ISLAM COMES TO INDIA:GHAZNI'S FATHER DEFEATS JAYAPALA

Islam Comes to India 17

Mahmud of Ghazni’s father,Abu Mansur Sabuktigin ( ca 942 – August 997), was the founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty, ruling from 367 A.H/977 A.D to 387 A.H/997A.D. In Turkic the name means beloved prince. Sabuktigin lived as a slave during his youth and later married the daughter of his master Alptigin, the man who seized the region of Ghazna (modern Ghazni Province in Afghanistan) in a political fallout for the throne of the Samanids of Bukhara. Although the latter and Sabuktigin still recognized Samanid authority, and it was not until the reign of Sabuktigin’s son Mahmud that the rulers of Ghazni became independent. 

When his father-in-law Alptigin died, Sabuktigin became the new ruler and expanded the kingdom after defeating Jayapala to cover the territory as far as the Neelum River in Kashmir and the Indus River in what is now Pakistan.

Alp-Tegin bust

Sabuktigin was of Turkic origin born around 942 CE in what is today Barskon, in Kyrgyzstan. The ruler of Barskhan was one of the Qarluqs according to the Persian geographical treatise Hudud al-‘Alam. It is therefore probable that the Ghaznavids had Qarluq ancestry. He was captured by the neighbouring Tukhsis in a tribal war and sold at the Samanid slave market at Chach. He rose from the ranks of Samanid slave guards to come under the patronage of the Chief Hajib Alptigin. 

When Alptigin later rebelled against the Samanid rule, capturing Zabulistan and Ghazna south of the Hindu Kush in modern-day Afghanistan, he raised Sabuktigin to the position of a general and gave his daughter in marriage to him. Subuktigin served Alptigin, and his two successors Ishaq and Balkatigin. 

Alp-Tegin was a Turkic slave commander of the Samanid Empire, who would later become the semi-independent governor of Ghazna from 962 until his death in 963. Before becoming governor of Ghazni, Alp-Tegin was the commander-in-chief (sipahsalar) of the Samanid army in Khorasan. In a political fallout over succession of the Samanids he crossed the Hindu Kush mountains southward and captured Ghazna, located strategically between Kabul and Kandahar in present-day Afghanistan, and thereby establishing his own principality, which, however, was still under Samanid authority. He was succeeded by his son, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim.
Pirai, a slave of Alptigin, succeeded to throne of Ghazni in 972 A.D. His misrule led to resentment among the people who invited Abu Ali Lawik, son of Abu Bakr Lawik, to invade Ghazni. The Kabul Shahis allied with him and the king, most likely Jayapala, sent his son to assist Lawik in the invasion. When the allied forces reached near Charkh on Logar River, they were attacked by Sabuktigin who killed and captured many of them, whilst also capturing ten of their elephants. Piri was expelled from the governorship due to his acts and Sabuktigin became governor in 977 A.D. The accession was endorsed by the Samanid ruler Nuh II.
Sabuktigin enlarged upon Alptigin’s conquests, extending his domain from Ghazna to Balkh in the north, Helmand in the west, and the Indus River in what is today Pakistan. 

Sabuktigin was recognized by the Caliph in Baghdad as governor of his dominions. He died in 997, and was succeeded by his younger son Ismail of Ghazni. Sabuktigin’s older son, Mahmud, rebelled against his younger brother and took over Ghazna as the new emir. 

Ferishta records Sebuktigin’s genealogy as descended from the Sassanid emperors: “Sabuktigin, the son of Jukan, the son of Kuzil-Hukum, the son of Kuzil-Arslan, the son of Firuz, the son of Yezdijird, king of Persia.”Some doubt has been cast on this due the lineage having been reckoned as too short to account for the 320 intervening years.What is known about Sebuktigin is that he was of Turkic origin. 

Sabuktigin grew up in the court circles of Alptigin and was conferred the titles of Amīr al-umara (Chief of the Nobles), and Wakīl-e Mūtlak (Representative), ultimately being made general. He was then heavily involved in the defence of Ghazna’s independence for the next 15 years, until Alptigin’s death in 975. 

Upon Alptigin’s death, both Sabuktigin and Alptigin’s son Abu Ishaq went to Bukhara to mend fences with the Samanids. Mansur I then officially conferred upon Abu Ishaq the governorship of Ghazna and acknowledged Sebuktegin as the heir. Abu Ishaq died soon after in 977 and Sabuktigin succeeded him in the governorship of Ghazna; subsequently marrying Alptigin’s daughter.
In 977 he marched against Toghan, who had opposed his succession. Toghan fled to Bost, so Sebuktigin marched upon it and captured Kandahar and its surrounding area. This prompted the Shahi King Jayapala to launch an attack on Ghazna. Despite the fact that Jayapala amassed about 100,000 troops for the battle, Sebuktigin was victorious. The battle was fought at Laghman (near Kabul) and Jayapala was forced to pay a large tribute. He defaulted upon the payments, imprisoned Sebuktigin’s collectors, and assembled a yet larger army consisting of 100,000 horse and an innumerable host foot, allied with forces from the kingdoms of Delhi, Ajmer, Kalinjar, and Kannauj, which was defeated in battle with Sebuktigin’s Ghaznavids at the banks of the Neelum River in Kashmir. Sebuktegin then annexed the regions of Afghanistan, Peshawar, and all the lands west of the Neelum River. 

