Vol. VII, No. 11.] The Belkhara Inscription. 761 
[V.S.] 
for immediate attention is the statement that us The t town 
i 
to be found closely following the statements of Mr. Smith. 
But there is nothing in the writings of the contemporary 
Muhammadan historians to warrant such a statement. Elliot’s 
summary of the contents of the Taj-ul-Ma’agir is one of the 
very best and there is no mention of the capture or sack of 
Kanauj in the account of the year 589 or 590 au. Neither 
the Kamil-ut-tawarikh nor the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri contain any- 
thing about the capture of Kanauj. Consequently it must be 
admitted that if any later Muhammadan historian has stated 
that the City of Kanauj was captured and sacked in the year 
589 a.u., he has taken for granted that the death of Raia 
Jaya-candra must have been followed by the occupation of the 
capital. There is very little evidence to show that the City of 
eee was captured during the lifetime of Sultan Shihab-ud- 
n of Ghar or Malik Qutb-ud-din ; but of this we shall hear 
a on 
The discovery of the Machlishahr grant opened a new 
page in the history of the Gahadavala Empire. It proved at 
once that the statements of the Muhammadans, though not 
false, yet were incomplete. Thus the same au uthor, Hasan 
Nizami, gives a complete account of the subjugation of the 
cities of Delhi and Ajmer, but as we now see, fails to do so 
in the case of Kanauj. In Elliot’s summary, we find a frank 
statement of the rebellion of Hiraj or Hemraj, the fuer ba of the 
pea of Ajmer. The steps taken to subdue him are more fully 
~ recorded below (see Elliot, vol. ii, pp. 219 and 225). So now 
we come to understand that the Gahadavala dynasty did not 
come to an end with the death of Jaya-candra on the field of 
Chandawar. His son Haris-candra succeeded to at least part 
of his dominions. i titles were the same as those of his 
father and grandfather :— 
1, 19. SY e-J aac canara ee - PARAMABEAT- 
TARAKA Man ARAMA: 
RASVAPATI- 
1. 20. Gagapati- NARAPATI- RAJA-TRAYADHIPATI- VIVIDHA- 
VipyA-VicaRA-VACASPATI SRI-MAT-HARIS-CANDRA-DEVO VIJAYI. 
It is pr eg = that Pog. a et paiggi died in 
the year 590 a.H.=a.p. 1194. the accessi is son 
must be placed in oe ial year. “The inane "of the fallen 
dynasty must have set up the eighteen-year-old son of the late 
king on the throne and continued to offer as much resistance 
1 ERAS, 1908, gut 
2 Epi. Ind., vol. x. »p. 9 
