Tuesday, 17 March 2015

History writing in India


Published: January 6, 2015 00:00 IST | Updated: January 6, 2015 05:56 IST

A critical approach to theories on ancient India

T. Satyamurthy
T. Satyamurthy
History writing in India has become a sensitive initiative, carrying ideological leanings and authors’ personal views rather than integrating new findings into an ever-growing perspective. In fact, available archaeological evidence places Indian civilization as a manifestation different from how it is familiar in the rest of the world. Indian history so far available is squeezed into a western-centric framework through artificial and alien terminology: barbarism, feudalism, Aryanisation and class war.
It is in this background that Rabindranath Tagore affirmed that the present brand of Indian history is a nightmarish account of India. On reading it and looking at the archaeological material, one feels that historians are rather commanded by the comforts of conforming. The book under review analytically brings out recent trends in historical research and puts forth perspectives through a collection of seven articles by the author and eight reviews of books published on related subjects.
It begins with an introduction that there is no sense of national pride in the intellectual horizon of the Indian historians, who blindly follow the colonial version of Indian history. They projected Ancient India as virtual utopia, starting with the Vedic Age where the people were cattle-herders looking for good pastures, without familiarity with agriculture and grains like rice. Besides Vedic references on ploughmen and agriculture, many archaeological sites including Jhusi near Allahabad have yielded proof of rice cultivation in the region during the Neolithic phase, possibly as far as back as 9000 BCE., much earlier than the dates fixed by these historians for the Vedic period.
In the next phase, the author projects Indus Valley civilisation as the origin of many cultures of India. Archaeological sites have yielded many artefacts that evidence a cultural continuity with later Indian civilization. The discovery of ornaments, gaming materials, use of conch for libations as well as trumpeting, the ritual use of water for purification, important mode of worship such as the mother goddess and linga indicate the long connection between these cultures. In all respects the author tries to show that Indus civilisation is so characteristically Indian and all later cultures owe something to it. In fact, many of them reflect that there was no significant break or hiatus.
On the notion of Aryanisation of India on the basis of introduction of iron, the use of horses, and knowledge of spoked wheels, ample material is provided by him to shatter the theory. The beginning of the use of iron was previously dated to 1000-1200 BCE and attributed to the contribution and eastward migration of the imaginary Aryans. Now, recent archaeological excavations push back the use of iron to 1800 BCE (type site Malharin, U.P.). This fact corroborates the early use of iron in India and attests that India was indeed an independent centre for the development of the working of iron. According to Rakesh Tiwari, the present Director General, ASI, it overlaps the late Harappan stage, bridging the bronze-iron ages.
Among the faunal remains of the Mature Indus civilisation levels of Harappa, Lothal, Surkotada and Kalibangan horse bones have been identified by a number of scholars and attested by the Zoological Survey of India. Equally revealing discovery is the presence of spoked wheels in the mature Indus civilisation levels in Rakhigardi and Banawali (Haryana). The Aryan myth was introduced to demonstrate that the present cultural assemblage of India is not an inherent product of Indian soil, but brought by Indo-Aryans. Such scholars/historians are unaware of the socio-political implication of the premise as it divided the population into two major groups Aryans and Dravidians. On another issue raised by J.M. Kenoyer and Kimbly Heuston over the human occupation of the Yamuna-Ganga river valley by Aryans only during 2000BCE, he points out the earliest level of Alamgirpur as datable to the middle of third millennium BCE and hence rules out settlement by new communities.
Focussing on India’s cultural unity, the author takes up the distribution of Northern Black Polished Pottery (NBP), a distinctive Ganga plain pottery of 800 BCE, as an important chronological marker and calibrates the date of Korkkai and Alankulam in Tamil Nadu around 500 BCE almost contemporary with that in Ganga plain. He corroborates this date with the sherds with Tamil - Brahmi unearthed in Porunthal near Palani and accepts the early date for Tamil-Brahmi. In fact, this can be considered as the turning point in accepting early date for Tamil-Brahmi script.
One clear unity that India possessed throughout history has been geographical and with the help of pottery, he traces various ancient Indian dense routes giving material expression to the inter-connection between different areas and the growth of a shared culture.
Reviewing Dr. Upender Singh’s book Rethinking Early Medieval India — A Reader , he refutes the theory of ancient Indian governance as a feudal set-up on the grounds of increased number of land grant inscriptions to the privileged select few. Numerically such inscriptions constitute only a very small percentage and other archaeological evidence of material remains of life on agriculture, settlements, technology, art and trade of the period bring out a different scenario.
Evaluating the present trend in the functioning of various institutions under the Union Department of Culture, the CAG’s report is analysed critically; and, on the functioning of the ASI, the author laments the non-publication of many archaeological excavation reports and points out that Indian archaeology lacks scientific support for academic interpretations. Nevertheless, the author is silent on the fact that ASI was headed by non-technical bureaucrats for more than a decade.
One central focus throughout the volume is the role of Indian archaeologists hankering after so-called international recognition and accepting their lesser role without demur and unfailing in their praise of the work done by their Euro-American colleagues. Their devotion to the western world’s recognition paves the way for an unholy conglomeration of various interest groups to exploit Indian archaeological materials for misinterpretations. On the same grounds the Pattinam excavation in Kerala was hijacked by the western world while Indian archaeologists were mere spectators. He concludes that the Government of India should resort to remedial measures.
Besides its critical approach, the volume provides updated archaeological material on climate in Indus valley, on the trail of Sarasvati, the lost river, urbanisation in the Ancient Indus Valley, decline of Buddhism in India, the status of State religion in Ancient India, all of which would be useful for research scholars in Archaeology and History. In fine it is a welcome addition.
The author projects Indus Valley civilisation as the origin of many cultures of India. Archaeological sites have yielded many artefacts that evidence a cultural continuity with later Indian civilisation


