Saturday, 31 October 2020

INDIRA GANDHI’S ONE-LINERS

 

INDIRA GANDHI’S ONE-LINERS

The former Prime Minister of India (1966-77; 1980-84) Mrs. Indira Priyadarshini Gandhi, was born at Allahabad (now Prayagraj) on 19th November 1917 and  assassinated at  New Delhi on 31st October 1984.

She was the daughter of free India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru . Her son, Rajiv Gandhi(1944-1991), too was Prime Minister from 1984 to 1989. He was assassinated at Sriperumbudur, Chennai, in Tamil Nadu,  on 21st May 1991. Her second son Sanjay Gandhi ( 1946-1980) died 0n 23rd June 1980 in an air accident.    

            Both Indira Gandhi  and Rajiv Gandhi were awarded Bharat Ratna in 1971 and 1988 respectively.

            Indira Gandhi is known as the Iron Lady of India for her extraordinary courage and tremendous determination while taking action in quite hazardous domestic and international events.    

She is the author of three famous books – My Truth (1979); Eternal India (1978);On Peoples and Problems (1982).        

What follows are some concise and incisive one-liners selected from her speeches and writings .

1.The writers’ purpose is to communicate to the people their search for truth and beauty. 2. All women are teachers and guides of society. 3.The only way to have a clean war is not to have a war at all. 4. Violence is man’s main problem. 5. Universities reflect the situation which exists in the rest of society. 6. Let us be one, let us be courageous and let us march forward. 7. Tradition is itself the product of a continuous evolution. 8. No resource , natural or man-made , is usable without  technology. 9. Spring is the time and symbol of nature’s re-birth. 10. On  the issue of what  we call secularism, we can never be aligned with any party which believes in one religion or one race or one language. 11. Science and aesthetics must  go hand in hand, if our urge is to retain and embellish beauty and make this world a better place to live in. 12. Religion means certain values, and religion also means certain rituals; I believe in the values, but not in the rituals. 13. Poverty cannot be the destiny of the majority of mankind. 14. Politics is a word with strange and different meanings. 15. Power in a democracy resides with the people. 16. The present is the road between  the past and the future. 17. Modernisation cannot be imported. 18. A free Press is a basic guarantee of democracy and a vigilant guardian of every right  that free men prize. 19. The heart of India is strong and its limbs are sturdy. 20. Dead or dying ideas not only obstruct change but can  considerably harm individuals as well as nations. 21. No nation can advance merely by imitating other nations. 22.Ideals and values are timeless. 23. Your home is the only place where you can make your own rules 24. All true cultures are integrative. 25. Without courage you cannot practise any other virtue. 26. Every child has a right to health, to education, to congenial employment. 27. In numerous ways, films have contributed to fostering a sense of oneness in our country.  28. Change is inevitable, but it is in us to control its content and direction. 29. All that is born must die and all that dies must be re-born. 30. Life is never without anxiety. 31. Man has always aspired to surpass himself. 32. Agriculture constitutes the very foundation of our economy. 33. A nation on the march cannot afford to rest or grow complacent. 34. Compassion drives one on to purposeful action for the amelioration of want or suffering. 35. Quality comes from intellect, technical mastery and determination to be honest.

                                                            ……………

 

31st October 2020                                                                                           G.  R.  Kanwal         

Thursday, 29 October 2020

WHO Was THE ACTUAL VICTOR IN THE BATTLE OF JHELUM?

 

WHO Was THE ACTUAL VICTOR IN THE BATTLE OF JHELUM?

                        The way the battle of Jhelum came to its close does not reflect  that Maharaja Porus was defeated in the conventional sense of the word.  Historical records show that Maharaja Porus did not flee from the battle field, although he was severely wounded, had lost a lot of blood, was almost unconscious and before that his soldiers had fought very bravely and killed a number of Alexander’s soldiers and generals. 

And when Alexander and Porus stood face to face and Alexander asked Porus  how he would like to be treated, he did not say that he should be treated as one who had lost the battle or had become a slave of the invader or  prisoner of war. Instead he boldly said he should be treated “as a king treats another king”. This  means he was still free and was the ruler of his kingdom.  The battle had not really  ended in Alexander’s victory. 

The very fact that Alexander got influenced by the majestic personality of Porus and his personal bravery of a very high order as well as the courage and the fighting spirit of his soldiers indicates that Maharaja Porus was not a loser.  Alexander released him and returned his kingdom to him.  So where was the victory of Alexander?

According to Plutarch Alexander not only restored to Porus his kingdom but also made him his ally. 

What did Alexander do later on is insignificant.  He is reported to have founded two Greek habitats in the dominions of Porus.  One of these was named Nikia and was supposed to celebrate his victory. The other was called Bucephalus and was aimed at commemorating the death of his most faithful horse whose name was also Bucephalus.

