INDIA DEFEATS EUROPEAN CONQUESTS

Cultural Nationalism in India

There had been a European conquest in India, but they could not destroy Hinduism, because of the inner strength of that religion, which is pluralism. Pluralism, in turn, is democratic, whereas monotheism, which is the hallmark of Europe, contributed to dictatorships, even in the Marxian model. Thus, democracy is ingrained in Hinduism, and hence, Sri Rama, hero of the Indian epic Ramayana, during his jungle sojourn, asked his brother Bharata whether he is honouring the Charvakas properly or not. Charvakas were the materialists and atheists of that period, and Rama was exhorting a principle of democracy-honour the opposition. So, India was aware of cultural nationalism, as a civilization, and could resist even Alexander of Greece with philosophical elan.

Hence, Irish Indologist Vincent Arthur Smith wrote about Alexander's campaign, in his Ancient History of India: (1)

“The campaign, although carefully designed to secure a permanent conquest, was in actual effect no more than a brilliantly successful raid on a gigantic scale, which left upon India no mark save the horrid scars of bloody war. India remained unchanged. The wounds of battle were quickly healed; the ravaged fields smiled again as the patient oxen and no less patient husbandmen resumed their uninterrupted labours; and the places of slain myriads were filled by the teeming swarms of a population. India was not Hellenised. She continued to jive her life of splendid isolation and forgot the passing of the Macedonian storm. No Indian author, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain, makes even the faintest allusion to Alexander or his deeds.”

Smith describes further resilient India: (2)

"Alexander stayed only nineteen months in India, and however far-reaching his plans may have been, it is manifestly impossible that during those few months of incessant conflict, he should have found Hellenic institutions on a permanent basis, or materially affected the structure of Hindu polity and society. As a matter of fact, he did nothing of the sort, and within two years of his death, with the exception of small garrisons under Eudemos in the Indus valley, the whole apparatus of Macedonian Rule had been swept away. After the year 316 BC, not a trace of it remained. The only mark of Alexander's direct influence on India is the existence of a few coins modelled in imitation of Greek types which were struck by Saubhuti (Sophytes), the chief of the Salt Range, whom he subdued at the beginning of the voyage down the rivers."

Alexander

Alexander made the work of Chandragupta Maurya simpler and paved the path for his Hindu imperial power in the Greek-invaded areas. Observes historian Radha Kumud Mookerji: “Alexander’s invasion promoted the political unification of the country. Smaller states which handicapped unity were now merged into the larger ones, such as those of Paurava, Abhisara or Taxila. These conditions were favourable for the rise of an Indian Empire to be shortly founded by Chandragupta.” (3)

Alexander's campaign just passed like an evil spectacle. Historian R C Majumdar records: "The invasion of Alexander the Great has been recorded in minute details by the Greek historians who naturally felt elated at the triumphant progress of their hero over unknown lands and seas. From the Indian point of view, its importance lies in the fact that it opened up a free interchange between India and and the western countries which were big with future consequences. For the rest, there was nothing to distinguish between his raid in Indian history. It can hardly be called a great military success as the only military achievements to his credit were the conquest of petty tribes and States by instalments. He never approached even within a measurable distance of what may be called the citadel of Indian military strength, and the exertions he had to make against Poras, the ruler of a small district between the Jhelum and the Chenab, do not certainly favour the hypothesis that he would have found it an easy task to subdue the mighty Nanda empire. Taking everything into consideration, a modern historian unprejudiced by the halo of the Greek name may perhaps be excused for the belief that the majority of Greek writers did not tell the whole truth when they represented the retreat of Alexander as solely due to the unwillingness of his soldiers to proceed any further; nor can he dismiss, as altogether fictitious, the view recorded by more than one ancient Greek  historian, that the retreat of Alexander was caused by the terror of the mighty power of the Nandas." (4)

The Nanda dynasty, which resisted Alexander, ruled in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent during the fourth century BCE, and possibly during the fifth century BCE. The Nandas overthrew the Shaishunaga dynasty in the Magadha region of eastern India and expanded their empire to include a larger part of northern India. Based on the Buddhist tradition recorded in the Mahavamsa, they appear to have ruled circa 345–322 BCE.

The Nandas built on the successes of their Haryanka and Shaishunaga predecessors and instituted a more centralised administration. Ancient sources credit them with amassing great wealth, which was probably a result of the introduction of new currency and taxation systems. Ancient texts also suggest that the Nandas were unpopular among their subjects because of their low-status birth, excessive taxation, and their general misconduct. The last Nanda king was overthrown by Chandragupta Maurya, and the latter's mentor Chanakya.

Subsequent European invasions in India faced the same fate; the cultural consciousness of India remained intact, and it is called cultural nationalism today.

Cultural nationalism is nationalism in which the nation is defined by a shared culture, rather than on the concepts of common ancestry or race. (5) Cultural nationalism is usually a moderate position within a larger spectrum of nationalist ideology. Thus, moderate positions in Hindu nationalism are, "cultural nationalism", while such movements also include forms of ethnic nationalism and national mysticism. For instance, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) General Secretary, in reply to the Tribunal constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 to hear the case on the RSS, explained the position: (6)

"The term Hindu in the conviction as well as in the constitution of the RSS is a cultural and civilizational concept and not a political or religious dogma. The term as a cultural concept will include and did always include all Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims, Christians, and Parsis. The cultural nationality of India, in the conviction of the RSS, is Hindu and it was inclusive of all who are born and who have adopted Bharat as their Motherland, including Muslims, Christians, and Parsis. The answering association submits that it is not just a matter of RSS conviction, but a fact borne out by history that the Muslims, Christians, and Parsis too are Hindus by culture although as religions they are not so."

This is a moderate position, and at the same time, inclusive. V D Savarkar writes that every individual who is born in India and who considers India to be his fatherland (Pitrubhumi) and Holy land (Pavitrubhumi) is a Hindu. However, Savarkar pointed out that Christians and Muslims consider their holy land elsewhere. 

Culture, on which civilization is based, is an organic constituent of human development. It is a state of being, a mode of thinking, a way of living, and a set of commonly shared values, beliefs, and practices. It is a holistic entity comprising a stock of knowledge, beliefs, customs, conduct, morals, and intellectual pursuits. It is a totality of heritage borne by society. It is the intellectual and spiritual wealth generated and preserved by society, over the centuries. It enhances the meaning and quality of life. Thus, it enriches the fullness of life, sharpens intellect and ushers in the plenitude of serenity.

The rule of dharma

India is the cradle of global civilization, and it possesses one of the finest cultures in the world in the form of Vedic wisdom. It advocates the fundamental unity of all existences, both animate and inanimate. Everything in this cosmos has a common source and sustenance. The Puruṣa Sūkta of Ṛig Veda declares that whatever existed, whatever exists and whatever shall come into existence, all are manifestations of the same Divine Being. The īśāvāsyopaniṣad of the Yajur Veda states that in this mutating world, every element is divine and is permeated by the Divine. It says about the relation of the individual's soul to the divine supreme spirit: "That is Whole and this is Whole, the perfect has come out of the perfect; having taken the perfect from the perfect, only the perfect remains. ("Om Poornam-Adah Poornam-Idam Poornaat-Poornam-Udachyate |Poornasya Poornam-Aadaaya Poornam-Eva-Avashishyate ||)

It is one unitary, self-existing principle which manifests itself diversely, says the Nāsadīya Sūkta of Ṛig Veda. It is also experienced and expressed diversely.

