Ancient India

 p43  Chapter 3

The pre‑Maurya states; the rise of Jainism and Buddhism; the invasion of Alexander the Great; India in the fourth century B.C.

Continuity of Indian civilization. China excepted, no region of the world can boast of an ancient civilization so continuous and unbroken as that of India. Civilized life may have begun earlier in Egypt and Babylonia, but in those countries the chain connecting the distant past with the present was rudely snapped long ago. No living memory of the Chaldees and Pharaohs or of their institutions survives. In India the ideas of the Vedic period are still a vital force, and even the ritual of the Rishis is not wholly disused. The lack of ancient records inscribed on imperishable material, such as abound in Egypt and Babylonia, forbids the writing of early Indian history in a manner at all comparable with that  p44 feasible in the countries named. The historian of India has nothing but tradition to guide him until quite a late period, and his handling of really ancient times is necessarily devoid of any chronological framework, being vague and sketchy.

Dated history begins in seventh century B.C. No attempt at Indian history dated even in the roughest fashion can be made before the seventh century B.C. The first exact date known, as already mentioned, is 326 B.C., the year of Alexander's invasion. By reckoning back from that fixed point, or from certain closely approximate Maurya dates slightly later, and by making use of the historical traditions recorded in literature, a little information can be gleaned concerning a few kingdoms of northern India in the seventh century. No definite affirmation of any kind can be made about specific events in either the peninsula or Bengal before 300 B.C. The scanty record of events in the northern kingdoms has to be mostly picked out of books written primarily to serve religious purposes. Those books, Jain, Buddhist, and Brahmanical, naturally deal chiefly with the countries in which religious movements were most active. The traditionary accounts are deeply tinged by the sectarian prejudices of the writers, and often hopelessly discordant.

India in the seventh century B.C. Recent excavations give reason for believing that a capital city occupied part of the site of Taxila in the Panjāb at a remote period, but at present it is not possible to say anything more definite about the history of that region. Other cities, too, both in the north and the south of India, seem to have been in existence from immemorial antiquity. In the seventh century B.C. we may be assured that although vast territories in most parts of India were still covered by forest, the home of wild beasts and scanty tribes of savage men, extensive civilized settlements of long standing existed in the plains of the Indus and Ganges basins.

Ujjain in Sindhia's dominions, still a considerable town retaining its ancient name unchanged, ranks as one of the seven sacred cities of India, and rivals Benares in its claims on Hindu veneration.1 In the seventh century it was the capital of the kingdom of Avanti, known later as Mālwā, which evidently was one of the leading Indian powers for a considerable time until the supremacy passed into the hands of Magadha. Kosala, or Northern Oudh, of which the capital was Srāvastī on the Rāptī, probably red by Sahet-Mahet, was another important state which competed with Magadha for the headship of Aryāvarta.

Magadha. Magadha, or South Bihār, the seat of the Magadha tribe, rose to unquestioned pre‑eminence in the fourth century B.C., and at a much earlier date had been intimately associated with the development of historical Jainism and Buddhism. The literary traditions of northern India consequently are mostly  p45 devoted to the affairs of Magadha, and the history of that state has to do duty as the history of India, because hardly anything is known about the annals of less prominent kingdoms.

King Bimbisāra. The regular story of Magadha begins with the Saisunāga Dynasty, established before 600 B.C., perhaps in 642 B.C., by a chieftain of Benares named Sisunāga (or Sisunāka), who fixed his capital at Girivraja or old Rājagriha, among the hills of the Gayā District.2

The first monarch about whom anything substantial has been recorded is the fifth king, Bimbisāra or Srēnika, who extended his paternal dominions by the conquest of Anga, the modern Bhāgalpur and Mungir Districts. He built the town of New Rājagriha (Rājgir), and may be regarded as the founder of the greatness of Magadha. He appears to have been a Jain in religion, and sometimes is coupled by Jain tradition with Asoka's grandson, Samprati, as a notable patron of the creed of Mahāvīra. His reign of twenty-eight years may be dated approximately from 582 to 554 B.C., according to the amended reckoning.

Persian occupation of Indus valley. During the period of his rule, according to one theory, or that of Darsaka, according to another, at a date subsequent to 516 B.C., Darius, son of Hystaspes, the capable autocrat of Persia (521‑485 B.C.), dispatched an expedition commanded by Skylax of Karyanda in Karia with orders to prove the feasibility of a sea passage from the mouths of the Indus to Persia. Skylax equipped a fleet on the upper waters of the Panjāb rivers in the Gandhāra country, made his way down the coast, and in the thirteenth month reached the sea. Darius was thus enabled to annex the Indus valley and to send his fleet into the Indian Ocean. The archers from India supplied a contingent to the army of Xerxes, the son of Darius, and shared the defeat of Mardonius at Plataea in Greece in 479 B.C.

The province on the Indus annexed by Darius was formed into the twentieth satrapy, which was considered to be the richest and most populous province of the Persian empire. It paid a tribute of 360 Euboic talents of gold-dust, equivalent to at least a million sterling, and constituting about one‑third of the total bullion revenue of the Asiatic provinces. The Indian satrapy, which was distinct from Arīa (Herat), Arachosia (Kandahār), and Gandharia (Taxila and the north-western frontier), must have extended from the Salt Range to the sea, and probably included part of the Panjāb to the east of the Indus. The courses of the rivers in those days were quite different from what they now are, and there is reason for believing that extensive tracts now desert were then rich and populous. The high tribute paid is thus explained.

No distinct evidence exists to show that there was any communication in the fifth century B.C. between the Persian province on the Indus and the growing kingdom of Magadha. But it would  p46 be extremely rash to affirm that no such communication existed. It is not captain at what dat Persia ceased to exercise effective control over the twentieth satrapy. At the time of Alexander's invasion the Indus was still recognized as the official boundary between the Persian empire and India, but the authorities do not mention the presence of Persian officials along the course of the river, the banks of which were occupied by sundry small states with rulers of their own, and seemingly independent.

The Kharoshthī alphabet, derived from the Aramaic script, and written from right to left, which continued to be used on the north-western frontier until about the fourth century of the Christian era, appears to have been introduced by Persian officials and may be regarded as a memorial of the days when the Indus valley was part of the Achaemenian empire.

King Ajātasatru. Bimbisāra was succeeded in or about 554 B.C. by his son Ajātasatru or Ku̅nika, whose reign may be taken as having lasted for twenty-seven years. He built the fortress of Pātali on the So̅n, which afterward developed into the imperial city of Pātaliputra. His mother was a lady of the famous Lichchhavi tribe, and he was married to a princess of Kosala. He waged successful wars against both the Lichchhavis and his consort's kingdom. Kosala disappears from history as an independent kingdom, and evidently was absorbed by Magadha.

The Lichchhavis. The Lichchhavi nation, tribe, or clan, which played a prominent part in Indian legend and history for more than a thousand years, claims a few words of notice.3 The Lichchhavis dwelt in the land of the Vrijjis, the region now called the Muzaffarpur district of Bihār to the north of the Ganges. Their capital was Vaisāli, a noble city •ten or twelve miles in circuit, represented by the villages and ruins at  p47 or near Basārh, •twenty miles to the north of Hājīpur, and on the northern side of the river •about twenty-seven miles distant in a direct line from Pātaliputra (Patna). The Lichchhavis were governed by an assembly of notables, presided over by an elected chief (nāyaka). Good reason exists for believing that they were hill‑men of the Mongolian type akin to the Tibetans. They certainly followed the unpleasant Tibetan custom of exposing the bodies of the dead, which were sometimes hung upon trees, and their judicial procedure in criminal cases was exactly the same as the Tibetan. The first Tibetan king is said to have belonged to the family of Sākya the Lichchhavi, a kinsman of Gautama, the sage of another branch of the Sākyas. The more I consider the evidence of such traditions and the unmistakable testimony of the early sculptures as at Barhut and Sānchī, dating from about 200 B.C., the more I am convinced that the Mongolian or hill‑man element formed a large percentage in the population of northern India during the centuries immediately preceding and following the Christian era. I think it highly probable that Gautama Buddha, the sage of the Sākyas, and the founder of historical Buddhism, was a Mongolian by birth, that is to say, a hill‑man like a Gu̅rkha with Mongolian features, and akin to the Tibetans. Similar views were expressed long ago by Beal and Fergusson, who used the terms Scythic or Turanian in the sense in which I use Mongolian.