In 994 he was involved in aiding Nuh II of the Samanids against internal uprisings and defeated the rebels at Balkh and then at Nishapur, thereby earning for himself the title of Nāsir ud-Dīn (“Hero of the Faith”) and for his son Mahmud the title of Governor of Khorasan and Saif ud-Dawlah (“Sword of the State”).

Sabuktigin

Sabuktigin had increased upon Alptigin’s domains by extending his domain to cover the area south of the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan and east to the Indus River in what is today Pakistan; he was eventually recognized by the Caliph in Baghdad as governor of his dominions.

After becoming sick during one of his campaigns, Sabuktigin died in August 997 while travelling from Balkh to Ghazni in Afghanistan. The nature of his illness is unknown and the exact location of his death is uncertain. Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani, a 13th-century historian, stated that “Sabuktigin died in the village of (Bermel Madwari, or Madar wa Moi, or Madawri, or Madraiwi, or Barmel Maderwi).” In modern times, Henry George Raverty has also mentioned Termez in his translations of the village name. Firishta, a 16th-century historian, has also mentioned Termez as the place of death of Subuktageen.[Abdul Hai Habibi believes that Sebuktigin’s place of death is Marmal, Mazar-i-Sharif.He was buried in a tomb in Ghazni which can be visited by tourists. He was succeeded by his younger son, Ismail. Sabuktigin is generally regarded as the architect of the Ghaznavid Empire. 

After the death of Sabuktigin, his son Ismail claimed the throne for a temporary period, but he was defeated and captured by Mahmud in 998 at the Battle of Ghazni.

Who was Jayapala?

MAHMUD OF GHAZNI LOOTED SOMNATH

Islam Comes to India 16

Three hundred years after bin Qasim’s death, Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni, the ferocious Muslim,  the first ruler to hold the title Sultan, led a series of raids against Rajput kingdoms and rich Hindu temples, and established a base in Punjab for future incursions. In 1024, the Sultan set out on his last expedition to the southern coast of Kathiawar along the Arabian Sea, where he sacked the city of Somnath and its renowned Hindu temple.

Mahmud assumed the throne in 997 AD. He was very conscious of the wealth he could achieve from further conquests into India. He was also a religious fanatic who aimed to spread Islam. Mahmud is said to have invaded India seventeen times between 1001 -1027 AD. King Jaipal and later his son Anandpal resisted Mahmud but were defeated. Between 1009 and 1026 AD he invaded Kangra, Thaneshwar, Kanauj, Mathura, Gwalior, Kashmir and Punjab. In 1025AD Mahmud invaded Somnath on the coast of Saurashtra or Kathiwar. Enormous treasure of the fortified temple was looted. His last invasion was in about 1027 AD. He died in 1030AD. 

Mahmud of Ghazni ( 971 – 1030) was the first independent ruler of the Ghaznavid dynasty, ruling from 999 to 1030. At the time of his death, his kingdom had been transformed into an extensive military empire, which extended from northwestern Iran proper to the Punjab in the Indian subcontinent, Khwarazm in Transoxiana, and Makran. 

Highly Persianized, Mahmud continued the bureaucratic, political, and cultural customs of his predecessors, the Samanids, which proved to establish the groundwork for a Persianate state in northern India. His capital of Ghazni evolved into a significant cultural, commercial, and intellectual center in the Islamic world, almost rivaling the important city of Baghdad. The capital appealed to many prominent figures, such as al-Biruni and Ferdowsi. 

He was the first ruler to hold the title Sultan (“authority”), signifying the extent of his power while at the same time preserving an ideological link to the suzerainty of the Abbasid Caliphate. During his rule, he invaded and plundered parts of the Indian subcontinent (east of the Indus River) seventeen times. 

Mahmud was born in the town of Ghazni in the region of Zabulistan (now present-day Afghanistan) on 2 November 971. His father, Sabuktigin, was a Turkic slave commander (ghilman) who laid foundations to the Ghaznavid dynasty in Ghazni in 977, which he ruled as a subordinate of the Samanids, who ruled Khorasan and Transoxiana. Mahmud’s mother was the daughter of an Iranian aristocrat from Zabulistan, and is therefore known in some sources as Mahmud-i Zavuli (“Mahmud from Zabulistan”). Not much about Mahmud’s early life is known, he was a school-fellow of Ahmad Maymandi, a Persian native of Zabulistan and foster brother of his. 

Mahmud married a woman named Kausari Jahan, and they had twin sons Mohammad and Ma’sud, who succeeded him one after the other; his grandson by Mas’ud, Maw’dud Ghaznavi, also later became ruler of the empire. His sister, Sitr-e-Mu’alla, was married to Dawood bin Ataullah Alavi, also known as Ghazi Salar Sahu, whose son was Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud.
Sabuktigin died in 997, and was succeeded by his son Ismail as the ruler of the Ghaznavid dynasty. The reason behind Sabuktigin’s choice to appoint Ismail as heir over the more experienced and older Mahmud is uncertain. It may due to Ismail’s mother being the daughter of Sabuktigin’s old master, Alptigin. Mahmud shortly revolted, and with the help of his other brother, Abu’l-Muzaffar, the governor of Bust, he defeated Ismail the following year at the battle of Ghazni and gained control over the Ghaznavid kingdom. That year, in 998, Mahmud then traveled to Balkh and paid homage to Amir Abu’l-Harith Mansur b. Nur II.He then appointed Abu’l-Hasan Isfaraini as his vizier,and then set out west from Ghazni to take the Kandahar region followed by Bost (Lashkar Gah), which he turned into a militarised city.