It is a unique feature of Indian culture which exhorted not to have the European/ biblical/ Islamic psyche of “I versus thou”. Instead, Hinduism advocates the attitude of “I and we”. (7) Indian sages cherished a spiritual global family. The ‘other’ for French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was "hell".  But for a Hindu, the 'other' is not external or alien or separate. The ideal to be emulated is the universalisation of ‘self’, feeling indivisible with the entire cosmos. In this global family, there are both individual entities (piṇḍa) and their organic totality (brahmāṇḍa), in perfect harmony. A distinction has to be drawn between the two but they are inseparable, they are indivisible. It is an inclusive matrix to accommodate and absorb diversity. It advocates its members live in solidarity with the Whole, enjoying an individual existence and yet partaking and sharing experiences with the Whole. Since it is social pluralism, Europe could not destroy the inherent virtues of India.

About those virtues, the Urdu poet Mohammad Iqbal (1877-1938) sang in his well-known poem, “Sāre jahān se achhā Hindusatān hamārā” (Taranaa-e-Hind-1904): 

Kucha baat hai ki hasti, mitati nahin humaari

Sadiyon rahaa hai dushman daur-e-jahaan hamaara

(There is something momentous in Indian culture because of which it could not be wiped out in spite of the onslaughts of inimical forces for centuries together.)

The underpinning spirit behind Indian cultural nationalism is the universal and unifying dharma-centric worldview sustained by the Sanatana dharma (eternal values). Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya pointed out that the nation and the state are two distinct entities: A nation like India is an organic entity. It is not created, but a nation creates institutions. A nation consists of several institutions and the State is one of them. It is important but not supreme. It is to be based on Dharma, and dharma is sovereign. Dharma is the depository of a nation’s soul and should permeate all its institutions. Fundamental principles of dharma are eternal and universal. They are not rigid and need to be adapted to changing times and places.

Deendayal Upadhyaya was born on 25 September 1916, in Dhanakiya, a small village situated on the Jaipur-Ajmer rail route, his father a railway station master, like his grandfather. After the formation of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in 1951, he became one of its general secretaries, and early in January 1968 its president. Although Jan Sangh set out as a political party, its intimate connection with the RSS remained. 

His speeches and writings, in Hindi, were published in three collections: Rashtra Jivan ki Samasyaen, or ‘The Problems of National Life’, 1960; Ekatma Manavavad, or ‘Integral Humanism’, 1965; and Rashtra Jivan ki Disha, or ‘The Direction of National Life’, 1971. In these three works, he talks of dharma-rajya.

The proposition around which Upadhyaya’s thoughts revolve, like those of M S Golwalkar, second Sarsanghchalak ("Chief") of R S S is that the existence of a nation lies in its distinctive consciousness. It rises or falls to the same degree as that consciousness comes into light or is obscured. But, Upadhyaya perceives it as centred on dharma. Upadhyaya's concern is to bring to light the real nature of Indian consciousness, its citi, as he calls it; for it is only then that one can obtain a satisfactory answer to the question, ‘what direction shall India take?’

For him, Dharma is not a sect, a philosophical opinion, or any one spiritual path. In short, dharma is not ‘Religion’. It is not a religion because if Dharma is described as Religion, in the next step all the social disorders which Religion in the West produced are quickly attached to dharma as well. He says, ‘'Of the very many damages done to us by English translations, this is one of the greatest’'.  (8) The fundamental cause of the numerous problems that modem India is faced with lies, according to Upadhyaya, in the indiscriminate application of the Western forms of thought to Indian political life, obscuring thereby the true nature of Indian consciousness. The policies that have been advanced after independence reflect, not that consciousness, but one Westernism or another. Far from achieving coherence and harmony of social purpose, the national life of India has been turned into a battleground of conflicting economic and political philosophies. Socialists and communists constitute this group. He has not termed it as the Nehruvian legacy, though it is explicit.

For Upadhyaya, a nation is consciousness-Nation arises out of a deeper life force; it is self-created, swayambhu. Western thinkers believe that a nation can be created; it cannot be done, for the common elements of national life are only expressions of an inherent consciousness at work, which cannot be created artificially by political means. Each nation has its own unique consciousness. So long as that consciousness, the citi, lives, that nation lives; when it dies, the nation dies. A nation dies, not by the loss of territory, or by a decrease in its population; a nation dies when its consciousness ceases to exist. (9)

Thus, in the Indian context, cultural nationalism is not something artificial, it is the consciousness flowing through the soul of the civilization.

Dharma is sovereign, not Nation or State. Democracy is the preferable form of governance but it should be based on dharma. It should be dharmarājya or Rāmarājya, a dharmocracy and not a theocracy. The concepts of Varnashrama dharma and Purushartha which were the guiding principles of social life in the Vedic period were based on this dharma-centric vision of life.

At the same time, the creative character of the Vedic culture was lost post-Vedic period onwards, especially since the advent of the caste system, made rigid by the conquering forces. The universal vision of Sanatana Dharma was misinterpreted in conformity with the rising requirements of colonial interests.

Hence, it is important to examine the religious and cultural onslaught of foreign powers and modern western civilisation on Indian spirituality, society, culture, economy and polity and to counter the same and establish the rationality and spiritual science behind Indian ethos, religious faiths and practices.

With vested interest, eurocentric scholars and left historians have tried to project a distorted picture of Indian culture and civilization. They have questioned the relevance of cultural nationalism in the emerging Indian social scenario characterised by rising conflicts and violence among various social groups. But, they have failed in their nefarious design as the unbiased mind has not acceded to their sinister move.

Civic vs Cultural nationalism

There is a discourse, civic nationalism versus cultural nationalism, that has dominated the Indian debate in recent decades. The former subsumes the liberal values of freedom, tolerance, individual rights and multiculturalism, with constitutional guarantees. Cultural nationalism encompasses a sense of belonging and anchoring in a specific cultural and civilizational milieu. (10)

Indian culture and society have adhered to democratic values for thousands of years. Indians are imbued with the syncretic sense of being and feeling Indian regardless of language or religion. It is this cultural nationalism that defines all Indians. India is a melting pot in which foreign influences were assimilated in an inclusive manner to create a uniquely Indian identity.

Cultural nationalism is neither a chimaera that must be vanquished. The values of pluralism and tolerance should not merely be a function of constitutional guarantees. They should be ingrained and rooted in a more enduring Indian cultural ethos. Civic nationalism is self-limiting and is defined merely by political institutions and liberal values as legal constructs. It fails to synthesise the rich social traditions or cultural conventions of India.

A nation is made up of people having a sense of a common bond (geist), which is its lifeblood. It is only through an inherent sense of belonging, what Ibn Khaldun called ‘asabiyyah’ in Arabic and a national culture that a State can achieve a distinctive identity and sustainability in the longer run. (11)

The concept of asabiyyah was familiar in the pre-Islamic era. Still, it became popularized in Arab Historian Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah (1377), which is described as the fundamental bond of human society and the basic motive force of history, pure only in its nomadic form. (12) Khaldun argued that asabiyyah is cyclical and directly relevant to the rise and fall of civilizations: it is strongest at the start of civilization, declines as the civilization advances, and then another more compelling asabiyyah eventually takes its place to help establish a different civilization. (13)

In India’s context, Cultural nationalism plays a major role in forging social cohesion and solidarity, transcending demographics. Hence, to reduce the State of India to the level of a ‘civic nation’, bound by a single albeit highly revered document in the form of the Indian Constitution, would be tantamount to disregarding the country’s rich heritage. India as a nation predates its Constitution.