Modern writers  hold  that war in those days was a sort of Dharmayuddha for Hindu Kshtriyas.

One contention is that if Alexander had defeated Porus, why did he retreat?

The history of ancient Punjab which is now being rewritten  does not out rightly give Alexander the credit of victory over Porus.

Readers who believe that Greek and European writers are naturally pro-Alexander suggest that we should not accept their verdict that Alexander really defeated Porus.

One political thinker calls the historical version of the Battle of Jhelum as “the triumph of the organized West against the chaotic East.”

 

Some other views also deny the claim that Alexander won the said battle.  They rather state that Porus defeated the heartless Alexander and compelled him to go back to his native country because  he  had found in Porus  a  stronger adversary who had  killed thousands of his soldiers and also made him a humbler warrior.

Before we close, we repeat our verdict that  Maharaja Porus was not defeated; he did not accept  defeat; remained occupant of his whole kingdom; and became a proud alley of Alexander who no longer behaved like an adversary.

Wednesday, 28 October 2020

THE BATTLE OF JHELUM ---- ALEXANDER VERSUS PORUS

THE BATTLE OF JHELUM ---- ALEXANDER VERSUS PORUS

            The Battle of Jhelum fought between Alexander the Great and Maharaja Porus is one of the most famous battles of the world because it led to a turning point in the connectivity of India with the West and that of the West with India.  Moreover, it showed that Alexander alone was not an extremely valorous fighter, there was  one Indian Maharaja, too, and was known as  Porus,  one of the immortals in the world history of warfares.

            Alexander could not set his firm foot on India without getting rid of Darius III  who had a large part of India under his control and  also had some Indian supporters on his side.

            It is necessary to mention here that Darius III was the last king of the Achaemenid Empire of Persia, from 336 BC to 330 BC. and  Alexander had an expansionist’s dream to establish his hold on Egypt which led to armed confrontation between him and  Darius.  It was during this confrontation that Darius found himself far inferior to Alexander in the tactics of war  and military power.

            Recorded history tells us  that in this difficult situation Darius III approached Maharaja Porus whom he knew to be:

            Extraordinarily brave, well-built, tall, awfully handsome, patriotic, well-wisher of the people, helpful and generous to those who sought his help and above all a unique Indian Maharaja who believed in throwing back the foreign aggressor rather than  bending his neck before them.             

            To match his military power  with that of Alexander, Darius wrote a touching letter to Maharaja Porus for help at that critical juncture . 

The English version of this letter reads as follows:

            “Formerly I dwelt in my kingdom to glory and power, but now I entreat thee to receive me, and to be pleased graciously to help me, because of this mighty man of war (allusion to Alexander), who hath come upon me; he knoweth not fear, his courage is mighty, and his body is thick, and I never saw his like either among kings, or among other men.

            “Behold, too, he hath gained possession of my women, who are the source of my depravity, and behold, I came upon the Greeks in several places, but I was not able to beat them. And he hath overcome me and put me to shame, because there was none (among us) able to do battle against him.

            “He hath taken my kingdom, and hath carried into captivity my mother and my wife and daughter, and there is nothing left to me but death, and it is better for me to die than to become his servant.

            “And now help me, and do thou take heed to the love, which hath always existed between us, and then make ready for me an army of the soldiers of the country, for (Alexander and his hosts) are mighty men of war and are strong.

            “Hasten though to help me with this army, for I place hope and confidence in thee and I will abide on the borders of my country until thy message shall reach me, and I will deal graciously with those, who shall come unto me from thyself, and I will reward them abundantly with possessions.

            “If I conquer Alexander, I will send to thee half of whatever I find with them.”

            It need not be repeated here that despite the help given by Maharaja Porus,  Darius  III got defeated, lost his life, and Alexander’s quick invasion against him resulted in his defeat..

            But let us recall the precious words of Darius to Maharaja Porus:  “I place my hope and confidence in thee (Maharaja Porus).”

            It is also pertinent to recall that it was only when Alexander destroyed the Persian empire during the reign of Darius III that the Persian empire in  India, too, came to its final end.

            Alexander’s conquest of Egypt emboldened him to take up his next expansionist adventure, so in early May 327 B.C. he recruited 5,000 Indian soldiers and marched  towards India.

            It was his good fortune that his enemies en route were weak, cowardly and disunited.  He faced hardly any resistance in Swat, the kings and chieftains of the Punjab got involved in their own local animosities and thus became a source of undesirable support which encouraged Alexander to keep his onward march uninterrupted.