Map of Khorazan

Mahmud’s companion was a Georgian slave Malik Ayaz, and his love for him inspired poems and stories. 

In 994 Mahmud joined his father Sabuktigin in the capture of Khorasan from the rebel Fa’iq in aid of the Samanid Emir, Nuh II. During this period, the Samanid Empire became highly unstable, with shifting internal political tides as various factions vied for control, the chief among them being Abu’l-Qasim Simjuri, Fa’iq, Abu Ali the General Bekhtuzin as well as the neighbouring Buyid dynasty and Kara-Khanid Khanate. 

Mahmud’s father Sabuktigin himself had defeated Maharaja Jayapala.

THE LEGEND AND HISTORY OF RAJA CHACH

Islam Comes to India 15

Raja Chach Rai was a Brahmin who reigned as king of Sindh region of the Indian subcontinent in the mid-7th century CE. Chach expanded the kingdom of Sindh, and his successful efforts to subjugate surroundin monarchies and ethnic groups into an empire covering the entire Indus valley and beyond were recorded in the Chach Nama. 

During the time of Muhammed’s death, the regions of Makran and Sindh belonged to India culturally and politically; Muslims knew the area as the frontier of al-Hind. Though the tendency is to consider Indus as the Western border of India, people from Pliny the Elder (23 – 79 C.E) to Nicolo de Conti (1385 – 1469) thought that it was Gedrosia or Makran.
At this time Harsha (590 – 647 C.E.) was the ruler of Northern India; the Gupta empire had come to end following the invasion of the White Huns. While Harsha ruled over the Gangetic plain, Punjab, Gujarat, Bengal and Orissa, the other side of the modern border was ruled by the Hindu Rai dynasty with the capital in Alor (modern day Sukkur). 

Founded by Rai Dewaji in 485 C.E, just a decade after Rome fell to the Visigoths, the Rai kingdom extended all way from Kashmir to Makran and from the mountains of Kurdan to Karachi. Within this empire some parts of Makran was controlled by Persians and Indians alternatively. 

The Chinese traveler Xuanzang (Hsüan-tsang) visited the region during the time of the Rai dynasty. Makran at that time had a large Buddhist population; there were towns like Armabil which were ruled by Buddhists who were originally agents of the Rais. Xuanzang saw 80 Buddhist convents with 5000 monks, several hundred Deva temples and one temple of ‘Maheswara Deva’ which was richly adorned. 

Sindh too was part of al-Hind. This was a time when the Buddhist influence was strong, but was in the decline due to rise of Hinduism and the influence of the Gupta empire. By this time, according to Xuanzang , Buddhism in Sindh was in decline and Takshashila was in ruins. There was a Brahmin migration to Sindh and many cities were founded by them. Buddhists and Brahmins blended in a unique way without any dispute which the Arab invaders could exploit.

Chach Nama

Chach was a Brahmin who rose to a position of influence under Rai Sahiras II, king of Sindh and a member of the Rai dynasty. Chach was prime minister to the King, and retained influence after Rai Sahasi’s death. He became the lover of Chach’s widow, and their marriage enabled him to receive the kingship the date of which is normally put at 632 AD.

Chach enlisted his brother Chandar (also known as Chandra) to help him administer the kingdom. He then launched a campaign against a succession of autonomous regions; he defeated his opponents along the south bank of the River Beas, at Iskandah, and at Sikkah. He sacked Sikkah, killing 5,000 men and taking the remainder of its inhabitants prisoners. A significant number of these captives were enslaved, and much booty was taken. After this victory, which he appointed a thakur to govern from Multan, and used his army to settle boundary disputes with Kashmir. Chach also conquered Siwistan, but allowed its chief, Matta, to remain as his feudatory. 

Later, he expanded his rule into Buddhist regions across the Indus River. These efforts culminated in a battle at Brahmanabad, in which the region’s governor, Agham Lohana, was killed. Chach remained in Brahmanabad for a year to cement his authority there, and appointed Agham’s son Sarhand as his governor; Sarhand was also wed to Chach’s niece. Chach took Agham’s widow as his wife, as well. 

From Brahmanabad, he invaded Sassanid territory through the town of Armanbelah, marching from Turan to Kandahar. He exacted tribute from the latter before returning.
Upon his death, Chach was succeeded by his brother Chandar; Chandar is stated to have ruled for eight years, whereupon Dahir, Chach’s eldest son, inherited the throne. 

n 644, after the Muslim conquest of Sassanid Empire, the Rashidun army entered Makran and defeated Sindh’s army in the Battle of Rasil, annexing Makran (a traditional Persian territory under control of Rai dynasty at that time) and eastern Balochistan. Caliph Umar (634-644), however, for the time being, disapproved of any incursion beyond the Indus river and ordered his subordinates to consolidate their position west of Indus. 

Several places along the Sindhu River were named after Chach; among these are Chachpur, Chachar, Chachro, Chachgaon, Chach.

The Chachnama takes its name from Raja Chach of Sindh, whose son Dahar stood against the Arabs under Mohammad bin Qasim (MbQ). It comes down to us in its Sindhi, Urdu and English versions. In 1216, one Ali bin Mohammad Kufi, then being a resident of Uch in south Punjab, wishing to learn about the history of his adopted country sought out true sources.
His search brought Kufi to Bhakkar (the fort midstream between Sukkur and Rohri) where the Qazi, Ismail bin Ali of the tribe Sakifi became his mentor. Among his collection, the Qazi had a manuscript that he said was written by one of his ancestors and which detailed the account of Sindh at the time of the Arab invasion. Now, Sakifi was the tribe that MbQ also belonged to, so the Qazi was a descendent from the conqueror’s line. The book, therefore, was the version of the victor — something that we always tend to hold against history. 