Printable version | Mar 17, 2015 9:40:17 PM | http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-bookreview/a-critical-approach-to-theories-on-ancient-india/article6758357.ece

The Bengal Famine


The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit



“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -Winston Churchill
The British had a ruthless economic agenda when it came to operating in India and that did not include empathy for native citizens. Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines. But the worst hit was Bengal. The first of these was in 1770, followed by severe ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892, 1897 and lastly 1943-44. Previously, when famines had hit the country, indigenous rulers were quick with useful responses to avert major disasters. After the advent of the British, most of the famines were a consequence of monsoonal delays along with the exploitation of the country’s natural resources by the British for their own financial gain. Yet they did little to acknowledge the havoc these actions wrought. If anything, they were irritated at the inconveniences in taxing the famines brought about.
The first of these famines was in 1770 and was ghastly brutal. The first signs indicating the coming of such a huge famine manifested in 1769 and the famine itself went on till 1773. It killed approximately 10 million people, millions more than the Jews incarcerated during the Second World War. It wiped out one third the population of Bengal. John Fiske, in his book “The Unseen World”, wrote that the famine of 1770 in Bengal was far deadlier than the Black Plague that terrorized Europe in the fourteenth century. Under the Mughal rule, peasants were required to pay a tribute of 10-15 per cent of their cash harvest. This ensured a comfortable treasury for the rulers and a wide net of safety for the peasants in case the weather did not hold for future harvests. In 1765 the Treaty of Allahabad was signed and East India Company took over the task of collecting the tributes from the then Mughal emperor Shah Alam II. Overnight the tributes, the British insisted on calling them tributes and not taxes for reasons of suppressing rebellion, increased to 50 percent. The peasants were not even aware that the money had changed hands. They paid, still believing that it went to the Emperor.
Partial failure of crop was quite a regular occurrence in the Indian peasant’s life. That is why the surplus stock, which remained after paying the tributes, was so important to their livelihood. But with the increased taxation, this surplus deteriorated rapidly. When partial failure of crops came in 1768, this safety net was no longer in place. The rains of 1769 were dismal and herein the first signs of the terrible draught began to appear. The famine occurred mainly in the modern states of West Bengal and Bihar but also hit Orissa, Jharkhand and Bangladesh. Bengal was, of course, the worst hit. Among the worst affected areas were Birbum and Murshidabad in Bengal. Thousands depopulated the area in hopes of finding sustenance elsewhere, only to die of starvation later on. Those who stayed on perished nonetheless. Huge acres of farmland were abandoned. Wilderness started to thrive here, resulting in deep and inhabitable jungle areas. Tirhut, Champaran and Bettiah in Bihar were similarly affected in Bihar.
Prior to this, whenever the possibility of a famine had emerged, the Indian rulers would waive their taxes and see compensatory measures, such as irrigation, instituted to provide as much relief as possible to the stricken farmers. The colonial rulers continued to ignore any warnings that came their way regarding the famine, although starvation had set in from early 1770. Then the deaths started in 1771. That year, the company raised the land tax to 60 per cent in order to recompense themselves for the lost lives of so many peasants. Fewer peasants resulted in less crops that in turn meant less revenue. Hence the ones who did not yet succumb to the famine had to pay double the tax so as to ensure that the British treasury did not suffer any losses during this travesty.
After taking over from the Mughal rulers, the British had issued widespread orders for cash crops to be cultivated. These were intended to be exported. Thus farmers who were used to growing paddy and vegetables were now being forced to cultivate indigo, poppy and other such items that yielded a high market value for them but could be of no relief to a population starved of food. There was no backup of edible crops in case of a famine. The natural causes that had contributed to the draught were commonplace. It was the single minded motive for profit that wrought about the devastating consequences. No relief measure was provided for those affected. Rather, as mentioned above, taxation was increased to make up for any shortfall in revenue. What is more ironic is that the East India Company generated a profited higher in 1771 than they did in 1768.