            Of all other rulers of the Punjab and other areas, it was Raja Ambhi of Taxila who not only passed on vital military information about the neighbouring Maharaja Porus but also became a supporter of Alexander just for petty gifts like Persian dresses to wear and thirty caparisoned horses to ride on.

Marching forward inch by inch, Alexander crossed the central Hindukush, following the main route from Balkha to Kabul and arrived in the beautiful valley of Koh-i-Daman. Here he consolidated his position by fresh recruitments from the neighborhood. Nicanor  was appointed incharge of the city and Tyriespes was appointed Satrap of the area.

From Hindukush Alexander moved towards Nikaia, in the vicinity of modern Jalalabad, stayed there till the middle of November, prepared himself for the next move, and waited for the opportune time to take the next step. He divided his army into two commands, one under Hephaistion and the other under Perdikkas and ordered one to move towards Gandhara through the Kabul valley and the other to the hilly country north of the Kabul river. All the unruly tribes on way were subdued. On the way, Alexander is also believed to have offered a sacrifice to Goddess Athena (the goddess of wisdom and war).

Now subjugating the highlanders one by one, Alexander reached the Indus, crossed over to Taxila, from where an envoy was sent to Maharaja Porus, asking him to bring his tribute and meet the king at the river-frontier.

According to historian Curtius “thinking that by the mere prestige of his name, Porus  would be induced to surrender, Alexander  sent Cleochares to tell Maharaja Porus  in peremptory terms that he must pay tribute and come to meet his sovereign at the very frontiers of his own dominions.” The reply of the extremely patriotic and peerlessly  brave Porus was  that he would comply with the second of these demands, and when Alexander entered his realm, he would meet him, but he should come with  arms  for the battle.

This is how the stage for a military showdown between Alexander the Great  and Maharaja  Porus the indomitable  was set along the bank of the Jhelum.

While marching towards Jhelum, Alexander received support from various Indian chieftains which reinforced his military machine, but our main concern is the loyalty offered  to him by King Ambhi. It is mentioned in several historical accounts that the Macedonian General was extended hospitality for three days; he was presented two hundred talents of coined silver, three thousand oxen, ten thousand sheep and thirty elephants.  In  return, Alexander gave Ambhi a thousand  talents  out of the spoils of the war,  along with the vessels of gold and silver and a good deal of Persian drapery. Fortified with the loyalty of Ambhi and the submission of several other Indian chieftains, the position of Alexander’s strength became much better.

Let us now take a Comparative View of the military power of Alexander and Porus.

Alexander had inherited from his father an army with national character. He had therefore at his command trained archers, infantrians, grenadiers and cavaliers. There was also a special posse of elephant troops.  This force when  put together was versatile enough to be used in different terrains against a variety of opponents.

Alexander’s army at the time of the Battle of Jhelum comprised:

1.     Companions consisting of choicest cavalrymen of noble families; a section of foot soldiers numbering 1,500 which went up to 5,000 during the course of war.  Every horse with its rider was encased in armour.

2.     Hoplites: The oblong shield which covered the whole body was called hoplon. Soldiers equipped with such a shield formed the core of the Spartan army, which constituted the heavy infantry :  well-trained and densely massed for the war.

3.     Hypaspists. These soldiers were not heavily armed and as such could move rapidly; had shorter spears, longer swords lighter armours.  Their number was about 3,000 but could rise up to twice as many if the need did arise.

4.     Phalans. The soldiers of this variety wore a helmet, a breast plate and two long curved plates protecting the thighs, but not covering the hip.As they marched, there emerged  a scenario of a gigantic porcupine or a moving forest of glittering steel points. There were probably seven battalions of such soldiers.

5.     Infantry. According to one historical record,  Alexander had 15,000 infantry with him.

6.     Cavalry. Their number is estimated to be 5, 3000, divided into two regiments.

7.     Elephants. As elephants also played a major role in showing the strength of the army, Alexander had eightysix elephants of war, entrusted to Ambhi, the king of Taxila. However, historians have not shown any role of these elephants in the battle of Jhelum.

8.     Machines. The war machines used at that time were primitive and were operated  only in ground battles. Alexander is said to be having  machines called balists and catapults, worked by the hand to throw stones and darts upto a distance of 300 yards.

      In the Battle of Jhelum, Alexander is also believed to have received  the support of 5.000 soldiers provided  to him by Raja Ambhi of Taxila.              

              

            The Army of Maharaja Porus, a Sabharwal Kshatriya, at the time of the Battle of Jhelum was a good match against the military forces of Alexander.

            It is worth mentioning here that  the people of the  Punjab were tall and sturdy and had to continuously prepare themselves for war against foreign invaders who continued to come because it was then an easier gateway to India.

