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.

ALEXANDER IN SINDH

Islam Comes to India 7

Sindh today is a southeastern state of Pakistan with its capital in Karachi. The name Sindh derives from the Sanskrit word Sindhu which is a river crossing both countries Pakistan and India. It is a piece of land adjacent to Indus River and the Thar Desert. In past times, it was intertwined with the Indian subcontinent and located at the center of Indus valley civilization which is one of the world’s greatest pre-classical civilizations. But before being a part of Pakistan and being invaded by Mohammad bin Qasim, it had its own historical significance. In fact, the Hindu religion was the most prominent in this area.

The very first mention of Sindh is found in the Mahabharata where the King of Sindh Jayadratha fought against Lord Krishna.Dushhala had settled 30,000 Brahmins in Sindh.
Excavations in the region have also found evidence of animal sacrifice, terracotta figurines depicting goddess images and a seal of Lord Shiva (a seated person surrounded by animals) confirms that Hinduism was practiced in Sindh during Indus valley civilization.There are many sacred symbols n Hindu literature such as the swastika, Om etc. which have found widespread usage in the Harappa scriptures.

Alexander conquered Sindh in 325BC. At this time as well, Sindh was ruled by a Hindu ruler being Raja Sahasi whose race governed Sindh for over 2000 years.
The Indian campaign of Alexander began in 326 BC. After conquering the Achaemenid Empire of Persia, the Macedonian king (and now the great king of the Persian Empire), Alexander, launched a campaign into the Indian subcontinent in present-day Pakistan, part of which formed the easternmost territories of the Achaemenid Empire following the Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley (6th century BC). The rationale for this campaign is usually said to be Alexander’s desire to conquer the entire known world, which the Greeks thought ended in India. 

Of those who accompanied Alexander to India, Aristobulus, Onesicritus, and Nearchus wrote about the Indian campaign. The only surviving contemporary account of Alexander’s Indian campaign is a report of the voyage of the naval commander Nearchus,who was tasked with exploring the coast between the Indus River and the Persian Gulf. This report is preserved in Arrian’s Anabasis (c. AD 150). Arrian provides a detailed account of Alexander’s campaigns, based on the writings of Alexander’s companions and courtiers. 

Arrian’s account is supplemented by the writings of other authors, whose works are also based on the accounts of Alexander’s companions: these authors include Diodorus (c. 21 BC), Strabo (c. AD 23), and Plutarch (c. AD 119). 

After the death of Spitamenes and his marriage to Roxana (Raoxshna in Old Iranian) in 326 BC to cement his relations with his new Central Asian satrapies, Alexander was finally free toturn his attention to India.

 

Alexander Mosaic (c. 100 BC), ancient Roman floor mosaic from the House of the Faun in Pompeii showing Alexander fighting king Darius III of Persia in the Battle of Issus

Alexander invited all the chieftains of the former satrapy of Gandhara, to come to him and submit to his authority. Ambhi (Greek: Omphis), ruler of Taxila, whose kingdom extended from the Indus to the Jhelum (Greek: Hydaspes), complied. At the end of the spring of 327 BC, Alexander started on his Indian expedition leaving Amyntas behind with 3,500 horse and 10,000 foot soldiers to hold the land of the Bactrians. 

After gaining control of the former Achaemenid satrapy of Gandhara, including the city of Taxila, Alexander advanced into Punjab, where he engaged in battle against the regional king Porus, whom Alexander defeated in the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC, but was so impressed by the demeanor with which the king carried himself that he allowed Porus to continue governing his own kingdom as a satrap. Although victorious, the Battle of the Hydaspes was possibly also the most costly battle fought by the Macedonians. 

Alexander’s march east put him in confrontation with the Nanda Empire of Magadha and the Gangaridai of Bengal. According to the Greek sources, the Nanda army was supposedly five times larger than the Macedonian army.His army, exhausted, homesick, and anxious by the prospects of having to further face large Indian armies throughout the Indo-Gangetic Plain, mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas River) and refused to march further east. Alexander, after a meeting with his officer, Coenus, and after hearing about the lament of his soldiers,eventually relented, being convinced that it was better to return. This caused Alexander to turn south, advancing through southern Punjab and Sindh, along the way conquering more tribes along the lower Indus River, before finally turning westward.
Alexander personally took command of the shield-bearing guards, foot-companions, archers, Agrianians, and horse-javelin-men and led them against the clans – the Aspasioi of Kunar valleys, the Guraeans of the Guraeus (Panjkora) valley, and the Assakenoi of the Swat and Buner valleys. 