The concept of a nation in Europe can be traced back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Even prior to the treaty, political boundaries were being redefined throughout the European Continent. After the treaty, the concept of sovereignty was introduced when Protestantism was officially recognised as a different religion from Catholicism (14). 

The Peace of Westphalia is the collective name for two peace treaties signed in October 1648 in the Westphalian cities of Osnabrück and Münster. They ended the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) and brought peace to the Holy Roman Empire, closing a calamitous period of European history that killed approximately eight million people. Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III, the kingdoms of France and Sweden, and their respective allies among the princes of the Holy Roman Empire participated in the treaties. (15)

These treaties ended the war, with the Habsburgs (rulers of Austria and Spain) and their Catholic allies on one side, battling the Protestant powers (Sweden and certain Holy Roman principalities) allied with France, though Catholic, strongly anti-Habsburg under King Louis XIV.

Several scholars of international relations have identified the Peace of Westphalia as the origin of principles crucial to modern international relations, (16) collectively known as Westphalian sovereignty. However, some historians have argued against this, suggesting that such views emerged during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in relation to concerns about sovereignty during that time. (17)

Thus, in most contexts in Europe, a “nation is a community of people that can be organised around the idea of self-determination” (18). Keeping this idea of the nation in mind, nationalism can be defined as either devotion (political or emotional) to one’s nation or as a policy of national independence (19). Therefore, a nation or the idea of a nation must exist in order for a national identity to be founded.

There is also Anderson’s absurd idea of a nation which is an ‘imagined political community’ (20). This is if a nation is considered as something imaginative, the very elements that are required for it to exist can be a myth. Even if a community does not share a common language, religion or ethnicity, a nation is formed on the basis of a strongly formed identity. Anderson used the term ‘imagined’ because members of even the smallest nations will not know everyone and yet they will be aware of their image of the entire communion.

From an anthropological perspective, Max Weber speaks about ethnic groups that are formed on the belief of common descent. He says there is a sense of affinity to a particular nation which relies on community living (21). According to American sociologist Michael Hechter, nationalism constitutes several political activities whose aim is to create political boundaries of the nation that are 'culturally distinctive, collectivity aspiring towards self-governance (22). 

Deendayal Upadhyaya

It is equally important to distinguish between the civic and ethnic ties of nations. According to Stephan Shulman, the primary difference between the Western and the Eastern European Countries is that the former developed as civic nations while the latter as ethnic nations (23). While ethnic nations can be characterised by extending kinship principles to the imagined community of the nation, the former can be defined by common political values and loyalties shared by the population of a sovereign territory (24). The Czech Scholar Hans Kohn argued that nationalism in the West, primarily in countries like France and England was primarily political. Nationalism in the western context struggled against the dynastic rule and equated citizenship with membership in the nation. Hence, in this model, the state usually precedes the creation and development of the nation (25).

On the other hand, in Eastern European and in the colonial context, where these regions were comparatively backward, the notion of nationalism arose with little or no cultural and ethnic boundaries. The Ottoman empire is an example. Kohn argues that nationalism had to struggle to “redraw political boundaries in conformity with ethnographic demands” (26). Considering this statement, one could say that nations in the East were created on the basis of people than the idea of citizenship.

In the Indian context, this idea can be translated as the idea of creating an “Akhand Bharat” or undivided India. It revolved around reuniting the ancient Indian civilisation by fighting the British. In the modern scenario, many Hindu organisations are staunch advocates of this idea which propagates the unity of present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bhutan, and Nepal.

It was only when colonialism reached its peak in the late 19th century did the need to arrive at a common language, culture, and identity arose among the people (27). Since then, the world is experiencing a rapid increase in nationalistic sentiment.  Renowned Anthropologist Margaret Mead was studying the ‘national character’ of the Americans and the English when she came to the conclusion that cultural values play a significant role in the integration of people belonging to a particular nation (28). 

Every nation has certain specific traits that differ from the others. To quote Jelena Petkovic, “cultural theories adopt the stand that a nation is formed through cultural continuity and thus the issue of national identity is almost inseparable from the issue of the cultural identity of a people” (29). This means that a cultural national identity reveals itself as an attachment to an individual’s particular culture. Hence, with the increase in the notion of individual consciousness and with the development and improvement of the channels of communication, human civilisation has become more aware of the differences that reside between them. While culture binds a group of people together, it also has the ability to separate them.

Nationalism manifests itself differently in pluralistic nation-states. 

Most pluralist nations are located in the African, Asian and Latin American continents. Colonialism played a big role in shaping their history. Through the process of divide and rule, the European colonialists created a sense of confusion between different communities. In India, despite living together for centuries before colonisation, the Hindus and Muslims became increasingly polarised during colonisation. This led to a constant feeling of neglect within both communities. At a macro-level or a more pan-India level, nationalism was viewed as being anti-colonial with the dual aims of getting rid of oppressive colonisers and establishing a sovereign republic. On the other hand, at a more provincial level, nationalism was a form of cultural consciousness that aimed to protect different cultural communities in their homeland (30).

The conqueror's agenda

What is ironic about India is that a nation possessing the largest civilizational history had to struggle against the distortions engineered by successive invasions. During the Islamic invasions, myriads of temples were plundered including those of Somnath, Ayodhya, Kashi and Madhura. The university of Nalanda was pillaged. All these were an assiduous bid to marginalise native culture and heritage and to remind them with an ocular demonstration for all the time that they were crushed. (31)

The despotic Islamic rule was succeeded by British rule, which from the very beginning sought to distort India's history and culture as a matter of conspiracy in order to legitimize its own rule. The two dozen Western Indologists who appeared as saviours of India proved to be steered by an agenda. Some of them may not have resorted to religious sabotage deliberately, but they were obviously prisoners of myopic perception within Christian mythology and white superiority. (32)

For instance, William Jones tried to employ Biblical myth in Hindu systems. To him, no human civilization is possible, earlier than 4004 BCE since Adam and Eve "appeared" that year. He deconstructed Indian History by applying the Biblical narrative that Noah was a descendant of Adam and he variously attributed Manu to Adam and Noah. According to his version, once Noah's eldest son Ham cast a glance at Noah's naked body, for which the latter cursed the former that he would be a slave in future. According to Jones, a fierce deluge broke out in 2349 BCE and Ham became a slave. Without any basis, Jones says Ham's descendants were none but the Aryans who came down to India and were hence constrained to continue as a depraved race. Jones also attributed Hindu Gods and goddesses including the characters of Ramayana to those of the Greeks. (33) It is evident that Jones had been an agent of colonialism, and hence he tried to sell absurd platitudes.