            It may also be mentioned that though to fight was the duty of Kshatriyas, people of other clans, too, became soldiers. Kautilya stipulated that army must consist of camels and asses to operate in dry weather on non-marshy ground. As regards soldiers, they had to be recruited from various tribes like maula, the kinsmen and followers of the king, bhrto, i.e. mercenary soldiers, sreni, who belonged to various warrior clans and lived by the profession of arms, mitrabala, these  were supplied by the allies, amitrabala, this variety  of  soldiers was recruited from the enemy country and  lastly there was one more variety called atavibala belonging to forest and aboriginal tribes.

            In spite of the fact that the supply of soldiers came from various clans and tribes, those belonging to the Kshatriya clan were considered the best and the toughest .

            The Hindu kings of the ancient period of history were the followers of the scriptures and also the messages of the epics.  The Vedic Text talked of only two types of military force, infantry (patti) and chariotry (rathins).  The epics wanted this force to consist of infantry, chariotry, cavalry and elephantry. Not only this there was also a prescription for adding chariots, ships, spies, commissariat and scouts, a parallel of local scouts. This type of combination was called eight-limbed.   

            The army of Maharaja Porus consisted of infantry, chariots, cavalry and elephants.

            Further details are as follows

            According to Diodoros, Maharaja Porus had an army of 50, 000 foot soldiers, about 3,000 horses, above 1,000 chariots and 130 elephants.  His army acted under a unified command ,fought under one banner marked by the figure of God whom the Greeks called  Hercules, and who was  identified in India with Vishnu and Ganesha.

            The above strength of the army of the Maharaja was sufficient. Resources, men, ammunition, guidance of able commanders, were enough and there was proper cohesion and correlation among the various parts of the army.

            Further, the working of the army involved creation of a definite hierarchy of officers. Fifty horses and 10 elephants formed a squadron under the command of a padika.

            A company under a senapati consisted of 2,000 foot soldiers, 100 chariots, 500 horses and 100 elephants.   A regiment comprised 20,000 foot soldiers, 1,000 chariots, 5,000 horses and 1000 elephants.  They functioned under a general called nayaka.

            The entire infantry had a special officer called Pattyadhyaksa.  To keep such a force operative, a war-office, consisting of an elaborate bureaucratic set-up was also put in place and it was given adequate financial support to carry out its activities.  

            The infantry commanded by Maharaja Porus was the best, highly motivated and far superior to those of the infantry of other kings.  It was capable of campaigning on all kinds of terrain and in all kinds of weather. The personnel of this infantry carried big-sized bows as long as themselves.  Their arrows were nearly three yards in length and were tipped with bone or iron.  Their shorts were so irresistible that they succeeded in breaking even the shields, breastplates and other strong defences of the enemy.

The Chariots as Kautilya said in his writings were used for the protection of the army, repelling the enemy’s attacks, seizing and changing positions during operations, restoring broken arrays and columns, and breaking the compact lines of the enemy as also frightening and inspiring awe among the solders by their magnificence and sound. The standard dimension of each chariot was 7.5 feet in height and 9 feet in width.  

The cavalry of Maharaja Porus was mainly employed to supervise the discipline of the army, their alignment of columns and lines protection, etc. It gave preference to the horses of Sindhu, Kamboja and Balhika country. Archers frequently used these horses along with camels and elephants.

            The elephants of war of Maharaja Porus used to march in the front, moving without roads, shelters and landing places, penetrating through bushes and shrubs, breaking through the lines and columns of the enemy, setting fire to the enemy ‘s camp and quenching it in one’s own trunk ,  trampling and terrorizing the enemy as  also destroying  gates, towers, and ramparts.

            Historians tell us that from the time of the battle of Jhelum between Maharaja Porus and Alexander the Great in 326 B.C. to that of confrontation between Akbar’s general Munim Khan and the Pathan Sultan of Bengal Daud Khan Karrani, the charge of the elephants remained irresistible and the deciding factor in all these cases was the presence of elephants.  

                                    The Battle of Jhelum

            The Battle of Jhelum is the most important  event in the life history of our beloved Maharaja Porus who took pride in his ancient lineage, going back to the Vedic age.  It is unfortunate that his contemporary King Ambhi was not so loyal to his motherland as he was.  Ambhi, the King of Taxila, became a generous  host of the invader Alexander the Great and helped him in many ways which upset and embarrassed Maharaja Porus.

            It is rightly said by modern historians that if Ambhi and Maharaja Porus had put a united front against Alexander , the course of Indian history would have been different.  Indeed , It would have created  a lasting  milestone in the annals of Indian nationalism  as early as  those ancient times.

            Historians also highlight the fact that  Maharaja Porus was extraordinarily brave, had a majestic personality, was a true patriot who  could never think of letting the foreigner Alexander to claim sovereignty  over  his kingdom  because of his  (Alexander’s ) win-win past in other parts of the world.

