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.
No comments:
Post a Comment