The Tanjore Mahratta Principality in Southern India: the land of the Chola; the Eden of the south

Front matter

THE TANJORE MAHRATTA PRINCIPALITY IN SOUTHERN INDIA : THE LAND OF THE CHOLA; THE EDEN OF THE SOUTH. BY WILLIAM HICKEY, PLEADED, MADRAS PRESIDENCY. " No eye could be too sound To observe a world so vast, No patience too profound To sort what's here amass'd ; How man may here best live no care too great to explore. " But we — as some rude guest Would change, where'er he roam The manners there profess'd ; To those he brings from home — We mark not the world's course, but would have it take ours." Matthew Arnold. SECOND EDITION. MADRAS : PRINTED BY C. FOSTER AND CO., FOSTER PRESS, 23, RDNDALL'S ROAD, VEPERY. 1874. ( ALL RIGHTS RESERVED I TO J^HE J^RINCES OF JnDIA THIS WOR K IS MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BI THE AUTHOE. CONTENTS. Page. Preface to the Second Edition Preface to the First Edition Introduction IX XXX xxxv Chapter I. Description of Tanjore, its productions, arts aud professions ... ... ... ... 1 II.

Tanjore, its History Ancient and Modern, the Chola and Naick dynasties ... ... 38 III. Tanjore, its Mahratta conquest and conquerors 76 IV. Protection and Patronage of Christianity ... 88 V. Rise of the British power aud its consequences 133 VI. The present Princess of Tanjore ... ... 138 VII. Evening and Morning ... ... ... 185

Appendix

. A. Christian Researches in India. Letter of King George the 3rd to the Danish Missionaries at Tranquebar i B. Gazetteer of Southern India ; Missionary Stations iu Tanjore ... ii C. Robinson's last days of Heber. Communications regarding the education of Sevajee, the young Prince of Tanjore ... ... ... v D. Treaty of 1702 between the Nabob of the Carnatic and the Rajah of Tanjore ... ... via Agreement taken by the Governor of Fort Saint George from the Jaghirdar of Arnee ... xii E. Translation of a Paper containing the Articles agreed to by the Rajah of Tanjore in 1771 ... ... xiv Translation of an engagement between the Rajah of Tanjore and the Nawab of the Carnatic in 1771 VI Page. F. Agreement with tho Rajah of Tanjore and the British Government in 1776 xv G. Record No. 1 — Treaty with the Rajah of Tanjore and the British Government in 1787 ... ... xviii Record No. 2 — Do. do. do. in 1792... xxvi H. J. Do. 3— Do. do. do. in 1799... xxxiv Letter of Mr. Forbes, the Resident to the Government of Madras, regarding the Raj and Royal family of Tanjore ... .._ ... xxxix Record No. 5— Letter of the Government of Madras to the Honorable the Court of Directors ... xlvi Record No. G — Despatch from the Honorable the Court of Directors to the Government of India... 1 Record No. 8 — Letter from the Government of Madras to the Government of Iudia ... ... liii Record No. 9 — Letter from the Government of India to the Government of Madras ... ... lvii Record No. 10 — Extracts from the Minutes of Consultation, dated 25th September 1856 ... lxii Record No. 11 — Letter of Mr. Forbes, Commissioner of Tanjore, to the Government of Madras ...

Ixvii Record No. 13 — Letter from Mr. Forbes, Commissioner of Tanjore, to Karnakshi Bayi Saheba Dowager, Ranee of Tanjore ... ... Ixx Record No. 11 — Letter from the Commissioner to the Officiating Surkeel ... ... ... lxxii Record No. 15 — Judgment of the Privy Council on the Appeal of the East India Company v. Kamakshi Bayi Saheba, from the Supreme Court of Judicature at Madras, dated the 27th July 1859 ... Ixxiv Record No. 16 — Conclusion of the above Juds'- ment ... ... ... ... Ixxxiv Record No. 17 — Extracts from the Proceedings of the Government of Madras, dated 21st August 1862. xcii Record No. 18 — Letter of the Government of Madras to the Secretary of State for Iudia Page. Record No. 19— Letter from the Government of India to the Government of Madras xcv* Record No. 21 — Despatch from the Secretary of State for India to the Governmentof Iudia ... ci?