Alexander faced resistance from Hastin (or Astes), chief of the Ilastinayana (called the Astakenoi or Astanenoi) tribe, whose capital was Pushkalavati or Peukelaotis.He later defeated Asvayanas and Asvakayanas and captured their 40,000 men and 230,000 oxen. Asvakayanas of Massaga fought him under the command of their queen, Cleophis, with an army of 30,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry, 30 elephants, and 7,000 mercenaries. Other regions that fought Alexander were Abhisara, Aornos, Bazira, and Ora or Dyrta. 

Victory Coin of Alexander

A fierce contest ensued with the Aspasioi, in the course of which Alexander himself was wounded in the shoulder by a dart, but eventually the Aspasioi lost the fight; 40,000 of them were enslaved. The Assakenoi faced Alexander with an army of 30,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry, and 30 elephants. They had fought bravely and offered stubborn resistance to the invader in many of their strongholds such as the cities of Ora, Bazira, and Massaga. The fort of Massaga could only be reduced after several days of bloody fighting in which Alexander himself was wounded seriously in the ankle. When the Chieftain of Massaga fell in the battle, the supreme command of the army went to his old mother, Cleophis, who also stood determined to defend her motherland to the last extremity. The example of Cleophis assuming the supreme command of the military also brought the entire population of women of the locality into the fighting.Alexander was only able to reduce Massaga by resorting to political strategem and actions of betrayal. According to Curtius: “Not only did Alexander slaughter the entire population of Massaga, but also did he reduce its buildings to rubbles”. A similar slaughter then followed at Ora, another stronghold of the Assakenoi. 

In the aftermath of general slaughter and arson committed by Alexander at Massaga and Ora, numerous Assakenians fled to a high fortress called Aornos (not definitely identified but somewhere between Shangla, in Swat, and the Kohistan region, both in northern Pakistan). Alexander followed close behind their heels and besieged the strategic hill-fort. The Siege of Aornos was Alexander’s last siege, “the climax to Alexander’s career as the greatest besieger in history”, according to Robin Lane Fox. The siege took place in April 326 BC. It presented the last threat to Alexander’s supply line, which stretched, dangerously vulnerable, over the Hindu Kush back to Balkh, though Arrian credits Alexander’s heroic desire to outdo his kinsman Heracles, who allegedly had proved unable to take the place Pir-Sar, which the Greeks called Aornis. The site lies north of Attock in what is now the Punjab, Pakistan, on a strongly reinforced mountain spur above the narrow gorges in a bend of the upper Indus. Neighboring tribesmen who surrendered to Alexander offered to lead him to the best point of access.
At the vulnerable north side leading to the fort, Alexander and his catapults were stopped by a deep ravine. To bring the siege engines within reach, an earthwork mound was constructed to bridge the ravine. A low hill connected to the nearest tip of Pir-Sar was soon within reach and taken. Alexander’s troops were at first repelled by boulders rolled down from above. Three days of drumbeats marked the defenders’ celebration of the initial repulse, followed by a surprise retreat. Hauling himself up the last rockface on a rope, Alexander cleared the summit, slaying some fugitives – inflated by Arrian to a massacre– and erected altars to Athena Nike, Athena of Victory, traces of which were identified by Stein. Sisikottos, or Saśigupta, who had helped Alexander in this campaign, was made the governor of Aornos. 

Alexander had his Waterloo in India.

DARIUS USES THE WORD HINDU,BC 518

Islam Comes to India 6

Dynasties came and went for several hundred years until the late 16th century, when Sindh was brought into the Mughal Empire by Akbar, himself born in Umerkot in Sindh. Mughal rule from their provincial capital of Thatta was to last in lower Sindh until the early 18th century. Upper Sindh was a different picture, however, with the indigenous Kalhora dynasty holding power, consolidating their rule until the mid-18th century, when the Persian sacking of the Mughal throne in Delhi allowed them to grab the rest of Sindh. 

 It is believed by most scholars that the earliest trace of human inhabitation in India traces to the Soan Sakaser Valley between the Indus and the Jhelum rivers. This period goes back to the first inter-glacial period in the Second Ice Age, and remnants of stone and flint tools have been found.