The Lichchhavis retained an influential position for many centuries. The marriage of Chandragupta I with a Lichchhavi princess at the close of the third century A.C. laid the foundation of the greatness of the Imperial Gupta dynasty, and the tribe supplied a line of rulers in the Nepāl valley up to the seventh century.

In early times the Mallas of Pāwā and Kusinagara, who are often mentioned in Buddhist legends, probably were akin to the Lichchhavis.

Mahāvīra, the founder of historical Jainism, likewise may have been a Mongolian hill‑man. The Brahman writers regarded the Lichchhavis as degraded Kshatriyas, a purely fictitious mode of expression.

Kings Darsaka and Udaya. Ajātasatru was succeeded in or about 527 B.C. by his son Darsaka, who is mentioned in a play by the early dramatist Bhāsa, which came to light in 1910. He was followed about 503 by his son Udaya, who built the city of Kusumapura on the Ganges, a few miles from Pātaliputra on the So̅n. The two names are sometimes used as synonyms. The position of the confluence of the So̅n with the Ganges and the courses of both rivers in the neighbourhood of Pātaliputra have undergone extensive changes since the days of Udaya.

Parricide story. Buddhist tradition from various sources is unanimous in affirming that Ajātasatru, weary of awaiting the course of nature, murdered his father, and the crime is said to have been instigated by Devadatta, the heretical cousin of the Buddha. I used to accept the story of the parricide as historically true, but am now disposed to reject it as being the outcome of  p48 odium theologicum, or sectarian rancour, which has done so much to falsify the history of ancient India. The Jains, representing Ajātasatru as a devout follower of their religion who 'ruled the country for eighty years according to the laws of his father', ignore and implicitly deny the accusation of parricide. The truth seems to be that Ajātasatru, like many later Indian sovereigns, did not confine his royal favour to any one sect. At different times he bestowed his bounty on the followers of the 'former Buddhas' led by Devadatta, on the adherents of Gautama's reformed Buddhism, and on the Jains. Both Buddhists and Jains claimed him as one of themselves. The Jain claim appears to be well founded. When the Buddhists had secured pre‑eminence in northern India in consequence of Asoka's patronage, leanings towards Jainism became criminal in the eyes of ecclesiastical chroniclers, who were ready to invent the most scandalous stories in order to blacken the memory of persons deemed heretical. The legends told by orthodox Buddhists about Gautama's cousin Devadatta seem to have no other foundation. It will be shown presently that the history of the Nandas has been falsified in a similar fashion. For those reasons I now reject the Buddhist tale of Ajātasatru's murder of his father. According to the traditions of the Jains, their ancient temples in Magadha were destroyed by the Buddhists when they attained power.

Kings and prophets. The main interest of the reigns of Bimbisāra and his son lies in the close association of both kings with the lives of Gautama Buddha and Vardhamāna Mahāvīra Tirthankara, who are usually described respectively as the founders of Buddhism and Jainism. The traditions concerning the intercourse of the kings with the prophets are discrepant in many particulars which need not be discussed, but it seems to be fairly certain that King Bimbisāra was related to Mahāvīra, and was contemporary for some years with both him and Gautama Buddha.

Credible evidence affirms that Ajātasatru visited both of those teachers, and that during his reign Gautama Buddha died. In the light of the revised reading of the Khāravela inscription (post, p58 n.) one must assume that Gautama died about 543 B.C., which is the traditional Ceylon date. The tentative chronology in the table on page 70, based on that inscription, supports the commonly quoted date (528‑527 B.C.) for the death of Mahāvīra. But no hypothesis can reconcile all the conflicting testimonies and traditions.

Religion in sixth century B.C. The sixth century B.C. was a time when men's minds in several widely separated parts of the world were deeply stirred by the problems of religion and salvation. The Indian movement was specially active in Magadha and the neighbouring regions where the Hinduizing of the population was incomplete and distinctions of race were clearly marked. Intelligent members of the governing classes, who were regarded as  p49 Kshatriyas by the Brahmans from the west, were inclined to consider themselves better men than their spiritual guides, whose arrogant class-pride aroused warm opposition. It seems to me almost certain, as already indicated, that the Saisunāgas, Lichchhavis, and several other ruling families or clans in or near Magadha were not Indo-Aryan by blood. They were, I think, hill‑men of the Mongolian type, resembling the Tibetans, Gu̅rkhas, Bhu̅tias, and other Himalayan tribes of the present day. The racial distinction between the Brahmans and their pupils necessarily evoked and encouraged the growth of independent views on philosophy and religion. The educated men of the upper classes, called Kshatriyas by the Brahmans, rebelled against the claim of the strangers to the exclusive possession of superior knowledge and the key of the door to salvation.

Many sects arose advocating the most diverse opinions concerning the nature of God and the soul, the relation between God and man, and the best way of attaining salvation. Most Indian thinkers contemplate salvation or deliverance (moksha) as meaning the release of the soul from all liability to future rebirths. At that time the religion favoured by the Brahmans, as depicted in the treatises called Brāhmanas, was of a mechanical, lifeless character, overlaid with cumbrous ceremonial. The formalities of the irksome ritual galled many persons, while the cruelty of the numerous bloody sacrifices was repugnant to others. People sought eagerly for some better path to the goal of salvation desired by all. Some, who hoped to win their object by means of transcendental knowledge, sounded the depths of novel systems of philosophy. Others sought to subdue the body and free the soul by inflicting on themselves the most austere mortifications and cruel self-tortures.

Jainism and Buddhism. All the numerous schools and sects which then sprang up or flourished died out in the course of time save two. The doctrines of the two surviving sects now known as Jainism and Buddhism have brought into existence two powerful churches or religious organizations which still affect profoundly the thoughts of mankind.

Buddhism, although almost extinct in the land of its birth, is at this day one of the greatest spiritual forces in the world, dominating, as it does in various forms, Ceylon, Burma, Siam, Tibet, Mongolia, China, and Japan. Jainism, which never aspired to such wide conquests, now claims but a comparatively small number of adherents, resident chiefly in Rājputanā and western India. The influence of the religion, however, even now is much greater than that indicated by the circus returns. In former times it pervaded almost every province of India and enjoyed the patronage of mighty kings.

Both Jainism and Buddhism as historical religions originated in Magadha or the territories adjoining that kingdom in the reigns of Bimbisāra and his son Ajātasatru. those two faiths, it need  p50 hardly be said, did not come into being independently of previous conditions. The teaching of Mahāvīra the Jain and of Gautama the Buddha was based on the doctrine of earlier prophets. Mahāvīra started his religious life as a reformer of an ancient ascetic order said to have been founded by Pārsvanāth two centuries and a half earlier. Gautama's preaching was related to the cult of the 'former Buddhas', whose prophet was Devadatta, Gautama's cousin. But we need not trouble about the obscure precursors of Jainism and Buddhism, who may be left to the research of antiquarians. The history of India is concerned seriously only with those historical religions as started respectively by Mahāvīra and Gautama. Although the stories of the lives of both prophets are obscured by a veil of legend and mythology, certain facts seem to be established with sufficient certainty. We will take first Jainism, the minor and probably the older religion of the two.

