WHO WAS ALEXANDER?

WHO WAS ALEXANDER?

 

            The parentage of Alexander is slightly surrounded in mystery, yet historians have come to some consensus and recorded it, if not for experts, at least for lay readers.

            There is a Sanskrit couplet in The Mahabharata where Duryodhana tells Bhima: It is improper to enquire into the origin of warriors and rivers.

            Notwithstanding what has been said above, we learn from various sources that Alexander who is generally known as Alexander the Great was born on 20^th or 21^st July BC in Pella, Macedon, ancient Greece.  ei He isHHHHHe is thus also known as Alexander III of Macedon and a member of the Argead dynasty.

           

Alexander succeeded his Philip II to the throne when he was hardly 20 years old. Phillip II was polygamous, is said to have seven or eight wives, and  Alexander was the child of his favourite wife Olympias, the daughter of Neopptolemus I, ruler of Epirus.

According to the most distinguished biographer of the ancient Greece, he was a source of many historical and literary writings after renaissance, on the eve of the consummation of her marriage to Philip, Olympias had a dream which meant that her womb was “struck by thunder bolt that caused a flame to spread far and wide before dying away”.  Plutarch’s story goes a little further and reveals that sometime after his wedding, Philip had seen himself in a dream, securing his wife’s womb with a seal engraved with a lion’s image. 

            If Plutarch’s story is to be believed, then Alexander’s father will turn out to be not Philip Ii but Zeus, but the king of Greek gods who lived on Mount Olympus, and will give Alexander the tag of divine parentage, which present day rationalistic historians would strongly refuse to believe.

            An important point to be learnt about Alexander is his education.  It is undeniable that he was a pupil of Aristotle one of the greatest Greek philosophers whose contribution to world literature by way of his immortal book called Poetics is also great.  This book deals with the theory of poetry and drama and its contents are relevant at all times in the critical history of literature all over the globe.

            Alexander is supposed to have learnt in the academy of Aristotle subjects like religion, philosophy, morals, logic, medicine and art.  The text books which he studied during his tutelage were the works of Homer, particularly Iliad.

            If we study Aristotle’s theory of politics, we come to know that he believed in two vocations for a man, the vocation of a statesman and the vocation of a philosopher, which cannot be fused together because they reflect two different sides of human nature.  Both are respected, yet Aristotle places the life of activity above the life of contemplation.

            However, we find in Alexander the philosophy of Nietzsche who attacked the ethics of Christianity.  He called it a docile ethics, an ethics of humility, submission and surrender.  Nietzsche stood for force.  In the socio-political aspect this force manifests itself in the elimination of the weak and the survival of the strong. When the scales are turned, when the weak survive and the strong are eliminated, we get to what he calls a dysgenic spectacle which leads to the destruction of the world. He discusses the nature of two moralities, the slave-morality and the master-morality, and it is the master-morality for which he stands. Alexander was a believer in mustering force and using it as a warrior as far as he could in the countries of the ancient times.  He was ambitious for power, was a military genius, and knew how to defeat his opponents.

            Maharaja Porus was in no way unlike Alexander.  He, too, adhered to the theory of amassing force and using it for expanding his kingdom as far as the prevailing situations permitted. As he said to Alexander, he, too, was a king like him, bold and brave, having an invincible spirit. In the last scene of his encounter with Alexander he appears like an undefeated warrior, not a killed but a wounded lion.

 

KING PORUS FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM; A POETIC VIEW

KING PORUS FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM; A POETIC VIEW

Indian poet Michael Madhusudan Dutt looks at Maharaja Porus as a legendary freedom fighter of Inida.  A great scholar who was as good 

a writer in English and Persian as in his mother tongue Bengali.  Dutt was born on 25^th January 1824 in Jessore District of Bangladesh and passed away on June 29, 1873 in Kolkata.  He served as a teacher of English in Madras.  He was also known by his nickname Timothy Penpoem.