Sindh and surrounding areas contain the ruins of the Indus Valley Civilization. There are remnants of thousand-year-old cities and structures, with a notable example in Sindh being that of Mohenjo Daro. Hundreds of settlements have been found spanning an area of about a hundred miles. These ancient towns and cities had advanced features such as city-planning, brick-built houses, sewage and draining systems, as well as public baths. The people of the Indus Valley also developed a writing system, that has to this day still not been fully deciphered.The people of the Indus Valley had domesticated bovines, sheep, elephants, and camels. The civilization also had knowledge of metallurgy. Gold, silver, copper, tin, and alloys were widely in use. Arts and crafts flourished during this time as well; the use of beads, seals, pottery, and bracelets are evident.

 Literary evidence from the Vedic period suggests a transition from early small janas, or tribes, to many janapadas (territorial civilizations) and gana-samgha societies. The gana samgha societies are loosely translated to being oligarchies or republics. These political entities were represented from the Rigveda to the Astadhyayi by Pāṇini.Most of the Janapadas that had exerted large territorial influence, or mahajanapadas, had been raised in the Indo-Gangetic Plain with the exception of Gandhara in what is now northern Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and eastern Afghanistan. There was a large level of contact between all the janapadas, with descriptions being given of trading caravans, movement of students from universities, and itineraries of princes.The conquest of Sindh began with threr Achaemenid conquest.

Achaemenid Coin

The Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley refers to the Achaemenid military conquest and occupation of the territories of the North-western regions of the Indian subcontinent, from the 6th to 4th centuries BC. The conquest of the areas as far as the Indus river is often dated to the time of Cyrus the Great, in the period between 550-539 BCE.The first secure epigraphic evidence, given by the Behistun Inscription, gives a date before or about 518 BCE. Achaemenid penetration into the area of the Indian subcontinent occurred in stages, starting from northern parts of the River Indus and moving southward.These areas of the Indus valley became formal Achaemenid satrapies as mentioned in several Achaemenid inscriptions. The Achaemenid occupation of the Indus Valley ended with the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great circa 323 BCE. The Achaemenid occupation, although less successful than that of the later Greeks, Sakas or Kushans, had the effect of acquainting India to the outer world. 

Cyrus the Great

The conquest is often thought to have started circa 535 BCE, during the time of Cyrus the Great (600-530 BCE). Cyrus probably went as far as the banks of the Indus River and organized the conquered territories under the Satrapy of Gandara. The Province was also referred to as Paruparaesanna (Greek: Parapamisadae) in the Babylonian and Elamite versions of the Behistun inscription. The geographical extent of this province was wider than the Indian Gandhara. Various accounts, such as those of Xenophon or Ctesias, who wrote Indica, also suggest that Cyrus conquered parts of India. Another Indian Province was conquered named Sattagydia. It was probably contiguous to Gandhara, but its actual location is uncertain. Fleming locates it between Arachosia and the middle Indus. Fleming also mentions Maka, in the area of Gedrosia, as one of the Indian satrapies

A successor of Cyrus the Great, Darius I was back in 518 BCE. The date of 518 BCE is given by the Behistun inscription and is also often the one given for the secure occupation of Gandhara in Punjab. Darius I later conquered an additional province that he called “Hidūš” in his inscriptions. The Hamadan Gold and Silver Tablet inscription of Darius I also refers to his conquests in India. 

Ancient India

 The exact area of the Province of Hindush is uncertain. Some scholars have described it as the middle and lower Indus Valley and the approximate region of modern Sindh, but there is no known evidence of Achaemenid presence in this region, and deposits of gold, which Herodotus says was produced in vast quantities by this Province, are also unknown in the Indus delta region. Alternatively, Hindush may have been the region of Taxila and Western Punjab, where there are indications that a Persian satrapy may have existed. There are few remains of Achaemenid presence in the east, but, according to Fleming, the archaeological site of Bhir Mound in Taxila remains the “most plausible candidate for the capital of Achaemenid India”, based on the fact that numerous pottery styles similar to those of the Achaemenids in the East have been found there, and that “there are no other sites in the region with Bhir Mound’s potential”.

According to Herodotus, Darius I sent the Greek explorer Scylax of Caryanda to sail down the Indus river, heading a team of spies, in order to explore the course of the Indus River. After a periplus of 30 months, Scylax is said to have returned to Egypt near the Red Sea, and the seas between the Near East and India were made use of by Darius.

Also according to Herodotus, the territories of Gandhara, Sattagydia, Dadicae and Aparytae formed the 7th province of the Achaemenid Empire for tax-payment purposes, while Indus formed the 20th tax region.

