AN OLD WOMAN OF THE ROADS

  

AN OLD WOMAN OF THE ROADS

An Old Woman of the Roads is a famous poem by the Irish poet Padraic Colum, one of the pioneers of the Irish Literary Renaissance.

Born on 8^th December 1881 at Longford, Ireland, he expired on 11^th January 1972, at Enfield, United States.

The poem under review reminds one of thousands of men and women who spend their lifetime on roads because they have no self-owned houses wherein, they can live a comfortable life.

It is one thing to be without a house in your youth but quite another when you are old and your physical vitality is almost drained. Vagabonds, tramps and other such characters have a considerable ingrained liking for a wandering life day after day, night after night.  They face all sorts of hardships, even legal assaults, yet continue to live open spaces. In a poem that I once read; a vagabond looked at the bright side of his life. Being houseless, he was free from many cares and worries that are the fate of a householder.  

A house being a basic necessity of every human being, the question arises, why should any citizen be houseless? Who is responsible for this pitiable condition which causes a lot of pain and misery to such unfortunate citizens, especially in inclement weathers of extreme heat and cold, rains and storms?  Obviously, the answer is the country whose citizens they are.

Padraic Colum’s poem shows that the woman in question, is now old; she has passed her long life on the roads, where she did not have to engage herself in activities like clearing and sweeping hearth and floor; fixing on their shelf again her white and blue and speckled store, and be quiet at night beside the fire and by herself.  

   Contented as she is, she is not asking for a big house but a little one. In her old age, she is weary of mist and dark, and roads where there’s never a house or bush.

Strangely enough, she is not asking the powers that be to give her a little house of her own. She is praying to God on High, night and day, for a little house, out of the wind’s and the rain’s way.

The full text of Padraic Colum’s poem reads as follows:

O, TO have a little house!

To own the hearth and stool and all!

The heap’d-up sods upon the fire,

The pile of turf against the wall!

 

To have a clock with weights and chains

And pendulum swinging up and down!

A dresser filled with shining delph,

Speckled with white and blue and brown!

 

I could be busy all the day

Clearing and sweeping hearth and floor;

And fixing on their shelf again

My white and blue and speckled store!

 

I could be quiet there at night

Beside the fire and by myself,

Sure, of a bed and loth to leave

The ticking clock and the shining delph!

 

Och ! but I’m weary of mist and dark,

And roads where there’s never a house or bush,

And tired I am of bog and road

And the crying wind and the lonesome hush!

 

And I am praying to God on high,

And I am praying Him night and day,

For a little house ----- a house of my own-----

Out of the wind’s and rain’s way.

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

12^th October 2020                                                      G. R. KANWAL

 

 

A BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF PORUS-ALEXANDER WAR ENCOUNTER

 

A BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF PORUS-ALEXANDER WAR ENCOUNTER

                      One of the most reliable sources for information about a recorded event of history is a good encyclopaedia.  The reason is that the information printed therein is research-based.  It is also possible that a prestigious encyclopaedia is revised and updated as frequently as possible.  Another fact is that the information imparted by encyclopaedias is brief and to the point, yet it is comprehensive.

                     We are presenting here a short account of Porus-Alexander war encounter in ancient India.  Our main source is Encyclopaedia Britannica but also some other relevant sources.

                   It is rightly said that Porus was an Indian prince who ruled the region between the Jhelum and the Chenab rivers, now in West Punjab (Pakistan).  The names of these rivers in Greek are known as Hydaspes and Acesines respectively. 

                   The war encounter between Porus (Indian Puru) and Alexander (Indian Sikander) took place in 327-326 BCE.  This was preceded by the unwillingness of the neighbouring Raja Ambhi to face Alexander as a defender of his territory.  Porus being much braver and more true to his dharma as warrior, resisted the forward march of Alexander.

                   The comparison between the war power of Porus and that of Alexander shows that the elephants and infantry of Maharaja Porus were slow in their movements and were outmatched by Alexander’s mobile cavalry and mounted archers in the battle of the Jhelum.