Although the starved populace of Bengal did not know it yet, this was just the first of the umpteen famines, caused solely by the motive for profit, that was to slash across the country side. Although all these massacres were deadly in their own right, the deadliest one to occur after 1771 was in 1943 when three million people died and others resorted to eating grass and human flesh in order to survive.
Winston Churchill, the hallowed British War prime minister who saved Europe from a monster like Hitler was disturbingly callous about the roaring famine that was swallowing Bengal’s population. He casually diverted the supplies of medical aid and food that was being dispatched to the starving victims to the already well supplied soldiers of Europe. When entreated upon he said, “Famine or no famine, Indians will breed like rabbits.” The Delhi Government sent a telegram painting to him a picture of the horrible devastation and the number of people who had died. His only response was, “Then why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?”
Image Source
Winston Churchill: Image Source







This Independence Day it is worthwhile to remember that the riches of the west were built on the graves of the East. While we honour the brave freedom fighters (as we should), it is victims like these, the ones sacrificed without a moment’s thought, who paid the ultimate price. Shed a tear in their memory and strive to make the most of this hard won independence that we take for granted today. Pledge to stand up those whose voice the world refuses to hear because they are too lowly to matter. To be free is a great privilege. But as a great superhero once said, “With great freedom comes great responsibility.”

http://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/

Friday, 20 February 2015

Vedic Temples, why visit them?


WHY VISIT VEDIC TEMPLES ???

There are thousands of temples all over India indifferent size, shape and locations but not all of them are considered to be built the Vedic way. Generally, a temple should be located at a place where earth's magnetic wave path passes through densely. It can be in the outskirts of a town/village or city, or in middle of the dwelling place, or on a hilltop. 

The essence of visiting a temple is discussed here. Now, these temples are located strategically at a place where the positive energy is abundantly available from the magnetic and electric wave distributions of north/south pole thrust. 

The main idol is placed in the core center of the temple, known as "*Garbhagriha*" or *Moolasthanam*. Infact, the temple structure is built after the idol has been placed. This *Moolasthanam* is where earth’s magnetic waves are found to be maximum. 

We know that there are some copperplates, inscribed with Vedic scripts, buried beneath the Main Idol. What are they really? No, they are not God’s / priests’ flash cards when they forget the *shlokas*. The copper plate absorbs earth’s magnetic waves and radiates it to the surroundings. 

Thus a person regularly visiting temple and walking clockwise around the Main Idol receives the beamed magnetic waves and his body absorbs it. This is a very slow process and a regular visit will let him absorb more of this positive energy. 

Scientifically, it is the positive energy that we all require to have a healthy life. Further, the Sanctum is closed on three sides. This increases the effect of all energies. The lamp that is lit radiates heat energy and also provides light inside the sanctum to the priests or*poojaris* performing the pooja. 

The ringing of the bells and the chanting of prayers takes a worshipper into trance, thus not letting his mind waver. When done in groups, this helps people forget personal problems for a while and relieve their stress. The fragrance from the flowers, the burning of camphor give out the chemical energy further aiding in a different good aura. 

