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.

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.