Impressed by the book “adorned with jewels of wisdom and embellished with pearls of morality”, Ali Kufi resolved to translate it into Persian, then a better known language in Sindh than Arabic. Indeed, Kufi’s impetus may have been Qazi Ismail’s lament that the book being in its original Hijazi Arabic, its content was virtually unknown in Sindh. 

It was from Persian that the book came into English in 1900, by the learned pen of the remarkable Mirza Kalich Beg. The Chachnama opens with a very detailed account of the Rajput King, Sahasi Rai, and of a young Chach, a Brahman, joining his staff. The author’s source for this part was clearly native oral or written tradition, whereas the account of the invasion is from Arabic sources. 

Segueing again at the end, Ali Kufi reverts to local sources. He tells us how the virgin daughters of Raja Dahar upon being presented to Caliph Walid bin Abdul Malik misrepresent out of malice: that they have already spent time with MbQ. Upon this, the incensed caliph orders for the hero to have himself sewn in a fresh cowhide and dispatched back to the capital. He arrives dead and Walid gloats over the corpse. “The Caliph had a stick of green emerald in his hand at that time, and he placed it on the teeth of the dead body, and said, “O daughters of Rai Dahar, look how our orders are promptly obeyed by our officers …”’, the Chachnama tells us. 

This is clearly a Sindhi dramatisation of a different event. From Ahmed Al Bilazri’s Futuh-ul-Baladan we know that upon his return to Iraq, MbQ hardly received a hero’s welcome. His kinsman and mentor Hujaj bin Yusuf had fallen from favour and on the orders of Walid, MbQ was imprisoned where he succumbed to torture. Sifting between the two versions, one has to admit that it is nearly impossible to piece together the exact truth. Nevertheless, it is clear that owing to political rivalries, the young conqueror did not return home to accolades.
Now, the Chachnama has been billed variously, either as a romance or as authentic history. We know that Mir Masum Shah, the governor of Bhakkar (where Ali Kufi was tutored by the Qazi) during the reign of Akbar the Great, writing his famous Tarikh-e-Masumi in the early years of the 17th century, drew heavily from Kufi’s translation. Likewise, Ali Sher Qanea of Thatta for his Tuhfa-tul-Kiram, a century-and-a-half later. Modern researchers would not altogether dismiss the Chachnama as balderdash: it has to be looked at critically but it, nevertheless, is authentic in parts. 

Chachnama tells us the invasion of Sindh in 711 was the sixth. Five earlier attempts were routed with great loss of Arab life and investment. 

But Manan Ahmad Asif,historian at Columbia University,in his A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia questions the historicity of Chachnama.His contentions are mainly that the Chachnama isn’t a book of conquest at all and that it isn’t part of the futuh narratives or, conquest stories that formed a genre of Arab literature. And because it isn’t one, the Chachnama can’t claim to explicate the campaigns of Mohammad bin Qasim. Following from this, Asif also states that the Chachnama isn’t a work composed in Arabic in the 8th century and then translated into Persian, four hundred years later, by Ali Kufi. Instead, Ali Kufi, wrote in Persian, using the literary tools of his time which included a claim to respectability by tracing a scholarly genealogy for oneself – usually from Arabic literature.He completed his work in 1226 CE.

FIRST ARAB RAID ON INDIA DEFEATED

Islam Comes to India 14

Inspired by the early and meteoric military successes that made the Arabs ‘world conquerors’ within a short span of time, it was only natural that they “cast their covetous eyes towards India.” (Indian Resistance To Early Muslim Invaders Upto 1206 AD, P 18 — Dr. Ram Gopal Mishra). 

The first Arab invasion of India was an expedition by sea to conquer Thana near Mumbai as early as 636 A.D. It was undertaken during the vigorous expansionist regime of the second Caliph, Umar-bin-Akhtab, who was on a proselytizing mission to spread Islam to all corners of the world. He appointed Usman, of the tribe of Sakif, to capture Bahrain and Oman. Usman sent his brother Hakam to Bahrain and himself proceeded to Oman. Upon reaching Oman, Usman sent a naval expedition to capture Thana on the western coast of India (Kitab Futuh Al Buldan: Vol. 2, P 209 — Al Baladhuri Tr. By Francis Clark Murgotten).The Arab army was repulsed decisively and returned to Oman and the first ever Arab raid on India was defeated.
A second naval expedition was sent to conquer Barwas or Barauz (Broach) on the coast of southern Gujarat by Hakam, ( Kitab Futuh Al Buldan: Vol. 2, P 209 — Al Baladhuri Tr. By Francis Clark Murgotten ) the brother of Usman. This attack too was repelled and the Arabs were driven back successfully.

Caliph Abd Al Malik Coin

A third naval invasion, which was also the first attack on Sindh, was sent by Hakam to the port of Debal near Karachi in 643 A.D. He sent his brother Mughairah as the leader of the Arab army. 

