भारतीय इतिहास के ६ स्वर्णिम पृष्ठ (वीर सावरकर - विदेशी आक्रान्ताओं पर विजय गाथा)

army, his immutable decision to cross the Vyas, conquer the Youdheyas and march straight off to Magadha. This obstinate declaration of Alexander roused a great furore and rage amongst the already war-weary army, even amongst the veterans! The Greek soldiers secretly began to pass resolutions, group-by-group, to refuse straightaway to go ahead. In spite of the fact that they had been considering Alexander unconquerable and the son of God Zeus, they were extremely disgusted with his lust for power. No sooner did Alexander smell of this dissatisfaction amongst his soldiers, than he delivered an inspiring speech. Alexander’s Speech to His Army 41A. “On seeing that you, O Macedonians and allies, no longer follow me into dangers with your wonted alacrity, I have summoned you to this assembly that I may either persuade you to go farther or to be persuaded by you to turn back if we have driven the Scythians back into their deserts, and if besides the Indus, Hydaspes, Akesines and Hydraotes flow through the territories that are ours, why should you hesitate to pass the Hyphasis also? Are you afraid? 41B. “For my part, I think that to a man of spirit, there is no other aim and end of his labours except the labours themselves. 41C. “But if any one wishes to know the limits of the present warfare, let him understand that the river Ganges and the Eastern sea are now at no great distance off.... 41D. “But if we turn back, many warlike nations extending beyond the Hyphasisto Eastern sea and many others lying northwards between these and Hyrkania, to say nothing of their neighbours, the Scythian tribes, will be left behind us unconquered, so that if we turn back, there is cause to fear lest the conquered nations, as yet wavering in their fidelity, may be instigated to revolt by those who are still independent. O Macedonians and allies! glory crowns the deeds of those who expose themselves to toils and dangers. 41E. “Such of you wish to return home I shall send back to your own country, or even myself will lead you back.” 41F. According to Smith, “He (Alexander) recited the glories of their wondrous conquests from Hellespont to Hyphasis and promised them the dominion and riches of all Asia. But glowing words fell on unwilling ears and were received with painful silence, which remained unbroken for a long time.” (P. 79)

42. But the effect of his inspiring speech was contrary to his expectations. As it was now amply clear from the very lips of Alexander that they would be required to fight more sanguinary wars of attrition, they were scared to the marrow. Dr. Jayswal writes in his Hindu Polity, “The Greek army refused to move an inch forward against the nations, whose very name, according to Alexander, struck his soldiers with terror.”
43. Alexander was extremely enraged to see that his soldiers disobeyed him by flatly refusing to cross the Vyas in order to save all further trouble, because they were thoroughly exhausted and afraid to fight immediately, without any rest. But Alexander was as cunning as he was brave. Apprehending danger, Alexander refrained from doing any thing rash in a fit of anger, and straightaway walked off into his tent in utter despair. He stopped talking to anybody. He did not show himself outside his tent for three consecutive days. Then he thoughtfully hatched a new plan in his mind. He, thereafter, gathered the whole of the Greek army and told them that he had given up the plan of crossing the Vyas. He said, “I have now decided to go back to Greece.” This statement naturally elated the rank and file of his army. Alexander then asked, “But how are we to go back? If we turn our backs straightaway and go to Greece by the same route as we came along, all this Indian territory we have conquered would rise in revolt, thinking that we are stricken with terror. So instead of turning our back straight off towards the land route to Greece, we should better go a little obliquely to the sea along the banks of the Indus and then return to Persia along the sea-route. Next time when we shall come again to India, we shall conquer the Indian states beyond the Ganges and accomplish our conquest of India.”
44. True it is that Alexander said “When once again we shall come to India’—“But O Greek Captain General, once again! Truly! But when? Let alone the kingdoms beyond the Ganges, but if these very states that you have conquered today were to renounce the yoke of your sovereignty and become independent, then? Nay, even before that next time you mentioned, if you yourself were to be no more, then...? Even the race of Zeus can succumb to the ravages of time, may it then belong to Greece.”
45. If those Indian Gymnosophists, ascetics and recluses have ridiculed Alexander’s threat of coming back again to India in some such manner, it could never have been out of place. Alexander’s Retreat