Darius Plate With Hindu Sign

The Achaemenid army was not uniquely Persian. Rather it was composed of many different ethnicities that were part of the vast Achaemenid Empire. The army included Bactrians, Sakas (Scythians), Parthians, and Sogdians. Herodotus gives a full list of the ethnicities of the Achaemenid army, which included Ionians (Greeks), and even Ethiopians. These ethnicities are likely to have been included in the Achaemenid army which invaded India.

The Persians may have later participated, together with Sakas and Greeks, in the campaigns of Chandragupta Maurya to gain the throne of Magadha circa 320 BCE. The Mudrarakshasa states that after Alexander’s death, an alliance of “Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika” was used by Chandragupta Maurya in his campaign to take the throne in Magadha and found the Mauryan Empire. The Sakas were the Scythians, the Yavanas were the Greeks, and the Parasikas were the Persians. David Brainard Spooner observed of Chandragupta Maurya that “it was with largely the Persian army that he won the throne of India.

Ancient India was very rich.

SINDH FALLS,TEMPLES DESTROYED

Islam Comes to India 5

Raja Dahir (663 – 712 CE) was the last Hindu ruler of Sindh, present-day Pakistan, in the northern region of the Indian subcontinent. He was member of the Brahmin dynasty.He was a Pushkarna Brahmin king, son of Chach of Aror, who ascended the throne after the death of his uncle, Chandar. Eight years later, Dahir’s kingdom was invaded by Ramal at Kannauj. After initial losses, the enemy advanced on Aror and he allied himself with Alafi, an Arab. Alafi and his warriors (who were exiled from the Umayyad caliphate) were recruited; they led Dahir’s armies in repelling the invading forces, remaining as valued members of Dahir’s court. In a later war in 711 with the caliphate, however, Alafi served as a military advisor but refused to take an active part in the campaign; as a result, he later obtained a pardon from the caliph.

In 711 CE, his kingdom was conquered by the Ummayad Caliphate led by General Muhammad bin Qasim. He was killed at the Battle of Aror at the banks of the Indus River, near modern-day Nawabshah.

Before the war,he is believed to have said:

“I am going to meet the Arabs in the open battle, and fight them as best as I can. If I crush them, my kingdom will then be put on a firm footing. But if I am killed honourably, the event will be recorded in the books of Arabia and India, and will be talked about by great men. It will be heard by other kings in the world, and it will be said that Raja Dahir of Sindh sacrificed his precious life for the sake of his country, in fighting with the enemy.”

 The primary reason cited in the Chach Nama for the expedition by the governor of Basra, Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, against Raja Dahir, was a pirate raid off the coast of Debal resulting in gifts to the caliph from the king of Serendib (modern Sri Lanka) being stolen. Meds (a tribe of Scythians living in Sindh) also known as Bawarij had pirated upon Sassanid shipping in the past, from the mouth of the Tigris to the Sri Lankan coast, in their bawarij and now were able to prey on Arab shipping from their bases at Kutch, Debal and Kathiawar.

Al-Hajjaj gave Muhammad bin Qasim  the command of the expedition between 708 and 711, when Qasim was only 15–17 years old, apparently because two previous Umayyad commanders had not been successful in punishing Sindh’s ruler Raja Dahir for his failure to prevent pirates from disrupting Muslim shipping off the coast of Sindh.Al-Hajjaj superintended this campaign from Kufa by maintaining close contact with Qasim in the form of regular reports for which purpose special messengers were deputed between Basra and Sindh.

The military strategy had been outlined by Al-Hajjaj in a letter sent to Muhammad bin Qasim.

My ruling is given: Kill anyone belonging to the ahl-i-harb (combatants); arrest their sons and daughters for hostages and imprison them. Whoever does not fight against us…grant them aman (safety) and settle their tribute [amwal] as dhimmah (protected person)…

 The army which departed from Shiraz under Muhammad consisted of 6,000 Syrian cavalry and detachments of mawali (sing. mawla; non-Arab, Muslim freedmen) from Iraq.At the borders of Sindh he was joined by an advance guard and six thousand camel cavalry and later, reinforcements from the governor of Makran were transferred directly to Debal (Daybul), at the mouth of the Indus, by sea along with five manjaniks (catapults).The army that eventually captured Sindh would later be swelled by the Gurjars and Meds as well as other irregulars who heard of the Arab successes in Sindh.When Muhammad passed through the Makran desert while raising his forces, he had to subdue the restive towns of Fannazbur and Arman Belah (Lasbela), both of which had previously been conquered by the Arabs.

