Greek Conquests in India

In ancient times, trade between India and Greece flourished with silk, spices and gold being traded. The Greeks invaded India several times, starting with the conquest of Alexander the Great.

Conquests of Alexander The Great (327-326 BCE)

In 327 BCE Alexander the Great began his foray into Punjab. King Ambhi, ruler of Taxila, surrendered the city to Alexander. Many people had fled to a high fortress/rock called Aornos. Aornos was taken by Alexander by storm after a successful siege. Alexander fought an epic battle against the Indian monarch Porus in the Battle of Hydaspes (326). After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom. Alexander continued on to conquer all the headwaters of the Indus River.

East of Porus' kingdom, near the Ganges River, was the powerful kingdom of Magadha. Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer, Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return.

Alexander was forced to turn south, conquering his way down the Indus to the Indian Ocean. He sent much of his army to Carmania (modern southern Iran) with his general Craterus, and commissioned a fleet to explore the Persian Gulf shore under his admiral Nearchus, while he led the rest of his forces back to Persia by the southern route through the Gedrosia (modern Makran in southern Pakistan).


Alexander left behind Greek forces which established themselves in the city of Taxila, now in Pakistan. Several generals governed the newly established province. One of them, Sophytes (305-294 BCE), was an independent Greek prince in the Punjab.

Within a few years local India monarchs recaptured the region from the Greeks. Chandragupta Maurya, who had met Alexander in Taxila, founded the Mauryan empire.


Seleucid invasion (304 BCE)

Seleucus I Nicator founder of the Seleucid dynasty and one of Alexander's former generals. He invaded India (modern Punjab in northern India and Pakistan) in 304 BCE.

It is said that Chandragupta Marya put an army of 100,000 men and 9,000 war elephants and forced Seleucus to conclude an alliance. Seleucus gave him his daughter in marriage, ceded the territories of Arachosia, and received from Chandraguta 500 war elephant which he used decisively at the Battle of Ipsus.

Seleucus also sent an ambassador named Megasthenes to Chandragupta's court, who repeatedly visited Pataliputra (modern Patna in Bihar state), capital of Chandragupta. Megasthenes has written detailed descriptions of India and Chandragupta's reign.

Continued diplomatic exchanges and good relations are between the Seleucids and the Mauryan empirors are then documented throughout the duration of the Mauryan empire.


Indo-Greek rule (180-30 BCE)

In 180 BCE, the Indo-Greeks, invaded parts of northwest and northern India. They are an extension of the Greco-Bactrian dynasty of Greek kings (the Euthydemids) located in neighbouring Bactria.

The invasion of northern India followed the destruction of the Mauryan dynasty by the general Pusyamitra Sunga, who then founded the new Indian Sunga dynasty (185 BCE-78 BCE). The Indo-Greek king Demetrius I of Bactria went as far as the capital Pataliputra in eastern India (today Patna): "Those who came after Alexander went to the Ganges and Pataliputra" (Strabo, XV.698). The Indian records also describes Greek attacks on Saketa, Panchala, Mathura and Pataliputra (Gargi-Samhita, Yuga Purana chapter).

The Indo-Greeks ruled various part of northern and northwestern India until the end of the 1st century BC, while the Sungas remained in the east.


Legacy

Buddhism flourished under the Indo-Greeks, leading to the Greco-Buddhist cultural syncretism. The arts of the Indian sub-continent were also quite affected by Hellenistic art during and after these interactions.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Greek Conquests in India".

Indo-Greek Kingdom

The Indo-Greek Kingdom covered various parts of the northwest and northern Indian subcontinent from 180 BCE to around 10 CE, and was ruled by a succession of more than thirty Hellenic kings[1], often in conflict with each other. The kingdom was founded when the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius invaded India in 180 BCE, ultimately creating an entity which seceded from the powerful Greco-Bactrian Kingdom centered in Bactria (today's northern Afghanistan). The city of Taxila in northern Pakistan would eventually serve as the Kingdom's cosmopolitan capital and seat of power.

 


During the two centuries of their rule, the Indo-Greek kings combined the Greek and Indian languages and symbols, as seen on their coins, and blended ancient Greek, Hindu and Buddhist religious practices, as seen in the archaeological remains of their cities and in the indications of their support of Buddhism. The Indo-Greek kings seem to have achieved a level of cultural syncretism with no equivalent in history, the consequences of which are still felt today, particularly through the diffusion and influence of Greco-Buddhist art.

The Indo-Greeks ultimately disappeared as a political entity around 10 CE following the invasions of the Indo-Scythian, Indo-Parthian and Kushans, although pockets of Greek populations probably remained for several centuries longer.