Patriotic upsurges

The combination of the British East India Company's standards in the Indian subcontinent during the eighteenth century realized financial changes which prompted the ascent of an Indian white-collar class and relentlessly disintegrated pre-provincial socio-religious organizations and boundaries. The developing monetary influence of Indian entrepreneurs and shippers and the expert class carried them progressively into a struggle with the British Raj. There were other skirmishes as well.

Within thirteen years after the decisive victory of the British at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, a Hindu revolution broke out in Bengal. The Sannyasi rebellion or monk rebellion of 1770-77 was a revolt by Hindu ascetics in Bengal which took place around Murshidabad and Baikunthapur forests of Jalpaiguri under the leadership of Pandit Bhabani Charan Pathak. It was an early war for India's independence from foreign rule since the right to collect tax had been given to the British East India Company after the Battle of Buxar in 1764.

But much before Plassey, In Kerala's Attingal, on April 14, 1721, about 120 Britishers were massacred. a party of 12o British merchants and 30 slaves, led by Gyfford, Burton Fleming and Malheiro sailed by sea to the palace,6 kilometres away, with 17000 Panam as tribute, and Vishukkazhcha. Since old Vanchimuttam was inebriated, the party was received by the young Kudamon. Cowse became suspicious when the talk on the gifts to the Pillai s was extended; he alerted Gyfford but was rebuffed. The party had left the guns in the ship, whereas, the Nairs were, as usual armed. Gyfford and the team were asked to spend the night on the palace's premises in small batches. Gyfford also became suspicious and sent a messenger to Robert Sewell, storekeeper/Adjutant/Captain. In the night, the combined Attingal forces, led by Kudamon Pillai, fell upon the Britishers and butchered them. The party had left only the women, children, pensioners and only four males to hold the Fort. Gyfford, Malhiero and Fleming were cut to pieces. The tongues of Gyfford and Malheiro were pulled out, the tongue of Gyfford cut to pieces and thrown into the Vamanapuram river. His body was nailed on a log, and thrown into the river, to float. Cowse, who tried to escape in Malayali dress, was caught by a Muslim who owed him money and was killed. A total of 133 were butchered.

It is now well known that it was not Jhansi Rani Lakshmi Bai (1823-1858), who revolted first against the British; it was Kitturu Rani Chennamma (1778-1829) of Karnataka, who first declared war against them, in 1824. When Chennamma's son died in 1824, she adopted Sivalingappa as her heir. The East India Company refused to accept it, applying the doctrine of lapse, which was officially codified later, during 1848-1856, by Lord Dalhousie. The Company ordered his expulsion, but Chennamma defied it. When the Governor of Bombay, Mountstuart Elphinstone turned down her letter, war broke out. Several people lost their lives, including the Collector and Political Agent for Southern Mahratta Doab region, St John Thackeray, and John Munro, Sub Collector of Sholapur.

Likewise, the first Sepoy mutiny in India, was not in 1857-a Sepoy mutiny happened, 45 years before, in Kollam in Kerala. It was an uprising against the British, which was crushed by executing the 29 Indian soldiers who revolted, by the Resident of Travancore, John Munro. He implicated the ousted Dewan of Travancore, Ummini Thampi, and the imprisoned 'crown prince', Visakham Thirunal Kerala Varma, who was the mastermind of the revolt and sentenced them to death. Kerala Varma was the son of Princess Atham Thirunal of Mavelikara Arattukadavu Koyikkal palace. They originally were from the Chenga palace branch of Kolathunad, in Malabar. Maybe, the reason behind Munro relinquishing his Travancore job in 1814, is revealed in this episode.

After Plassey, something extraordinary began to shake Bengal. The Bengal Renaissance was a cultural, social, intellectual, and artistic movement that took place in the Bengal region of the British Raj, from the late 18th century to the early 20th century. Historians have traced the beginnings of the movement to the victory of the British East India Company at the 1757 Battle of Plassey, as well as the works of reformer Raja Rammohan Roy, born in 1772. For almost two centuries, the Bengal renaissance saw the radical transformation of Indian society, and its ideas have been attributed to the rise of Indian anticolonialist and nationalist thought and activity. The Bengali renaissance was predominantly led by Bengali Hindus, who at the time were socially and economically more affluent in colonial Bengal. Well-known figures include the social reformer Raja Rammohan Roy, writer Rabindranath Tagore, and the physicist Satyendra Nath Bose.

The Renaissance also embraced the religious sphere, bringing forward spiritual figures such as Debendranath Tagore, Keshab Chandra Sen, Bijoy Krishna Goswami, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Sarada Devi, Swami Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Bamakhepa, Lokenath Brahmachari, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Paramahansa Yogananda, Lahiri Mahasaya, Tibbetibaba, Nigamananda Paramahansa, Vishuddhananda Paramahansa, Ram Thakur, Sitaramdas Omkarnath, Anandamayi Ma. Related to them, reformist movements and organizations like Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj and Ramakrishna Mission sprung up.

Freedom with dharma

A rising political cognizance among the local Indian social top echelons encouraged a developing patriot estimation in India in the nineteenth century. The creation in 1885 of the Indian National Congress in India by the political reformer A.O. Hume strengthened the procedure by giving a significant stage from which requests could be made for political advancement, expanded self-sufficiency, and social change. The pioneers of the Congress upheld discourse and discussion with the Raj organization to accomplish their political objectives. Not satisfied with moderation, radical forces developed in Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra, Madras and different zones over the south.

Rajaram Mohan Roy

French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot (34) has pointed out that Indian patriotism was created as an idea during the Indian autonomy development battle against the provincial British Raj. India has been bound together under numerous sovereigns and governments over a long period. Old writings notice India under the ruler Bharata. The Mauryan Empire was the first to join all of India and South Asia.

He is of the view that the investigation of patriotism is critical to dissect world governmental issues today and patriotism can be characterized as either political or passionate to one's country or as an approach to national autonomy. Along these lines, a country or the possibility of a country must exist altogether for a national character to be established.  

The 1857  war of independence finished East India Company's standard, alongside changes in the British strategy towards the Indian States. A standout amongst the most significant results of the revolt was that it offered an ascend to patriotism. Indian individuals turned out to be progressively mindful of their sages who yielded their lives for the nation with the goal that others may live in free India in times to come. But the revolt scarred the connection between Hindus and Muslims with the Divide and Rule Policy, embraced by the British. They felt that on the off chance that they needed to proceed with their standard in India, it was imperative to partition the Hindus and Muslims. 

Nationalism in third-world countries was and is a response to colonialism and most pluralist nations evolved in the Asian, African and Latin American Continents, where colonialism played a very important role in the formation of these states.  The conquerors had failed to consider the multi-cultural set-up of these colonies. The colonial power played an important role in creating or fostering identities to ensure control by using the policy of divide and rule while the process of state formation during the process of independence from the colonial power, ignored and even curbed the multiculturalist set-up to create a single identity.

In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill argued that nationalist movements were dependent on ethnicity, language and culture. These were the basis of the demand for statehood. But it was at the peak of colonialism in the mid-19th century that the colonised world witnessed the rise in nationalistic sentiments with an emphasis on the idea of a common language, religion, ethnicity etc. While the western idea of nationalism aims to set up a uni-nation, uni-culture dictum, nationalism operates on different principles in a multi-national, pluralist context.