                        As we have already noted Maharaja Porus had rejected the proposal sent by Alexander through his envoy Cleochares that he should  surrender and pay tribute to him as some other rulers of the Punjab had done.

                     The only result could therefore  be a fierce fight  between the two legendary heroes Alexander the Great and Maharaja Porus, a Sabharwal  Kshtriya who could not abandon his duty of fighting back  an aggressor and thus perform  his kingly dharma.

                        Though the  details given by the writers of ancient history about the outcome of the Battle of Jhelum differ, one fact is indisputable and that is the battle started in the month of May 326 B.C. and was not over before a period  of two weeks.

                        According to one account when Alexander learnt that the king of Abhisara was moving his forces to assist Maharaja Porus, he planned to stop him  and  deployed his troops on the right bank of the river  Jhelum where roaring waters of the river did not allow him to fulfil his plan. The same account further says that on the other side of the Jhelum Maharaja Porus  had strategically positioned his troops. He had resolved either to prevent Alexander from making the passage or to attack him when crossing.  As soon as Alexander came to know about this development, he sent back his men to knock down the boats to facilitate their transportation to the banks of the Jhelum where they were to be re-assembled to cross the river.

                        Initially, luck was not on the side of Alexander. Porus, in spite of standing alone amongst the cowardly compatriots, displayed rare determination to confront Alexander, the foreign invader, and did not bother about the consequences  of his combative resolve.

                       

 

 

According to Arrian,”  the army of Maharaja Porus consisted of 30,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry, 300 chariots and 200 elephants. The infantry was stationed in the centre and the elephants had been placed in front to form a sort of massive well overshadowing the flood of waters of the river. The cavalry protected the flanks, and in front of the horsemen were positioned the chariots. It presented too frightening a sight to the foreign incumbents to challenge the Indian army in a head-on collision.”        

                        V.A.Smith observes “ It was obvious that the horses of the cavalry, the army upon which the Macedonian commander placed his  reliance, could not be induced to clamber up the bank of a flooded river in the face of a host of elephants, and that some device for evading this difficulty had to be  sought.” The only  way out of this problem was a war of wits between the antagonists to out bid the other.

                        What followed was a blank period of no engagements between the armies of Alexander and Maharaja Porus. According to Arrian Alexander decided to steel a passage by making deceptive demonstrations of his army units in the main camp on the opposite side of the battle formations of Porus to keep them on their toes. Arrian further adds that Alexander also  camouflaged his intentions and movements by leaving a strong force under Krateros in the main camp and another with general Meleager midway between it and the place where the river was  to be crossed. Besides this, a large number of boats, duly tagged and roped  spread them on water to form an instant bridge, had also been moved to the site secretly. This strategy enabled Alexander to cross the river with about 11,000 selected horsemen by the bridge of boats unnoticed by Maharaja Porus.  

                        Maharaja Porus was amazed at this development. His son with a force of 2,000 horses and 120 chariots could not achieve any success and contrarily got overpowered. There was hardly any time available to Maharaja Porus to regroup his army for the final assault. Nature, too, was not on his side. . Rain harmed him by making the war field slippery, hindering the movements of men, horses, elephants and  of advance guards.

                        Several historians believe that  Maharaja Porus made the mistake of allowing Alexander’s soldiers to take the offensive with their superior cavalry. The Indian charioteers and horseman could not stand the onslaught of the mounted archers in the ranks of the Greeks. The Indian infantry could no t make an effective use of their formidable weapons  because the ground under their feet was slippery. No doubt that the elephants did for some time cause havoc in the enemy’s ranks, but a good many of them also  got maddened by wounds and trampled friends and foes alike.

                        The grandest scenario of this situation  was that Maharaja Porus did not pull himself out of the battle ground and kept on fighting on a mighty elephant until he got inflicted with a serious wound.

                        He was then produced before Alexander whom we will not call a victor  as he has been done in the past by many a writer, Indian as well Greek and  European. However we would like to reproduce here that famous dialogue in which Alexander asked Maharaja Porus how he would like to be treated and the Maharaja replied: As a King treats another King.

Alexander agreed and by treating the gallant Maharaja Porus generously gave him back his kingdom.

                        Ancient history tells us that after the battle of  Jhelum, Alexander conquered some petty principalities and tribal territories in the adjacent areas of the Pauravs.  He also went beyond the rivers Chenab and Ravi,and moved on to present Gurdaspur district, and the Beas river. One of the accounts says that he “erected twelve towering altars to mark the utmost limit of his march,. And then with a heavy heart retraced his steps to the Jhelum.”