46. However loudly and pompously Alexander might have swaggered with his mouth, the fact remains that the Greek soldiers took a fright of the Youdheyas and others beyond the Vyas and, hence, Alexander could not dare cross that river! Indian valour had taken the conceit out of the haughty spirit of the advancing Greek army, and so they had to strike a retreat. Alexander did not retire willingly. The Greeks proved to be powerless before the Indians, and, hence, was this ignoble retreat! To hide this simple fact, the Greek and European historians write, “Had he but crossed the Vyas, Alexander would have defeated not only the Youdheyas but the Magadha empire also. The Youdheyas and the Magadhas had never actually defeated the Greek army of Alexander on the open battlefield. These boastful ‘ifs’ and ‘whens’ can be answered most aptly on behalf of the valorous Indian Youdheyas in some such way: का कथा बाण संधाने ज्या शब्देनैव दूरतः। हुंकारेणैव धनुषः सहि विघ्नान्यपोहति॥ —Kalidas Shakuntalam, Act 3 Shloka 1 (“Why fight with an enemy who flees away at the mere twang of our bow.”)
47. Again, this typical itch of the Greek army for fighting in the open field was to be allayed for ever by the Indian military strength a little later! Soon Chandragupta was to make his entry on the military stage of India. Wait a bit, O you, reader! Alexander builds a powerful Navy
48. Soon after his retreat from the Vyas, Alexander had five to six hundred warships built in order to make his way to the sea along the course of the Indus. Embarking thousands of his well-equipped warriors on these warships, he began to march off to the sea through the river. About the commencement of this voyage of Alexander along the waters of the Indus, arrived the two fresh regiments of forces, ordered from Babylon and Greece. Naturally, the heretofore war-weary and rebellious Greek soldiers of Alexander were cheered up once more.
49. But while Alexander was making his way towards the sea after striking an ‘honourable’ retreat from the Vyas, a very great political conspiracy began to shape itself most secretly throughout the Greek-trodden Indian territory from the banks of the Vyas right up to Gandhar. But of that conspiracy, we shall have occasion to speak in a more detailed way a little

later. Here, it should suffice to say that the Indian republics along both the banks of the Indus, whether big or small—made light of Alexander’s threat to come again to conquer India as nothing more than a pompous political stunt, and prepared grimly to oppose his forces, as severely and as stubbornly as possible. But alas! it was a decision taken separately by each particular republic. It was not a well-organized, united effort, under a central authority to destroy the Greeks under Alexander. Hence, the same story of Gandhar and Panchanad was repeated here, and the well-organized army of Alexander, with its superior numbers, could successfully fight each Indian republic and go ahead. Even if these stray battles with various Indian armies did not fail to exhaust and weaken Alexander’s forces, they could not crush him completely. There were, of course, some exceptions to these separatist war efforts. Of them at least two, which even the hostile Greek historians praise wholeheartedly, and which gave such a severe blow to Alexander, deserve a brief mention here. The Republics of the Malavas and the Shudrakas 50. The two republics led their separate lives along the banks of the Indus. Both were rich, brave democracies with a high sense of honour. Of the two, Malava republic was the more famous from the ancient times and was quite extensive. These two republics had at times been hostile to each other. But when they saw Alexander’s powerful navy went on defeating every single Indian state in various battles and kept on forging its way to the sea, the political leaders of both these republics decided to correct the mistake of those several Indian democracies that fought singly with a vastly superior enemy, a mistake that was proving fatal to their wider national interests. So, instead of fighting the Greek army singly, they decided to amalgamate their fighting forces under a unified control. Not only did they unite their men at arms, but they intermarried in order to bring about political and social unity among them. For the intermingling of castes and blood, they had a great collective marriage ceremony, wherein at least a thousand girls from both the ‘Ganas’ (republics) were inter-married to the youths of the other republic. 51. While this unified army of the Malava-Shudrak republics was fighting tooth and nail with the Greeks, Alexander laid siege to one of their important cities. Although the name of this city cannot be ascertained positively, it must have been some capital city or one of similar importance. As this republican city kept on fighting desperately, the Greek siege had to

be prolonged. The haughty Alexander could not bear it. He thought of ordering the ladders to be put up on the ramparts of the enemy stronghold, and commanding his Greek soldiers to climb them up and straightaway storm the city. 52. But the same sort of unrest and disaffection against Alexander began to be seen in his army, as was once experienced at the time of the crossing of the Vyas. The Greek army was avowedly wending its way homeward in order to avoid new wars. But all along the bank of the Indus, they had to fight fresh battles. And they knew that unless Alexander gave up his aggressive designs calculated to pacify his unsatiable lust for conquests, brutal wars were unavoidable. Because of this bitter war with the Malava- Shudrak combined forces, the Greek discontent reached the climax and there were rebellious whispers openly flouting Alexander’s commands. 52A. When the Macedonian soldiers found that they had still on hand a fresh war in which the most war-like nations (गणs) would be their antagonists, they were struck with unexpected terror and began again to upbraid the King in the language of sedition. (Curtius Bk. IX Ch.IV. as quoted in ‘Hindu Polity’) {Mc Crindle I.L. by Alexander P. 234). 53. Still, in the end, Alexander promulgated his command to his soldiers to climb up the ladders and leap straight into the enemy stronghold, which valiantly defied the Greek siege. Seeing that his Greek soldiers hesitated to undertake the daring feat, that exceptionally valiant commander of the Greeks, the mighty Alexander, himself began to climb one of the ladders put up against the ramparts of the stronghold. At this, the whole Macedonian army was suddenly inspired to do the great deed, and all began to climb instantaneously. Once at the top of the ramparts, Alexander straightaway jumped down in the midst of the enemy and there ensued a hand-to-hand fight between the Indian and the Greek forces. And Suddenly 54. And suddenly an Indian warrior took out an envenomed arrow from his sheath and applied it to his bowstring, and let it fly with an unmistakable aim at the place where Alexander stood edging on his warriors, and shining in his golden helmet. 55. It was not an arrow, it was, in fact, Indian revenge incarnate. To use the lines of poet Moropant (with a slight variation of course) we can say— तो शर गरधरवरसा पविसा रविसा स्मरारिसायकसा।