Nationalism had a dual role to play in the last century through the many nationalistic upheavals leading to the decolonization of most of Latin America, Africa and Asia. At a macro level, nationalism was viewed as being anti-colonial with the aims of liberating the country from oppressive rule and establishing a sovereign state while at a more local level, nationalism was perceived to be a form of cultural consciousness that aimed to protect different cultural communities within their homeland (35).

In most liberal democratic societies, minorities are protected by the law and the state needs to take them into consideration while formulating federal policies. In India, Hindu nationalists maintain that the word of the majority community should prevail over the others in a modern democratic state. To elaborate further, colonial thinkers like Savarkar and members of organisations like the RSS maintain that Hinduism is a religion of tolerance and allows minority groups to flourish and hence, constitutes an integral part of Indian national culture (36). 

Thus, by secularising Hinduism, nationalists point out that it is the shared identity of the entire population, no matter which religion one belongs to. Not surprisingly, the rise of Hindu nationalism directly coincided with India’s integration into global systems of production and consumption. For Hindu nationalists, Islamic fundamentalism is a huge obstacle for India to emerge as a strong nation in the modern world. The idea of modernity globally today is linked to “full and unequivocal cultural and national identities”. 

The origins of Hindu nationalism can be traced back to the revivalist movements during the colonial era. To name a few, The Arya Samaj and the Brahmo Samaj went back to the Vedas and made a strong attempt to reform Hinduism to counter the rising number of conversions of the backward classes into Islam and Christianity. The central idea of the Hindu nationalist movement is the concept of Hindutva which is the exact opposite of the pseudo-secular ideals of the Indian National Congress and the Marxists. Marxism doesn't recognize nationalism; it bats for Internationalism. In India, cultural nationalism is here to stay, as long as the civilization is there to ignite it.

Dharma is eternal. It is not sufficient that democracy is understood only as the rule of the people; it must also be a rule for the good of the people. What is good for the people can be determined only by Dharma. Hence democracy will have to be also dharma-rajya, the rule of dharma. True democracy is one where both freedom and dharma combine. 

_______________________

1. Smith, Vincent, Early History of India, pp 117-118

2. ibid, 252-253

3. Mookerji, R K, Hindu Civilization: From the Earliest Times Up To the Establishment of the Maurya Empire, pp 294-295

4, Majumdar, R C, Ancient India, pp 101-102.

5. Nielsen, Kai. (1999). Cultural Nationalism, Neither Ethnic nor Civic. In R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing nationalism (pp. 119-130). Albany: State University of New York Press

6. Organiser, June 6, 1993

7. S R Bhatt, Cultural Nationalism: Indian Scenario, https://indiafoundation.in/articles-and-commentaries/cultural-nationalism-indian-scenario/

8. Chaturvedi Badrinath, Dharma, India and the World Order: Twenty-One Essays, Pahl-Rugesntein and St Andrew Press, 1993
9. ibid

10. Sujan Chinoy, India predates Constitution, It is cultural nationalism that makes us Indians, The Print, 4 February 2022.

11. ibid

12. Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah, translated by F. Rosenthal

13. Tibi, Bassam. Arab Nationalism. 1997, p. 139

14. Straumann B (2008), The Peace of Westphalia as a Secular Constitution. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 15: 173-188

15. Clodfelter, Micheal (2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015. McFarland. p. 40

16. Patton, Steven (2019). The Peace of Westphalia and its Affects on International Relations, Diplomacy and Foreign Policy. The Histories

17. Osiander, Andreas (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization. 55 (2): 251–287

18. Nodia G (1994) Nationalism and Democracy. Diamond Nationalism Ethnic Conflict and Democracy. Johns Hopkins University Press

19. Simpson J (1991), The Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Clarendon Press

20. Anderson B. (1983) Imagined Communities. Verso, New York

21. Weber M (2003), What is an Ethnic Group? In: The Ethnicity Reader. M. A. Guibernau (ed.) Polity Press

22. Hechter M (1999), Internal Colonialism. Oxford University Press

23. Mead M (1972), National Character. Anthropology Today 642-667.

24. Gans J (2000), The Liberal Foundations of Cultural Nationalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 30: 441-466

25. Kohn H (1961) The Idea of Nationalism. Cambridge University Press

26. ibid

27. Gans J (2000), The Liberal Foundations of Cultural Nationalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 30: 441-466

28. Mead M (1972), National Character. Anthropology Today 642-667

29. Petkovic J (2011), Cultures in nations and nationalism. Nis: Center for Sociological Research of the Faculty of Philosophy 10: 141-152

30 . Rodrigues V (2004), Shodhgana. Debates on Nationalism in India

31. Atanu Mohapatra, D D Pattanayak, Cultural Nationalism in Indian Perspective, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol 75, no 1, 2014, pp 59-70

32. ibid

33. ibid

34. Jaffrelot, Christophe (1999), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics. Penguin Books India, pp. 13–15

35. Sunil Kumar (2017), Contribution of Western Culture in Nationalism of India. International Journal of History and Cultural Studies (IJHCS) ISSN 2454-7646, Volume 3, Issue 4, PP 22-25

36.Savarkar V (1928), Essentials of Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?

© Ramachandran 

DANDI TEACHES ALEXANDER A LESSON

Islam Comes to India 11

Kalanos, also spelled Calanus (c. 398 – 323 BCE), was a gymnosophist, a Hindu Brahmin and philosopher from Taxila who accompanied Alexander to Persis and later self-immolated himself by entering into a Holy Pyre, in front of the Alexander and his army. He did not flinch while his body was burning. He bode goodbye to the soldiers but not to Alexander. He communicated to Alexander that he would meet him in Babylon. Alexander died exactly a year later in Babylon. It was from Kalanos that Alexander came to know of Dandamis,or Dandi, the leader of their group, whom Alexander later went to meet in the forest

Plutarch indicates his real name was Sphínēs and that he was from Taxila, but since he greeted people with the word “Kalē!” – perhaps kallāṇa (mitta) “Greetings (friend)” – the Greeks called him Kalanos. Kalanos lived at Taxila and led an austere life. 

Early Western scholarship suggested Kalanos was a Jain, but modern scholarship rejects this notion as Jain ascetics are forbidden from using fire and deliberate self-harm due to their convictions about ahimsa and because Taxila and Gandhara were centers of Buddhism and had no Jain presence at all. 

Plutarch records that when first invited to meet Alexander, Kalanos “roughly commanded him to strip himself and hear what he said naked, otherwise he would not speak a word to him, though he came from Jupiter himself.Kalanos refused the rich gifts offered by Alexander saying that man’s desire cannot be satisfied by such gifts. They believed that, even if Alexander killed them, “they would be delivered from the body of flesh now afflicted with age and would be translated to a better and purer life. 

Alexander’s representative Onesicritus had a discussion with several sages and Alexander was attracted by the criticism on Greek Philosophy by Kalanos. 

Alexander persuaded Kalanos to accompany him to Persis and stay with him as one of his teachers. Alexander even hinted use of force to take him to his country, to which Kalanos replied philosophically, that “what shall I be worth to you, Alexander, for exhibiting to the Greeks if I am compelled to do what I do not wish to do?”. Kalanos lived as a teacher to Alexander and represented “eastern honesty and freedom”. 