 The first town assaulted in Qasim’s Sindh campaign was Debal and upon the orders of al-Hajjaj, he exacted a retribution on Debal by giving no quarter to its residents or priests and destroying its great temple.From Debal, the Arab army then marched northeast taking towns such as Nerun and Sadusan (Sehwan) without fighting. One-fifth of the war booty including slaves were remitted to al-Hajjaj and the Caliph.The conquest of these towns was accomplished with relative ease; however, Dahir’s armies being prepared on the other side of the Indus had not yet been confronted. In preparation to meet them, Qasim returned to Nerun to resupply and receive reinforcements sent by al-Hajjaj. Camped on the east bank of the Indus, Muhammad sent emissaries and bargained with the river Jats and boatmen. Upon securing the aid of Mokah Basayah, “the King of the island of Bet”, Qasim crossed over the river where he was joined by the forces of the Thakore of Bhatta and the western Jats.

Sometime before the final battle, Dahar’s vizier approached him and suggested that Dahar should take refuge with one of the friendly kings of India. “You should say to them, ‘I am a wall between you and the Arab army. If I fall, nothing will stop your destruction at their hands.'” If that wasn’t acceptable to Dahar, said the vizier, then he should at least send away his family to some safe point in India. Dahar refused to do either. “I cannot send away my family to security while the families of my thakurs and nobles remain here. “

Dahir then tried to prevent Qasim from crossing the Indus River, moving his forces to its eastern banks. Eventually, however, Qasim crossed and defeated forces at Jitor led by Jaisiah (Dahir’s son).

At Ar-rur (Rohri) Qasim was met by Dahir’s forces and the eastern Jats in battle. Dahir died in the battle,his head was cut off from his body and sent to Hajjaj ; his forces were defeated and Qasim took control of Sindh.In the wake of the battle enemy soldiers were executed —though artisans, merchants and farmers were spared —and Dahir and his chiefs, the “daughters of princes” and the usual fifth of the booty and slaves were sent to al-Hajjaj. Soon the capitals of the other provinces, Brahmanabad, Alor (Aror) and Multan, were captured alongside other in-between towns with only light Muslim casualties.Multan was a key site in the Hindu religion.

 After battles all fighting men were executed and their wives and children enslaved in considerable numbers and the usual fifth of the booty and slaves were sent to al-Hajjaj.Where resistance was strong, prolonged and intensive, often resulting in considerable Arab casualties, Muhammad bin Qasim’s response was dramatic, inflicting 6,000 deaths at Rawar, between 6,000 and 26,000 at Brahmanabad, 4,000 at Iskalandah and 6,000 at Multan.

The concept of Jihad as a morale booster was used by Qasim. He established Islamic Sharia law over the people of the region.

Everywhere taxes (mal) and tribute (kharaj) were settled and hostages taken — occasionally this also meant the custodians of temples. Non-Muslim natives were excused from military service and from payment of the religiously mandated tax system levied upon Muslims called Zakat, the tax system levied upon them instead was the jizya -that tax came to exist for the first time in India. The preference of collection of jizya over the conversion to Islam is a major economic motivator. Hindus and Buddhists who were classified as Dhimmis had to pay mandatory Jizya,.

 In Al-Biruni’s narrative, according to Manan Ahmed Asif – a historian of Islam in South and Southeast Asia, “Qasim first asserts the superiority of Islam over the polytheists by committing a taboo (killing a cow) and publicly soiling the idol (giving the cow meat as an offering)” before allowing the temple to continue as a place of worship. Some temples escaped destruction such as the Sun Temple of Multan on payment of jizya.Majority of the population continued to remain Hindu who had to pay the jizya imposed by the Muslim state. Qasim’s success has been partly ascribed to Dahir being an unpopular Hindu king ruling over a Buddhist majority who saw Chach of Alor and his kin as usurpers of the Rai Dynasty. This is attributed to having resulted in support being provided by Buddhists and inclusion of rebel soldiers serving as valuable infantry in his cavalry-heavy force from the Jat and Meds. Brahman, Buddhist, Greek, and Arab testimony however can be found that attests towards amicable relations between the adherents of the two religions up to the 7th century.