At the time Sindh was ruled by the brahmin king, Raja Chach Rai who had established himself on the throne by supplanting Rai Sahasi II, son of Sahiras. Some historical accounts mention that Chach Rai had ascended the throne after the death of his master Rai Sahasi II ( The History And Culture Of The Indian People: Vol. 3 — The Classical Age, P 165 — R. C. Majumdar ). Raja Chach Rai was a powerful king who not only subdued the provincial governors who opposed his suzerainty, but also fixed the frontier of Sindh bordering Kashmir on the east and conquered a part of Makran on the west. On the south his kingdom extended to the Arabian Sea and on the north to the mountains of Kurdan and Kikanan.
The target of the first Arab naval expedition to Sindh was the port of Debal or Devalaya at the mouth of the Sindhu river. Debal was a seaside town inhabited mostly by merchants, and was under the command of Samah, son of Dewaji, who was a governor of Raja Chach Rai. When Mughairah reached Debal with his expedition, he was engaged in battle by the brave Samah, who personally led his army against the Arab invaders. The Arabs were defeated by Samah, who “issued out of the fort and engaged with them in fight” and their leader, Mughairah was killed in battle ( The Chachnama: Volume 1 (1900), P 57 — Translated from Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg). The news of the killing of Mughairah and the defeat of his army at Debal must have been an unpleasant surprise for Caliph Umar-bin-Akhtab, who was accustomed to tidings of Arab victories elsewhere. Umar had been very anxious for a victory over ‘Hind’. The defeat at Debal had been the third in a row for the ‘pious’ Caliph Umar, so he planned to send an expedition by land against Makran this time. He commanded Usman to proceed to Iraq, and also told Rabiah to set out on an expedition to Makran in present-day Balochistan, which was part of the kingdom of Sindh at the time. 

Umar also commanded Abu Musa, governor of Iraq for detailed information about the extent of success against Sindh and Hind. Abu Musa had come to know about the defeat and death of Mughairah and victory of Raja Chach, “a king who was very headstrong and stiff necked, and was determined to behave offensively,” ( The Chachnama ) and so he advised Umar that the kingdom of Sindh was a very powerful one that would not succumb to Islamic domination at any cost and that “he should think no more of Hind”. 

During the reign of the first Umayyad Caliph, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufiyan (661–680 A.D), there were as many as six Arab raids on Kikan, a frontier province of Sindh. Muawiyah was driven by a zeal for political expansion and although, his reign was focused on territorial expansion in Byzantine territories, he was nevertheless determined to conquer Sindh. The three preceding Rashidun Caliphs had made several attempts to dominate Sindh but had failed to make any impact. Each of these attacks had been repulsed by the brave and powerful Raja Chach Rai of Sindh and the robust Meds and Jats of Kikan. With each passing failure of the Arab armies in conquering Sindh, the anxiousness of the succeeding Caliphs of somehow “wanting to add a prized feather to his crown that his predecessor was unable to acquire” seemed to grow as they “revived the plans to conquer Sind” ( Echoes Among Ruins: Revisiting The Brahmin Dynasty Of Ancient Sind, P 106 — Vinay Mehta ). 

Muawiyah was the fourth Caliph to send Arab armies to Sindh repeatedly, but unfortunately for him too, each of the six expeditions failed, barring the last one, in which the Arabs managed to subdue Makran in 680 A.D. Thus, after nearly fifty years of relentless attacks, all that the world-conquering Arabs managed to gain was a tiny principality of Sindh. 

It was nearly twenty-eight years before the Arabs could think of raiding Sindh again. The second Umayyad Caliph, Abd Al Malik ibn Marwan (685–705 A.D) appointed a ruthless and over-zealous loyalist Al Hajjaj as governor of Iraq in 695 A.D. Driven by his expansionist zeal to win over Sindh, “a country which had so long defied the might of Islam,” ( R. C. Majumdar ) for the Islamic Caliphate, an aggressive Hajjaj resumed hostilities with Sindh over an incidental pirate attack on a Sri Lankan ship carrying gifts, slaves and some Muslim women for the Caliph in 708 A.D. He secured “permission to declare a religious war against Hind and Sind” ( The Chachnama) from the succeeding Caliph Al Walid ibn Abd Al Malik (705–715 A.D.), and despatched an expedition to attack the flourishing coastal town of Debal near present day Karachi under the leadership of Ubaidullah.

Grave of Uthman

While the lore of the pirate attack on the Sri Lankan ship off the coast of Debal has been popularised by Islamic, and subsequently leftist historians as the raison d’etre for Al Hajjaj’s hostility and attack over Sindh, this theory does not hold much water as the same Arabs had been making desperate attempts to somehow conquer Sindh for over half a century. The motives behind Hajjaj’s attack were no different from the earlier attacks, viz. religious and imperialist expansion of the Islamic Arab Caliphate. In addition to the insatiable greed for world domination by Arab Islamists, the other, more pragmatic and shrewd motive behind the Arab imperialist advances on Sindh was to open up shorter, in-land access to China to promote Arab commercial interests. 

Sindh was ruled by Raja Dahir at the time, son of the mighty king Raja Chach Rai. Raja Dahir was a brave, honourable and magnanimous ruler and “the fame of his sovereignty spread throughout the length and breadth of the world, and his rule was firmly fixed in the country of Hind and Sind” ( The Chachnama ). 