The effect of all these energies is supplemented by the positive energy from the idol, the copper plates and utensils in the *Moolasthan*am /*Garbagraham*. *Theertham*, the “holy” water used during the pooja to wash the idol is not plain water cleaning the dust off an idol. It is a concoction of Cardamom,*Karpura* (Benzoin),zaffron / saffron, *Tulsi* (Holy Basil), Clove, etc...

Washing the idol is to charge the water with the magnetic radiations thus increasing its medicinal values. Three spoons of this holy water is distributed to devotees. Again, this water is mainly a source of magneto-therapy. 

Besides, the clove essence protects one from tooth decay, the saffron & *Tulsi* leafs protects one from common cold and cough, cardamom and *PachhaKarpuram* (benzoin), act as mouth fresheners. 

It is proved that *Theertham* is a very good blood purifier, as it is highly energized. Hence it is given as *prasadam* to the devotees. This way, one can claim to remain healthy by regularly visiting the Temples. 

This is why our elders used to suggest us to offer prayers at the temple so that you will be cured of many ailments. They were not always superstitious. Yes, in a few cases they did go overboard when due to ignorance they hoped many serious diseases could be cured at temples by deities. 

When people go to a temple for the *Deepaaraadhana*, and when the doors open up, the positive energy gushes out onto the persons who are there. The water that is sprinkled onto the assemblages passes on the energy to all. This also explains why men are not allowed to wear shirts at a few temples and women are requested to wear more ornaments during temple visits. 

It is through these jewels(metal) that positive energy is absorbed by the women. Also, it is a practice to leave newly purchased jewels at an idol’s feet and then wear them with the idol’s blessings. 

This act is now justified after reading this article. This act of “seeking divine blessings” before using any new article, like books or pens or automobiles may have stemmed from this through mere observation. Energy lost in a day’s work is regained through a temple visit and one is refreshed slightly. 

The positive energy that is spread out in the entire temple and especially around where the main idol is placed, are simply absorbed by one's body and mind. 

Did you know, every Vaishnava (Vishnu devotees), “must” visit a Vishnu temple twice every day in their location. Our practices are NOT some hard and fast rules framed by 1 man and his followers or God’s words in somebody’s dreams. 

All the rituals, all the practices are, in reality, well researched, studied and scientifically backed thesis which form the ways of nature to lead a good healthy life. 

The scientific and research part of the practices are well camouflaged as “elder’s instructions” or “granny’s teaching’s” which should be obeyed as a mark of respect so as to once again, avoid stress to the mediocre brains.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Alexander vs Porus

Marshal Zhukov on Alexander’s failed India invasion

May 27, 2013 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

Alexander’s invasion of India is regarded as a huge Western victory against the disorganised East. But according to Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the largely Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia.

 

Handing victory in India to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad. 

In 326 BCE a formidable European army invaded India. Led by Alexander of Macedon it comprised battle hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persians allies. The total number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000.

Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander’s forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman accounts say the Indians were bested by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians.

Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India’s northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete.

In reality much of the country was not even known to the Greeks. So handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.

Zhukov’s view of Alexander



Statue of Alexander in Istanbul Archaeology Museum. Source: wikipedia.org


In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. 


In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.

So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.

No easy victories

Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi, known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana, stopped his advance. Although small by Indian standards they did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine.

The Assakenoi offered stubborn resistance from their mountain strongholds of Massaga, Bazira and Ora. The bloody fighting at Massaga was a prelude to what awaited Alexander in India. 


On the first day after bitter fighting the Macedonians and Greeks were forced to retreat with heavy losses. Alexander himself was seriously wounded in the ankle. 

On the fourth day the king of Massaga was killed but the city refused to surrender. The command of the army went to his old mother, which brought the entire women of the area into the fighting.

Realising that his plans to storm India were going down at its very gates, Alexander called for a truce. The Assakenoi agreed; the old queen was too trusting. That night when the citizens of Massaga had gone off to sleep after their celebrations, Alexander’s troops entered the city and massacred the entire citizenry. A similar slaughter then followed at Ora.

However, the fierce resistance put up by the Indian defenders had reduced the strength – and perhaps the confidence – of the until then all-conquering Macedonian army.

Faceoff at the river

In his entire conquering career Alexander’s hardest encounter was the Battle of Hydaspes, in which he faced king Porus of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. Porus is described in Greek accounts as standing seven feet tall.