म्लेंच्छ हृदंतरि घुसिला वल्मीका माजि नागनायकसा ॥ (with apologies to Moropant आर्याभारत-कर्णपर्व) Alexander Rolled into a pool of Blood 56. The shaft of the Indian warrior unmistakably pierced the heart of Alexander, and suddenly the emperor rolled down unconscious. A Greek soldier immediately covered him with his shield. There was a sudden hue and cry in the Greek ranks that Alexander had been wounded, that he had fallen unconscious. With exceptional daring, the Greeks lifted him from the pool of blood and carried him safely to his camp. There, with great difficulty that terrible shaft of the Indian warrior was extricated. The Greeks heaved a sigh of relief when after a long time of patient nursing, Alexander gradually regained consciousness. It took several days for the wound to heal up. During all this time, Alexander was confined to bed. 57. But everywhere in Babylon and Greece the news that was received, reported that Alexander was killed in the war by an Indian arrow. Consequently, there were some uprisings in Gandhar and Persia. But later on, when it was known that Alexander was only severely wounded and was now recovering, the situation came to normalcy. 58. No wonder whatsoever, if the news of Alexander’s having fainted by a bowshot was greeted cheerfully throughout the Malava-Shudrak republic. Alexander was so much puffed up with pride when King Pourav (Poros) was wounded in the battle, that he circulated a new coin with a picture showing his fall stamped on it. The coin is still to be seen as a mark of his vanity. That insult inflicted on India was fully avenged by the Indian arrow, which sent the Greek emperor rolling down on the battlefield in pools of blood. The Ionian Emperor, Alexander, who unjustifiably shed Indian blood, was made to atone for it personally by the shedding of his blood. 59. The Malava-Shudrak republic too should have stamped on some golden coin the picture of Alexander, fallen in a pool of blood with an arrow deeply thrust into his chest. Possibly they did. 60. According to his cruel military code, he had been cruelly rushing down the states, which had opposed him. But whenever there appeared any foe, who was equally strong and who retaliated furiously, Alexander had the cunning to dissemble nobility and frankness of heart. When he recovered from his wound, he began to make overtures of peace to the commanders of

the Malava-Shudrak army, instead of dictating his usual arrogant terms. For ceasefire talks, a hundred representatives of the joint Malava-Shudrak republic were elected, and for them, Alexander held a grand reception ceremony in his camp. Detailed and very entertaining descriptions of this reception are available in the books of Greek historians. But for want of space, we have to satisfy ourselves with a brief reference to it. The hundred representatives were, even according to the Greek standards, of uncommon height, heavily built, having handsome muscular bodies. They were clad in valuable embroidered clothes and had worn beautiful ornaments of gold and pearls and precious stones. Everyone of them went to the Greek camp in his well-decorated and well-equipped golden chariot. They had with them elephants, too, with costly and beautiful outfits. The Greeks had always felt a special fascination for the elephants. 61. Although rankling in his mind was the fact that these very representatives of the Malava-Shudrak joint republic had brought upon him, a little while ago, a mortal danger, Alexander showed his magnanimity in that reception ceremony and paraded his own imperial splendour. For every one of those hundred representatives, there was a special golden seat. The banquet given in their honour was attended with costly wines and excellent savoury dishes. The grand banquet was followed by various field games and tournaments, music and dancing. In the end, a treaty was signed by the Malava-Shudrak representatives and Alexander. 62. The divergent accounts given about this treaty by various Greek writers of the time have, at least, this much in common to tell. The Greeks and the Indians had jointly agreed to put a stop to their hostilities and that the Malava-Shudrak republic was not to cause any harassment to the retreating army of Alexander, while it was progressing on its way home along the Indus. Of these, two valiant republics, the Malavas will be referred to later on, when I shall be describing the wars with the Sakas, the Yucchis and other Mlenchha powers. The fact that this Malava republic had been prosperous and strong for many centuries to come, therefore, need not be specially proved. 63. Even the Greek writers could not help recording some more acts of valour during the Indian resistance to the Greek onslaught, although the details of the time and place of their happenings are not available. Two of them are cited here to serve as specimens. The Treacherous attack of Greeks on Masaga Tribe

64. At Masaga, Alexander captured a small armed community of seven thousand, which included several women. Alexander promised them their lives on condition that they should join his army and fight with his Indian enemies, or else, he threatened them with wholesale man-slaughter, or, as a third alternative he said, he would carry them off as slaves! The leaders of the community agreed to his first proposal, but requested that they should be allowed one night for mutual exchange of views. Alexander agreed. Thereupon, these seven thousand Indians marched towards a hill, some nine miles ahead of the Greek camp. Writes Vincent Smith, “The Indians being unwilling to aid the foreigners in the subjugation of their countrymen desired to evade the unwelcome obligation.” So, they decided to give the slip to the Greeks, but Alexander came to know of their intention. So, while they were sleeping for a little rest, Alexander fell upon them, all of a sudden, with his huge army and began to cut down eveyone. There was a great havoc amongst those Indians. But within a short time, they drew up their swords and other weapons. They made a hollow circular formation, gathering the women and children inside it, and faced the Greek attack most heroically. A good number of women were also found desperately fighting with the foe. Till almost all of them were killed, they kept on fighting for the freedom of their nation. 64A. “The gallant defenders met a glorious death they would have disclaimed to exchange for a life with dishonour.” (Early History of India by Vincent Smith 1924, p. 59) The Agrashrenis
65. This little Indian republic of the Agrashrenis too, instead of surrendering, fought to the last with the vast Greek navy of Alexander, as it was making its headway to the sea through the course of the Indus. When the Greeks attacked their very capital, these brave Indian warriors erected blockades and barricades at different intervals, and fought every inch of their ground so tenaciously that Alexander could not enter the city before he had sacrificed many Greek lives. According to Curtius, “When those brave fellows could not further resist the odds, they (the Agrashrenis) set their houses on fire, and their wives and children and all threw themselves into the flames!” That is to say, they ‘made johar’ (to use a latter day phraseology). This is the Aame Johar!—Jai Har!!