Record No. 22 — Proceedings of the Government of Madras retaining State property and disposing of other questions mooted by the Senior Dowager Baneo ... ... ... ... cvii A young Indian Prince. — Extracts from the Diary K. of the Rajah of Kolapore ... ... ex L. Lutchman and Pudmani. A Rajpoot Tale. — Extracts from Tod's Rajasthan. Vol. I, page. 220—223 ... ... . . ... exxi The Iron Pillar. — Extracts from Harcourt's M. Guide to Delhi ... ... ... cxxvi The Fort of Pithora. — Extracts from Harcourt's N. Guide to Delhi... ... ... ... cxxviii Opinions of the Indian Press and Letters of Ac- O. knowledgment on the First Edition of ' The Tan jore Mahratta Principality in Southern India' ... cxxix MAP OF INDIA. With the British and Native Territories and the chief Mah ratta States, with an enlarged Map of the Province of Tanjore, compiled expressly for this work.

Preface

TO THE SECOND EDITION. ' Cast thy bread upoa the waters, and thou shalt find it after many days', says the Writing." So may it be said of the mental labours of a man. It was with diffidence that I presented to the public my first literary effort, my maiden attempt at Author ship. At its acceptance, if I have been flattered I may well be excused. I am still young. But, I am in a great degree thankful for the kind manner in which the first impression of the 'Tanjore Mahratta Principality has been received.' I appear again, and place before the public a Second Edition of the work 'on request.' I have laboured under many difficulties and would wish to have made myself more useful to a cause, which I have reason to believe, is in everv point of view, just. With a sprinkling of fresh matter here and there, I have added on another chapter; the purpose and object of which, are apparent.

Before closing this paper, I hope, I may not be considered cantankerous, should I make a few cursory remarks on some periodicals, that have been kind enough to honour me with a corner, and a notice in their papers. I have the profoundest respect for them, and if I do assume the attitude of a critic, it is not in a spirit of retaliation, but of justification and self-defence. Should I be corrected * Eccl. Ch. XI. v. 1. B X or justly reproved, I shall accept both, as lessons for future guidance and advantage. The Indian Statesman, when noticing my first paper, makes these observations which I take the liberty of quoting : — 'Without expressing any opinion as to the rights of the present princess, we must say, we do not think the writer's arguments are very convincing, atid the view taken of the question is decidedly a one-sided one.

The annexation of Tanjore was an insignificant affair beside that of Nagpore or Sattara, and was never hesitated about at the time, and the author's hopes of arous ing the sympathies of the public on the subject, are, we fear, not likely to be fulfilled.' I would have been much indebted to the writer of the above passage, if he had given me the other side of the question. Probably then, he and I would not have to break lances on the subject under discussion. But I believe in the doctrine of Optimism, It is gratifying to me to think, however, that my arguments, defective as they maybe considered, are ' convincing,' though apparently not superlatively so- I regret to find that the same writer had not studied up the whole facts of the Tanjore annexation case, before he committed himself to paper, especially in a periodical bonorabty known, of in dubitable erudition and of wide circulation.

I quote the following passage for the writer's benefit from Evans Bell* : — ' There is the true Dalhousie touch in the statement, that no objection was raised at the time to the discontinuance of the titles of the Raja of Tanjore, and of the Nawab of the Carnatic — a mild, modest, inexplicit statement, which averts discussion, and assumes the entire question, but which is totally contrary to the fact. No objection was made at the time ! No objection to the extinction of the Carnatic Principality was made by * The Empire in India, 1861. the Prince Azeem Jah, the late Nawab's uncle and heir, who up to this day has refused to touch the stipend allotted to him, and still maintains his claim! No objection to the extinction of the Tanjore Kaj was made by the Ranees, who are still carrying on an expensive agitation in England.

No case, we suppose, of Kamachee Bayee versus the East India Company was ever tried at Madras, and decided in the Ranee's favor, and after wards on appeal elicited the sarcastic and indignant comments of the Judges of the Privy Council ! Of course, these ' objections' quite escaped the reviewer's observation sat the time', or his memory subsequently. But were no objections made by the Public Press ? The Tanjore and Carnatic spoliations excited, it is true, little interest either in Calcutta or Bombay ; but, with the exception of the Friend of India, which, in those days, was ever ready to support Lord Dalhousie with a little epigrammatic sophistry, I do not remember that a single journal attempted to defend those shameless confiscations ; while the press of Madras denounced them with an unanimity most creditable to it, and a cogency of argument that left no room for reply.