Three women from Chachnama, Dahar’s wife, Queen Ladi, and Dahar’s daughters Suriya and Preemal carry equal weight in the cultural memory of Sindhi and broader Indian past. The stories are recited to explicate the nationhood of Sindh to argue against imperial aggressors. These women are seen as proud, daring personifications of ancient Sindhi culture that resisted conqueror.

Sindh

The conquest of Sindh, in modern-day Pakistan, although costly, was a major gain for the Umayyad Caliphate. However, further gains were halted by Hindu kingdoms during Arab campaigns. The Arabs attempted to invade India but they were defeated by the north Indian king Nagabhata of the Gurjara Pratihara Dynasty and by the south Indian Emperor Vikramaditya II of the Chalukya dynasty in the early 8th century. After the failure of further expeditions on Kathiawar, the Arab chroniclers conceded that the Abbasid caliph al-Mahdi (r. 775–785) gave up the project of conquering any part of India.

PLAN TO ATTACK INDIA WAS MADE IN IRAQ

Islam Comes to India 4

Al-Ḥajjāj, in full al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf ath-Thaqafī, (born 661, aṭ-Ṭāʾif, Hejaz, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died June 714, Wāsiṭ, Iraq), the man behind the first islamic attack on India,was one of the most cruel and able provincial governors under the Umayyad caliphate (661–750). He played a critical role in consolidating the administrative structure of the Umayyad dynasty during its early years.

Al-Ḥajjāj was a school teacher in his native town as a young man, but little else is known of his earlier years. He first became publicly active when, in the reign of the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik, he restored discipline among troops being used to repress a rebellion in Iraq. In 692 he personally led troops in crushing the rebellion of ʿAbd Allāh ibn az-Zubayr in Mecca. The brutality with which he secured his victory was to recur during the rest of his public life.

For several years he was governor of the provinces that surrounded Mecca, but in 694 he was made governor of Iraq, which, because of its location and because of the intrigues by various sects there, was the most demanding and the most important of the administrative posts in the Islāmic empire. Al-Ḥajjāj was completely devoted to the service of the Umayyads, and the latter were never fearful of his great power. He was instrumental in persuading the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik to allow the succession to pass to al-Walīd, who, as caliph, allowed al-Ḥajjāj complete freedom in the administration of Iraq. Al-Ḥajjāj did much to promote prosperity in his province. He began to strike a purely Arab coinage that soon replaced older currencies. He stopped the migration of the rural population to the towns in an effort to improve agricultural production, and he saw to it that the irrigation system was kept in good repair.

 Al Hajjaj introduced a uniform version of the Quran. To revive agricultural production and increase tax revenue, al-Hajjaj expelled non-Arab Muslim converts from the garrison cities of Kufa and Basra to their rural villages of origin and collected from them the jizya (poll tax) nominally reserved for non-Muslim subjects and oversaw large-scale canal digging projects. In 701, al-Hajjaj, with reinforcements from Syria, crushed a mass rebellion led by the Kufan Arab nobleman Ibn al-Ash’ath whose ranks spanned the Arab troops, Muslim converts and religious elites of Iraq. Consequently, al-Hajjaj further tightened control over the province, founding the city of Wasit to house the loyalist Syrian troops whom he thereafter relied on to enforce his rule. A highly capable though ruthless statesman, strict in character, a harsh and demanding master, al-Hajjaj was widely feared by his contemporaries and became a deeply controversial figure and an object of deep-seated enmity among later, pro-Abbasid writers, who ascribed to him persecutions and mass executions.  

Arriving at Kufa, al-Hajjaj gave an inaugural sermon at the local mosque that has become famous and is “often cited as an example of Arab eloquence”. The situation he found there was one of disorder. The troops of Basra and Kufa, ostensibly garrisoned at Ramhurmuz under al-Muhallab ibn Abi Sufra had instead, upon the death of Bishr, left the camp and were idling in the cities. In order to restore discipline, al-Hajjaj announced that any man who did not within three days return to the camp would be put to death and his property be left open to plunder. This proved effective, but when he went to the troops to distribute the pay, al-Hajjaj faced another mutiny under Ibn al-Jarud because of making cuts in pay that the troops refused to accept. These problems overcome, al-Hajjaj sent the troops against the Kharijites. In 696 al-Muhallab defeated the Azariqa who had rallied around Qatari ibn al-Fuja’a as their anti-caliph, and in spring 697 another Kharijite leader, Shabib ibn Yazid al-Shaybani, was defeated on the Dujayl river in Khuzistan with the aid of Syrian troops. In the same year, al-Hajjaj suppressed the rebellion of the governor of Mada’in, al-Mutarrif ibn al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba, who had allied with the Kharijites.