Though Porus was only obviously defeated, Alexander was impressed by the combative techniques and spirit of Porus and by way of appreciation, he allowed Porus to retain his kingdom and probably also ceded some conquered areas to him.  “Thereafter, having become a supporter of Alexander, Porus held the position of a Macedonian subordinate ruler when he was assassinated, sometime between 321 and 325 BCE, by Eudemus, one of Alexander’s generals, after the death of Alexander.”

                   Another piece of information according to the above-mentioned source is that “not known in Indian sources, the name Porus has been conjecturally interpreted as standing for Paurava; i.e. the ruler of the Purus, a tribe known in that region from ancient Hindu Vedic times.”

                   Our readers should not take the information given above as Biblical truth.  It is just one of the several accounts about Porus-Alexander war encounter.

                   One fact however is universally taken as true and irrefutable and that is when asked after defeat how he should be treated by Alexander, Porus replied: “As one King treats another King”.

THE CONCEPT OF KINGSHIP IN THE MAHABHARATA

THE CONCEPT OF KINGSHIP IN THE MAHABHARATA  

                   There is no certainty as to when the war of the Mahabharata was fought.  However, a researcher Velandai Gopala Aiyer is said to have claimed in an article titled “The Date of the Mahabharata War” published in The Indian Review, Vol. II, January –December 19o1, that the Mahabharata war was fought out in or about 1190 B.C.

                   The great Indian seer Sri Aurobindo who himself was the author of an epic poem “Savitri” agreed with Mr. Aiyer.

                   However C. Rajagopalachari writes The Mahabharata was composed many thousand centuries ago.  He goes on to add that all the floating literature that was thought to be worth preserving, historical, geographical, legendary, political, theological and philosophical, of nearly thirty centuries found a place in it.

                   For our purpose it is enough to know that the war of the Mahabharata which lasted 18 days was fought long before the invasion of India by Alexander the Great.

                   The concept of Kingship is found in the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata.  It says nothing except truthfulness brings success to kings.  They should adopt straightforwardness in all actions.  Fate will not achieve their purpose.  Human endeavour is greater than fate. The best king is he in whose country, the people move about without fear, like sons in their father’s house. The king should always make arrangements for the security and maintenance of the poor, the helpless, the old and the widowed women.  Let there be no beggars and no thieves in the whole kingdom. First of all the King should conquer himself and then his enemies.

                   A king should build up his victory by means other than war; victory through war is the worst.  But if war becomes inevitable, the king must fight it out with all his might and main. 

                   Truthfulness is the eternal Dharma of a king.  It consists of thirteen forms.  They are: Truth-speaking, equanimity, self-control,  absence of jealousy, forbearance, sense of shame, endurance, freedom from spite,  renunciation, meditation, nobility, freedom from the effects of happiness and misery, constant mercifulness and non-injury.

                   It is doubtful whether the kings post-Mahabharata possessed all the qualities of kingship spelled out in The Mahabharata.  One can see in the pages of history books that many of them acted on the maxim: Everything is fair in love and war. Both Alexander and Porus had to follow the spirit of this maxim because new situations emerged and most of the kings became fashionably expansionists.   

A BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF PORUS-ALEXANDER WAR ENCOUNTER

 

A BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF PORUS-ALEXANDER WAR ENCOUNTER

                      One of the most reliable sources for information about a recorded event of history is a good encyclopaedia.  The reason is that the information printed therein is research-based.  It is also possible that a prestigious encyclopaedia is revised and updated as frequently as possible.  Another fact is that the information imparted by encyclopaedias is brief and to the point, yet it is comprehensive.

                     We are presenting here a short account of Porus-Alexander war encounter in ancient India.  Our main source is Encyclopaedia Britannica but also some other relevant sources.

                   It is rightly said that Porus was an Indian prince who ruled the region between the Jhelum and the Chenab rivers, now in West Punjab (Pakistan).  The names of these rivers in Greek are known as Hydaspes and Acesines respectively. 

                   The war encounter between Porus (Indian Puru) and Alexander (Indian Sikander) took place in 327-326 BCE.  This was preceded by the unwillingness of the neighbouring Raja Ambhi to face Alexander as a defender of his territory.  Porus being much braver and more true to his dharma as warrior, resisted the forward march of Alexander.