When Ubaidullah attacked the port city of Debal, he was killed in battle by Raja Dahir’s troops in Debal and the Arab army was severely routed. The news of the Arab army’s failure and Ubaidullah’s killing further heightened Hajjaj’s desperation to capture Sindh. He commanded Budail to attack Debal with an army of 6000 Arab soldiers. Budail received further reinforcements of 3000 Arab soldiers from Mohammed Haroon at Nerun. However, despite such a large army, the Arab attack on Debal was decisively trounced by the brave Prince Jaisiah, son of Raja Dahir, and his 4000 strong troops in a long, hard battle. Prince Jaisiah used his elephants effectively in battle to frustrate the Arabs, and as the battle raged, Budail’s horse was frightened of the elephants and ended up throwing him off its back. Budail was surrounded on all sides by Jaisiah’s brave soldiers and was killed in the battlefield.The Arab army suffered a crushing defeat as Prince Jaisiah valiantly defended Debal and Sindh.Raja Chach Rai,who defeated the Arabs,need to be celebrated.

SEMIRAMIS CAME BEFORE ALEXANDER

Islam Comes to India 12

Before Alexander, Assyrian queen Semiramis had attacked India.She travelled with 400,000 troops to conquer India and returned with only 20000 troops. 

Semiramis was the mythological Lydian-Babylonian wife of Onnes and Ninus, succeeding the latter to the throne of Assyria, as in the fables of Movses Khorenatsi.

The legends narrated by Diodorus Siculus, who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus, describe her and her relationships to Onnes and King Ninus, a mythical king of Assyria not attested in the far older and more comprehensive Assyrian King List.Armenians and the Assyrians of Iraq, northeast Syria, southeast Turkey, and northwest Iran still use the Shamiram as a given name for female children.

The real and historical Shammuramat (the original Akkadian and Aramaic form of the name) was the Assyrian wife of Shamshi-Adad V (ruled 824 BC–811 BC), ruler of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and its regent for five years until her son Adad-nirari III came of age and took the reins of power.She ruled at a time of political uncertainty, which is one of the possible explanations for why Assyrians may have accepted her rule (as normally a woman as ruler would have been unthinkable). It has been speculated that ruling successfully as a woman may have made the Assyrians regard her with particular reverence, and that the achievements of her reign (including stabilizing and strengthening the empire after a destructive civil war) were retold over the generations until she was turned into a mythical figure.

The name of Semiramis came to be applied to various monuments in Western Asia and Anatolia, the origin of which was forgotten or unknown. Various places in Upper Mesopotamia and throughout Mesopotamia as a whole, Media, Persia, the Levant, Anatolia, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Caucasus bore the name of Semiramis, but slightly changed, even in the Middle Ages, and an old name of the Armenian city of Van was Shamiramagerd (in Armenian it means created by Semiramis). Nearly every stupendous work of antiquity by the Euphrates or in Iran seems to have ultimately been ascribed to her, even the Behistun Inscription of Darius. Herodotus ascribes to her the artificial banks that confined the Euphrates and knows her name as borne by a gate of Babylon. She conquered much of Middle East and the Levant. She was mortally wounded after fighting an Indian king and the Assyrian army was mostly destroyed.

Semiramis painting

She ruled at a time of political uncertainty, which is one of the possible explanations for why Assyrians may have accepted her rule (as normally a woman as ruler would have been unthinkable). 

She not only ruled Asia effectively but also added Libya and Aethiopia to the empire. She then went to war with king Stabrobates (Sthabarpati) of India, having her artisans build an army of false elephants by putting manipulated skins of dark-skinned buffaloes over her camels to deceive the Indians into thinking she had acquired real elephants. This ploy succeeded initially, but then she was wounded in the counterattack and her army mainly annihilated, forcing the surviving remnants to re-ford the Indus and retreat to the west. 

The historical Queen Shammuramat (824-811 BC) ruled Assyria briefly while waiting for her son to come of age. She is also called Semiramis or Shamiram.

The Puranas mention a King Supratika of the Indian Ikshvaku dynasty who ruled nine generations before King Prasenajit (who reigned circa 600 BC). This King Supratika,some argue, is the ruler most likely to have clashed with Semiramis, as her contemporary. 

The story of Semiramis, the Assyrian Queen and the Indian King Stabrobates by a Greek ‘historian,’ Ctesias (in Diodorus Siculus) is of interest. 

A long period of peace ensued, till she resolved to subjugate the Indians on hearing that they were the most numerous of all nations, and possessed the largest and most beautiful country in the world. For two years preparations were made throughout her whole kingdom ; in the third year she collected in Bactria 3,000,000 foot soldiers, 500,000 horsemen, and 100,000 chariots. Beside these, 100,000 camels were covered with the sewn skins of black oxen, and each was mounted by one warrior ; these animals were intended to pass for elephants with the Indians. For crossing the Indus 2000 ships were built, then taken to pieces again, and the various parts packed on camels.

Stabrobates, the king of the Indians, awaited the Assyrians on the bank of the Indus. He also had prepared for the war with all his power, and gathered together even a larger force from the whole of India. When Semiramis approached he sent messengers to meet her with the complaint that she was making war upon him though he had done her no wrong ; and in his letter he reproached her licentious life, and calling the gods to witness, threatened to crucify her if victorious. Semiramis read the letter, laughed, and said that the Indians would find out her virtue by her actions. The fleet of the Indians lay ready for battle on the Indus.

 Semiramis caused her ships to be put together, manned them with her bravest warriors, and, after a long and stubborn contest, the victory fell to her share. A thousand ships of the Indians were sunk and many prisoners taken. Then she also took the islands and cities on the river, and out of these she collected more than 100,000 prisoners. 