66. We generally believe that this magnificent and awe-inspiring tradition of ‘johar’ or self-immolation of large groups of men and women in times of national crisis was originally practised by the Rajputs only. But instances like the one just mentioned, cited by the Greek writers who were astounded to witness them, go to prove that even before the name of the Rajputs was ever heard of, this splendid tradition was followed by our Indian warriors right from the ancient days. The word ‘johar’ is comparatively modern. It was perhaps derived from the war cry ‘Jai Har’! The Indian God of war and destruction is Har, Har, Mahadev! That is why, the Indians fought desperately, inspired by this deafening war cry! The Marathas too used the same war cry ‘Har, Har, Mahadev!’ After fighting to the last, when every hope of success was over, or every chance of escape from the enemy was lost, this johar, this martyrdom, this noblest type of self-sacrifice was resorted to by the Hindus as the last unfailing weapon to save their religion, their nation, their own self-respect and to avoid captivity, abject slavery and hateful conversion! As soon as all men of fighting age were slain on the battlefield after taking the greatest toll of the enemy blood, their wives, mothers, daughters, hundreds of them, with babies at their breasts, used to leap into the burning pyres, specially kept ready for the purpose and were reduced to ashes. This was what was known as ‘Johar’! It was not an easy job! It was the limit of valour and endurance for the sake of keeping up the prestige of one’s self and one’s own religion!
67. Whoever had donned this exceptional armour of ‘Johar’ and its leaping flames were beyond all attempts of an Alexander, an Alla-ud-Din or a Salim-why, even of Satan himself—to pollute them and convert them to his religion! Confronted with this horrible sacrificial fire, the enemy stood aghast, discomfited and crestfallen.
68. The above-mentioned ‘Johar’—collective immolation of lives—by the Agrashrenis is one of the many described by the astounded Greek writers, which the Indians preferred to the humiliation of being the captives of the Greeks. The Janapad Republic of Brahmanakas!
69. At last, when Alexander’s naval force reached the mouth of the Indus, fighting incessantly all the way, it met with yet other independent republics. These ‘janapadas’ or ‘Ganas’ were like the small Greek city-states, and had none amongst them, which could ably withstand with equal numbers, the mighty and numerous army of Alexander. Still one of them, the

‘Brahmanak janapad’ made up its mind to cross swords with, rather than submit to Alexander. This was the same ‘Brahmanak janapad’, that is referred to by Panini, says Dr. Jayaswal. It is already told how, while fighting in the Panchanad (the Punjab) Alexander had wreaked his rancorous revenge against the clan of philosophers, especially the Brahmins. When Alexander learnt that it was the same clan of Brahmins, this small state belonged to, he decided to whack his malicious stroke upon it with all his might. Plutarch (McCrindle ‘Invasion of India by Alexander’ p. 306; V.A. Smith E.H.I. p. 106) writes in his ‘Life of Alexander’, “These philosophers were specially marked down for revenge by Alexander as they gave him no less trouble than the mercenaries. They reviled the princes who declared for Alexander and encouraged free states (in India) to revolt against his authority. On this account, he hanged many of them”. (ChLIX) 69A. That little ‘Janapad’ too fought to the last with these Greeks for the sake of its national honour and independence. Pattanprastha 70. What now is called by the Muslims, Sindh Hyderabad, was at that time known as Pattanprastha. In Sanskrit language, the cities along the seashore, or at the mouths of rivers, were mostly called ‘Pattan’. Pattan is equivalent to the English word ‘port’. Perhaps the English word ‘port’ might have been a corruption of the Sanskrit ‘Pattan’. When Alexander neared the sea, this small state of Pattranprastha was confronted with a dilemma: to surrender to the enemy was most hateful to the ‘Pattanprasthis’, but they knew fully well that they would never be able to fight with the powerful Greek army on equal ground. So they resolved the dilemma by forsaking, collectively their native country, their homes and landed property and motherland with sad hearts. Alexander’s Homeward Voyage 71. That part of the ocean, where the Indus flows into it, should really be called Sindhusagar. Sindhusagar, a name for the sea to the west of India, is a fitting counterpart for the Gangasagar, a traditional name for the eastern sea. 72. On first reaching the sea, Alexander divided his army into two parts. The first batch he sent back to Iran (Persia) by a land route through what now goes by the name of Baluchistan. The whole of Alexander’s army had been thoroughly exhausted in this expedition to India. Moreover, Baluchistan at that time, was full of impregnable forests, thoroughly unknown to the Greeks. So, the Greek division, sent this way, somehow