                   The comparison between the war power of Porus and that of Alexander shows that the elephants and infantry of Maharaja Porus were slow in their movements and were outmatched by Alexander’s mobile cavalry and mounted archers in the battle of the Jhelum.

Though Porus was only obviously defeated, Alexander was impressed by the combative techniques and spirit of Porus and by way of appreciation, he allowed Porus to retain his kingdom and probably also ceded some conquered areas to him.  “Thereafter, having become a supporter of Alexander, Porus held the position of a Macedonian subordinate ruler when he was assassinated, sometime between 321 and 325 BCE, by Eudemus, one of Alexander’s generals, after the death of Alexander.”

                   Another piece of information according to the above-mentioned source is that “not known in Indian sources, the name Porus has been conjecturally interpreted as standing for Paurava; i.e. the ruler of the Purus, a tribe known in that region from ancient Hindu Vedic times.”

                   Our readers should not take the information given above as Biblical truth.  It is just one of the several accounts about Porus-Alexander war encounter.

                   One fact however is universally taken as true and irrefutable and that is when asked after defeat how he should be treated by Alexander, Porus replied: “As one King treats another King”.

A KSHTRIYA MUST FIGHT

A KSHTRIYA MUST FIGHT

          Kshatriyas are among the four castes of Hinduism.  Other three are – Brahmins, Vaishyas and Shudras.  Brhamins are referred to as priestly class.  They are scholars and pedagogues who provide the services of teachers and mentors.  The duties of the Vaishyas are to work as agriculturalists , traders and businessmen. Shudras are ordained to work as labourers and service providers.

          Our concern here is about the duties of Kshatriyas also known as Khukrains. Summarily speaking, they are the ruling and the administrative class but more than that they are warriors whose main task is the defence of their  territory.

          It is in the Gita that we find that to fight is the dharma of a Kshtriya.  Here Arjuna, a member of the Pandavas clan, hesitates to fight against Kauravas because they also include his kith and kin.  To kill them will be against his will.  This hesitation is expressed before Lord Krishna who commands him to fight because the war before him is a just war against evil.  He warns him that if he refuses to fight this righteous war, then, shirking his duty, he will lose his reputation, he will incur sin.

          Lord Krishna also tells him that there is hardly any  difference between victory and defeat. If he dies fighting, he will win heaven; but if he conquers the enemy, he will, enjoy sovereignty of the earth; therefore he must not entertain any fear and  get determined to fight.

          Arjuna is further told that those who die lose only their bodies.  Their souls are ever the same, changeless and eternal.

          He is further told that he is a lucky man who gets an opportunity to engage himself in war against unjust enemies.  It is a blessing from God which must be welcomed. To miss the chance of fighting provided by this blessing is abominable and is unbecoming of a Kshatriya.

          The implication of this dialogue between Arjuna and Lord Krishna is that a Kshatriya is duty bound to fight according to the ethical code of his Varna.  Not only this he must raise his weapons with full fortitude and maximum might at his command.

          If we apply the crux of this dialogue to Maharaja Porus we realize that he was a true warrior according to the clan of Kshatriyas.

          

LIFE IS NOT AN EMPTY DRUM

LIFE IS NOT AN EMPTY DRUM

The American poet Henry Wordsworth Longfellow says in one of his  lyrics  A PSALM OF LIFE:  Tell me not in mournful numbers, /Life is but an empty dream! This great poet was born on 27h February 1807 at Portland in the United States and passed away on 24^th March 1882 at Cambridge in the same country.  

Writing about his poetic qualities, Arthur Compton-Rickett, the author of A History of English Literature (1940), says: Longfellow’s appeal lies chiefly in his intimate simplicity and the tender humanity. He does not deal with recondite aspects of human life, but with the universal emotions of love, pity, faith and hope. He adds: there is a direct and engaging friendliness and a sweet sanity of outlook that, though easily ridiculed, are matters of grateful remembrance.