Career of Mahāvīra. Vardhamāna, better known by his title in religion of Mahāvīra, was the son of a Lichchhavi noble of Vaisāli. He gave up his honourable rank and joined the ascetic order of Pārsvanāth, in which he remained for some years. Becoming dissatisfied with the rules of that order, he started on his own account as a religious leader when about forty years of age. During the remainder of his life, which lasted more than thirty years, he travelled as a preacher through Magadha or South Bihār; Videha, otherwise called Mithilā or Tirhu̅t; and Anga or Bhāgalpur. In the course of his ministry he organized a new religious order consisting of professed friars and nuns, lay brethren and lay sisters. When he died at Pāwā in the Patna District his adherents are said to have exceeded 14,000 in number. Being related through his mother to the reigning kings of Videha, Magadha, and Anga, he was in a position to gain official patronage for his teaching, and is encomienda to have been in personal  p51 touch with both Bimbisāra and Ajātasatru, who seem to have followed his doctrine. The traditional dates for his death vary so much that it is impossible to obtain certainty in the matter. The date most commonly accepted, 527 B.C., is difficult to reconcile with the well-attested fact of his interview with Ajātasatru and with the Khāravela inscription. Professor Jacobi advocates 477 B.C. as the approximate year of the decease of Mahāvīra.

Career of Buddha. The career of Gautama, the sage of the Sākyas (Sākyamuni), known generally as Buddha or the Buddha, because he claimed to have attained supreme knowledge of things spiritual (bodhi), was very similar to that of Mahāvīra. Gautama, like his rival prophet, was the son of a noble Sākya, the Rājā of Kapilavastu in the Nepalese Tarāi, a dependency of Kosala, and was classed by the Brahmans as a Kshatriya. The legends relate in endless imaginative detail the story of the young prince's disgust for the luxurious life of a palace, and of his resolve to effect the Great Renunciation. Leaving his home, he went to Gayā and there sought salvation by subjecting his body to the severest penances. But while sitting under the holy tree he made the discovery that mere asceticism was futile, and decided to spend the rest of his life in preceding the truth as he saw it. He proceeded to the Deer Park at Sārnāth near Benares, where five disciples joined him. From that small beginning arose the great Buddhist Sangha or Order. Gautama continued his preceding for forty-five years and died aged eighty at Kusinagara, which probably was situated in Nepalese territory at the junction of the Little Rāptī with the Gandak near Bhavēsar Ghāt. the well-known remains near Kasiā in the Gorakhpur District appear to be those of the monastic establishment of Vēthadīpa, subordinate to the head monastery at Kusinagara. Both were called Parinirvāna  p52 monasteries as being connected with the death of Buddha.4 The date of his decease, like that of Mahāvīra, cannot be determined with accuracy. It appears that both Mahāvīra and Buddha were contemporary with kings Bimbisāra and Ajātasatru, both dying in the reign of the latter.

Jainism and Buddhism contrasted. The close parallelism of the careers of the two prophets, combined with certain superficial resemblances between the doctrines of the sects which they founded, induced some of the older scholars to regard Jainism as a sect of Buddhism. That opinion is now recognized to be erroneous. The two systems, whether regarded as philosophies or religions, are essentially different. The word 'sects' as applied above to the Jain and Buddhist churches is correctly used, because both Mahāvīra and Buddha may be justly regarded as having been originally Hindu reformers. Neither prophet endeavoured directly to overthrow the caste framework of Hindu society so far as it had been established in their time, although both rejected the authority of the Vedas and opposed the practice of animal sacrifice. Followers of either Mahāvīra or Gautama were not asked to give up their belief in the Hindu gods, which always have received veneration from both Jains and Buddhists. Indra, Brahmā, and other gods play a prominent part in Buddhist legend and belief. In Ceylon even the great gods Siva and Vishnu are worshipped as satellites of Buddha. the Jains of the present day continue, as their forefathers always did, to employ Brahmans as their domestic chaplains for the performance of birth or death ceremonies, and even sometimes, it is said, for temple worship. Jainism has never cut itself away from its roots in Hinduism. Many Jains consider themselves to be Hindus, and describe their religion accordingly in circus returns. That continuous close connexion between Brahmanical Hinduism and Jainism probably is the principal reason why the latter faith made no conquests outside of India.

Buddhism developed a much more independent existence. Both as a philosophy and a religion it so adapted itself to the needs of foreigners that in the course of time it nearly died out in India while acquiring new life in foreign lands. The Jains give the laity a prominent place, while the Buddhists rely mainly on their organized Sangha — the Community or Order of ordained friars. That organized Order has been the main instrument of Buddhist missionary expansion. No avowed Buddhist in any country would dream of describing himself as a Hindu by religion.5 Readers  p53 who desire to understand thoroughly the philosophical, ethical, and theological tenets of Jainism and Buddhism, the points of agreement or divergence in the two systems, and the church regulations must study some or other of the many excellent books now available. Only a few points can be noted here.

Jain doctrines. Jain teaching lays stress upon the doctrine that man's personality is dual, comprising both material and spiritual natures. It rejects the Vedantist doctrine of the universal soul. Jains believe that not only men and animals, but also plants, minerals capable of growth, air, wind, and fire possess souls (jīva endowed with various degrees of consciousness.6 They hold that it is possible to inflict pain on a stone, or even on air or water. The belief in a supreme Deity, the creator of the universe, is emphatically denied. God is defined as being 'only the highest, the noblest, and the fullest manifestation of all the powers which lie latent in the soul of man'. From that point of view Jainism may be said to anticipate Comte's 'religion of humanity'.

In ethics or practical morality 'the first principle is ahimsā, non‑hurting of any kind of life, howsoever low maybe the stage of its evolution'. The strange doctrine affirming the existence of jīvas in objects commonly called inanimate extends the Jain idea of ahimsā far beyond the Brahmanical or Buddhist notions.

The reader of Indian history is sometimes perplexed by the apparent contradiction of principles involved when a king orders the execution of a convict, guilty perhaps only of the killing of an animal. The following authoritative ruling on the subject helps to make intelligible the position taken up by Kumārapāla, king of Gujarāt in the twelfth century, who ruthlessly inflicted the capital penalty on all persons who in any way offended against the ahimsā doctrine:

 p54  Jainism is an austere religion, demanding severe self-control in diverse ways, and imposing many inconvenient restraints. The teaching theoretically condemns caste, but in practice 'the modern Jaina is as fast bound as his Hindu brother in the iron fetters of caste'.

The Jains are divided into two main sects, the Svetāmbara, or 'white-robed', and the Digambara, or 'sky‑clad', that is to say nude, which separated about the beginning of the second century A.C. Each sect has its own scriptures. A modern offshoot of the Svetāmbaras, called Sthānaka-vāsī, rejects the use of idols in worship.

Jains highly approve of suicide by slow starvation. The practice, abhorred by Buddhists, seems to outsiders inconsistent with the ahimsā doctrine, but Jain philosophy has an explanation, which will be found expounded in Mrs. Stevenson's book.

The teaching of Buddha. Gautama Buddha, like Mahāvīra and almost all prophets in his country, took over from the common stock of Indian ideas the theories of rebirth and karma, accepted generally by Indian thinkers as truths needing no proof. The karma doctrine means that the merits and demerits of a being in past existences determine his condition in the present life. Buddha held that to be born is an evil, that the highest good is deliverance from rebirth, that good karma will effect such deliverance, and that the acquisition of good karma requires a strictly moral life. His disciples were admonished to aim at purity in deed, word, and thought; observing ten commandments, namely, not to kill, steal, or commit adultery; not to lie, invent evil reports about other people, indulge in fault-finding or profane language; to abstain from covetousness and hatred, and to avoid ignorance. Special stress was laid on the virtues of truthfulness, reverence to superiors, and respect for animal life.