The Madras Athenæum, in particular contained a series of most able articles on these flagrant infractions of our treaty obligations. But the Calcutta Reviewer would have us to understand that ' no objection was made at the time ;' and the statement is so indefi nite, so seemingly innocent aud candid, that hundreds of general readers will accept it as fair and truthful as Lord Dalhousie'a assertion, in the farewell minute glorifying his own administration, that the widows of tho late Rajah of Nagpore had " themselves admitted" that no son was adopted by them at the Rajah's death ; while at that very time the Ranees were maintaining wakeels at an immense expense in England to prosecute the claims of their adopted son. The apologist is verily worthy of his client.' Another, Professor, Sir John Kaye, writes : — ' Two ancient Houses, one Mahomedan, the other Hindoo, that had once flourished in the Southern Peninsula, Lord Wellesly had stripped them of territorial power.

It remained, therefore, only for Lord Dalhousie, when the Nawab of the Carnatic and the Rajah of Tanjore died without heirs of the body to abolish the titular dignities of the two families and " to resumo the large stipends they had enjoyed as lapses to Government." Pensions were settled upon the surviving members of the two families ; but in each ease, the head of the House made vehement remonstrance against the extinction of its honours, and long and loudly clamoured, for restitution. There were many doubtless, in Southern India, who still, clung with feelings of veneration to these shadowy pageants, and deplored the obliteration of the royal names that they had long honoured ; and as a part os the great system of demolition these resumptions made abad im pression in more remote places.' L Another passage from Chesson : — ' Tho case of the widow of the Rajah of Tanjore is equally to the point.

Upon the death of her husband Lord Dalhousie, as Governor- General of India, laid hands upon all the private property of the Rajah, amounting to an estimated value of £ 400,000. This act of plunder was brought before Parliament in March 1861, by Mr. P. B. Smollett. Mr. Bright, with indignant eloquence, declared that, ' nothing could be more dangerous to the interests of England in India than that the Govern. ment, on the death of a man against whom there was no charge, whose memory was unstained by any act of aggression against England or the English Government, should by main force step in and seize every thing he had — the whole accumulations of a life of prudence and economy — and leave his relatives impoverished for ever.' In the same debate Mr. Ayrton hoped ' that the Secretary of State for India would teach the Indian Go vernment that they were bound to deal with the natives of India according to the principles of right and justice, and were not at liberty to plnnder those over whom they had control.' In the end, although for this no thanks are due to the Government of India, the whole of the private property of the Rajah was surrendered to his widow.

But what led up to proceedings which reflect so much honor upon the House of Commons ? The Ranee first appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; and in July 1859, Lord Kingsdown, so eminent for his judicial qualities, pronounced Judgment against her, on the ground ' that the property claimed by the Respondent has been seized by the British Government, acting as a Sovereign Power, through its Deputy, the East India Company ; and that the act so done, with its consequence, is an act of State.' In another part, of his judgment he remarked ' that the seizure of the Rajah's property was an exercise of Sovereign Power effected at the arbitrary discretion of the Company, by the aid of military force, can hardly admit of doubt.' This indeed, was the true character of an act for which there was, and still is, no remedy— a state of things so intolerable, that surely the English people will not permit it to continue.

It is impossible that they can lend counte nance to " the arbitrary discretion" of any Company or Government, or to the principle of employing military force to settle questions of private right.2 1 The History of the Sepoy Revolt. Vol. I. p. 111. Kaye 1872. s The Princes of India, pp. 58-60. Chesson. A lecture delivered in London on the 19th December 1872, in the Hall of the Indian Reform Society — Chair taken by John Dickinson, present Mr W. M. Torrens M. P., Mr. R. N. Fowler M. P., Mr. William McArthur M. P., Mr. Edward Jenkins and Mr. George Thompson. As regards ' sympathy' it is a brittle flower, like beauty it fades, and like favour it is deceitful. I would prefer possessing the sledge hammer of con scientiousness. Another periodical whose remarks I am only partly in possession of, and which I for the first time, saw re-inserted in a Madras periodical, the Madras Mail, writes thus,1 — which I take the liberty of quoting : — " In the small work on the Tanjore State recently published by Messrs. Gautz Brothers* of Madras, the author strives to claim a high caste lineage for the Princes of that remote Maratta Raj.