He was 73 at the time of his death. When the Persian weather and travel had weakened him, he informed Alexander that he would prefer to die rather than live as an invalid. He decided to take his life by self-immolation. Although Alexander tried to dissuade him from this course of action, upon Kalanos’ insistence the job of building a pyre was entrusted to Ptolemy.

Alexander Receiving News of the Death of Calanus / Jean-Baptiste de Champaigne,1672

Kalanos is mentioned also by Alexander’s admirals, Nearchus and Chares of Mytilene. The city where this immolation took place was Susa in the year 323 BC. Kalanos distributed all the costly gifts he got from the king to the people and wore just a garland of flowers and chanted vedic hymns. He presented his horse to one of his Greek pupils named Lysimachus. He did not flinch as he burnt to the astonishment of those who watched. Although Alexander was not personally present at time of his immolation, his last words to Alexander were We shall meet in Babylon. He is said to have thus prophesied the death of Alexander in Babylon, even though at the time of death of Kalanos, Alexander did not have any plans to go to Babylon. 

A letter written by Kalanos to Alexander was preserved by Philo. 

The story of the interview and the story of the death of Calanus are described in several sources, such as the Anabasis by the Greek author Arrian of Nicomedia (book seven, sections 1.5-3.6). 

The translation was made by Aubrey de Sélincourt. 

Alexander saw some Indian sages,to come upon out of doors in a meadow, where they used to meet to discuss philosophy. On the appearance of Alexander and his army, these venerable men stamped with their feet and gave no other sign of interest. Alexander asked them through interpreters what they meant by this odd behavior, and they replied:

“King Alexander, every man can possess only so much of the earth’ surface as this we are standing on. You are but human like the rest of us, save that you are always busy and up to no good, traveling so many miles from your home, a nuisance to yourself and to others. Ah well! You will soon be dead, and then you will own just as much of this earth as will suffice to bury you.” 

Alexander expressed his approval of these sage words; but in point of fact his conduct was always the exact opposite of what he then professed to admire.
In Taxila, once, he met some members of the Indian sect of Wise Men whose practice it is to go naked, and he so much admired their powers of endurance that the fancy took him to have one of them in his personal train. The oldest man among them, whose name was Dandamis (the others were his pupils), refused either to join Alexander himself or to permit any of his pupils to do so. 

“If you, my lord,” he is said to have replied, “are the son of god, why – so am I. I want nothing from you, for what I have suffices. I perceive, moreover, that the men you lead get no good from their world-wide wandering over land and sea, and that of their many travels there will be no end. I desire nothing that you can give me; I fear no exclusion from any blessings which may perhaps be yours. India, with the fruits of her soil in due season, is enough for me while I live; and when I die, I shall be rid of my poor body – my unseemly housemate.” 

These words convinced Alexander that Dandamis was, in a true sense, a free man. So he made no attempt to compel him. On the other hand, Kalanus, did yield to Alexander’s persuasion; this man, according to Megasthenes’ account,was declared by his fellow teachers to be a slave to fleshly lusts, an accusation due, no doubt, to the fact that he chose to renounce the bliss of their own asceticism and to serve another master instead of god. 

Dandamis (presumably Greek rendering of “Dandi-Svami”) was a philosopher, swami and a gymnosophist, whom Alexander encountered in the woods near Taxila, when he invaded India in 4th century B.C. He is also referred to as Mandanes. 

When Alexander met some gymnosophists, who were of trouble to him. He came to know that their leader was Dandamis, who lived in jungle, lying naked on leaves, near a water spring.
He then sent Onescratus to bring Dandamis to him. When Onescratus encountered Dandamis in forest, he gave him the message, that Alexander, the Great son of Zeus, has ordered him to come to him. He will give you gold and other rewards but if you refuse, he may behead you. When Dandamis heard that, he did not even raise his head and replied lying in his bed of leaves. God the Great King, is not a source of violence but provider of water, food, light and life. Your king cannot be a God, who loves violence and who is mortal. Even if you take away my head, you cannot take away my soul, which will depart to my God and leave this body like we throw away old garment. We, Brahmans do not love gold nor fear death. So your king has nothing to offer, which I may need. Go and tell you King : Dandamis, therefore, will not come to you. If he needs Dandamis, he must come to me. 

When Alexander, came to know what Dandamis’ reply, he went to forest to meet Dandamis. Alexander sat before him in forest for more than an hour. When Dandamis asked him, why he has come to him because – I have nothing to offer you. Because we have no thought of pleasure or gold, we love God and despise death, whereas you love pleasure, gold and kill people, you fear death and despise God. Alexander, informed that I heard your name from Calanus and have come to learn wisdom from you. The conversation that followed between them is recorded by Greeks as Alexander-Dandamis colloquy. 

No history of Alexander would he complete without the story of Calanus. In India Calanus had never been ill, but when he was living in Persia all strength ultimately left his body. In spite of his enfeebled state he refused to submit to an invalid regimen, and told Alexander that he was content to die as he was, which would be preferable to enduring the misery of being forced to alter his way of life. 

Alexander, at some length, tried to talk him out of his obstinacy, but to no purpose. Then, convinced that if he were any further opposed he would find one means or another of making away with himself, he yielded to his request, and gave instructions for the building of a funeral pyre under the supervision of Ptolemy son of Lagus, of the Personal Guard.
Some say Calanus was escorted to the pyre by a solemn procession – horses, men, soldiers in armor and people carrying all kinds of precious oils and spices to throw upon the flames; other accounts mention drinking-cups of silver and gold and kingly robes.
He was too ill to walk, and a horse was provided for him; but he was incapable of mounting it, and had to be carried an a litter, upon which he lay with his heard wreathed with garlands in the Indian fashion, and singing Indian songs, which his countrymen declare were hymns of praise to their gods. 

The horse he was to have ridden was of the royal breed of Nisaia, and before he mounted the pyre he gave it to Lysimachus, one of his pupils in philosophy, and distributed among other pupils and friends the drinking-cups and draperies which Alexander had ordered to be burnt in his honor upon the pyre. 

At last he mounted the pyre and with due ceremony laid himself down. All the troops were watching. Alexander could not but feel that there was a sort of indelicacy in witnessing such a spectacle – the man, after all, had been his friend; everyone else, however, felt nothing but astonishment to see Calanus give not the smallest sign of shrinking from the flames.
We read in Nearchus’ account of this incident that at the moment the fire was kindled there was, by Alexander’s orders, an impressive salute: the bugles sounded, the troops with one accord roared out their battle-cry, and the elephants joined in with their shrill war-trumpettings. 

Alexander, on returning from the pyre, invited many of his friends and his generals to supper, where he proposed a drinking bout, with a crown for the prize. Promachos, who drank most, reached four measures (14 quarts), and won the crown, which was worth a talent, but survived only for three days. The rest of the guests, Chares says, drank to such excess that forty-one of them died, the weather having turned excessively cold immediately after the debauch.

Many years afterwards another Indian in the presence of Caesar (Augustus) at Athens did the same thing. His tomb is shown till this day, and is called the Indian’s tomb.