In May 326 BCE, the European and Paurava armies faced each other across the banks of the Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle. The 34,000 Macedonian infantry and 7000 Greek cavalry were bolstered by the Indian king Ambhi, who was Porus’s rival. Ambhi was the ruler of the neighbouring kingdom of Taxila and had offered to help Alexander on condition he would be given Porus’s kingdom.



Alexander meets Porus. Source: wikipedia.org
Facing this tumultuous force led by the genius of Alexander was the Paurava army of 20,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry and 200 war elephants. Being a comparatively small kingdom by Indian standards, Paurava couldn’t have maintained such a large standing army, so it’s likely many of its defenders were hastily armed civilians. Also, the Greeks habitually exaggerated enemy strength.

According to Greek sources, for several days the armies eyeballed each other across the river. The Greek-Macedonian force after having lost several thousand soldiers fighting the Indian mountain cities, were terrified at the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had heard about the havoc Indian war elephants created among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the elephants also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry.

Another terrible weapon in the Indians' armoury was the two-meter bow. As tall as a man it could launch massive arrows able to transfix more than one enemy soldier.

Indians strike

The battle was savagely fought. As the volleys of heavy arrows from the long Indian bows scythed into the enemy’s formations, the first wave of war elephants waded into the Macedonian phalanx that was bristling with 17-feet long sarissas. Some of the animals got impaled in the process. 

Then a second wave of these mighty beasts rushed into the gap created by the first, either trampling the Macedonian soldiers or grabbing them by their trunks and presenting them up for the mounted Indian soldiers to cut or spear them. It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders. As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap.

In the first charge, by the Indians, Porus’s brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount. This was a big deal. 


In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king's body, let alone slay his mount. Yet in this battle Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon, they also killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.

According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Indian king’s spear. But Porus dithered for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king.

Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer, says there seems to have been nothing wrong with Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks, when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Porus’s army “rallied and kept resisting the Macedonians with unsurpassable bravery”.

Macedonians: Shaken, not stirred

Although the Greeks claim victory, the fanatical resistance put up by the Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the nerves of Alexander's army to the core. They refused to move further east. Nothing Alexander could say or do would spur his men to continue eastward. The army was close to mutiny.

The Greek historian says after the battle with the Pauravas, the badly bruised and rattled Macedonians panicked when they received information further from Punjab lay places “where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage”.


Says Plutarch: “The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000 horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander's design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes of enemies.”

Indeed, on the other side of the Ganges was the mighty kingdom of Magadh, ruled by the wily Nandas, who commanded one of the most powerful and largest standing armies in the world. 


According to Plutarch, the courage of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”. Undoubtedly, Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse.

Hundreds of kilometres from the Indian heartland, Alexander ordered a retreat to great jubilation among his soldiers.

Partisans counterattack

The celebrations were premature. On its way south towards the sea, Alexander's army was constantly harried by Indian partisans, republics and kingdoms.

In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the Indian attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack on foot. 


In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.

Says Military History magazine: “Although there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath cut like a knife.”

Alexander never recovered and died in Babylon (modern Iraq) at the age of 33.


Alexander vs Porus: Beyond the fog of war

June 3, 2013 Rakesh Krishnan Simha


Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the legendary Russian commander, said the Macedonians had suffered a catastrophic defeat in India. In the final part of this analysis, fact and fiction are separated.

 
Alexander meets Porus. Source: wikipedia.org

After defeating Persia in the year 334 BCE, Alexander of Macedon was irresistibly drawn towards the great Indian landmass. However, the Persians warned him the country was no easy target; that several famous conquerors had fallen at the gates of India.


The Persians told him how their greatest king, Cyrus, who had conquered much of the civilised world, had been killed in a battle with Indian soldiers exactly two centuries before Alexander.


And in an earlier antiquity, the Assyrian queen Semiramis, who had crossed the Indus with 400,000 highly trained troops, escaped with just 20 troops, the rest being slaughtered by the Indians.





Marshal Zhukov on Alexander’s failed India invasion


In his book, Foreign Influence on Ancient India, Krishna Chandra Sagar says 150 years before Alexander, Indian archers and cavalry formed a significant component of the Persian army and played a key role in subduing Thebes in central Greece.