To this view a political officer of considerable experience in this presidency takes exception ; we print the following extract from his note which will be of interest to students of history : — It is indeed allowed by the Sessodia House of Oodeypur that Sujunsi, son of Ajeyei, left Mewar at the end of the 13th century A.D., and that Sevajee sprung from him. But because the ancestor was a Sessodia, it does not follow that the descendants must necessarily be Sessodias or Rajputs, if this were admitted then all the Koli Thakkuras would be admitted to be Rajputs sprung as they are from undoubted Rajput stocks. The descendants of Sujunseeintermarried with theliahrattas whether Aheers, Kolis or whatever they choose to call themselves, and thus were degraded in the social scale; no Rajpoot would intermarry with them as they would do were they of Rajput race.

As to Sessoday and Lutchman Pal I can only say they are mythical. If the Emperor of Delhi is meant for a Mahomedan, I may point out that the first Mahomedan Emperor of Delhi was Kutbuddin Eibuck, whose date is 1205. I . D., whereas the Sessodia House were planted in Mewar in about the eighth century of the Christian era If he means the Tuar Rajputs who reigned at Delhi he should say so, but it is not clear that they were Emperors. The only Hindoo to whom this letter is fairly ascribed is the celebrated Putheeraj Chohan who united the crowns of Delhi and Sambur and was slain after the disastrous defeat of the Hindoo Rajas on the banks of the Saraswati by Mahomed Ghori in A. D. 1193. Now for tbe Bhonslays, the annals of the House of Oodeypur show that the Bhonslays were sprung from Bunbeer, a bastard of their House, and as before mentioned the Bhonslays Inst caste by intermarriages with Mahrattas.

As to the nonsense about the tribs called Chovan, see. p. 161. 1 The Times of India. * Error for Caleb Foster. who lived in continual warfare, etc,, who succumbed, etc., at the time of tho invasion of Mohamed Ghuzneevee when Delhi was taken possession of, e-c. This is really too bad. The only Chohan who sat on the throno of Delhi was Prutheeraj. Previous to him the Tuar race ruled there. Prutheeraj's, date I have given, and also Kutbuddin Eibuck. Mahomed Ghuzneevee reigned from 997 to 1(128. I am not aware either of Kutch having ever been ruled by any of the branches of the Suryavansi family." Euclid was the earliest Scholar who reduced the Science of Mathematics into a system. But Eu clid was a Grecian and wrote in Greek, very likely on papyrus. After posters, interpreted and com mented on his axioms and postulates, his problems and theorems.

I wonder were Euclid alive, if he would acquiesce in modern explanation. Probably he would say he never meant any thing of the sort. ' The shortest distance between two points is a straight line,' says Archimedes ; if Machavelius had to interpret this, he would explain it thus : ' Shoot or stab the commander of an army, and you have won the battle. ' My profession of life, I may remark, is within a circumscribed sphere. I am not a Government ser vant. I had once the ambition to enter the ' ser vice' when Sir William Denison was the Governor of Madras, and on the eve of quitting India, and Mr. J. D. Sim, (now the Honorable) his Private Secretary. Probably my name is still on the rolls, and my application dated 1864, mouldering on the shelves of Government House, ' the bourne from whence' no application ' returneth.' I had no ' god father' nor ' uncle,' as the expression goes to trum pet my demerits into merits, and my merits into prodigies.

I am a pleader, I flatter myself of some experience, a profession in life, in which one learns much of men and manners. My practice has been confined to the Mofussil. The rich and the poor, the peasant and the prince, the white and the black, have occasion to seek the help of men of this profession. The burden of grief and sorrow, of wrong and remedy, are often their song. A Pleader learns a great deal of the real facts of things, more than an official, who wears the toga of dignity, and of exclusiveness, who depends for his information, on the ears and eyes of others — those others, perhaps, his menials or sycophants, who too often have a motive and a game of their own to play. It was after reading the remarks of the Political Officer referred to by the Times of India, that I pro cured a copy of Tod on the 'Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan.' I am free to admit that I had not thoroughly read this work before, and for the infor mation that I had culled in my first paper, I am in debted more to other sources.