                        While Alexander was returning to his native land there were skirmishes between his soldiers and the local tribes in which thousands of men lost their lives and a large number of women threw themselves into  flames in the style of the Rajputs who preferred death to dishonor and performed the ceremony,  which later on came to be known as Jauhar.

                        As nemesis would have it, Alexander himself got wounded during his assault on a powerful tribe of the Malwa region.  

                        A large part of Alexander’s tired soldiers started moving out of India through Afghanistan. Some treaded through the deserts of Baluchistan, and facing many hurdles reached Babylon. Some returned by the sea routé of the Tigris.

                        The end of Alexander’s life  was not far off. After returning to Babylon, he did not survive for a long time and breathed his last in 323 B.C. at the age of 32.

                        As a footnote, we would like to add that new researchers are finding some amazing facts which do not agree with the conventional ones but they are yet to be documented in text books.

                                                

Tuesday, 27 October 2020

ALEXANDER’S INVASION : SOME CRITCICAL COMMENTS BY HISTORIANS

 

ALEXANDER’S INVASION : SOME CRITCICAL COMMENTS BY HISTORIANS  

            The invasion of Alexander the Great, says Dr. R.C.Majumdar, has been recorded in minute details by the Greek historians who naturally felt elevated at the triumphant progress of their hero over unknown lands and seas. From the Indian point of view, its importance lies in the fact that it opened up a free intercourse between India and he western countries which was big with future consequences. For the rest there was nothing to distinguish his raid in history. It can hardly be called a great military success as the only military achievements to his credit were the conquest of petty tribes and States by instalments.           

             Dr. Majumdar further says Alexander never approached even within a measureable distance of what may be called the citadel of Indian military strength, and the exertions he had to make against  Porus,  the ruler of a small district between the Jhelum and the Chenab, do not certainly favour the hypothesis that he would have found it an easy task to subdue the mighty Nanda empire.

            Taking every thing  into consideration, contends Dr. Majumdar, a modern historian , unprejudiced by the halo of Greek name, may perhaps be excused for the belief that the majority of  the Greek writers did not tell the whole truth when they represented the retreat of Alexander as solely due to the unwillingness of his soldiers to proceed any further. No one can dismiss as altogether fictitious, the view recorded by more than one ancient Greek historian, that the retreat of Alexander was caused by the terror of the mighty power of the Nandas.  (Source :  Ancient India, pp, 101-102).

            In Hindu Civilisation (Pages 294-5), Dr. Radha Kumud Mukherjee   holds a slightly progressive view.   According to him Alexander’s invasion promoted the political unification of the country. Smaller states which were handicapped of unity were now merged into the larger ones, such as those of Paurava, Abhisara or Taxila.  These conditions were favourable for the rise of an Indian Empire to be shortly founded by Chandragupta.  

In Indian Historical Quarterly, (1940, P.559), Dr.R.S.Tripathi presents the view that the progress of Alexander’s armies in India was by no means easy or smooth. 

No doubt, some of the Indian potentates and autonomous communities bowed low before the blast. “but other fought bravely, and this coupled with the prospect of unending wars in India even created apprehensions in the minds of the Greek veterans who had blown off the mighty Persian forces almost like chaff.  

Nor did India, says Dr. Tripathi, plunge in thought again after the great meteor had flashed across her political skies and within a few years of Alexander’s departure and death in June 323 B.C. all vestiges of Greek occupations were destroyed and swept away.

                       

Distinguished historian Romila Thapar writes in her book “A History Of India “(Pages 61-62) that Alexander established a number of Greek settlements in the Punjab, none of which however survived as towns.  Probably the Greek settlers moved into neighbouring towns and became part of a floating Greek population in the north-west.  According to her the movement of the Greek army starting from mainland Greece, across western Asia and Iran to India, opened up and reinforced a number of trade routes between north-western Asia and Iran to India, opened up and reinforced a number of trade routes between north-western India via Afghanistan and Iran to Asia Minor and to the ports along the eastern Mediterranean.  This accelerated east-west trade and no doubt the Greek population in India must have had a large part in it.

According to this historian Alexander had overthrown the small kingdoms and republics of the north-west and his departure left a political vacuum.

Consequently, “not surprisingly, Chandragupta Maurya exploited this situation and swept all these little states into the Maurayan Empire. “         

           

            British historian Vincent Arthur Smith (Born Dublin 1848, Died 1920 Oxford,  United Kingdom) claims that Alexander broke down the wall of separation between West and East, opened up four distinct lines of communication, three by land and one by sea. The land routes, which proved to be practicable, were those through Kabul, the Mulla Pass in Baluchistan and Gedrosia Nearchos which demonstrated that the sea voyage round the coast t of Makran offered few difficulties  to sailors, once the necessary local information had been gained which he lacked.

