least, were generally short-lived and ceased to be effective after the retreat of the invader. An illustration in point is furnished by the story of Hardatta, a rāʼīs of Bulandshahr, whose submission to Maḥmūd of Ghaznạ̄ is thus related in the history of that conqueror’s campaigns written by his secretary. “At length (about A.D. 1019) he (i.e. Maḥmūd) arrived at the fort of Barba, [828] in the country of Hardat, who was one of the rāʼīs, that is “kings,” in the Hindī language. When Hardat heard of this invasion by the protected warriors of God, who advanced like the waves of the sea, with the angels around them on all sides, he became greatly agitated, his steps trembled, and he feared for his life, which was forfeited under the law of God. So he reflected that his safety would best be secured by conforming to the religion of Islam, since God’s sword was drawn from the scabbard, and the whip of punishment was uplifted. He came forth, therefore, with ten thousand men, who all proclaimed their anxiety for conversion and their rejection of idols.” [829] These new converts probably took the earliest opportunity of apostatising presented to them by the retreat of the conqueror—a kind of action which we find the early Muhammadan historians of India continually complaining of. For when Quṭb al-Dīn Ībak attacked Baran in 1193, he was stoutly opposed by Chandrasen, the then Rājā, who was a lineal descendant of Hardatta and whose very name betrays his Hindu faith: nor do we hear of there being any Musalmans remaining under his rule. [830]