What I have asserted is this, that the Mahratta Princedoms that had been established, were established by princes of Rajput blood and descent. I do in no way hold that the Mahratta nation, as a nation, are Rajputs. If the House of Sessodia is admitted to be of Rajput origin and descent, and if Sevajee be of the House of Ses sodia — then the offspring of Sevajee though in course of time intermixed, does not lose its Rajput origin. The writer of the Times of India admits the Rajput origin of Sevajee as derived from the House of Sessodia. Sevajee and Ekojee were the sons of Shajee of Rajput origin. Those born of the limb and loin of Se vajee succeeded to the gaudi of Sattara and Kokla pore, those born of the limb and loin of Ekojee succeeded to the musnud of Tanjore. There had been adoptions, certainly, but according to the law that obtains in India, adoptions are within a circumscribed line of relationship.

Have there not been similar ad mixtures of nationality recognized in England, France, Spain, Portugal, and Germany ? The Norman and the Saxon, the Northerner and the Southerner, the Scot and the Pict, have intermixed, and both in after generations boast aud stick up to their respec tive ancestry and nationality ; and they are perfectly justified. I have now carefully read through ' Tod's Rajas than.' There is no doubt, as to the intensity of its erudition and its laboured research."" I do not know the authority of the writer of the Times. In appendixt I submit what Tod has written regarding Lutchman Pal and Pudmany. If Sessoday or Sessodiaisoneandthe same or not, I am still in doubt. Probably the story of Lutchman and Pudmany might be mythologic, but all mythology in India is based upon fact, exaggerated into fiction.

This is no strange trait in ancient history. The Princes of the House of Sessodia, in course of time, assumed and were known by different titles. * Mr. James Bradshaw has recently, in the Journal of Education re viewed this work. He reminds me of a pigmy, ehallengiu"- a <riant. t Vide Appendix L. They were styled Ranas ; as children sprung from the Sun — Sooriavumsa ; as sons springing from Rama, they were called Raghovumsa, a predecessor of Rama. The Hindus style them, Hindvxi Sooraj — the sun of the Hindoos. My further contention has been that the Maha ratta chieftain family, known in Maharashtrum as Mohitay, was a distant off-shoot of one of the branch es of the Rajput stock known as Chohan. That this House was of Royal lineage, and had long con tended against the Mahomedan invaders of India, holding their own, and that their dynasty had once flourished in the ancient city of Delhi.

My allusion in my first paper was to Prithiraj Chohan. The erudite historian1 of India has stated that Kutbuddin was the first Mahomedan sovereign of any note; but it does not therefore follow that those who Avent before him of the same persuasion were not sovereigns of India and Emperors of Delhi. The Kituh-i-yaminif a work in Persian as well as in Arabic, gives us the historical memoirs of the Ameer, Sebuktagin to which I Avould refer the reader.3 1 Montstuart Elphinstone. 2 Historical memoirs of tho Amir Sebuktagin and the Snltan Mahomed of Ghazni, early conquerors of Hindustan and founders of the Ghaznavide dynasty, translated from the Persian into Arabic by Al-Utbi ; into Eng lish, by Rev. Dr. Reynolds. 3 The era of the Arabs has slipped tho memory of the writer of the Times. Edmund Burke, writes of them : ' These people made a great aed lasting impression on India.

They established very early Mahomedan Sovereigns in all parts of it ; particularly in the kingdom of Bengal ; they held that kingdom for a long series of years, under a dynasty of 33 kings ; having began their conquest and founded their dominion in Bengal not C Regarding Bunbeer, that he is a progenitor of Sevajee I have not as yet seen any authority. Tod makes mention of Bunbeer in his Annals of Mewar. vide. Vol. I. Chap; X. The descendants of Bunbeer who took refuge in the Deccan, are supposed to be the Bhonslays of Nagpore. But there is no reference to Bunbeer and Sevajee as connected. The Bhonslay House, says Grant Duff, was a ' respectable family.' and he is the greatest English historian of the Mahrattas as a people. And Sir Bartle Frere when Resident of Sattara, has recorded as follows : — * The heroic genealogy of this house is traced, through the Ranas of Odey. poor and Cheytore, to the Sissoday Raja of Asseer, conquered and slain by Shalivahan, whose era commences in A. D. 77.