Alexander, however, knew no fear. More than anything else, he wanted to invade India. It would prove to be a strategic blunder.

Zhukov’s take

“Following Alexander’s failure to gain a position in India and the defeat of his successor Seleucus Nikator, relationships between the Indians and the Greeks and the Romans later, was mainly through trade and diplomacy. Also the Greeks and other ancient peoples did not see themselves as in any way superior, only different.”

This statement by Russia’s Marshal Gregory Zhukov on the Macedonian invasion of India in 326 BCE is significant because unlike the prejudiced colonial and Western historians, the Greeks and later Romans viewed Indians differently. For instance, Arrian writes in Alexander Anabasis that the Indians were the noblest among all Asians.

In fact, Arrian and other Greeks say the Indians were relentless in their attacks on the invaders. They say if the people of Punjab and Sindh were fierce, then in the eastern part of India “the men were superior in stature and courage”.

All this is glossed over by Western historians, in whose view the one victory over king Porus amounted to the “conquest of India”. But the Greeks made no such claim.


Battle of Hydaspes – Hardest ever

Greek contemporary writers describe the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) as the hardest fought of all Alexander’s battles. Frank Lee Holt, a professor of ancient history at the University of Houston, writes in his book, Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions: “The only reference in Arrian's history to a victory celebration by Alexander's army was after the battle with Porus.”

Alexander’s army did not indulge in celebrations after the Battle of Gaugamela where they defeated 200,000 Persians. No wild festivities were announced after the Battle of Issus where they defeated a mixed force of Persian cavalry and Greek mercenaries.

The fact they celebrated after the Battle of Hydaspes suggests they considered themselves extremely lucky to survive after the clash with the Hindu army, with its elephant corps.


If Porus lost, why reward him?

According to the Greeks, Alexander was apparently so impressed by Porus he gave back his kingdom plus the territories of king Ambhi of Taxila who had fought alongside the Macedonians.

This is counterintuitive. Ambhi had become Alexander’s ally on the condition he would be given Porus’ kingdom. So why reward the enemy, whose army had just mauled the Macedonians?
Charles Le Brun Alexander and Porus (1673). Source: wikipedia.org

The only possible answer is at the Battle of Hydaspes, the Macedonians realised they were dealing with an enemy of uncommon valour. Sensing defeat they called for a truce, which Porus accepted. The Indian king struck a bargain – in return for Ambhi’s territories, which would secure his frontiers, Porus would assist the Macedonians in leaving India safely.

Alexander’s post-Hydaspes charitable behaviour, as per Greek accounts, is uncharacteristic and unlikely. For, in battles before and after, he massacred everyone in the cities he subdued.

Why pay off a vassal?

Before the battle, Alexander gave king Ambhi 1000 talents (25,000 kilos) of gold for fighting alongside the Macedonians. The only explanation is Ambhi was driving a hard bargain. He knew the rattled Macedonian army was seeking to quickly exit India. He thought he could use the Macedonians to remove his rival Porus. However, Porus’ decision to offer Alexander combat checkmated those plans.

Tired of fighting: Lame excuse

Greek sources say Alexander retreated from India because his soldiers were weary, homesick and close to mutiny. Imagine if German soldiers had told Hitler they were tired of fighting? They would have been summarily shot. In Alexander’s time, the punishment was crucifixion.

The Macedonian army had a system of rotation where large batches of veteran soldiers were released to return home (with sufficient gold and slaves). In their place, fresh troops eager poured in from Europe.

If they were weary of constant warring, it is inexplicable why these soldiers chose to fight their way through obstinately hostile Indian territories. The homesick soldiers would have preferred the garrisoned northwestern route they took while coming in. Why would a brilliant commander subject himself and his troops to further violence when all they wanted was a peaceful passage home?

Clearly, the Macedonians were in a mess and not thinking straight. Not the sign of a victorious army.

Need for glory

David J. Lonsdale, a lecturer in Strategic Studies at the University of Hull, writes: “Alexander’s invasion of India and Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 both appear reckless and unnecessary from a strategic perspective. Therefore, perhaps they can both be explained by the sheer naked ambition of the two commanders.”

Alexander’s tragedy was he was in a Catch-22 situation. The Macedonians and Greeks welcomed the wealth from the conquered lands, but the man who ensured this flow was persona non grata.