But the king of the Indians, pretending flight, led his army back from the Indus; in reality he wished to induce the enemy to cross the Indus. As matters succeeded according to her wishes, Semiramis caused a large and broad bridge to be thrown skilfully over the Indus, and on this her whole army passed over. Leaving 60,000 men to protect the bridge, she pursued the Indians with the rest of her army, and sent on in front the camels clothed as elephants. At first the Indians did not understand whence Semiramis could have procured so many elephants and were alarmed. But the deception could not last. Soldiers of Semiramis, who were found careless on the watch, deserted to the enemy to escape punishment, and betrayed the secret. 

Stabrobates proclaimed it at once to his whole army, caused a halt to be made, and offered battle to the Assyrians. When the armies approached each other the kind of the Indians ordered his horsemen and chariots to make the attack. Semiramis sent against them her pretended elephants. When the cavalry of the Indians came up their horses started back at the strange smell, part of them dislodged their riders, others refused to obey the rein. Taking advantage of this moment, Semiramis, herself on horseback, pressed forward with a chosen band of men upon the Indians, and turned them to flight. Stabrobates was still unshaken; he led out his elephants, and behind them his infantry. Himself on the right wing, mounted on the best elephant, he chanced to come opposite Semiramis. He made a resolute attack upon the queen, and was followed by the rest of the elephants. The soldiers of Semiramis resisted only a short time. The elephants caused an immense slaughter ; the Assyrians left their ranks, they fled, and the king pressed forward against Semiramis ; his arrow wounded her arm, and as she turned away his javelin struck her on the back. She hastened away, while her people were crushed and trodden down by their own numbers ; and at last, as the Indians pressed upon them, were forced from the bridge into the river. As soon as Semiramis saw the greater part of her army on the nearer bank, she caused the cables to be cut which held the bridge ; the force of the stream tore the beams asunder, and many Assyrians who were on the bridge were plunged in the river. The other Assyrians were now in safety, the wounds of Semiramis were not dangerous, and the king of the Indians was warned by signs from heaven and their interpretation by the seers not to cross the river. After exchanging prisoners Semiramis returned to Bactra. She had lost two-thirds of her army. 

Ctesias in Diodorus Siculus mentions Semiramis commissioned an inscription at Bagistan – later known as The Behistun /Besitoon /Bisitoon Inscription – a rock-face carving. But what we see today at Behistun is a message by Darius – a tri-lingual message which helped in decipherment of Elamite, Akkadian and Old Persian scripts.

Semiramis staring at corpse of Ara

Mired in legend and prejudice, Semiramis is discredited in modern Western history – especially starting from 1853-1857. Her very existence denied, accused of incest, Semiramis has been tarred and condemned to the rubbish heap of modern history – and the Bible. As far back as 1798, the Asiatick Researches By Asiatic Society (Calcutta, India), were able to trace references to the Semiramis campaign in the Indian Puranas also. And …
“In the case of Semiramis, confusion may have been caused by the fact that her husband and her son were both named Ninus; but to classical and medieval readers it seemed quite plausible that a powerful woman ruler (and a barbarian to boot) would be tyrannical and transgressive in her lust and that her violent delights would have a violent end. “(from Incest and the Medieval Imagination By Elizabeth Archibald). 

Semiramis was generally viewed positively before the rise of Christianity, although negative portrayals did exist. In the Divine Comedy, Dante sees Semiramis among the souls of the lustful in the Second Circle of Hell. The book The Two Babylons (1853), by the Christian minister Alexander Hislop, was particularly influential in characterizing of Semiramis as associated with the Whore of Babylon despite a lack of supporting evidence in the BibleSemiramis appears in many plays and operas, such as Voltaire’s tragedy Semiramis. In Eugène Ionesco’s play The Chairs, the Old Woman is referred to as Semiramis.

Some 300 years, after the reign of Semiramis, the Assyrian Empire passed into Persian hands – and then into the hands of Alexander. Early historians of Semiramis and Alexander mixed fables using details gleaned from Alexander’s expedition.

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.

PORUS DEFEATED ALEXANDER?

Islam Comes to India 9

The battle between Porus and Alexander is recorded only in Greek history.So,it records that Alexander won in the battle. It also says that Alexander returned the conquered territory to Porus, which contradicts the earlier statement of victory.A conqueror with a thirst for power will never disposes off the territory in a hurry.Alexander was very young then.Hence we have to read between the lines.

Porus or Poros was an ancient Indian king whose territory spanned the region between the Hydaspes (River of Jhelum) and Acesines (Chenab River), in the Punjab region of the Indian subcontinent. He is credited to have been a legendary warrior with exceptional skills.

Porus fought against Alexander in the Battle of the Hydaspes (326 BC),thought to be fought at the site of modern-day Mong, Punjab, which is now part of Pakistan. Though not recorded in any available ancient Indian source, ancient Greek historians describe the battle and the aftermath of Alexander’s “victory”. Anecdotally, after the defeat and arrest of Porus in the war, Alexander asked Porus how he would like to be treated. Porus, although “defeated”, proudly stated he would like to be treated like a king. Porus replied that he wished to be treated the way Alexander would have wanted Porus to have treated him. Alexander was reportedly so impressed by his adversary that he not only reinstated him as a satrap of his own kingdom but also granted him dominion over lands to the south-east extending until the Hyphasis (Beas). Porus reportedly died sometime between 321 and 315 BC. 