Greek presence in India

The Indian emperor Chandragupta, founder of the Mauryan dynasty, re-conquered around 322 BCE the northwest Indian territory that had been lost to Alexander the Great. However, contacts were kept with his Greek neighbours in the Seleucid Empire, Chandragupta received the daughter of the Seleucid king Seleucus I after a peace treaty, occupied northwestern territories as far as Arachosia, and several Greeks, such as the historian Megasthenes, resided at the Mauryan court:

"The Indians occupy [in part] some of the countries situated along the Indus, which formerly belonged to the Persians: Alexander deprived the Ariani of them, and established there settlements of his own. But Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus in consequence of a marriage contract, and received in return five hundred elephants." Strabo 15.2.1(9) [2]

Bilingual edict (Greek and Aramaic) by king Ashoka, from Kandahar. Kabul Museum.Greek populations apparently remained in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent under Mauryan rule. Chandragupta's grandson Ashoka, who had converted to the Buddhist faith declared in the Edicts of Ashoka, set in stone, some of them written in Greek, that he converted to Buddhism Greek populations within his realm:

"Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dharma." Rock Edict Nb13 (S. Dhammika).
Finally, some of the emissaries of Ashoka, such as the famous Dharmaraksita, are described in Pali sources as leading Greek ("Yona") Buddhist monks, active in Buddhist proselytism (the Mahavamsa, XII[3])


The Greco-Bactrian kingdom

Alexander had established in Bactria several cities (Ai-Khanoum, Begram) and an administration that were to last more than two centuries under the Seleucids and the Greco-Bactrians, all the time in direct contact with Indian territory.

The Greco-Bactrians maintained a strong Hellenistic culture at the door of India during the rule of the Mauryan empire in India, as exemplified by the archaeological site of Ai-Khanoum. When the Mauryan empire was toppled by the Sungas around 180 BCE, the Greco-Bactrians expanded into India, where they established the Indo-Greek kingdom.


Early history

Local turmoil preceded the invasion of northern India undertaken by Demetrius, son of the Greco-Bactrian king Euthydemus, circa 180 BCE. General Pusyamitra Sunga had destroyed the ruling Mauryan King and had recently founded the Sunga dynasty (185–78 BCE). Written evidence of the initial Greek invasion survives in the Greek writings of Strabo and Justin, and in Sanskrit in the records of Patanjali, Kalidasa, and in the Yuga Purana, among others. Coins and architectural evidence also attest to the extent of the initial Greek campaign.



Evidence of the initial invasion

According to Strabo, Greek advances temporarily went as far as the Sunga capital Pataliputra (today Patna) in eastern India:

"Those who, after Alexander, advanced beyond the Hypanis, to the Ganges and Pataliputra." (Strabo, 15-1-27) 

The 1st century BCE Greek historian Apollodorus, quoted by Strabo, affirms that the Bactrian Greeks, led by Demetrius I and Menander, conquered India and occupied a larger territory than the Macedonians under Alexander the Great, going beyond the Hypanis towards the Himalayas.

The Roman historian Justin also mentioned the Indo-Greek conquests, describing Demetrius as "King of the Indians" ("Regis Indorum"), and explaining that after vanquishing him Eucratides in turn "put India under his rule" ("Indiam in potestatem redegit"). Although "India" only meant the upper Indus for Alexander the Great, since the embassies of Megasthenes in the 3rd century BCE "India" meant to the Greeks most of the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, an area roughly corresponding to the extent of the Mauryan Empire at its largest. Greek and Indian sources tend to indicate that the Greeks ruled in Pataliputra until they were forced to retreat following the coup staged by Eucratides back in Bactria circa 170 BCE, suggesting an occupation period of about eight years.

To the south, the Greeks occupied the areas of the Sindh and Gujarat down to the region of Surat (Greek: Saraostus) near Mumbai (Bombay), including the strategic harbour of Barigaza (Bharuch), as attested by several writers (Strabo 11; Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Chap. 41/47) and as evidenced by coins dating from the Indo-Greek ruler Apollodotus I:

"The Greeks... took possession, not only of Patalena, but also, on the rest of the coast, of what is called the kingdom of Saraostus and Sigerdis." (Strabo 11.11.1)
The 1st century CE Periplus of the Erythraean Sea describes numerous Greek buildings and fortifications in Barigaza, although mistakenly attributing them to Alexander, and the circulation of Indo-Greek coinage in the region:

"The metropolis of this country is Minnagara, from which much cotton cloth is brought down to Barygaza. In these places there remain even to the present time signs of the expedition of Alexander, such as ancient shrines, walls of forts and great wells." Periplus, Chap. 41

"To the present day ancient drachmae are current in Barygaza, coming from this country, bearing inscriptions in Greek letters, and the devices of those who reigned after Alexander, Apollodorus (sic) and Menander." Periplus Chap. 47 

Indian sources

Various Indian records describe Greek (called Yavana) attacks on Mathura, Panchala, Saketa, and Pataliputra. Patanjali, a grammarian and commentator on Panini around 150 BCE, describes in the Mahabhasya, the invasion in two examples using the imperfect tense of Sanskrit, denoting a recent event:

"Arunad Yavanah Saketam" ("The Yavana [Greeks] were besieging Saketa") 
"Arunad Yavano Madhyamikam" ("The Yavana were besieging Madhyamika (the "Middle country"). 