In Greek eyes a Macedonian was hardly an equal. The Greeks hated Alexander for sacking their cities and enslaving their people. In his own country, he was an outsider for being half-Albanian, from his mother’s side. The common people suspected him of murdering his father.

A few years before the Indian campaign, a large part of the Macedonian army was massacred by the Scythians (Hindu Shakas, the Buddha’s clansmen) at Polytimetus, present day Tajikistan. Alexander warned his surviving troops not to discuss the massacre with other soldiers.So in order to retain the loyalty of his troops, Alexander had to wage constant war while also taking great personal risks in battle. For, he could not be seen as weak, let alone beaten.

Strabo, the Greek historian wrote: “Generally speaking, the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.”

  • Devika Menon · Palakkad, India
    Also Alexander wrote to his mom that u have given birth to one brave Alexander here in India every mother has given birth to Alexander what he meant was that Indians were so brave. They also mentioned in Greek account that King Porus was 7 ft tall

    • Rajesh Chibba
      I am convinced that Porus actually defeated Alexander.

      • Desh Pal Alagh · Kurukshetra University
        super story of panjab , and story of brave ruler ,who never defeated by sikender

        • Anuj Dhar ·  · 916 followers
          Wonderful! Everyone please recommend RIR to your friends. Such insights are rather rare and deserve to be applauded. 

        • Ravinder Jeet Singh Balhara · Nda school, mumbai
          The Jats ( Scythians) are still fighting for theire rightful place in indian history but Indian historians are prejudice.

          • Amit Srivastava
            To start with, our academia has been hijacked by Western Christian Missionaries and Arab loyalists i.e. the Leftists/Marxists, who only have to keep glorifying their masters by teaching us twisted and manipulated historical facts since our school days, thus, sowing the seeds of subservience in our minds since our childhood days..

            History books have been written (manipulated) and portrayed to us in a way to make us believe that we're just a bunch of forest dwelling savages and village illiterates, who have no civilization nor any contributions towards arts, science and medicines etc.. This has led us to continue treating ourselves with indignity and continue living with our servile attitude..

            Remember that slaves don't question or overthrow the hegemony of their masters, so the masters will continue reigning upon us... :-)

            If we scratch even the surface of our history, we get that the situation is completely reverse.. So, please continue with your quest for "THE" truth and feel very proud about your culture and ancient civilization.. We had a glorious past and WE CAN make our future glorious once again..!!!

          • Om Prakash Gupta · DAV College
            Amit Srivastava
            The problem with Indians from ancient times had been that they never chronicled the history of their times and relied more on shruti(spoken words) and smriti(memory).Muslim ,Arab,Persian and western chroniclers made full use of this weakness of Indians and wrote history suiting to their kings and emperors.Very little written material representing the Indian side of history in the times of Alexander is available and his contemporary historians wrote what added to glory of the Alexander even if it was untruth.Western historians in order to demean the Indians over whom they ruled took leaf from those ancient writings of the times of the Alexander which not only suited them but slighted their subjects . Earlier to British rule after Prithviraj Chouhan was defeated and Muslim sultanate established in Delhi followed by the dominance of Muslim rulers till East India Company spread it's tentacles ,the existing rulers naturally destroyed every thing which glorified Indians.Thus between 12 century AD to 20 century AD the history books were written to glorify the then rulers and demean Indians .After independence in the absence of any credible history by contemporary Indian historians of ancient and medieval times available we continue to read and believe what our rulers between 12th century and 20th century made us to believe.

        • Ajay Saini ·  · Faculty at Mathematical finance · 718 followers
          .Great narration of our History.. Feel proud as Indian..

          • Samya Chakraborty · University of Kalyani
            This analysis should be reflected in the school history syllabus in India. Otherwise the old story would continue.

            • Samuel Jeyakaran · Annmalai Univeristy
              And Why our Historians who are today's HODs and PHDs, and who head the "syllabus making" for the younger generation, are numb about this ? in this free India !!