             Smith also holds the view that the campaign of Alexander, although carefully designed to secure a permanent conquest, was in actual effect no more than a brilliantly successful raid on a gigantic scale, which left upon India no mark, save the horrid scars of bloody war.  India remained unchanged.  The wounds of battle were quickly healed; the ravaged fields smiled again as the patient oxen and no less patient husbandmen resumed their interrupted labours; and the places of slain myriads were filled by teeming swarms of population.

             Smith  forceully  denies that India was hellenised. “ She continued to live her life of splendid isolation, and forgot the passing of the Macedonian storm.”

            No Indian author, says Smith, whether Hindu, Buddhist or Jain makes even the faintest allusion to Alexander or his deeds. 

            Furthermore, Alexander stayed only nineteen months in India, and, however, far-reaching his plans may have been, it is manifestly impossible that during those few months of incessant conflict he should have founded Hellenstic institutions on a permanent basis, or materially affected the structure of Hindu polity and society.

             The only mark of Alexander’s direct influence on India, says Smith, is the existence of a few coins modelled in imitation of Greek types which were struck of Saubhuti (Sophytes), the chief of the Salt Range, whom Alexander subdued at the beginning of the voyage down the rivers.

            The source of the above-mentioned facts is Smith’s  writings including Early History of India, pages 117-8 and 252-3).      

            Paul Masson-Qursel and others state in their book “Ancient India and Indian Civilization, page 34) that the importance of Alexander’s Indian campaign has been both exaggerated and underestimated. They admit that this campaign had no decisive influence on the destiny of India, for its results were short-lived.  Yet the eight years of the Macedonian occupations opened an era of several centuries during which Hellenism was to be a factor not only of civilization but also of government on the western confines of the Indian world.

             These authors further claim that direct contact was established between the Mediterranean civilization and those of the Punjab and of Central Asia. Semitic Babylonia and the Persian Empire were no longer a screen between West and East. These are facts of immense consequence, not only to Greek or Indian history but also to the history of the world, which is the only real history.

                Finally, the opinion of H.G.Rowlinson recorded in his book A Short Cultural History, Page 62.  According to this author Alexander’s invasion had no immediate effect, and passed off like countless invasions, leaving the country almost undisturbed.

                 But Alexander, says Rowlinson, was not mere casual raider, like Tamerlane or Nadir Shah, intent on nothing but plunder. A pupil of Aristotle, he conceived it to be his mission to westernize the East. He came with historians and scientists to keep a careful record of his discoveries.  His work was indeed o be permanent.  At various points along his route, he established a chain of fortified posts, to keep open his communications.  Many of these survive today.  He meant Indus to be the great military and commercial highway of his Indian provinces and, had he lived, there is little doubt that a second Alexandria would have sprung up at its mouth and, in all probability, the Punjab would have been Hellenised like Asia Minor of Egypt.

                     According to Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru’s view in The Discovery of India Alexander’s invasion in the fourth century B.C. was, from a military point of view, a minor affair. It was more of a raid across the border, and not a very successful raid for him. He met with such stout resistance from a border chieftain that the contemplated advance into the heart of India had to be reconsidered.  If a small ruler on the frontier could fight thus, what of the larger and more powerful kingdoms further south? Probably this was the main reason why his army refused to march further and insisted on returning.                   

            We would like to tell our readers that the critical views of great historians presented above are based more on their vast study, extensive research, and deep scientific sense than on any personal bias or prejudice.

 We, therefore, find in their conclusions a greater dose of reality than that of fiction.

Halqa-e-tashngan-e-adab delhi 23 dec 2019

Monday, 26 October 2020

GHAZAL : 26TH OCTOBER 2020

 

GHAZAL : 26TH OCTOBER 2020

Zindagi hai mukhtasar, kuch tez chal

Keh rahi hai har dagar kuch tez chal

Har qadam par poochna achcha nahin

Khatm hoga kab safar, kuch tez chal

Apnay Paaon khud utha mat soch yeh

Kab milay ga rahbar, kuch tez chal

Aashi’an mera yahan se door hai

Door hai tera bhi ghar, kuch tez chal

Mangta hai kya falak se bar

Ab dua hai be-asar , kuch tez chal

Ho gaye thay band jo firdaus mai’n

Kholnay hai’n phir who dar, kuch tez chal

Hukm se jis ke Kanwal aaya that tu

Us ko deni hai khabar, kuch tez chal.

