Bengal and lay in the neighbourhood of the Pala Jayaskandhavara Vata-Parvataka. Long before the emergence of Bakhtiyar, the monks at this University were conscious of the Turkish threat and were very much concerned about it. Ratnakarasanti was conscious of the danger arising out of the situation and apprised the authorities about it. He told the Tibetan party who had come to take Atisa: “Are you not aware that the Turks are knocking at the western gate of the country?” One wonders as to why the Pala rulers did not take this warning seriously.(183) The University campus had fallen on its bad days. The Palas, founder of this royal University, had lost political control of the area. The political fortune seekers of all specifications, Hindus and Muslims, took advantage of the deteriorating political climate, and helped the disintegration to their own advantage.

In the heyday of Feudalism, the University, being so close to the seat of power at Vataparvataka, was possibly under the control of a ranaka or feudal chief. Another tribal chief, Sahura or Sahavara seems to have emerged powerful in the area. The entire campus was surrounded on all sides by beggars, waiting for doles from the visitors. They were very much concerned at the news of Atisa’s departure since he used to give alms and feed beggars regularly.(184) The University received severe setback from invasions from the east and the west. The Palas were confronted with the enemies like Senas and Gahadawalas and were not in a position to save the University from its destruction. Sakyasribhadra did his best to mobilise the authority and the people at large but all to no purpose.

The cause of the decline of the University has to be sought not in the invasion of Bakhtiyar (who did not destroy it) but in the contemporary socio-economic factors. Monks had turned parasites and their way of living was more feudal than monk-like. The entire University complex was a sort of feudal urban zone surrounded by a set of villages who supplied essentials needed for its maintenance. The social inequality, coupled with economic disparity fostered hatred among the classes and the local populace had practically no love lost for the campus. It was the apathy of the people at large that contributed towards its disintegration. The feudal chieftains, local population, and the wandering and aspiring Turks in search of wealth and power, combined to make the University a feast for their physical and material gratification. It was not Bakhtiyar who destroyed it because he did not come over to this side. Internal causes led to its disappearance. The truth about the final disappearance should wait the discovery of further evidences. Internal bickering, economic disparity, religious animosity(185), covetous eyes of the aspiring plunderers, chaotic political situation, stagnating feudal conditions and lack of royal protection combined to make the campus a forlorn place – once a centre of radiating culture in the east.(186)

 

****

 

Continued: home/page 9   (Click HOME in the menu and select the page you want to visit.)