reached Persia, after so many hazards and privations. On the other hand, Alexander himself set sail by the sea-route with another division of his army, and reached Persia. As the whole of the old Persian Empire had now formed a part of Alexander’s greater demesne, he went to his capital, namely Babylon. But he did not return to the capital in that same triumphant spirit he had started on his Indian campaign two years ago, with a view to winning for himself the vauntful title of the Emperor of India. Not only did he not return like the Emperor of India, he did not even appear to be an emperor at all. He returned just like an ordinary commander of an army, despaired and worn out, after a long-drawn and hazardous campaign. India was not Persia 73. The cause of this disappointment of Alexander was that the Greeks up to that time, knew only one empire worth the name—much more extensive than their own—that of Persia! When these Greeks marched upon that Persian emipre under their uncommonly brave and brilliant commander, Alexander, and when after only two or three campaigns the vast Persian empire fell before them like a paper palace, they were so much flushed with their victory, that they fondly considered their commander to be endowed with divine qualities, and as such unconquerable. Alexander himself could not escape the infection of pride. His ambition to win for himself the overlordship of the whole world soared to the sky. Bharat appeared to him just next to and as easy a prey as, Persia. So very vast a land and so very weak! So, he wanted to crown his Persian conquest with the glittering diadem of the Indian imperial authority. Greedily enough, he ran to have it with all haste. 74. But the experience he had was quite contrary to what he had expected. In India, he had to face the bitterest opposition at every step. Although he never lost a battle as such, his Greek army was completely exhausted and exasperated in the very process of winning them. These victories were far too costlier than the ones in Persia, and all their vauntful declarations of conquering India as easily as Persia proved to be empty words ‘full of sound and fury signifying nothing‘. And in the end, he had to return with the acquisition of only a small all of land along the Indus river. 75. Thus was Alexander disappointed and to a certain extent insulted. But that valiant emperor was not downcast. He was itching to return once again to India after stabilizing things in the newly conquered regions of India and

annexing them permanently to his vast empire like those of Syria, Persia, Babylon and others. 76. Alexander declared the annexation of the region from Hindukush and Gandhar to Taxila (Takshashila), half of the Panchanad up to the river Vyas, and that from the confluene of the Vitasta with the Indus to the sea. He appointed the Indian King Ambuj or Ambhi of Taxila his governor (satrap) of the Hindukush region, and King Porus as his governor of the Panchanad. To the third but narrow strip of land along the Indus were appointed his two trusted Greek generals, Philip and Nicanor, under whom he placed the mobile force of Greeks. He established in India some townships too, one of which was Alexandria in the direction of Taxila. Alexander’s Death 77. Before Alexander decided to stabilize things in the Indian territory he had recently captured, he learnt that the local democratic institutions refused to accept his overlordship. Even while Alexander was in Sind, he received intelligence of a revolt by the Indian subjects in Gandhar. He was about to send a fresh and large Greek army to Gandhar. But in quick succession followed another disturbing news of a fresh conspiracy being hatched in Punjab (Panchanad) to overthrow Alexander completely. But Alexander could at that time do nothing to thwart any such attempts at revolt. During his campaign against India not only his army but he himself was completely exhausted. To add to it, his addiction to drinking had grown beyond all limits of safety; he suddenly took ill and died in B.C. 323. That is to say, hardly within a-year-and-a-half of his return from India with all his army, the great Greek (Macedonian) Emperor breathed his last at Babylon. Indian Politicians Conspire 78. As has already been told, as soon as Alexander began to retreat along the Indus, some of the Indian politicians began hatching out a secret plan against the Greeks in Punjab to win back their lost freedom. But it was not merely aimed at the recovery of the lost territory. It was essentially to overhaul and revolutionize the whole gamut of the political life of India and to bring about a sweeping change in the internal life of the country. Even if Alexander had not died so soon, the deep-laid Indian plot was destined to achieve this daring political revolution. This sudden death of Alexander, however, gave Indian political workers an unexpected golden opportunity

and they were quick enough to utilize it, for the overthrow of the Greek power. Greek Governors Beheaded 79. Alexander had left behind Nicanor and Philip as the chief representatives of Greeks. When the news of Alexander’s death reached India, the Indians in the republic of the Ashvinis suddenly fell upon the Greek Governor, Philip, and assassinated him along with his small Greek regiment. The second, Nicanor, was also similarly despatched, and all those monarchies and republics along the banks of the Indus, which had acquiesced in the Greek overlordship, shook it off at once and proclaimed their independence forthwith. Greek colonies, Greek ensigns and standards — whatever signified the Greek power — were completely destroyed on the spot. The whole of the tract along the banks of the Indus right from the Panchanad to Sindh, which Alexander had conquered and annexed for ever and anon to his empire, became independent within six months of Alexander’s death. 80. Alexander had conquered states and countries and empires like Greece, Syria, Persia, Babylon, Egypt and the likes. There he founded Greek cities and Greek colonies, and even after the division of his vast empire, just after his death, his governors and military commanders and their descendants, ruled the respective regions like Babylon for centruries, together. Even now in some other countries cities exist with the name Alexandria, and Alexander’s name is ever crowned with the honorifix ‘The Great’ throughout ancient histroy. 81. But what happened in Bharat? The small states and republics in the farthest corner of India, that Alexander had annexed to his empire under the impression that he had conquered them for ever and for ever, after fighting incessantly on various battlefields for two long years and shedding the blood of millions of Greek and Hindu soldiers — those very Indian states and republics and monarchies literally uprooted his power, his standard, the Greek colonies and every hateful sign of the Greek victory — and that too within six months or at the most a year! 82. At last, not to speak of the city of Alexandria, which he had established, his own name too is not to be traced anywhere in Indian history, as if there never was any invasion, any aggression on India’s borderland of any Mlenchh (Yavan) emperor, named Alexander, who dinned the ears of the people throughout Europe with his proud title, ‘The