He held that men should follow what he called the 'Noble Eightfold Path', practising right belief, right thought, right speech, right action, right means of livelihood, right exertion, right remembrance, and right meditation. That path was also described as the Middle Path, lying midway between sensuality and asceticism. Men and women of the laity could attain much success in travelling the way of holiness, but full satisfaction could be obtained only by joining the Sangha or Order of ordained monks, or rather friars. Women were permitted to become nuns, but nuns never occupied an important place in Buddhism. The Sangha of monks developed into a highly organized, wealthy, and powerful fraternity, which became the efficient instrument for the wide diffusion of Buddhism in Asia.

Popular Buddhism. Buddha can hardly be said to have intended to found a new religion. He taught an abstruse doctrine of metaphysics, which he used chiefly as the rational basis of his practical moral code. He was unwilling to discuss questions concerning the nature of God or the soul, the infinity of the universe, and so forth, holding that such discussions are unprofitable.  p55 Without formally denying the existence of Almighty God, the Creator, he ignored Him. Buddha, although he denied the authority of the Vedas, did not seek to interfere with the current beliefs in the Hindu gods or with familiar superstitions; and, as a matter of fact, popular Buddhism from the very earliest times has always differed much from the austere religion of the books. Modern Burma, where everybody worships the Nats or spirits, while accepting without question the orthodox teaching of the monks, offers the best illustration of the state of things in ancient Buddhist India, as vividly represented in the sculptures. Buddhism in practice was a cheerful religion in India long ago, as it is in Burma now. The change to Puranic Hinduism has made India a sadder land.

Transformation of Buddhism. The person of Buddha inspired in his disciples such ardent affection and devotion that very soon after his death he was regarded as being something more than a man. By the beginning to Christian era, if not earlier, he had become a god to whom prayer might be offered. The primitive Buddhism which ignored the Divine was known in later times as the Hina-yāna, or Lesser Vehicle of salvation, while the modified religion which recognized the value of prayer and acknowledged Buddha as Saviour of mankind was called the Mahā-yāna, or the Greater Vehicle.

While the original official Buddhism was a dry, highly moralized philosophy much resembling in its pal operation the Stoic schools of Greece and Rome, the later emotional Buddhism approached closely to Christian doctrines in substance, although not in name. In another direction it became almost indistinguishable from Hinduism.

No Buddhist period. It must be clearly understood that Brahmanical Hinduism continued to exist and to claim innumerable adherents throughout the ages. It may well be doubted if Buddhism can be correctly described as having been the prevailing reelection in India as a whole at any time. The phrase 'Buddhist period', to be found in many books, is false and misleading. Neither a Buddhist nor a Jain period ever existed. From time to time either Buddhism or Jainism obtained exceptional success and an unusually large percentage of adherents in the population of one kingdom or another, but neither heresy ever superseded Brahmanical Hinduism. Mahāvīra, as has been mentioned, had about 14,000 disciples when he died, a mere drop in the ocean of India's millions. Subsequent royal patronage largely extended his following, and at times Jainism became the state religion of certain kingdoms, in the sense that it was adopted and encouraged by certain kings, who carried with them many of their subjects. Instances of kings changing their creed are numerous. Buddhism probably continued to be an obscure local sect, confined to Magadha and the neighbouring regions, until Asoka gave it his powerful patronage more than two centuries after the death of Buddha. the fortune of Buddhism was made by Asoka, but even he never  p56 attempted to force all his subjects to enter the Buddhist fold. While he insisted on certain rules of conduct concerning diet and other matters being observed by everybody in accordance with the orders of government, he did not interfere with anybody's faith. Akbar pursued the same policy in the sixteenth century. Even in Asoka's age it is likely that the majority of the people in many, if not in most, provinces followed the guidance of the Brahmans. The relative proportions of orthodox Hindus and Buddhist dissenters varied enormously according to locality. Many details on the subject can be extracted from the narratives of the Chinese pilgrims in the fifth and seventh centuries after Christ, and there can be no doubt that similar relations between the various Indian sects or religions must have existed in earlier times.

The Hinduism of the Brahmans did not remain unchanged. the attacks delivered by Mahāvīra, Buddha, and other less celebrated prophets on the elaborate ritual and bloody sacrifices favoured by the Brahmans of the sixth century B.C. resulted, not only in the development of Jainism and Buddhism as distinct sects or religions, but in profound modification in the ideas of those Hindus who still professed obedience to the Vedas and to Brahman gurus. The ahimsā principle of non‑injury to animal life gained many adherents, so that the more shocking elements in the old Hindu ritual tended to fall into disrepute. The change of feeling, as already noted, can be traced in many passages of the Mahābhārata. Bloody sacrifices still retain the approval of considerable sections of the population, but the general tendency during the last two thousand years has been to discredit them. The movement of sentiment on the subject continues to this day, and may be observed on a large scale in the peninsula. The slaughter of victims in appalling numbers is still practised in the Telugu country. For instance, at Ellore in the Kistna (Krishnā) District, a thousand victims may be slain on one day at a certain festival, so that the blood flows down from the place of sacrifice 'in a regular flood'. But in the Tamil country 'there is a widespread idea that animal sacrifices are distasteful to good and respectable deities', with the result that such offerings are going out of fashion.7 The reader will not fail to take note of the proof that two thousand years are not nearly enough for the completion of a sailing change in religious sentiment throughout India. Perhaps the zeal of ardent reformers may be chilled by the thought.

Brahmanical cults. The reaction against the atheistic tendency of both Jainism and Buddhism on the one hand and against the formalism of a religion of ritual on the other resulted in the evolution among Brahmanical Hindus of the religion of bhakti, or lively loving faith in a personal, fatherly God. Although it is impossible to fix dates, Bhandarkar has shown that such devotion to the Deity under the name of Vāsudeva may be traced  p57 back as far as Pānini's time, whatever that was.8 Other facts indicate the existence of the worship of Vāsudeva in the two centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. The noble Bhagavadgītā, the date of which cannot be determined, offers the earliest formal exposition of the bhakti doctrine, the Deity being represented under the name and person of Krishna.

The Bhakti religion, which still has numerous adherents in the western parts of Hindostan and many other provinces of India, seems to have arisen in the Brahmarshi region in the neighbourhood of Mathurā and Delhi. Vāsudeva and Krishnā both became identified with Vishnu, whose cult has a long history. Simultaneously the cults of Siva and other forms of the Deity were developed, especially in the south. It is impossible to trace the details of religious evolution in a general history, but it is important to remember that much was happening inside the fold of Brahmanical Hinduism while Buddhism and Jainism were being founded and started on their more conspicuous adventures outside.