                        ----

GLOSSARY

1.      Mukhtasar: short. Kuch tez chal: walk a bit faster.

2.      Dagar: track; road; highway.

3.      Achcha nahin: not advisable.

4.      Paaon: steps . Utha: lift.

5.      Rahbar: guide.

6.      Aashi’an: nest; house; dwelling place; residence.

7.      Falak: sky; heaven. Metaphorically: providence, fate; fortune.

8.      Dua: prayer. Be-asar: ineffective; unaccepted.

9.      Firdaus: paradise; heaven. Dar: gates.

10.  Hukm: order; command.

11.  Us ko: Him; i.e. God. Khabar: information; report.

 

26.10.2020                                                                              DR. G. R. KANWAL

 

                                      ………….

REMEMBERING THE TRULY GREAT

REMEMBERING THE TRULY GREAT

A modern poet, Stephen Spender, has written a poem under the title “I THINK CONTINUALLY OF THOSE WHO WERE TRULY GREAT’.  He was born on 28th February 1909 at Kensington, United States and died on 16th July 1995, at Westminster, in the United Kingdom.

Spender was a left-wing writer who worked as a propagandist for the Republicans during the Civil War.

He held several prestigious posts as an academician in England and the United States. He also worked as a literary journalist and was co-editor of the magazine Horizon from 1939 to 1941 and of another popular magazine Encounter from 1953 to 1966.         

            Spender’s poetry reflects the essential tragedy of the human condition. By nature, he is a humanist who seeks social justice for the underprivileged. He writes passionately but less obscurely than his contemporaries.

Spender’s natural endeavour is to unite poetry with beauty. As was the fashion of the day, he uses current poetic symbols but without making them incomprehensible.

            Quite surprisingly, he changed his original views about communism in 1950 and brought out an anti-Communist collection of essays, The God That Failed, which upset the communists but uplifted the capitalists.

            In the poem under review, Spender uses the symbols of fire and sun. Whereas fire represents the power to destroy, purify, and rejuvenate, the sun symbolises life, learning, and light, besides inexhaustible energy and determination.  The truly great men, says Spender, possess these eternal qualities of fire and sun and use them to serve their respective societies. They never waver or slacken or allow obstacles to neglect their goals. They do not let their personal needs to suspend their self-imposed social tasks. Their ambitions and desires to serve their societies remain unchanged.

 Spender believes that such truly great men should be continually remembered because they are a perennial source of inspiration to others.

            What follows is the full text of the poem:  

I THINK continually of those who were truly great, /Who, from the womb, remembered the soul’s history/Through corridors of light where the hours are suns/Endless and singing. Whose lovely ambition/Was that their lips, still touched with fire, /Should  tell of the Spirit clothed from head to foot in song. /And who hoarded from the Spring branches/The desires falling across their bodies like blossoms.

What is precious is never to forget/The essential delight of the blood drawn from ageless springs/Breaking through rocks in worlds before earth, /Never to deny its pleasure in the morning simple light/Nor Its grave evening demand for love. Never to allow gradually the traffic to smother/With noise and fog the flowering of the spirit.

Near the snow, near the sun, in the highest fields/See how these names are feted by the waving grass/And by the streamers of white cloud/And whispers of wind in the listening sky. /The names of those who in their lives fought for life/Who wore at their hearts the fire’s centre. /Born of the sun they travelled a short while towards the sun, / And left the vivid air signed with their honour.            

                                                                        ---------------

26th October 2020                                                                              G. R. Kanwal

 


Sunday, 25 October 2020

THE Wit And Wisdom Of Alexander

 

                 THE Wit And Wisdom Of Alexander

          A few selected quotations which follow show the wit and wisdom of Alexander both as a man and warrior.  They are considerably philosophical and show the influence of his teacher Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) who was one of the distinguished philosophers of his time.  It is noteworthy that his philosophy of statecraft is unlikely to become obsolete for centuries to come.

            The first quotation in our list i.e. “I am indebted to my father for living, but to my teacher for living well.” Is a tribute to Aristotle.

1. There is nothing impossible to him who will try.

 2. Upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all.

3. But truly, if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes. (Diogenes, who was a Greek cynic philosopher was born in 412 0r 404 BC and died in 323 BC in Corinth, Greece).

 

4. Through every generation of the human race, there has been a constant war, a war with fear.  Those who have the courage to conquer it are made free and those who are conquered by it are made to suffer until they have the courage to defeat it, or death takes them.

5. An army of sheep led by a lion is better than an army of lions led by sheep.

6. For me every virtuous foreigner is a Greek and every evil Greek worse than a Barbarian.

7. A king does not kill messengers.

8. A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.

9. We of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war.

10. My treasure lies in my friends.

11. Glory crowns the deeds of those who expose themselves to toils and dangers.

12. Each moment free from fear makes a man immortal.

13. When we give someone our time, we actually give a portion of our life that we will never take back.

14. As for a limit to one’s labors, I for one do not recognize for a high-minded man, except that the labors themselves should lead to noble accomplishments.

15. There are no more worlds to conquer.