          Dutt was a revolutionary poet.  He had modernistic mindset, interested in throwing away some of the old social baggage which kept people superstitious and cowardly.  He was a great patriot and it is because o f this personal quality own that he profoundly  admires Maharaja Porus and calls him ---- A Legendary Hero --- in his poem entitled  King Porus.

          Dutt believes that Maharaja Porus fought for Freedom: “Loudly the midnight tempest sang. /Ah! It was thy dirge, fair Liberty!”

          The hero of Dutt’s poem is undoubtedly a valorous king.  Describing the invasion of Alexander and the readiness of Maharaja Porus to defend himself and his soldiers and territory, Dutt says:

          Then lion-king, each warrior brave

          Rushed on the coming foe,

          To strike for freedom – or the grave.

Thousands of soldiers lost their lives in this battle.  But, says Dutt, before the Macedonians driven’ fell India’s hardy sons,’ Proud mountain oaks by thunders driven, that for their country’s freedom bled – and made on gore their glorious bed!

How did Maharaja Porus conduct himself in this terribly destructive battle? According to Dutt: King Porus stood there dauntlessly, towering ‘midst the fore’, like a Himala-peak, with its eternal crown of snow, and on his brow did shine the jewell’d regal diadem.  His milk-white elephant was deck’d with many a brilliant gem.

Unfortunately Maharaja Porus got wounded and started bleeding. Alexander noticed it and quite generously ordered his men to “Desist-desist!” and also magnanimously exclaimed: “Such noble blood should not be shed!”

The words that follow hint at the beginning of peace and exemplary patriotism of Porus.  He stood, ‘midst the dying’ and the dead, boldly, undismayed: Says Dutt ‘Hail, brave and warlike prince!’ thy generous rival bids thee cease – behold! there flies the flag that lulls dread war, and wakens peace!”

Maharaja Porus is arrested but boldly appears at the place where ‘midst the gay and flittering crowd, sat god-like Alexander. Michael Madhusudan Dutt uses this scene to highlight the indomitable spirit of Porus that shunned slavery and made the strongest possible plea for freedom.  In Michael’s words: “While ‘round’ Earth’s mightiest monarchs bow’d, King Porus was no slave; he stooped not – bent not there his knee , but stood, as stands an oak in Himalayan majesty and when asked by Alexander how he should be treated, Porus replied: “As a King”.

          Modern India should be grateful to Michael Maduhusudan Dutt for interpreting the war between Porus and Alexander as India’s ancient war for freedom against a foreign invader.

                                                     

 

                                      

KINGSHIP IN ANCIENT INDIA

 

               KINGSHIP IN ANCIENT INDIA

There is no authentic account about the origin of kingship in ancient India.  There are several, nearly similar, theories but none of them can be taken as the final word. According to one theory there was no king and no government in the initial years of Krita Yuga.

          An interesting story goes like this: During the recurrent armed confrontations between the gods and demons, it was demons who unexceptionally turned out to be victorious.  To overcome this humiliating situation, they assembled and held long discussions after which they resolved that their defeats would not turn into victories until they had a king.  So they resolved to give this sovereign position to Indra in preference to Varuna who was also one of the aspirants.

          The upshot of this interesting story is that kingship originated as a military necessity, a presence during wars which were not infrequent in those days.

          The reading of Kautilya”s Arthashastra gives a different theory.  It says that during persistent anarchy, the people agreed to elect Manu Vaivasata as their king who by way of compensation could claim one-sixth of the produce of the soil and one-tenth of merchandise. 

          We find quite a few more stories about the origin of kingship or something like supreme authority in legal, social, moral, and administrative affairs.  There are also hints about the divine origin of kingship and thus their divine rights.  Jainism and Buddhism have their own views which cannot be contradicted in toto. What is undeniable is that kingship did originate in ancient India and kingdoms were ruled over by a succession of sovereigns.  One also finds the evidence of dynastic kingship in ancient times.