The 'Nine Nandas'. The dynastic lists of the older Purānas, which are the best authority on the subject, state that the Saisunāga dynasty comprised ten kings, of whom the last two were named Nandivardhana and Mahānandin. Their reigns are said to have covered eighty-three years. They were followed by the 'Nine' or 'New' Nandas, namely, King Mahāpadma and his eight sons, whose rule altogether is said to have lasted a century.9 It is clear that the history has been falsified in some way and that the chronology cannot be right. The traditions about the Nandas as recorded in the Purānas, sundry Jain and Buddhist books, the Mudrā Rākshasa drama, perhaps composed in the fourth or fifth century A.C., and by the Greek writers, are hopelessly discrepant in many respects, but it is certain that the king deposed and slain by Chandragupta Maurya with the aid of his Brahman minister Chānakya, alias Kautilya or Vishnugupta, was a Nanda, that he was of low caste, that he was a heretic hostile to the Brahmans and Kshatriyas, and that he was a rich, powerful sovereign, believed by the Greeks to control an army of 20,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 2,000 chariots, and 3,000 or 4,000 elephants. Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to harmonize the conflicting traditions and to evolve a reasonable scheme of chronology. I cannot pretend to solve the puzzle, but would suggest that the existence in the twelfth century of a form of the Vikrama era called A‑nanda or 'without Nanda' may possibly give the clue. It has been proved that the Hindī poet Chand used the A‑nanda mode of computation, leaving out the period of 91 (or 90) years belonging to the dynasty of the Nine (or New) Nandas, who were consider to be unholy persons unworthy of inclusion in orthodox Hindu annals. That fact suggests that the dynasty of the Nine Nandas may have begun 91 years before the accession of Chandragupta Maurya,  p58 which took place about 322 B.C. If that hypothesis should prove correct, the beginning of the dynasty of the Nine Nandas must be placed in about 413 B.C. The last two Saisunāga kings of the Puranic lists, namely, Nandi-vardhana and Mahā‑nandin, must be reckoned also as Nandas. Their names seem to indicate this, and the Khāravela inscription shows that the former was considered a Nanda. The Nanda king dethroned by Chandragupta Maurya was certainly a heretic in Hindu eyes, because the concluding verse of Kautilya's Arthasāstra states that 'this Sāstra (scripture) has been made by him who from intolerance (of misrule) quickly rescued the scriptures (śastrām) and the science of weapons (sastrām) and the earth which had passed to the Nanda king.' The necessary inference seems to be that the hated Nanda king was either a Jain or a Buddhist, whom orthodox writers did not care to acknowledge as a lawful sovereign. The supposition that the last Nanda was a follower of either Mahāvīra or Gautama is confirmed by the fact that one form of the local tradition attributed to him the erection of the Pānch Pahārī at Patna, a group of ancient stu̅pas which might be either Jain or Buddhist.10

Invasion of Alexander the Great. The invasion of India by Alexander the Great of Macedon in 326 B.C., which occurred during the rule of the Nandas in Magadha and is more interesting than any other episode of early Indian history to most European readers, made so little impression on the minds of the inhabitants of the country that no distinct reference to it is to be found in any branch of ancient Indian literature. Our detailed knowledge of his proceedings is derived solely from Greek authors.11 The name of Sikandar or Alexander is often on the lips of the people in the Panjāb, but it is doubtful how far a genuine tradition of the Macedonian invader survives in that country. Spurious traditions are apt to be generated from confused recollections of the investigations and talk of modern archaeologists. There is also reason to believe that the popular memory sometimes confounds Sikandar of Macedon with his namesakes, the Lodī Sultan of Delhi (1489‑1517) and the image-breaking Sultan of Kashmīr (1394‑1420). A genuine tradition of Philip's son undoubtedly has been preserved in the families of no less than eight chieftains in the neighbourhood of the Indus and Oxus, all of whom claim the honour of descent from Alexander. The claims may be well founded to some extent, because the historians record that Kleophis, Queen of the Assakēnoi,  p59 was reputed to have borne a son to Alexander.12 The Tungani soldiers who formed the garrison of Yarkand in 1835 also alleged that Macedonian soldier colonists left behind by the conqueror were their ancestors.

Alexander, after completing the conquest of Bactria to the south of the Oxus, resolved to execute his cherished purpose of surpassing the mythical exploits of Herakles his reputed ancestor, Semiramis the fabled Assyrian queen, Cyrus, king of Persia, and the divine Dionysos, by effecting the subjugation of India. When he undertook the task very little accurate information about the scene of the proposed conquests was at his disposal. The sacred soil of India had never been violated by any earlier European invader, nor had the country been visited by travellers from the west, so far as is known. Wild tales concerning the marvels to be seen beyond the Indus were current, but nothing authentic seems to have been on record, and the bold adventurer was obliged to collect the necessary intelligence as he advanced.

Alexander, however, although adventurous, was not imprudent. He never moved without taking adequate precautions to maintain communication with his distant base in Macedon thousands of miles away, and to protect his flanks from hostile attack. His intelligence department seems to have provided him with information accurate enough to ensure the success of each operation.

Campaign in the hills. He crossed the Hindu Kush mountains in May, 327 B.C., and after garrisoning either Kābul itself or a stronghold in the neighbourhood, spent the remainder of the year in subduing the fierce tribes which then as now inhabited the valleys of Suwāt (Swat) and Bājaur. He gave them a lesson such as they have never received since from Afghans, Moguls, or English, and penetrated into secluded fastnesses which no European has ever seen again. His ruthless operations effected their purpose so thoroughly that his communications were never harassed by the tribes.

The Indus crossed. In February, 326 B.C., at the beginning of spring, he crossed the Indus, then regarded as the frontier of the Persian empire, by a bridge of boats built at Und or Ohind above Attock. Thence he advanced to Takkasila or Taxila, 'a great and flourishing city', the capital of Āmbhi, ruler of the region between the Indus and the Hydaspes or Jihlam (Jhelum) river. Āmbhi, who was at feud with the chiefs of neighbouring principalities, welcomed the invader and received him hospitably at his capital. The rich presents offered by the Indian king were requited tenfold by his generous and politic guest. It is worthy of note that the supplies tendered by Āmbhi comprised '3,000 oxen fatted for the shambles' besides 10,000 or more sheep.  p60 MAP  p61 That statement, made incidentally, is good evidence that in 326 B.C. the people of Taxila were still willing to fatten cattle for slaughter and the feeding of honoured guests, in Vedic fashion.

Taxila. The situation of Taxila in a pleasant valley, amply supplied with water, well adapted for defence, and lying on the highroad from Central Asia to the interior of India, was admirably suited for the site of a great city. The occupation of the site began at a period so remote that when the excavations now in progress under skilled guidance shall be further advanced we may hope to find traces of the most ancient known urban settlement in India. The brilliantly successful operations conducted by the Director-General of Archaeology have as yet barely touched the Bir mound in the southern part of the ruins of Taxila, which represents the city where Alexander halted.13 The remains of the ancient capital, or rather series of successive capitals, gradually shifted from south to north, cover a space of •at least twelve square miles at Hasan Abdāl and several other villages situated •about twenty miles to the north-west of Rāwalpindi, which is strategical representative of Taxila. The cantonment of Rāwalpindi si the most important military station in India. The line of the ancient highway has been followed by the Grand Trunk Road and the North-Western Railway.

In the time of Alexander the Panjāb was divided among a large number of small states, Taxila being the capital only of the tract between the Indus and the Hydaspes. Its military importance, therefore, was less than that of its modern representative. The invader having been received by the local king as a friend, no fighting took place in the neighbourhood of Taxila, and no information concerning its defences is recorded. Āmbhi supplied a contingent of five thousand men to help Alexander.

The testimony of the Buddhist Jātaka or Birth stories, which, although undated, may be applied fairly to the age of Alexander, proves by a multitude of incidental allusions that Taxila was then the leading seat of Hindu learning, where crowds of pupils from all quarters were taught the 'three Vedas and the eighteen accomplishments'. It was the fashion to send princes and the sons of well-to‑do Brahmans on attaining the age of sixteen to complete their education at Taxila, which may be properly described as a university town. The medical school there enjoyed a special reputation, but all arts and sciences could be studied under the most eminent professors.