These campaigns eradicated the Kharijite rebellion, but came at a cost to his relationship with the Iraqis: the campaigns against the Kharijites were extremely unpopular, and measures like the cuts in pay, according to Hugh N. Kennedy, “[seem] almost to have goaded the Iraqis into rebellion, as if looking for an excuse to break them”] The explosion came in 699: when he had been conferred the governorships of Khurasan and Sistan, al-Hajjaj had given it to al-Muhallab, but in Sistan, the situation was far more unstable, and the country had to be essentially reconquered. An army under the local governor Ubayd Allah ibn Abi Bakra had suffered a heavy defeat against the ruler of the kingdom of Zabulistan, known as the Zunbil, and now al-Hajjaj ordered Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash’ath, the most pre-eminent member of the Kufan aristocracy (the ashrāf) to lead an army against the Zunbil. This army was drawn from the Kufan soldiery, and such was the splendour of its equipment, or perhaps the “proud and haughty manner of the Kufan soldiers and ashrāf who composed it” (G. R. Hawting), that it became known in history as the “Peacock Army”. This expedition marked the beginning of a rebellion that came close to destroying not only al-Hajjaj’s, but also Umayyad, power in Iraq.

 Al-Hajjaj, sent letter after letter to his commander, demanding an immediate assault against the Zunbil. The tone of these letters was extremely offensive, and he threatened to dismiss Ibn al-Ash’ath and appoint his own brother Ishaq to command the expedition instead. Al-Hajjaj’s harsh tone and unreasonable demands, as well as the army’s evident reluctance to continue such a protracted and arduous campaign so far from their homes, provoked a widespread mutiny, led by Ibn al-Ash’ath himself. The rebel army marched back to Iraq, growing to over 100,000 strong in the process as they were joined by other malcontents, and being transformed from a mutiny against al-Hajjaj—denounced as an enemy of God and a latter-day Pharaoh—to a full-blown anti-Umayyad movement. 

Seal of Hajjaj

Al-Hajjaj tried to stop the rebels at Tustar, but the rebels were victorious (early 701). Al-Hajjaj abandoned Basra to the rebels, and Ibn al-Ash’ath entered the city in triumph. Reinforced with Syrian troops, al-Hajjaj managed to score a minor victory, after which the bulk of the rebel army left Basra for their natural stronghold, Kufa. Al-Hajjaj recaptured Basra and pursued Ibn al-Ash’ath to Kufa, encamping near the city. Ibn al-Ash’ath’s progress had sufficiently alarmed the Umayyad court that they sought a negotiated settlement, even though they kept sending Syrian reinforcements to al-Hajjaj. Abd al-Malik offered to dismiss al-Hajjaj, appoint Ibn al-Ash’ath as governor over one of the Iraqi towns, and raise the Iraqis’ pay so that they received the same amount as the Syrians. Ibn al-Ash’ath was inclined to accept, but the more radical of his followers, especially the scholars known as qurrāʾ, refused, believing that the offered terms revealed the government’s weakness, and pushed for outright victory. The two armies eventually met in the Battle of Dayr al-Jamajim in April 701, which resulted in a crushing victory for al-Hajjaj and his more disciplined Syrians. Kufa surrendered after that, and al-Hajjaj further undercut Ibn al-Ash’ath’s support by promising amnesty to those who surrendered, providing however that they acknowledged that their rebellion had been tantamount to renouncing Islam; those who refused were executed.

 In 702 al-Hajjaj founded the city of Wasit, situated midway between Basra and Kufa, where he moved his seat. Al-Hajjaj was now the undisputed master not only of Iraq, but of the entire Islamic East.As governor of Iraq and viceroy of the East, al-Hajjaj supervised a major wave of expansion. He appointed Muhammad ibn al-Qasim al-Thaqafi to lead the conquest of northwestern India, Qutayba ibn Muslim to conquer Transoxiana, and Mujja’a ibn Si’r to Oman.

Al-Hajjaj died in Wasit in May or June 714 at the age of 53 or 54; The cause of his death, according to the medieval historian Ibn Khallikan (d. 1282), was a stomach cancer.

Al-Hajjaj killed four companions (sahaba) of Muhammad, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, Jabir ibn Abd-Allah, Sa’id ibn Jubayr and Kumayl ibn Ziyad. While besieging the city of Mecca, Al-Hajjaj crucified Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and said, “No one can take down his body except Asma (daughter of the late caliph Abu Bakr); she must come to me and ask permission of me, and only then will his body be taken down”.