“The Indian who burned himself at Athens was called Zarmanochegas, as we learn from Strabo (xv, i. 73), who came to Syria in the train of the ambassadors who were sent to Augustus Caesar by a great Indian king called Porus. “These ambassadors” he says, “were accompanied by the person who burnt himself to death at Athens. This is the practice with persons in distress, who seek escape from existing calamities and with others in prosperous circumstances, as was the case with this man. For as everything hitherto had succeeded with him, he thought it necessary to depart, lest some unexpected calamity should happen to him, and with the girdle round his waist (this girdle round the waist is still worn by many in India and called Tagadi), he leaped upon the pyre. On his tomb was this inscription: ‘Zarmanochegas, an Indian, a native of Bargosa (Barygaza, Baroch), having immortalized himself according to the custom of his country, here lies.’ Lassen takes the name Zarmanochegas to represent the Sanskrit Sramanacharya, teacher of the Sramanas, from which it would appear he was a Buddhist priest. Strabo writes at greater length than our historians do about the gymnosophists.”

Plutarch further speaks of the wit and character of Indian Yogis in these terms:
“Alexander summoned ten of the wise men of the country, which men do all go naked, and are called philosophers of India. They had made the tribe of Sabbas to rebel and fight against Alexander and had thereby greatly hurt him. These philosophers were taken to be the sharpest and readiest of answer Alexander put them, as he thought many hard questions. He told them that he would put the first man to death that answer his question worst and likewise all others in this order. He made the eldest among them the judge of their answers.
“The question that he asked the first man was:
“Whether the dead or the living, were the greater number”. He answered, “the living…’For, the dead are no more man.’”
‘He asked the second man, “Whether the earth or the sea brought forth most creatures”.
‘The man answered, “The earth ‘for the sea is but a part of the earth.”
‘To the third man he asked, “Which of all beasts was the subtlest”.
‘The answered given was, “That which man hitherto never knew”.
‘To the fourth, question put was, “why did you make king of Sabbas rebel against him (Alexander)?”
‘The answered received was, “Because he should live honorably, or die vilely”.
‘To the fifth he asked, “Which you thought was the first- the day or the night?”
‘The answer given was, “the day, by a day”.
‘Alexander finding this strange answer said, “Strange questions must of necessity receive strange answers.”
‘Coming to the sixth he asked, “How a man should come to be beloved?”
‘He got this answer, “If he be a good man and not terrible”.
‘To the seventh he put the question, “how a man should be a god?”
“In doing a thing that is impossible for a man”, was the received answer.
“Which was stronger, life or death?” was the question put by him to the eighth.
‘And he received this answer, “life that suffers so many troubles.”
‘To the last ninth Yogi, he put this question, “How long a man should live?”
‘The answer was, “until the man thinks it better to die, than to live.”
‘After hearing these answers, Alexander turned to the tenth yogi and asked him to give his judgment upon them.
‘The judge said, “They had all answered one worse than another.”
‘Thereupon, Alexander said, “then you shall be made to die first, because you have given such a judgment.”
‘He replied promptly to Alexander, “It cannot be so, 0 king, unless you be a liar, because you said that you would kill him first, that answered the worst.” 

The death of Calanus made a lasting impression. In 165 CE, a Greek philosopher named Peregrinus Proteus, did the same during the Olympic games. Although his contemporary Lucian described him as someone intent on publicity, most people were very impressed by the ‘new Calanus’, who had shown that death was nothing to be feared.

THE RETREAT OF ALEXANDER

Islam Comes to India 10

After his so called ‘victory’ in the Battle of Hydaspes, or Battle of Jhelum, Alexander marched eastwards. He crossed the river Chenab and the river Ravi and invaded the small principality of the Kathaioi or Kathas. 

Its capital, Sangala, was taken. The people of that place fought so bitterly that as many as 17,000 people were killed there and 70,000 were taken prisoners. 

Alexander’s extreme cruelty alarmed the king Saubhuti of the neighbouring territory who made his submission without a battle. 

Alexander thereafter reached the river Beas. More powerful kingdoms were lying towards the east of it. Information reached that there lay “a nation of repute, brave and well equipped, more civilised than these through which he had passed like a flaming sword. His own courage rose high, but the spirit of the soldiers had begun to flag.” 

The news about the powerful Nanda Empire in the east reached the Greeks to alarm them against further advance. They produced the plea of feeling home-sick and pleaded that “thus far and no farther.” Alexander could not have forced an unwilling army to march ahead. Nor was he unconcerned about the risks of advancing towards the Gangetic valley to face a large empire with larger armies and vaster resources. 

Deciding upon his return, Alexander ordered the construction of twelve huge altars “equal in height to the loftiest military towers, while exceeding them in breadth; to serve both as a thanks offering to the gods who had led him so far as conqueror, and also to serve as monuments of his own labours.” Leaving the land between the Jhelum and the Beas in charge of king Porus, Alexander began his return journey towards the end of 326 BC. 

The Greeks retreated down the rivers Jhelum and Indus. On their way, they met with severe attacks from various Indian tribes. The tribes named as the Sibis and the Agresrenis gave their bitter battles against the foreigners. A more dangerous opposition was offered by the tribes named the Malavas and Kshudrakas. Alexander suffered disaster after disaster as he marched downward from the north. In his fight with the Malavas he was himself very badly wounded. In furious anger, he killed a large number of those people. 

As the Greeks approached Sind, the king of the Mousikanos offered brave resistance. Finally, however, Alexander reached the end of the Indus delta at the mouth of that river. It was in September 325 B.C. that Alexander left with a part of his army by land route from a place near modern Karachi on his homeward journey. Another part of the army was sent in ships under the command of Nearchus. 

Alexander meets Porus

The retreat of Alexander was tragic in many ways. His soldiers suffered extreme hardship in the deserts of Baluchistan. Many fell dead, and many suffered sickness. Finally the conqueror reached Babylon. There in that ancient city he began to plan his new conquests. His ambition for world conquest became limitless. But amidst new hopes and newer dreams, suddenly he fell ill. It was 323 B.C. when Alexander was only 33 years old. In that fatal fever, Alexander breathed his last. 

He enjoyed power only for 13 years. Of- that brief period he spent long 11 years in his conquests and expedition. He conquered far. But he had no time to consolidate his conquests. He also left no heir to succeed to his throne. As a result, his vast empire lost its political unity the moment he died. His empire was divided among his generals who began to rule as independent kings. 

Alexander entered India via Kabul river valley. He first met Assakinos (Afghan) Queen Kleophis (Kripa Rani). Queen fought bravely but her fort Massaga fell. Alexendar met with other warring tribes in Bajipur (Bajaur), Pushkalavati (Charsadda), Rajpuri (Rajauri)
Alexander had darker aspects of his career. He was a disturber of peace and a destroyer of culture. He was a despot and a cruel ruler; and did not show his talent as an administrator or an empire builder. But, yet, he enriched the world history by his remarkable life. World history would indeed be poorer without the life of Alexander. 

Alexander infact was defeated by King Porus in India. Several conquerors at the time had fallen at the gates (Punjab) of India and Alexander was one of them. Before Alexander, Syrian queen Semiramis travelled with 400,000 troops to conquer India and returned with only 20000 troops.

After looking at the resistance and strength of Porus and his army, Alexander realized it was impossible for him to go past that point where Nanda army was waiting for him which was not only very large but much stronger than anyone in that region. So far he fought all countries which were small and not organized (except Persia). He never imagined such a strong fight from a well organized armies. He did not see any possible success from that point onward and had left with no choice. 