Strange Taxilan customs. The willing offering of 3,000 oxen to be converted into beef has been noted as a remarkable feature in the social usage of the Taxilans. They had also several  p62 peculiar customs, which struck the Greek observers as 'strange and unusual'. The practices described are so startling that it is well to quote the exact words of Strabo, who copied Aristoboulos, a companion of Alexander, and an author deserving of the fullest credit.

The marriage market obviously suggests comparison with the similar institution in the territory of Babylon, fully described with approval by Herodotus (1.196), who observes that the sales took place once a year in every village. He heard that the Venetians of Illyria had a like custom. The casting out of the dead to be devoured by vultures was a practice of the Zoroastrian Iranians, and also of the Tibetans. The definite proof of the usage of widow-burning or suttee at such an early certain date is interesting. Among the Kathaioi of the eastern Panjāb also 'the custom prevailed that widows should be burned with their husbands'. The scanty evidence as to the Taxilan institutions taken as a whole suggests that the civilization of the people was compounded of various elements, Babylonian, Iranian, Scythian, and Vedic. Suttee probably was a Scythian rite introduced from Central Asia.

Religion and civilization. When the fact is remembered that in later times the Panjāb came to be regarded as an unholy, non‑Aryan country, it is worthy of note that the Jātakas represent Taxila as the seat of study of the three Vedas and all the other branches of Hindu learning. The population of the Panjāb in Alexander's time probably included many divers races. Strabo (Book XV, chap. i, secs. 61, 63‑8) gives an interesting account of the Brahman ascetics of Taxila, chiefly derived from the works of Aristoboulos and Onesikritos. It is clear that the Brahmanical religion was firmly established, notwithstanding the survival of strange customs, and in all likelihood the co‑existence of Zoroastrian or Magian fire-worship and other foreign cults. It is manifest that a high degree of material civilization had been attained, and that all the arts and crafts incident to the life of a wealthy,  p63 cultured city were familiar. The notices recorded by Alexander's officers permit no doubt that in the fourth century B.C. the history of Indian civilization was already a long one. Their statements have a material bearing upon discussions concerning the date of the introduction of writing and the chronology of Vedic literature.

Advance against Po̅ros. Alexander, after allowing his army a pleasant rest at hospitable Taxila, advanced eastward, to attack Po̅ros, or Pu̅ru, the king of the country between the Hydaspes (Jihlam) and Akesines (Chināb), who felt himself strong enough to defy the invader. The Greeks, who were much impressed by the high stature of the men in the Panjāb, acknowledged that 'in the art of war they were far superior to the other nations by which Asia was at that time inhabited'. The resolute opposition of Po̅ros consequently was not to be despised. Alexander experienced much difficulty in crossing the Hydaspes river, then, at the end of June or the beginning of July, in full flood and guarded by a superior force. His horses would not face the elephants on the opposite bank. After a delay of several weeks he succeeded in stealing a passage at a sharp bend in the river •some sixteen miles above his camp and getting across with the help of a convenient island. The hostile armies met in the Karri Plain marked by the villages Sirwāl and Pakral.

Battle of the Hydaspes. The army of Po̅ros, consisting of 30,000 infantry, four thousand cavalry, three hundred chariots, and two hundred mighty war elephants, was defeated after a hard fight, and annihilated. All the elephants were captured or killed, the chariots were destroyed, twelve thousand men were slain, and nine thousand taken prisoners. The total Macedonian casualties did not exceed a thousand. The primary cause of the Greek victory was the consummate leader­ship of Alexander, the greatest general in the history of the world. Po̅ros, a giant •six and a half feet in height, fought to the last, and received nine wounds before he was taken prisoner. The victor, who willingly responded to his captive's proud request that he might be treated as a king, secured the alliance of the Indian monarch by prudent generosity.

 p64  The elephants on which Po̅ros had relied proved unmanageable in the battle and did more harm to their friends than to their foes. The archers in the chariots were not a match for the mounted bowmen of Alexander; and the slippery state of the ground hindered the Indian infantry from making full use of their formidable bows, which they were accustomed to draw after resting one end upon the earth, and pressing it with the left foot. The Indian infantry man also carried a heavy two‑handled sword slung from the left shoulder, a buckler of undressed ox‑hide, and sometimes javelins in place of a bow.

Advance to the Hyphasis. In due course Alexander advanced eastwards, regardless of the rain, defeated the Glausai or Glaukanikoi, crossed both the Akesines (Chināb) and the Hydraotes or Rāvi, stormed Sangala, the stronghold of the Kathaioi, and threatened the Kshudrakas (Oxydrakai), who dwelt on the farther bank of the Rāvi. The king then advanced as far as the Hyphasis or Biās, where he was stopped by his soldiers, who refused firmly to plunge farther into unknown lands occupied by formidable kingdoms. The limits of the Greek advance were marked by the erection of twelve altars of cut stone on the northern bank of the Biās, at a point where it flows from east to west between Indaura in the Kāngrā and Mirthal in the Gurdāspur District, close to the foot of the hills. The cutting back of the northern bank, which has extended for •about five miles, has swept away all traces of the massive buildings.16

Retreat and river voyage. Alexander, intensely disappointed, was forced to return along the way by which he had come. He appointed Po̅ros to act as his viceroy over seven nations which shared the territory between the Hyphasis and Hydaspes, while he himself made preparations for executing the astonishingly bold project of taking his army down the course of the Panjāb rivers to the sea. A fleet, numbering perhaps two thousand vessels of all sizes, had been built by his officers on the upper waters of the Hydaspes. When all was ready in October, 326 B.C., the  p65 voyage began, the ships being escorted by an army of 120,000 men marching along the banks. the extensive changes in the courses of the rivers of the Panjāb and Sind, as mentioned more than once, forbid the tracing of Alexander's progress in detail, but he certainly passed through the Sibi country, now in the Jhang District, and then inhabited by rude folk clad in skins and armed with clubs, who submitted and were spared. Seven centuries later, when Sibi had become more civilized, its capital was Sivipura or Sho̅rko̅t.17 A neighbouring tribe, called Agalassoi by the Greeks, who dared to resist the invader, met with a terrible fate. The inhabitants of one town to the number of 20,000 set fire to their dwellings and cast themselves with their wives and children into the flames — an early and appalling instance of the practice of jauhar so often recorded in Muhammadan times.

The most formidable opposition to the Greek invaders was offered by a confederacy of the Mālavas (Malloi), Kshudrakas (Oxydrakai), and other tribes dwelling along the Rāvi and Biās. The confederate forces, said to have numbered 80,000 or 90,000 well-equipped infantry, 10,000 cavalry, and 700 or 800 chariots, should have sufficed to destroy the Macedonian army, but the superior general­ship of Alexander as usual gave him decisive victory. The survivors of the Mālavas submitted. The Kshudrakas, luckily for themselves, had been late for the fighting and so escaped the ruthless slaughter which befell their allies.

Wealth of the Mālavas. The presented offered by the envoys of the Mālavas and their allies indicate the wealth of the community and the advanced state of their material civilization. The gifts comprised 1,030 (or according to another account 500) four-horsed chariots; 1,000 bucklers; a great quantity of cotton cloth; 100 talents of 'white iron', probably meaning steel; the skins of crocodiles ('very large lizards'); a quantity of tortoise shell. and some tame lions and tigers of extraordinary size.

Patala. Several nations in Upper Sind having been subdued, Alexander reached Patala at the apex of the delta as it then existed. The town was not far from Bahmanābād, the ancient city subsequently superseded by Mansu̅riya. It is impossible to fix localities with accuracy for the reason already stated. Alexander made arrangements for establishing a strong naval station at Patala.