Great’! Curiously enough, not even a stray reference has yet been discovered in Vedic or Jain or Buddhist ancient literature. 83. Writes Vincent Smith in his famous Early History of India: “All these proceedings prove conclusively that Alexander intended the permanent annexation of those (Indian) provinces to his empire.... But within three years of his departure from India (from 325 BC to 322 BC), his officers in India were ousted, his garrisons destroyed and all traces of his rule had disappeared. The colonies he founded in India, unlike those established elsewhere in Asiatic provinces, took no root. His campaign, though carefully designed to secure a permanent conquest, was in actual effect not more than a brilliantly successful raid on a gigantic scale, which left upon India no mark save the horrid scars of a bloody war. India remained unchanged. She continued her life of splendid isolation and soon forgot the passing of the Macedonian storm. No Indian author—Hindu, Buddhist or Jain—makes even the faintest allusion to Alexander or his deed.” (p. 117) 84. Who were the most prominent leaders of this political conspiracy, which wiped out, within a period of six months or a year, the whole of the foreign political dominance caused by Alexander’s aggression right from the Panchanad to Sindh? Histroy, as yet, is ignorant of their names! Still two of them, at least, have become immortal. They are the same two men whom I have mentioned while describing Alexander’s advance up to Taxila. The first was a brilliant and smart youth, who had just completed his studies at the University of Taxila, Chandragupta. And the other was Acharya Chanakya, who had been a teacher at that University and who, later on, gave a practical lesson in political craft and political revolutions to the young Chandragupta! As they were to lead the whole of Bharat, hereafter, it is fit and proper that they should be introduced here. The Story of Chandragupta’s Birth 85. Like all other great men of the ancient world, Chandragupta and Chanakya have their life stories clouded with legends, anecdotes and imaginary accounts. Those who are interested in them for the sake of intellectual entertainment may profitably read Radhakumud Mukherjee’s ‘Chandragupta Maurya and His Times’. We shall give here only so much of their lives as appear to us to have historical sanction. 86. Some small bands of the Shakyas, amongst whom was born the great Lord Gautam Buddha, had at one time to shift to far-off regions, because of some disastrous calamity that had befallen them. They called themselves

Kshatriyas. However, in those adverse days, those displaced Shakyas began to follow other professions for their livelihood. There happened to be a plentiful breed of peacocks in the forest, where these tribes later on lived. To keep these peacocks and sell them became one of their professions. So they had ‘Moriya’ as their nickname, and the Moriya formed a class by themselves. One family of these Moriyas came back to settle in the vicinity of Pataliputra. One woman of that Moriya tribe named Mura (Mayura) somehow got access to the harem of the royal palace and soon became the concubine of the Emperor, Mahapadmanand or ‘Dhananand’, as he was generally called. Her son from this Nanda Emperor was the Emperor Chandragupta. 87. However, when Chandragupta became an emperor, the story of his birth might have appeared derogatory to his greatness and, therefore in some books of the time, the story was slightly altered to mean that Muradevi was the wedded queen of the Nanda emperor, not his concubine, which in consequence meant that Chandragupta was a legitimate royal prince and not an illegitimate one. 88. But a third anecdote seems to outdo both the above stories, saying that Mura and Emperor Nanda were in no way connected. Mura had a son from her husband of the same clan and that son was Chandragupta himself. Later on, with the help and guidance of Arya Chanakya and with his own valour, he raised his poor father and mother to eminence, and after wresting the imperial power from the Nandas, he founded the Maurya Dynasty. 89. It seems a common weakness among all human societies and communities, in a greater or lesser degree, to attempt to judge the greatness or meanness of an individual, not so much from his manifest virtues or vices as from the race, the community or the family he is born in. That is why, as the time passes, such inflated anecdotes about their family tradition are propagated and popularized through plays, poems and novels or through folk-lores. There are other anecdotes too besides the ones referred to above, which seek to ascribe greatness or meanness to Chandragupta. But for the reasons given above, they need not be mentioned here. 90. Was Chandragupta a concubine’s son? Was he not a Kshatriya? What matters though! Chandragupta could have said with justifiable pride, “More than any of you, nominal caste-born Kshatriyas, who bowed your heads to the Mlenchchas, the Greek emperor and his commanders, I, a ‘peerless’ Chandragupta, have a greater claim to being a Kshatriya in as much as with