The PSALM OF LIFE which is being reproduced here is undoubtedly a lyric of grateful remembrance.  It is one of most popular inspirational poems. The poet’s very statement in the beginning that he does not want to hear in mournful numbers that life is but an empty dream, sets the tone of the poem. To put it very briefly, this compact Psalm is the quintessence of many philosophies of illusion and reality, body and soul, contemplation and dynamism and the purpose of human life. 

As regards dreams, the American transcendentalist Frederick Henry Hedge (1805-1890) holds that dreaming is an act of pure imagination, attesting in all men a creative power, which, if it were available in waking, would make every man a Dante or a Shakespeare.

Longfellow believes that every individual can get motivated and inspired by the exemplary deeds of great men and like them leave behind footprints on the sands of time. What he needs is an outstanding model, and a marvellous ideal to encourage and animate him.

I don’t consider dreams as hollow bubbles on the watery surface of a river. They have massive substance in them. In fact, most of them are would-be realities for the times to come. The present is always the production of the dreams of the past,  and so is destined to be the future outcome of the dreams of the present.

The full text of the poem follows

:

                                                THE PSALM OF LIFE

TELL ME NOT, in mournful numbers,

Life is but an empty dream! ---

For the Soul is dead that slumbers,

And things are not what they seem.

 

Life is real! Life is earnest!

And the grave is not its goal;

Dust thou art, to dust returnest,

Was not spoken of the soul.

 

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,

Is our destined end or way;

But to act, that each to-morrow

Find us further than today.

 

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,

And our hearts, though stout and brave,

Still like, muffled drums, are beating

Funeral march to the grave.

 

In the world’s broad field of battle,

In the bivouac of Life,

Be not like dumb, driven cattle!

Be a hero in the strife!

 

Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant!

Let the dead Past bury its dead!

Act, ---act in the living Present!

Heart within and God o’erhead!

 

Lives of great men all remind us

We can our lives sublime,

And, departing, leave behind us

Footprints on the sands of time;

 

Footprints, that perhaps another,

Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,

A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,

Seeing, shall take heart again.

 

Let us then, be up and doing,

With a heart for any fate;

Still achieving, still pursuing,

Learn to labor and to wait.

 

                                    ---------

8th October 2020                                                  G. R. Kanwal  

FACT AND FICTION ABOUT ALEXANDER’S BRAVERY

FACT AND FICTION ABOUT ALEXANDER’S BRAVERY

                  

Plutarch and some other historians credit Alexander with incredible boldness and bravery, their modern analytical counterparts refuse to decorate him with supernatural powers.  They do admit that Alexander was extraordinarily brave even at the young age of  twenty and lived a life of warfare which brought glory to him and this brave warrior never  swerved at  any time from his plan of universal extension of his dominions.

Given below is a fragment  of the poem entitled Alexander’s Feast written by the British  poet John Dryden  (Born 9^th August 1631; Died 12^th May 1700). Here Dryden does mention Alexander’s god-like status among  his contemporary warriors.  The theme of the poem is the celebration of Alexander’s victory over Persia.

“Twas at the royal feat for Persia won

By Philip’s warlike son-----

Aloft in awful slate

The godlike hero sate

On his imperial throne;

His valiant peers were placed around,

Their brows with roses and with myrtles bound

(So should desert in arms be crown’d);

The lovely Thais by his side

Sate like a blooming eastern bride

In flower of youth and beauty’s pride:-

Happy, happy, happy pair!

None but the brave 

None but the brave

None but the brave deserves the fair!

 

Timotheus placed on high

Amid the tuneful quire

            With flying fingers touch’d the lyre:

The trembling notes ascend the sky

            And heavenly joys inspire.

            The song began from Jove

            Who left his blissful seats above----

            Such is the power of mighty love!

            A dragon’s fiery form belied the god;

            Sublime on radiant spires he rode

            When he to fair Olympia prest,

And while he sought her snowy breast

            Then round her slender waist he curl’s,

            And stamp’d an image of himself, a sovereign of the world.

            ---The listening crowd admire the lofty sound!

A present deity! the vaulted roofs   rebound!

With ravish’d ears

The monarch hears,

Assumes the god;

Affects to nod

And seems to shake the spheres.