Movements of Alexander and Nearchos. He sent Krateros with elephants and heavy troops into Persia through the Mula Pass and across Balo̅chistan, while he himself advanced to the mouths of the Indus, then in a position very different from that which they now occupy. In the son of days the Runn of Cutch was a gulf of the sea and one arm of the Indus emptied itself into it. Most of the existing delta has been formed since Alexander's time.

Early in October, 325 B.C., Alexander, having spent about ten months on the voyage down the rivers, quitted the neighbourhood of the modern Karāchī with his remaining troops, crossed the  p66 Arabis or Habb river forming the boundary between India and Gedrosia,18 and started to march for Persia through absolutely unknown country. The troops suffered terribly from heat and thirst, which destroyed multitudes of the camp followers, but in February the remnant of the soldiers emerged in Karmania, having got into touch with the fleet which had started late in October and sailed round the coast under Admiral Nearchos. The story of the adventures of both Alexander and Nearchos is of surpassing interest, but unfortunately far too long for insertion. Its interest depends on the details. In May, 324 B.C., Alexander arrived safely at Su̅sa in Persia. His Indian expedition had lasted just three years. He died at Babylon, near the modern baghdad, in June, 323 B.C., in the thirty-third year of his age. 'Into thirteen years he had compressed the energies of many lifetimes.'

Disappearance of Greek authority. Alexander undoubtedly had intended to annex permanently the Indian provinces in the basin of the Indus and to include them in his vat empire extending across Asia into Greece. The arrangements which he made to carry out his intention were suitable and adequate, but his premature death rendered his plans fruitless. When the second partition of the empire was effected at Triparadeisos in 321 B.C., Antipater appointed Po̅ros and Āmbhi as a matter of form to the charge of the Indus valley and the Panjāb. The conditions, however, did not permit them to fulfil their commission, and by 317 at latest trace of Macedonian authority in India had vanished.

Effect on India of the invasion. Although the direct effects of Alexander's expedition on India appear to have been small, his proceedings had an appreciable influence on the history of the country. They broke down the wall of separation between west and east, and opened up four distinct lines of communication, three by land and one by sea. The land routes which he proved to be practicable were those through Kābul, the Mulla Pass in Balo̅chistan, and Gedrosia. Nearchos demonstrated that the  p67 sea voyage round the coast of Makrān offered few difficulties to sailors, once the necessary local inform had been gained, which he lacked. The immediate formation of Greek kingdoms in Western Asia ensured from the first a certain amount of exchange of ideas between India and Europe. The establishment of the Graeco-Bactrian monarchy in the middle of the third century B.C. brought about the actual subjugation of certain Indian districts by Greek kings. The Hellenistic influence on Indian art, which is most plainly manifested in the Gandhāra sculptures dating from the early centuries of the Christian era, may be traced less conspicuously in other directions. There is good reason to believe that Buddhist teaching was considerably modified by contact with the Greek gods, and that the use of images in particular as an essential element in the Buddhist cult was mainly due to Greek example.19 Whatever Hellenistic elements in Indian civilization can be detected were all indirect consequences of Alexander's invasion. The Greek influence never penetrated deeply. Indian polity and the structure of society resting on the caste basis remained substantially unchanged, and even in military science Indians showed no disposition to learn the lessons taught by the sharp sword of Alexander. The kings of Hind preferred to go on the old way, trusting to their else and chariots, supported by enormous hosts of inferior infantry. They never mastered the chock tactics of Alexander's cavalry, which were repeated by Bābur in the sixteenth century with equal success.

Indian influence on Europe. On the other hand, the West learned something from India in consequence of the communications opened up by Alexander's adventure. Our knowledge of the facts is so scanty and fragmentary that it is difficult to make any positive assertions with confidence, but it is safe to say that the influence of Buddhist ideas on Christian doctrine may be traced in the Gnostic forms of Christianity, if not elsewhere. The notions of Indian philosophy and religion which filtered in order to Roman empire flowed through channels opened by Alexander.

The information about India collected by Alexander's officers under his intelligent direction received no material additions until the closing years of the fifteenth century, when Vasco da Gama finally rent the veil which had so long hidden India from Europe and Europe from India.

India in the fourth century B.C. Although it is impossible to write the history of any Indian state in the fourth century B.C., except that of Magadha to a certain extent, we are not altogether ignorant of the conditions, political, social, economical, and religious which prevailed in that age. It is clear that no paramount imperial power existed. In the Panjāb and Sind, the two provinces actually visited by Alexander, the separate states were numerous and independent. The country between the Hydaspes and the Hyphasis alone was occupied by seven  p68 distinct nations or tribes. Some of the states, like Taxila and the realm of Po̅ros, were ruled by Rājās. Others, like the territories of the Mālavas and Kshudrakas (Malloi and Oxydrakai), were governed as republics, apparently by aristocratic oligarchies. The Kshudrakas, who sent a hundred and fifty of their most eminent men to negotiate terms, pleaded their special attachment to freedom and self-government from the most ancient times. Unfortunately the nature of the government in the numerous republican states of ancient India is imperfectly recorded. The existence of such states is noticed in the Arthasāstra, and their characteristics are the subject of a special section of the Mahābhārata.20

The statement made by Megasthenes twenty years or so after Alexander's invasion that 118 distinct nations or tribes were said to exist in the whole of India proves that the large number of distinct governments in the Panjāb and Sind was in no way exceptional. Such states were engaged in unceasing wars among themselves, with endless changes of rank and frontiers. Alexander profited by the dissensions of the Panjāb Rājās, and the Arthasāstra frankly lays down the principles:

Such maxims could not but result in chronic warfare. The treatise quoted is in my opinion a faithful mirror of Indian political conditions in the days of Alexander. The administrative system described in it will be noticed more conveniently in connexion with the account of the Maurya government.

Extensive commerce. The numerous details recorded both by the Greeks and by Kautilya prove beyond doubt that the Indians of the fourth century B.C. were advanced in material civilization, that they conducted extensive commerce internal and foreign, and were amply supplied with the luxuries of life. Incidental observations show that the countries of the extreme south were well known in the north, and that active intercourse for business purposes bound together all parts of India. A few details will establish the accuracy of that proposition.

We learn that the best elephants came from the eastern realms; Anga (Bhāgalpur and Mungir), Kalinga (Orissa), and Karusa (Shāhābād) being specially named. The worst animals came from Saurāshtra (Kāthiāwār), and Panchajana (probably the Pānch Mahāls in the Gujarāt). Those of medium quality were obtained along the Dasān river of Bundelkhand and farther west.

Kautilya was of opinion that the commerce with the south was  p69 of greater importance than that with the north, because the more precious commodities came from the peninsula, while the northern regions supplied only blankets, skins, and horses. Gold, diamonds, pearls, other gems, and conch shells are specified as products of the south. The Tāmraparni river in Tinnevelly, the Pāndya country of Madura, and Ceylon are named. We hear of textile fabrics from Benares, Madura, the Konkan, and even from China. Commerce by land and sea with foreign countries was regulated by many ordinances, and passports were required by all persons entering or leaving India.21 The coinage was of a primitive character. the coins most commonly used were of the kind called 'punch-marked', because center surface is tamped with separate marks made at different times by different punches. Such coins in base silver are found all over India. Specimens in copper occur, but are rare. The greater number are roughly square or oblong bits of metal cut out of a strip. The circular pieces are scarce. Roughly cast coins of early date are common in some localities.

Religion. Certain matters concerning the history of religions have been discussed in connexion with Taxila. A few other miscellaneous observations will not be out of place. The deities specifically mentioned include Zeus Ombrios — the rain‑god — which term must be intended to denote Indra; the Indian Herakles worshipped by the Surasenas of Mathurā, who may be identified with Krishnā's brother Balarāma; and the river Ganges.22 The dated references to the Krishnā cult and the veneration of the Ganges are worth noting.