He is recorded by Tha’ālibī (Laţ’āif, 142) as one of the four men to have killed more than 100,000 men (the others being Abu Harb, Abu Muslim and Babak). It was mostly due to his numerous campaigns and the many uprisings and revolts against the empire during his reign.

THE WORLD IS ONE FAMILY,BE HAPPY

Two Eternal Mantras of Hinduism

In these trying times, we Indians have to remind the world,the two eternal mantras of Hinduism.

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is a Sanskrit phrase found in Hindu texts such as the Maha Upanishad, which means “the world is one family” .The original verse appears in Chapter 6 of Maha Upanishad VI.71-73..Also found in the Rig Veda , it is considered the most important moral value in the Indian society. This verse of Maha Upanishad is engraved in the entrance hall of the parliament of India.

The full version of this prayer is stated as follows:

अयं बन्धुरयं नेति गणना लघुचेतसां उदारचरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकं 
ayam bandhurayam neti ganana laghuchetasam udaracharitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam

Only small men discriminate saying: One is a relative; the other is a stranger. For those who live magnanimously the entire world constitutes but a family.

The Full version of Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu is:

स्वस्तिप्रजाभ्यः परिपालयंतां न्यायेन मार्गेण महीं महीशाः ।

गोब्राह्मणेभ्यः शुभमस्तु नित्यं लोकाः समस्ताः सुखिनोभवंतु ॥

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः |

svastiprajābhyaḥ paripālayantāṁ nyāyēna mārgēṇa mahīṁ mahīśāḥ ।

gōbrāhmaṇēbhyaḥ śubhamastu nityaṁ lōkāḥ samastāḥ sukhinōbhavantu ॥

ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ॥

This phrase is from one of the Mangala Mantra often recited after a pooja or religious ceremony . The origin of the Lokakshema, often called the Mangala Mantra, is obscure. While some yoga practitioners and Hindu scholars erroneously point to the Rig Veda or the invocation of the Katha Upanishad, the only written attribution or textual source of “lokah samastah sukhino bhavantu” seems to be stone inscriptions from the Rulers of the Sangama Dynasty (1336 A.D.-1485 A.D.)

See the play on words. Loka Samastha is reversed and Samastha Loka appears in the next sentence.

This is the beauty of Hinduism. Literary dexterity rooted in profundity, it’s never just for effect.

Sukhino Bhavantu (be happy) remains the same in both the lines of this mantra.

Loka samastha means “all the people in the world ” (Lokah has two meanings in Sanskrit, one: people; and the other: world).

Samastha loka takes a leap from the individual to the universal. It means all the worlds. Not just this earth; His abode, even other worlds which are not seen by the ordinary mortal vision.

So it means. Let all the people in the world be happy. Let all the worlds be happy.

What a noble sentiment! Vedic rishi has given to us to uplift us.

This mantra is the Vedic mantra of highest well-wishing, highest inclusiveness, highest blessing. By chanting this mantra, we break our egoistic boundaries and wish the world (s)well. And this is really apt because no one can prosper unless others prosper too. If you alone are happy, your happiness cannot be lasting. Because, if you alone are happy, those around you and farther away from you, who are not happy, will be jealous, covetous, rivalrous. However, if they are happy too, there can be kind feelings towards each other. This is a mantra elegantly embodies maitri (loving kindness) and compassion. A compassionate lens. It reminds us that we are a part of the universe and can positively impact all of creation.

Let us chant this daily.

लोकाः समस्ताः सुखिनो भवन्तु, समस्त लोकाः सुखिनो भवन्तु

The Hindu religion which is born out of the principles of the Sanaathana Dharma, considers the whole world as a single family – “Vasudhaiva Kutumbam”.

In a single family, generally speaking every member of the family , desires the welfare and wellbeing of all the members of the family.This is a universal truth all over the world in all continents , among all religions and among all cultures of all races and regions of all people the of the world.

At the end of any function, people generally wish the welfare of a class of people. But the Sanaathana Dharma Saampradaayam wishes the welfare of :All the living beings (both human and non-human /animals of the whole world). It doesn’t end there. It wishes the welfare of :
All mountains, rivers, oceans and every atom in the world. That is the greatness of that slogan :
Lokaah Samasthaah Sukhino Bhavanthu”.