          Some historians have mentioned the coronation of kings, an occasion when the king took an oath to protect his people and work for their welfare with unquestionable integrity.  In case of violation of this oath, he could be dethroned.  Kingship was thus a dharma, a sacred trust, which must be honoured and fulfilled at all costs by the words and actions of the king.

          Though there are many concepts about the qualities of kings even in ancient times, one which is most appealing is the one which we find in Kautilya’s Arthashastra.

          According to this author whose theories and perceptions are still relevant to a considerable extent, a king must be a man of great merit.  First of all, he should be able to stick to his Dharma even in most trying times. Furthermore, he should be a man of vast knowledge, keen observation, sharp Intellect, strong memory, and able to do the right action at the right time , govern efficiently in critical times, lead the army and fight only when it is perfectly wise to fight and strive for peace when it is desirable to do so.  He should also keep his ears open for right advice of his ministers in any critical situation.    He must also be well-versed in religious texts, which are a storehouse of ethical values, and should know fully well how to control his Kama, Krodha and avarice. Haughtiness after victory or at any other time is forbidden for an ideal king. 

          One of the difficult but essential duties of a king was to play the role of not only a protector of his people but also as an expansionist of his territory.  Unlike today, there was no idea of aggression in those times and the conquered territory had not to be returned.  Kings, therefore, loved to enter the territories of other rulers and occupy their kingdoms with pride. Kautilya goes to the extent of saying that an ideal king should always remain engaged in expanding the boundaries of his kingdom.   

          As we shall see in coming chapters Maharaja Porus possessed all those qualities which Kautilya, like some of his contemporaries, enumerates in his immortal political textbook called Arthashastra.

                           

 

         

   

  

 

THE HERO IN HISTORY

 

THE HERO IN HISTORY

            History is undoubtedly replete with the stories of kings and warriors who are remembered as heroes and strike awe in our hearts whenever we read about their mighty adventures in which they demonstrated their skill and valour as warriors motivated by personal ambition or inspired by national aspirations. Some of them like Alexander the Great or Tamerlane wished to become world conquerors.

            In this context, Sidney Hook has an interesting view point.  According to

him no individual makes history de novo.  He is always limited by his times and his culture. energy and intelligence may be unique but what he wants and what he sets  himself to do , are rooted in what Hegel calls “objective mind”, and what anthropologists today call culture – the super-individual institutions of speech,  family, religion, art and science.

            In a sense the activities of the hero in history, like Maharaja Porus and Alexander the Great, must be understood not as the actions of an individual versus the environment but as the interactive operation of one aspect of a culture in relations to others. 

            The point to be noted is that the great man whom we call a hero can do only what his culture permits but ----and this is crucial - the culture permits of only one direction of development and there are no genuine alternatives.

Sidney Hook contends that there is a difference between what men, even great men called heroes, imagining they are doing and the objective meaning or significance of what they do.  The meanings of their acts must be understood primarily in terms of historical trends that have begun in the past, embrace the present and point to the future.  Moral righteousness before the stern deeds of history is the easy privilege of those who judge events one by one.  But it is an illusion of finite perspective.

            To say it briefly, the world-shattering deed or thought which testifies to the presence of greatness is possible only when the culture is prepared for it.

            Sidney Hook rightly believes that a great man is an “expression,” “a representative”,” a symbol,” “an instrument” of historical and social forces on whose currents he rides to renown and victory.  This critic of history goes on to add, “If we want to grasp the course and reason of his greatness, his biography or purely personal traits are relatively un-important.  It is to the society and culture of his times that we must turn.

            The present study on Maharaja Porus is based on the above-mentioned assertions and much more.

  DR G R KANWAL                      

MAHATMA GANDHI AS MORARJI DESAI KNEW HIM

 

 MAHATMA GANDHI AS MORARJI DESAI KNEW HIM

          Morarji Desai was born on 29^th February 1896 in Bhadeli, a small village, in the present Gujarat. He was the son of a Headmaster, began his schooling in his native village but completed his  education in Wilson College, University of Mumbai.  