Alexander’s conquest of India was a strategic blunder. Also it was the hardest fought out of all of Alexander’s battles. Now there is question as to why after the Battle of Hydaspes did the Greeks celebrate if they lost. Answer to this is Alexander’s army never indulged in celebrations after they won war nor was there any kind of festivities especially if you take the Battle of Gaugamela where they defeated 200,000 Persians. Battle of Hydaspes is the only time the army celebrated because “they were returning back to their homeland” and that they considered themselves lucky to survive the clash against the Indians with their Elephant corps.
Alexander lost and realized they were dealing with an enemy of uncommon valour. Sensing defeat they called for a truce, which Porus accepted. Alexander warned his surviving troops not to discuss the loss back home, for, he could not be seen as weak, let alone beaten.

Megasthanese wrote in Indica: 

“Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king: for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals. Thus Alexander the Macedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai, as he did on all others; for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war. “

Alexander later died in Babylon due to bad health caused by injury and heavy drinking.
In the territory of the Indus,,according to Greeks, Alexander nominated his officer Peithon as a satrap, a position he would hold for the next ten years until 316 BC, and in the Punjab he left Eudemus in charge of the army, at the side of the satrap Porus and Taxiles. Eudemus became ruler of a part of the Punjab after their death. Both rulers returned to the West in 316 BC with their armies. In c. 322 BC BC, Chandragupta Maurya of Magadha, founded the Maurya Empire in India and conquered the Macedonian satrapies during the Seleucid–Mauryan war (305–303 BC). 

It is said that after defeating Porus, Alexander stayed there only for a few days hiding with his huge army in caves, as it was raining heavily. And one day, in early morning Alexander went out to plan further and got into the deep forest, where he met a saint who knew everything about him. Then the saint asked Alexander a question- when you will die, what are the things that will go along with you? Also, don’t you think that killing innocents just for land and power will add into his pot of sins for which he will have to pay too. 

And, Alexander’s last wish was to let his arms opened when he dies- this was because he wanted to show the world that even the greatest of greatest conqurers leaves the world empty handed.This shows that the sage’s questions actually shivered Alexander’s spine. 

This Saint was Dandi,whose disciple was Kalanos or Kalyana Muni.

ALEXANDER ROUTED IN INDIA

Islam Comes to India 8

The Battle of the Hydaspes River was fought by Alexander in July 326 BC against king Porus (possibly, Paurava) on the Hydaspes River (Jhelum River) in the Punjab, near Bhera. The Hydaspes was the last major battle fought by Alexander. The main train went into what is now modern-day Pakistan through the Khyber Pass, but a smaller force under the personal command of Alexander went via the northern route, resulting in the Siege of Aornos along the way. In early spring of the next year, he combined his forces and allied with Taxiles (also Ambhi), the King of Taxila, against his neighbor, the King of Hydaspes. 

Arrian writes about Porus:
“One of the Indian Kings called Porus, a man remarkable alike for his personal strength and noble courage, on hearing the report about Alexander, began to prepare for the inevitable. Accordingly, when hostilities broke out, he ordered his army to attack Macedonians from whom he demanded their king, as if he was his private enemy. Alexander lost no time in joining battle, but his horse being wounded in the first charge, he fell headlong to the ground, and was saved by his attendants who hastened up to his assistance.”Porus drew up on the south bank of the Jhelum River, and was set to repel any crossings. The Jhelum River was deep and fast enough that any opposed crossing would probably doom the entire attacking force. Alexander knew that a direct crossing would fail, so he found a suitable crossing, about 27 km (17 mi) upstream of his camp. The name of the place is “Kadee”. Alexander left his general Craterus behind with most of the army while he crossed the river upstream with a strong contingent. Porus sent a small cavalry and chariot force under his son to the crossing.

Alexander and Porus/ painting by Charles Le Brun

Alexander had already encountered Porus’s son, so the two men were not strangers. Porus’s son killed Alexander’s horse with one blow, and Alexander fell to the ground.About this encounter, Arrian adds, 

“Other writers state that there was a fight at the actual landing between Alexander’s cavalry and a force of Indians commanded by Porus’s son, who was there ready to oppose them with superior numbers, and that in the course of fighting he (Porus’s son) wounded Alexander with his own hand and struck the blow which killed his (Alexander’s) beloved horse Buccaphalus. “
According to Arrian, Porus’ son was killed. Porus now saw that the crossing force was larger than he had expected, and decided to face it with the bulk of his army. Porus’s army were poised with cavalry on both flanks, the war elephants in front, and infantry behind the elephants. These war elephants presented an especially difficult situation for Alexander, as they scared the Macedonian horses. 

Alexander started the battle by sending horse archers to shower the Porus’s left cavalry wing, and then used his cavalry to destroy Porus’s cavalry. Meanwhile, the Macedonian phalanxes had crossed the river to engage the charge of the war elephants. The Macedonians eventually surrounded Porus’s force. 

According to Curtius Quintus, Alexander towards the end of the day sent a few ambassadors to Porus.Porus didn’t relent. 

Porus was one of many local kings who impressed Alexander. Wounded in his shoulder, standing over 2 m (6 ft 7 in) tall, but still on his feet, he was asked by Alexander how he wished to be treated. “Treat me, Alexander, the way a King treats another King”, Porus responded. Other historians question the accuracy of this entire event, noting that Porus would never have said those words. 

Alexander did not continue, thus leaving all the headwaters of the Indus River unconquered. He later founded Alexandria Nikaia (Victory), located at the battle site, to commemorate his triumph. He also founded Alexandria Bucephalus on the opposite bank of the river in memory of his much-cherished horse, Bucephalus, who carried Alexander through the Indian subcontinent and died heroically during the Battle of Hydaspes.
Musicanus was an Indian king at the head of the Indus, who raised a rebellion against Alexander the Great around 323 BC. Peithon, one of Alexander’s generals, managed to put down the revolt.The King of Patala came to Alexander and surrendered. Alexander let him keep possession of his own dominions, with instructions to provide whatever was needed for the reception of the army. 

East of Porus’s kingdom, near the Ganges River (the Hellenic version of the Indian name Ganga), was the powerful Nanda Empire of Magadha and the Gangaridai Empire of Bengal. Fearing the prospects of facing other powerful Indian armies and exhausted by years of campaigning, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis River (the modern Beas River), refusing to march further east. 

Plutarch writes:
“As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants.” 

Alexander, using the incorrect maps of the Greeks, thought that the world ended a mere 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) away, at the edge of India. He therefore spoke to his army and tried to persuade them to march further into India, but Coenus pleaded with him to change his mind and return, saying the men “longed to again see their parents, their wives and children, their homeland”. Alexander, seeing the unwillingness of his men, agreed and turned back.

Along the way, his army conquered the Malli clans (in modern-day Multan). During a siege, Alexander jumped into the fortified city with only two of his bodyguards and was wounded seriously by a Mallian arrow. His forces, believing their king dead, took the citadel and unleashed their fury on the Malli who had taken refuge within it, perpetrating a massacre, sparing no man, woman or child. However, due to the efforts of his surgeon, Kritodemos of Kos, Alexander survived the injury. Following this, the surviving Malli surrendered to Alexander’s forces, and his beleaguered army moved on, conquering more Indian tribes along the way. 

Alexander failed to conquer India;Indian philosphy conquered him.