          • Ashish Shetty ·  Top Commenter · Manager, Trade Marketing at NMC Trading
            Alexander usually allowed defeated kings to keep their kingdoms as long as they paid their tributes to his empire. So the article is wrong when it says it was "uncharacteristic and unlikely". And to further draw a conclusion that Alexander struck a truce with Porus to avoid defeat, is nothing short of a stark rewriting of history.
            There were multiple historians who recorded this battle. And after defeating Porus, Alexander went on to establish two cities in that territory. That would've been impossible if he wasn't Porus' overlord at that time.
            However, it is true that their Pyrrhic victory blunted the courage of the Greeks and they decided not to move further inland into India.

            • ushainst (signed in using yahoo)
              Typical whitewashed sanitized Indian brainwashed by the lumpen elements that constitute the Politburo in Alimoodin Street, Ajoy Bhavan and the infamous ICHR who have always been at their "best" form while denigrating our past while publishing fiction as History thanks to their patronage by the Ghiasuddin Ghazi parivar often referred to the Nehru parivar.

            • Alok Lahad · Barcelona, Spain
              Ashish, it would be nice if you can enlighten us regarding who were the historians who recorded this battle and in which book and please do state the year of publication.

            • Devakumar Madhavan
              English references are taken from greek historians, who wrote about the battle 100 - 300 years later. Obviously the truth is distorted by that time.. Still the greeks only claimed Alexander did not lose the battle. It is the english text that claims he won.

              1. How come after a truce, Porus secured his kingdom and extra territories from Alexander?
              2. Why Alexander neglected his previous ally Omphis (Ambhi) from Taxilia (Thakshashila)? He should have given Porus kingdom to Omphis if he really won the battle. It is their previous Ally agreement.
              3. Why did Chandragupta fought the first alexander satrap "Selucus" on the far west side of Sindu river, near modern day afghanistan? It is nowhere near the Jheelum river and porus kingdom.
              4. Do you really think Phalanx is a superior technique than war elephants + heavy chariots?

          • Rajnish Sinha · Writer, Director, Photographer at Self-Employed
            It also says that an Indian betrayed an Indian for self gain but with the near result that India lost. In later centuries, we see how the Moguls and then the British made inroads into the country and then ruled us, because we ourselves betrayed each other. History is replete with such incidents where one region betrayed another to the foreign power. We should also seriously incorporate this aspect of unIndianness into school curriculum along with the usual facts that we are brave etc.

            • Sarath Pendekanti · RVCE, Bangalore
              This is definitely other side of the story.

              • Shashi Kant Yadav ·  · SSE at HCL Technologies
                I proud to be indian and Hindu

                • Shankar Kumar Chatterjee ·  Top Commenter · Works atRabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences (RTIICS)
                  The same had been narrated by Bhagwanji to his followers listening across the curtain.

                  • Abhas Verma ·  · Senior Analyst / Developer at Musigma
                    Have a look at my book on Third Battle of Panipat
                    http://thirdbattleofpanipatmaratha.blogspot.in/2013/10/third-battle-of-panipat-by-abhas-verma.html

                    • Suresh Shama Shetty Shetty ·  Top Commenter · Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
                      it feels so wonderful to read and the writings are so insightful. better than the herd mentality prevalent currently.

                      • Satish Marathe ·  ·  Top Commenter · Director at Rajkot Nagarik Sah Bank Ltd · 175 followers
                        Late Man Moropantji Pingle had always stressed the need to re write true history of India. And during his lifetime, he organised a strong devoted team of historians/researchers for the purpose.

                        • Rajat Ailawadi · Delhi, India
                          True. India is Grand and.
                          it conquers land.
                          Even it's mud and sand.
                          hold a popular brand.

                          • Ravishekar Krish · M.D. at PHOENIX SOFTNET TECHNOLOGIES
                            now, that's a different take on the history that I learnt in school. almost similar to the present day lies being thrown by a subjugated media....makes interesting reading though...

                            • Aseem Mishra · 
                              probably the history we learn in school needs revision. the world history books . the knowledge of the Indians regarding history is questionable. and the education system keeps the though provoking to the minimum. Its not an interesting story. rather needs rationalization by educated folks.

                            • Shri Singh ·  Top Commenter · Works at UP Basic Education Board
                              I.E.WHY J.L.NEHRU WAS INSTALLED BY HIS MASTERS AS P.M.OF OUR COUNTRY-TO TEACH EURO VERSION AND INDIA IS A LAND OF BEASTS AS UNDERSTOOD IN WEST AS PER OUR PT.JASRAJ OF CLASSICAL MUSIC


                              http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383.html