He was the fourth Prime Minister of India from 24.3.1977 to 15.7.1979 as a leader of the newly formed Janata Party.  He was thus the first non-Congress Prime Minister of independent India.

The Government of India honoured him with its highest civilian award Bharat Ratna in 1991 and the Government of Pakistan with its similar highest award Nishan-e-Pakistan in 1990.

            Mr. Desai has devoted a special chapter to Gandhiji in his book The Story of My Life, Volume One (1974). In the very first paragraph of this chapter, he writes: When I met Mahatma Gandhi in November 1947 for the first time, I had the painful experience of seeing how ven a person like Gandhiji, who had almost achieved complete detachment, could feel, in the last year of his life, disappointment and frustration because of the neglect by, or indifference of, some of his colleagues.

            Later on, he writes, whenever we think of Gandhiji, a picture of majestic grandeur comes to us. There was nothing spectacular about his childhood and youth.  He was not considered a very cleaver student in school, nor did he shine particularly during his study of law. He, however adopted the principle of truth from childhood, and devotion to his parents was deeply rooted in his mind. As a result of these two attachments he became fearless and developed from an ordinary person into an extraordinary one.

Mr. Desai adds it was in South Africa that he found his true mission. It came to him with his bitter experience of the colour bar and racial discrimination prevalent there. He resolved to resist this and all other injustices. He organised the Indian population there and brought the instrument of Satyagraha into use for the first time. The work that he did there made him known and respected in India. Shri G. K. Gokhale (Indian political leader, 1866-1915) had then gone to South Africa and Gandhiji was humble enough to consider Gokhale his Guru.

                Mr. Desai believes that the unique manner in which Gandhiji led the national struggle in the peculiar circumstances of our country was drawn from the Puranas. Nobody had any specific idea as to how freedom was to be chieved. Many young men had adopted the terrorist methods, but there was not much chance of that movement succeeding or gathering strength. At the other extreme, some leaders thought of achieving Home Rule by sending appeals and submissions to the British authorities. This approach too did not seem promising. It was at this stage that Mahatma Gandhi stepped in with his message of Satyagraha. He created national awareness by organising satyagraha in Champaran and throughout the country against the Rowlatt Act. At the same time, he inspired many capable men like Pandit Motilal Nehru, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Dr. Ansari, Chittarajan Das, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Sarojini Naidu and others to rise to the occasion and become great leaders. Whereas all these people were potential leaders, it was Gandhiji who helped them realise their potential.

            According to Mr. Desai, Gandhiji did not want anything for himself, and believing   in selfless service led a simple life. Thus, he succeeded in moulding the lives of the people and making men from nothing.

He was deeply religious himself and believed in giving equal respect to all religions. He believed that the means adopted for achieving anything must be pure. His faith in truth and non-violence was so intense that he even attracted those who did not have much faith in these two principles. These people also accepted the purity of means as important.       

            According to Mr.Desai it was Gandhiji’s exemplary life that made a much larger and effective impression than any prophet before him was able to do so. Prophets and saints withdrew from the world, preached in a void, and were therefore unable to solve the daily problems of the people. But Gandhiji identified himself completely with the poor. He lived with the people and understood the ordinary man. He suggested a course of action only after he had tried it on himself. He never expected anybody to work beyond his capacity, though he did encourage them to try harder. This was the reason why the people considered him their father.

            Finally, says Mr. Desai, it is often said that Mahatma Gandhi’s thoughts and working methods have been totally forgotten and are not relevant. But this is a superficial judgement. Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings are based on eternal principles and are always useful. They can, therefore, never disappear from the world. The fact that he is acknowledged as the father of the nation is proof of his not being forgotten. And, if he is forgotten, the country will perish.