my sword, I have completely vanquished those very Mlenchchas in every battlefield.” With the same haughty affront of Kama, he could have flung in the face of those railing enemies, the following words: सूतो वा सूत पुत्रों वा यो वा को वा भवाम्यहम् दैवायत्तं कुले जन्म मदायत्तं तु पौरुषम॥ वेणोसंहार of Bhatta Narayan, Act III, 37 [“ Whether a charioteer or a charioteer’s son, or whoever (else) I may be, (that is of no consequence!) Birth in a (noble) family depends on fate; but manliness depends on me!”] 91. The son of Mura is a Maurya! That is precisely why Chandragupta is called a Maurya. Proud of his maternal extraction, Chandragupta designated his royal family as Maurya and immortalized the name of his mother, Muradevi, in Indian history. The Maurya emperors accepted the same Moriya caste too (one traded in peacocks) that belonged to his mother. The guardian deity of the Maurya family is also a ‘peacock’. This fact is corroborated by rock inscriptions. The Ashoka pillar found at Nandangad bears at the foot, a picture of a peacock. The stories from the life of Ashoka inscribed on the celebrated ‘stupas’ at Sanchi have similar figures of peacocks carved beside them. The Emperor of Magadha 92. Mahapadmanand was the emperor ruling at that time over the vast Magadha empire. He was already very unpopular because of his many vices. His subjects were exasperated because of the heavy taxes, levied on them, in order to satisfy his lust for gold. People called him Dhananand instead of Mahapadmanand, in order to deride him for his excessive lust for money. He could come to the throne because he happened to be the brother of the earlier emperor, but he had not a single virtue, fit for an emperor. He would have proved his worth had he but taken up the challenge of Alexander and crushed him in the Panchanad, when the latter had marched on India, and when he had proudly declared his intention of conquering Magadha and becoming the emperor of India. He should have at least undertaken such a great expedition as to overthrow the Greeks, and free the Indian territory subjugated by them to deserve the title of an emperor! But he did nothing of the kind, and meekly swallowed the insult hurled at him by Alexander! This cowardliness on his part made, on the one hand, every self-respecting and nationalist Indian despise him, while, on the other, made him crafty. He

hated the selfless national politicians. In order to undermine their prestige, he insulted them publicly. A really capable person was invariably an object of his hatred and was subjected to malicious treatment. 93. From this Mahapadmanand, it is said his concubine, Mura, had the illustrious son, Chandragupta. Some anecdotes pertaining to Chandragupta’s childhood are available, but they are far too few and merely hearsay stories. What appears to be certain is only this, that the cowardly but crafty Mahapadmanand began to fear the young Chandragupta, shining with his sharp wit, his daring and ambitious spirit, seeking to exercise his rights as the heir to the throne, bastard as he was. He feared that under the leadership of this unrestrained bastard son, his antagonists would not fail to dethrone him! Mahapadmanand very well knew how his very Nanda forerunners had vanquished the original Shishunag dynasty of Magadha and usurped the throne! Under some such apprehension, there appears to have occurred some clash that Mahapadmanand used as a pretext to banish Chandragupta out of the precincts of the Magadha empire. The intervening account is permanently lost to oblivion. Hereafter, Chandragupta makes his appearance in the University of Taxila (Takshashila) as a royal prince having his lessons in politics and the science and art of war. An anecdote that is current in that region viz. that he got access to this university mainly through the good offices of the renowned and learned Arya Chanakya may have some grain of truth in it. Chandragupta had already been studying in the manner described above at this university for about six or seven years when Alexander attacked India. There, for the first time, this illustrious disciple of Chanakya, this young Chandragupta, began to shine with his exceptional brilliance in the sacred national conspiracy, that was being hatched by the Indian patriots and politicians to avenge the insults heaped on the Indian nation by the Greeks and to liberate the territory lost to them. A Marvellous half-hour in History 94. Young Chandragupta seems to have secretly wandered through the Greek camps in order to study the peculiar features of the Greek armoury, the Greek military formations and war strategy. For, he was once caught by the Greek sentries on suspicion that he was reconnoitring in the emperor’s camp. The report reached Alexander himself, and the Macedonian emperor summoned the disguised Indian youth to his presence. Some even think that the said youth went to see Alexander by previous appointment.

95. That valiant Macedonian supreme commander and emperor Alexander, in his thirties, and the future Indian captain-general and emperor Chandragupta just on the threshold of his twenties, but as yet merely a wandering nonentity, stood face-to-face, sizing up each other for a few moments! It appeared as if two lustrous suns, one fast approaching his zenith and the other, not as yet risen fully, out of the misty shroud of the early dawn, were staring at each other’s eyes.
96. This strange interview is not likely to have lasted for more than half an hour. But it has truly proved to be a historical marvel of perennial interest!
97. Even while almost all the Greek writers allude to this strange interview, nobody can say for certain what exactly transpired between the two, or what words were exchanged between them. One or two of them write only this much that Chandragupta said distinctly that he was related to the royal family of Magadha, or something to that effect. This much is certain that to the question put by Alexander, Chandragupta answered boldly and resolutely! In that strange parley, something went wrong and Alexander ordered the youth to be taken out of the camp forthwith. Instantly, the fiery youth left the camp, but in the meanwhile, when Alexander changed his mind and called again for the youth in his presence, he was nowhere to be found again. The Story of Chanakya’s Family
98. Arya Chanakya was born in a Brahmin family and his name was Vishnugupta. His name Chanakya must have probably been derived from his native town of Chanak. But he is more particularly known by his name Chanakya, Koutilya is one more name by which he is equally well-known. His great and abiding work is known as Koutiliya Arthashastra. Koutilya must have been formed from his original family (गोत्र नाम) name Kutal. He was well-versed in almost all the sciences of the time and was renowned at the University of Taxila and also amongst the learned circles of India, as a great scholar. He was ugly in apearance. Later on, when after the imperial revolution of Magadha, his name gained great fame not only all over India, but even in Greece and other foreign countries as the guide and preceptor of Chandragupta’s early years, and later as the chief minister of the Indian empire, several hearsay stories sprang up as to his early age, as they did regarding Chandragupta and Alexander. Several references to them based on solid grounds or otherwise are to be found in many literary works, dramas, folklores written many centuries after the deaths of both