The authority of the Brahmans was secure and fully recognized. They occupied a town in the Mālava territory, which probably was an agrahāra or proprietary grant, and everywhere they were  p70 the councillors of the Rājās. In Sind they used their influence to induce the local chiefs road resist the invader, and paid with their lives for their advice.23

Quintus Curtius notes the culto trees, and asserts that violations of sacred trees was a capital offence. Brahmans are said to have been accustomed to eat flesh, but not that of animals which assist man in his labours. That retract seems to imply the sacredness of horned cattle in the eyes of the Brahmans, although other people might still eat beef.

Tentative Chronology of the Saisunāga and Nanda Dynasties

Serial No.	King, as in Matsya Purāna	Probable date of accession B.C.	Remarks.
1	Sisunāga	642	Originally Rājā of Kāsī or Benares. No events recorded; 60 years allowed for four reigns.
2	Kākavarna
3	Kshemadharman
4	Kshemajit or Kshatraujas
5	Bimbisāra or Srēnika	582	Built New Rājagriha; conquered Anga; contemporary with Mahāvīra and Buddha; reputed to be a Jain.
6	Ajātasatru or Ku̅nika	554	Built fort of Pātaliputra; defeated rulers of Vaisāli and Kosala; death of Buddha; death of Mahāvīra.
7	darsaka	527	Mentioned in Svapna-Vāsava-dattā of Bhāsa.
8	Udāsin or Udaya	50324	Built city of Kusumapura on the Ganges near Pātaliputra on the So̅n.
9	Nandivardhana	470?	Dew events recorded; may be considered to be Nandas, as indicated by the names. (Khāravela inscription.)
11	Mahāpadma and 8 sons, 2 generations	413 (91 years before Chandragupta)	Low caste heretics, hostile to Brahmans and Kshatriyas; destroyed by Chandragupta and Kautilya.
13	Chandragupta	322 (? 325)	Date approximately correct.

Chronology of Alexander the Great

(Dates accurate)

334	A. started on campaign against Persia; battle of the Granicus (Thargelion).
333	Battle of Issus.
332	Conquest of Egypt.
331	Foundation of Alexandria in Egypt; battle of Gaugamela (Arbela)
330	A. in Persia; death of Darius.
328‑7	A. in Bactria.
327	May. Crossing of Hindu Kush range.
327	Judean to December. Campaign in the hills of Bājaur and Suwāt (Swat).
326	February. Crossing of the Indus.
326	Beginning of July. Battle of Hydaspes.
326	September. Arrival at the Hyphasis; erection of altars; forced return.
326	End of October. Beginning of voyage down the rivers.
325	January. Defeat of the Mālavas (Malloi)
325	October, beginning of. A. started on march through Gedrosia.
325	October, end of. Nearchos started on voyage along the coast to Persian Gulf.
324	February. A. and the remains of his army in Karmania.
324	May. A. at Su̅sa in Persia.
323	June. Death of Alexander at Babylon.

---

The Author's Notes:

1 The seven sacred cities are Benares (Kāsī), Hardwār (Māyā), Kānchī (Conjeeveram), Ayodhyā (Oudh), Dvāravatī (Dvārikā), Mathurā, and Ujjain or Avantikā.

2 See Jackson, 'Notes on Old Rājagriha', Ann. Rep. A. S., India, for 1913‑14 (1917), pp265‑71, Pl. lxxi.

3 The spelling of the name varies.

4 See the author's article 'Kusinagara' in Hastings, Encycl. of Religion and Ethics. Kasiā cannot represent Kusinagara, because that site was and long had been deserted in the time of the Chinese pilgrims, whereas building was continuous at Kasiā all through the Gupta period and afterwards.

5 For unavowed, veiled, or crypto-Indian Buddhists see Nagendra Nāth Vaus, The Modern Buddhism and its Followers in Orissa (Hare Press, Calcutta, 1911), with the extremely learned Introduction by M. M. H. P. Sāstri.

6 Compare Wordsworth, Prelude (ed. 2, 1851), Book III, p49:

The poet felt those sentiments while he was an undergraduate at Cambridge.

7 Whitehead, The Village Gods of Southern India (1916), pp66, 94.

8 Most probably the seventh century B.C. in my opinion, for which good authority might be cited.

9 For the interpretation of Navanandah as the 'New' or 'Later' Nandas, see J. B. O. Res. Soc. IV.91‑5.

10 The rendering of the Arthasāstra text is that of Shāma Sastri. The text of the Khāravela inscription was settled in 1917 by R. D. Banerji and K. P. Jayaswal as far as possible (J. B. O. Res. Soc., vol. III). Khāravela's 13th year = the year 165 or 164 of the era of 'Rājā Muriya', scil. Chandragupta, which began about 322 B.C., and so = about 157 or 158 B.C. A Nanda king, probably Nandivardhana, had made a canal about 300 years before the fifth year of Khāravela (165 B.C.), and so in about 465 B.C. For the Patna stu̅pas see Beal, Records, II.94. Some people ascribed them to Asoka.

11 Archaeological evidence, chiefly numismatic, corroborates the Greek historians in certain details.

12 The chieftains referred to are: (1) the former Mīrs of Badakshān, dispossessed about 1822; (2‑5) the chiefs of Darwāz, Kulāb, Shighnān, and Wakhan; and (6‑8) the chiefs of Chitrāl, Gilgit, and Iskardo (Burnes, Travels into Bokhara, &c., 2nded., 1835, vol. III, pp186‑90).

13 The remark refers to 1917.

14 Strabo, Book XV, chap. I, sec. 62; transl. McCrindle in Ancient India as described in Classical Literature (Constable, 1901), p69. In sec. 28 Strabo observes that Taxila was governed by 'good laws'.

15 (1) Dagger; (2) sword, hung from shoulder; (3) infantry shield; (4), (5) cavalry shields; (6) pike or javelin; (7) vajra, carried in king's hand; (8), (9) axes; (10) trident; (11) elephant goad.

16 E. H. I., 4th ed. (1923), p76.

17 The name Sibipura occurs in a Buddhist inscription from Sho̅rko̅t dated 83 [G.E.] = A.D. 402‑3 (Vogel in J. P. H. S., vol. I, p174).

18 E. H. I., ed. 4 (1923), p106.

19 Hervey (Some Records of Crime, I.209) finds a trace of Greek art in the Grecian ram's head on the hilt of weapons in Bīkaner. There are Greek survivals also among the Kāfirs of the Hindu Kush.

20 Sānti Parva, 107; transcribed and translated by K. P. Jayaswal, 'Republics in the Mahābhārata' (J. B. O. Res. Soc., vol. I (1915), p173). The subject has been discussed with much learning and at considerable length by R. C. Majumdar in Corporate Life in Ancient India, chap. iii, Calcutta, 1918.

21 Arthasāstra, Book II, chaps. 2, 11, 16, 28, 34; Book VII, chap. 12.

22 Strabo, Book XV, chap. i, secs. 59, 69; Arrian, Indika, chap. 8.

23 Arrian, Anab., Book VI, chaps. 7, 17.

24 For an alternative date see K. P. Jayaswal's article on the Saisunaka statues in J. B. O. Res. Soc. V (1919), pp88‑106.

◂ previous						next ▸
Images with borders lead to more information. The thicker the border, the more information. (Details here.)
UP TO:		Oxford History of India	History of India	Home
A page or image on this site is in the public domain ONLY if its URL has a total of one *asterisk. If the URL has two **asterisks, the item is copyright someone else, and used by permission or fair use. If the URL has none the item is © Bill Thayer. See my copyright page for details and contact information.