                                                            -----------

2^nd October 2020                                                                    G.R. Kanwal

                                                                       

God As Physician

 

God As Physician

Personally, I believe in the efficacy of both medication and meditation.  My conviction is that a sick body needs quick and effective medication to get rid of any organic malady and resume its normal functionality. There are multiple forms of medication, and one has to choose from amongst them according to one’s individual constitution. Medicine-less treatments like fasting, relaxing, walking, talking, singing, dancing, reading, writing, travelling, socialising is also effective in many cases.  Love, with all its varieties, is another drugless healer. Religiously, confession of one’s guilts and seeking pardon by repentance, purifies the mind which, in turn, throws out the physical causes of illness.

According to Lord Buddha the path that leads to the annihilation of suffering consists of right views, right decision right speech, right action, right living, right struggling, right thoughts and right meditation.            

I am motivated in choosing the title of this write-up by a song of Mira Bai, a 16^th century mystic poet and Bhakti saint of Rajasthan. She was a most passionate devotee of Lord Krishna and had decided to remain so since her very childhood. However, her boundless love for her divine Lord, had also wounded her heart on which no other physician than God Himself could put the soothing balm.

Her song, as translated into English (1935) , by a Gita Press author, Bankey Behari   reads as follows:

“O friend, I am mad with love: none knows my anguish. There, on the point of the pike lies my bed, how can I sleep! The bed of the Dear One is spread in heaven, how can I meet Him. Only he who has had a wound can understand the condition of the wounded, or else who has dealt the blow. Only a jeweller can know the secrets of a jeweller or else the jewel itself. Smitten with pain I roam about the forest, physician I have found none. The pain of Mira will vanish, O Lord when You act the physician.”  

My personal belief is that during any period of illness, more so in the current period of Corona pandemic, medication should be strengthened by meditation to achieve perfect   and speedy. After all, we are the children of God, and who, better than He, can relieve us from our physical, mental and emotional sufferings.

The very word ‘God’. says America clergy Henry Ward Beecher (1813-87), suggests care, kindness, goodness; and the idea of God in His infinity, is infinite care, infinite kindness, infinite goodness. -----We give God the name of good: it is only by shortening it that it becomes God.             

Let us, therefore, remember God, both when we are sick and healthy

                                    ----------

29^th September 2020                                                              G.R.Kanwal

 

GHAZAL : 22.9.2020

 

GHAZAL : 22.9.2020

Jo bhi aafat Zam’in pe aati hai

Apna paigham chod jaati hai

Umr ke aakhiri parao par

Be-khudi had se badhti jaati hai

Aas umeed ki har kashti

Mauj dar mauj dagmagati/digmagati hai

Din guzarta hai na-umeedi main

 Raat sapney naye dikhati hai

Aksar auqaat mai-kadai  ki faza/fiza

Tashnagi/tishnagi aur bhi badharti hai

Bam dar bam yun bhi hota hai

Dhoop hi dhoop chilchilati hai

Aaina dekhta hai ji bhar kar

Aisi surat jo muskrati hai

Rooh-e-tehzib har zamanay main

Peeth apni hi thapthapati hai

Jis ko sunta hai har faqir Kanwal

Woh sada aasman se aati hai

            ……………..

GLOSSARY

Aafat: Calamity, disaster, misfortune, catastrophe.

Paigham: Message, advice, warning.

Umr: life. Aakhiri: Last, final. Parao: Stage. Be-khudi: insensitiveness/rapture.

Aas umeed: Hope. Kashti: Boat.

Mauj dar mauj: Wave after wave. Dagmagati, digmagati: totters, staggers.

Na-umeedi: Disappointment; despair.

Aksar auqaat: Often, many a time. Mai-kadai: Bar, drinking house. Faza/fiza: place;environment.

Tashnagi/tishnagi: Thirst, desire, temptation.

Bam dar bam: Terrace after terrace; upper storey.

Ainah: Mirror. Ji bhar kar: To its heart’s content.

Rooh-e-tehzib: The soul of good breeding or polite, cultured behaviour.

Har zamanay main: In every age. Peeth thapthapana: Thump the back, encourage.

Sada: Voice.

                                                            ----------

 

22^nd September 2020                                                      Dr.G.R.Kanwal