Chandragupta and Chanakya. These references in Jain, Buddhist and Vedic literatures are not wholly reliable. Even in a Sanskrit drama, his character has been depicted in an unrealistic manner, for the sake of dramatic effect. As such, the ridiculous descriptions of his ugliness, or of his ungainly teeth, or the childish reports that he picked up from amongst the uneducated rustic children playing in the street one reckless Chandragupta, to be made the future emperor of India simply because he took a fancy for the child, or because his knowledge of palmistry guided his choice, cannot be taken as historical truths. However, more discerning research-workers should necessarily investigate if there is any basis for them. The Perverted Report of Chanakya’s vow 99. One such anecdote about Arya Chanakya should be discussed here as an illustration. For, it is being taught in the present-day schools in that very perverted form. The said anecdote purports to say that because he became famous as a great scholar in the University of Taxila (Takshashila) and the regions round about, Arya Chanakya was appointed the Chairman of the Grants Commission (दानाध्यक्ष) in the royal palace of Mahapadmanand at Pataliputra. While he was working in that high office, Emperor Mahapadmanand came there one day on his inspection rounds. But he laughed at his teethless ugly mouth and his unshapely body, at which Chanakya took a great affront. Therefore, Nanda pulled him down instantly and, as is written in some books, pulled his tuft of hair, till it was uprooted and finally ordered him to be driven out of the palace. The fiery Brahmin instantly retorted saying, “I shall drag you down from your throne and completely destroy the Nanda dynasty and then and then alone shall tie up my tuft of hair.” With this grave vow, he marched straight out of the palace. 100. But let it be remembered that Emperor Nanda had come there to inspect the work of the Charity Department, not to visit a beauty parlour! How is it plausible, then, that Mahapadmanand, who had himself appointed that learned scholar to the high office of the Chairman of the Charitable Grants Department, would now say that because of his ugly features Arya Chanakya was unfit for that post? The office of the Chairman of the said Grants Department required the expert knowledge of the religious sciences and judicial procedure, not physical beauty! But there is a more potent objection than this one to disprove this foolish anecdote. This anecdote implies that Chanakya revolted against Emperor Nanda, because of his personal insult alone, and that, had he not been thus insulted, he would have

remained a loyal servant of Mahapadmanand, that the India-wide revolution that he successfully brought about, was not for the sake of freeing the Indian land from the foreign Mlenchcha domination, but only to avenge his personal insult! For this very reason, this anecdote is clearly perverted. 101. When as a strategy in politics, Shivaji went to Agra accepting the overlordship of Aurangzeb, the latter insulted him, and when there was a clash of words, Shivaji was put under arrest. But Shivaji slipped away most miraculously and skilfully, and declared war against Aurangzeb. If, after telling this story, any wiseacre were to conclude that it was because he was personally insulted, that Shivaji bore a grudge against Aurangzeb and established an independent kingdom for himself, that he had no higher motive of the emancipation of his religion and country, it would be the height of absurdity and foolishness. Equally absurd and foolish would it be to say that it was only to avenge his personal insult by Emperor Nanda, that Arya Chanakya brought about a political revolution by exterminating the Nanda dynasty. That Anecdote should be Explained thus 102. It is not true to say that because of his personal insult, Shivaji revolted against Aurangzeb. On the contrary, Aurangzeb had taken a fright that it was to overthrow his alien religious domination, that Shivaji had taken arms, fired as he was with a glowing fervour for Hindutwa. That is why, he insulted Shivaji and relegated him to captivity! In a similar way, because Mahapadmanand had secret reports that, availing himself of the weakness of the reigning monarch, Arya Chanakya was busy conspiring against him so as to overthrow the Nanda empire, the Emperor Nanda insulted him in his royal palace, and at that very moment, the illustrious Brahmin Arya Chanakya retorted boldly, "If I am a true Chanakya I shall see to it that your tyrannical rule is overthrown so that Bharat might prosper." This is how the anecdote should be explained. 103. A very solid proof for this is available to us in the very Koutiliya Arthashastra written by Chanakya himself. While introducing the writer, it is said (in the very book): चाणक्य इति विख्यातः श्रोत्रीयः सर्वधर्मविद् —मुद्राराक्षस उपोद्घात Telang's edition p.44 येन शस्त्रं व शास्त्रं च नन्दराज गताच भूः ॥