King Porus (on elephant) fighting Alexander the Great, on a "victory coin" of Alexander (minted c. 324–322 BC

The only information available on Porus and his kingdom is from Greek sources. The Indian sources do not mention him, although modern scholars have conjectured that he may have been a ruler of the Purus, a tribe known to have inhabited north-western India since the Vedic period. Some scholars, such as H. C. Seth, have attempted to identify Porus with Parvataka, a king mentioned in the Sanskrit play Mudrarakshasa, the Jain text Parishishtaparvan, and some other historical sources. However, there is little concrete evidence to support this theory: the Mudrarakshasa describes Parvataka as a mlechchha or non-Vedic foreigner, while the Purus were a Vedic tribe. According to the Parishishtaparvan, Parvataka ruled Himavakuta, while Porus ruled in the present-day Punjab region. According to the Mudrarakshasa, Parvataka was killed by a vishakanya (poison girl) as a result of an intrigue by Chanakya, while the Greek sources state that Porus was killed by Eudemus. 

The Achaemenid Empire occupied the western Indus basin since the conquests of Darius the Great. Neither the occupying Achaemenid nor local native sources confirmed the existence of Porus’ Kingdom at the time. Following the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, Porus and other regional powers contested for the land left behind. 

According to historian Ishwari Prasad, Porus might have been a Yaduvanshi Shurasena. He argued that Porus’ vanguard soldiers carried a banner of Heracles whom Megasthenes—who travelled to India after Porus had been supplanted by Chandragupta—explicitly identified with the Shurasenas of Mathura. This Heracles of Megasthenes and Arrian (the so called Megasthenes’ Herakles) has been identified by some scholars as Krishna and by others as his elder brother Balarama, who were both the ancestors and patron deities of Shoorsainis. Iswhari Prashad and others, following his lead, found further support of this conclusion in the fact that a section of Shurasenas were supposed to have migrated westwards to Punjab and modern Afghanistan from Mathura and Dvārakā, after Krishna walked to heaven and had established new kingdoms there.

The battle took place on the east bank of the Hydaspes River (now called the Jhelum River, a tributary of the Indus River) in what is now the Punjab Province of Pakistan. Alexander later founded the city of Nicaea on the site; this city has yet to be discovered. Any attempt to find the ancient battle site is complicated by considerable changes to the landscape over time. For the moment, the most plausible location is just south of the city of Jhelum, where the ancient main road crossed the river and where a Buddhist source mentions a city that may be Nicaea. The identification of the battle site near modern Jalalpur/Haranpur is certainly erroneous, as the river (in ancient times) meandered far from these cities .

After Alexander’s death in 323 BCE, Perdiccas became the regent of his empire, and after Perdiccas’s murder in 321 BCE, Antipater became the new regent. According to Diodorus, Antipater recognized Porus’s authority over the territories along the Indus River. However, Eudemus, who had served as Alexander’s satrap in the Punjab region, treacherously killed Porus.

There are five main surviving written sources that provide us with most of our information on Alexander the Great’s campaigns in general and the Battle of the Hydaspes in particular. Of these, the source that is generally considered the most reliable is the Anabasis of Alexander, written by the Greek historian Arrianos of Nikomedia (lived c. 89 – after c. 160 AD).
The other major sources for Alexander’s campaigns are the Universal History by the Greek historian Diodoros Sikeliotes (lived c. 90 – c. 30 BC), the Historiae Alexandri Magni by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (lived c. first century AD), the Life of Alexander the Great by the Greek biographer Ploutarchos of Chaironeia (lived c. 46 – c. 120 AD), and the Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by the Roman historian Marcus Iunianus Iustinus Frontinus (lived c. second century AD). 

These sources, in turn, rely on earlier sources that have since been lost. Alexander’s personal campaign historian Kallisthenes (lived c. 360 – 327 BC) was an important source for these writers, providing them with much information about Alexander’s earlier campaigns. Kallisthenes was dead by the time of the Battle of the Hydaspes, though, so he obviously never wrote about it. Nonetheless, there were many other writers who covered the period after Kallisthenes’s death. 

For instance, Ptolemaios I Soter and Nearchos, two of Alexander’s generals who outlived him, both wrote accounts of his conquests, which would have included the Battle of the Hydaspes. Aristoboulos of Kassandreia, a junior officer in Alexander’s army, and Onesikritos, Alexander’s helmsman, also wrote accounts of his conquests. 

Porus's elephant cavalry as depicted in the 16th century German work,Cosmographia.

In addition to the sources covering the campaigns of Alexander, there were also other Greek sources covering Indian history that some of the authors are known to have used. The Greek historian Megasthenes (lived c. 350 – c. 290 BC), who served as an ambassador of Seleukos I Nikator to Chandragupta Maurya, wrote a history of India titled Indika, which was used extensively as a source by some of our surviving writers, including Arrianos and Diodoros Sikeliotes. 

All of our surviving sources agree that Alexander won the Battle of the Hydaspes. Alexander himself issued a series of coins commemorating his victory over Porus. These coins were minted between c. 324 BC and c. 322 BC. A number of them have survived to the present day. Porus was still alive at the time when Alexander was minting his victory coins. Alexander himself either founded or renamed two cities on the banks of the Hydaspes River, Boukephala and Nikaia. 

Alexander the Great’s army at the Battle of the Hydaspes is estimated to have included around 40,000 infantry and between 5,000 to 7,000 cavalry. Meanwhile, Porus’s army at the Battle of the Hydaspes is estimated to have included somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 infantry, between 2,000 and 4,000 cavalry, around 130 war elephants (each of which would have probably carried two warriors), and around 1,000 chariots. It was, all in all, quite a massive confrontation. 

There is an Indian view of the battle.

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.