The only historical value of the legends on this subject seems to be to corroborate other proofs that the Bhonslays, like most of the old Muratha families, had pretensions to a Rajpoot origin. They appear to have been a family of considerable influence previous to the time of Kellojee, the great-grandfather of Sivajee. There are still existing four acknowledged branches, which had separated from the main stem before Kellojee's time, and who had then acquired separate Petelships in the Deccan, which their descendants still hold. These are the families of Koral, Bamboree, Munjoor, and Bansin. dree. The Bhonslays of Deur, near Sattara, who are said originally to have come from Hirgunburdee, near Poona, and from whom the Rajas of Nag pore are descended, are generally supposed to have been connected with the Sattara House, but the relationship has never been established.

The authentic records of the Sattara House commence with Kellojee. 'i Captain Harcourt writes about ancient Delhi, as follows2 :— The ruins that surround Modern Delhi, or Shahjhenabad, "extend " from the south end of the present city, to the deserted Forts of Rae " Pitthora and Tooglukbad, a distance of ten miles ; the breadth at the very long time after the time of their prophet.' Burke's Speeches, Vol. I, pp. 49, 50. 1 The Bhonslays of Sattara. P. 38 — Fbeie. 2 The New Guide to Delhi— A. Harcourt, 1870. " northern end, opposite Firoz Shah's kotla, is about three miles ; and "at the southern end, from the Kootal Minar to Toogluckabad, is rather ''more than six miles." — (General Cunningham.) According to a popular and well known tradition, Dilli, or Dhili, was built by Rajah Dilu, or Dhilu; the date, however, is uncertain : it would probably be about 57 B. C The city was not resided in by the Sovereigns of the reigning dynasty for over 790 years, except at intervals ; but it seems to have been occupied by Rajah, Dhava, who erected the iron pillar which stands in the square at the Kootub; about the year 319.

A.D. The ancient city of Delhi may be considered to have occupied almost the same site as the Fort of Rae Pitthora. With the exception of the iron pillar, there are no traces left of this old city. The pillars at the Kootub are certainly Hindoo, but General Cunningham, the Archælogical Surveyor of India, considers there are none of these older than the tenth century A. D. ' Dilli was apparently rebuilt by Anang Pal I., the first sovereign of Tomara dynasty, but is supposed not to have been the metropolis of the Kings of Upper India, as the later Rajahs of Tomara family seem to have resided at Kanouj. The year 736. A.D saw the commencement of Tomara or Toar dynasty of Dilli, which terminated in the 19th sovereign (who is viri rasly termed Akr Pal Akhsal, Mokund Pala, or Ane Pala,) in the year 1130.

A. D. From A. D. 1130 to A. D. 1151 there is a blank. Anang Pal II, the successor of Kumara Pala, established himself in Dilli in A. D. 1052, and built the Fort of Lolkot ; (to the left of Kootub minor) which was probably finished in A. D. 1060. Anang Pal's name is mentioned in one of the inscriptions on the iron Pillar. The Chohan. dynasty commenced in A. D. 1152, and continued about 40 years." ' The last Hindoo Sovereign was Rajah Pitthora, or, as he is otherwise termed, the Prithvi Rajah. General Cunningham reports : — " The only " work which is attributed to Rajah Pitthora, is the extensive Fort to tha " North and East of Anang Pal's Lalkot, which is still called Killah Rae " Pitthora. From the north-west angle of Lalkot the lines of Rae Pittho " ra's walls can still be distinctly traced running towards the north for " about half a mile.

From this point they turn to the south-east for one "and a half miles, then to the south for one mile, and lastly to the west " and north-west for three-quarters of a mile, where they join the south " west angle of Lalkot, which, being situated on higher ground, forms a " lofty citadel that completely commands the Fort of Rae Pitthora. The " entire circuit of the walls ofthe two Forts is four miles and three furlongs, " or more than half the size of the modern city of Shahjhenabad." ' 'We thus find that Rajah Dhava was in possession of the site of Raa Pitthora's Fort ("that is, the ground around the Kootub) in probably 57 B. C. Passing through various hands, Dilli was rebuilt by Rajah Anang al I, but Anang Pal II. seems to have been the only Sovereign of that XX period who resided in it. The Lalkot was finished by Anaug Pal II in A. D. 1060, and no further additions took place till the reign of the last Hindoo Sovereign, who, to protect the town under the Fort of Lalkot, built Killah Eae Pitthora, the walls of which are here and there still risible.