The Anushasanaparava of the Mahabharata affirms that the country of Mathura, the heartland of India, was under the joint control of the Yavanas and the Kambojas. Accounts of battles between the Greeks and the Sunga in Central India are also found in the Malavikagnimitra, a play by Kalidasa which describes a battle between Greek forces and Vasumitra, the grandson of Pushyamitra, during the latter's reign.

Also the Brahmanical text of the Yuga Purana, which describes Indian historical events in the form of a prophecy, relates the attack of the Indo-Greeks on the capital Pataliputra, a magnificent fortified city with 570 towers and 64 gates according to Megasthenes, and describes the ultimate destruction of the city's walls:

"Then, after having approached Saketa together with the Panchalas and the Mathuras, the Yavanas, valiant in battle, will reach Kusumadhvaja ("The town of the flower-standard", Pataliputra). Then, once Puspapura (another name of Pataliputra) has been reached and its celebrated mud[-walls] cast down, all the realm will be in disorder." 

According to the Yuga Purana a situation of complete social disorder follows, in which the Yavanas rule and mingle with the people, and the position of the Brahmins and the Sudras is inverted:

"Sudras will also be utterers of bho (a form of address used towards an equal or inferior), and Brahmins will be utterers of arya (a form of address used towards a superior), and the elders, most fearful of dharma, will fearlessly exploit the people. And in the city the Yavanas, the princes, will make this people acquainted with them: but the Yavanas, infatuated by war, will not remain in Madhyadesa." (Yuga Purana, Paragraph 55-56, 2002 edition.)


Archeological remains

The city of Sirkap, today in northwestern Pakistan, was built according to the "Hippodamian" grid-plan characteristic of Greek cities, suggesting it may have been built by Demetrius. Numerous Hellenistic artifacts have been found, in particular coins of Greco-Bactrian kings and stone palettes representing Greek mythological scenes. Some of them are purely Hellenistic, others indicate an evolution of the Greco-Bactrian styles found at Ai-Khanoum towards more indianized styles. For example, accessories such as Indian ankle bracelets can be found on some representations of Greek mythological figures such as Artemis. Various Buddhist structures, such as the Butkara Stupa in the area of Swat were decorated with Hellenistic architectural elements from the 2nd century BCE.[15]

Ancient fortifications have been unearthed in Rajagriha, south of Pataliputra, which are similar in structure to the Indo-Greek fortifications of Sirkap and Barikot: stone walls connected by jutting rectangular towers, reinforced by a low structure to repel siege machinery, in contrast to the mud walls used throughout the country at that time


Retreat

The first invasion was completed by 175 BCE, as the Indo-Greeks contained the Sungas to the area eastward of Pataliputra, and established their rule on the new territory. Back in Bactria however, around 170 BCE, an usurper named Eucratides managed to topple the Euthydemid dynasty. He took for himself the title of king and started a civil war by invading the Indo-Greek territory, forcing the Indo-Greeks to retreat from their easternmost possessions and establish their new oriental frontier at Mathura, to confront this new threat:

"The Yavanas, infatuated by war, will not remain in Madhadesa (the Middle Country). There will be mutual agreement among them to leave, due to a terrible and very dreadful war having broken out in their own realm." (Yuga Purana, paragraphs 56-57, 2002 edition). 

The Hathigumpha inscription, written by the king of Kalinga, Kharavela, also describes the presence of the Greek king "Demetrius" with his army in eastern India, apparently as far as the city of Rajagriha about 70 km southeast of Pataliputra and one of the foremost Buddhist sacred cities, but claims that Demetrius ultimately retreated to Mathura on hearing of Kharavela's military successes further south:

"Then in the eighth year, (Kharavela) with a large army having sacked Goradhagiri causes pressure on Rajagaha (Rajagriha). On account of the loud report of this act of valour, the Yavana (Greek) King Dimi[ta] retreated to Mathura having extricated his demoralized army and transport." Hathigumpha inscription, in Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XX.

In any case, Eucratides seems to have occupied territory as far as the Indus, between ca 170 BCE and 150 BCE. His advances were ultimately checked by the Indo-Greek king Menander I (Milinda), previously a general of Demetrius, who asserted himself in the Indian part of the empire, apparently conquered Bactria as indicated by his issue of coins in the Greco-Bactrian style, and even began the last expansions eastwards.


Consolidation and rise of Menander I

Menander (Milinda) is considered as probably the most successful Indo-Greek king, and the conqueror of the vastest territory.[18] The finds of his coins are the most numerous and the most widespread of all the Indo-Greek kings. In Antiquity, from at least the 1st century CE, the "Menander Mons", or "Mountains of Menander", came to designate the mountain chain at the extreme east of the Indian subcontinent, today's Naga hills and Arakan, as indicated in the Ptolemy world map of the 1st century CE geographer Ptolemy. Presumably the "Menander Mons" were so named because they marked the easternmost extent of his Indian conquests. Menander is also remembered in Buddhist literature (the Milinda Panha) as a convert to Buddhism: he became an arhat whose relics were enshrined in a manner reminiscent of the Buddha. He also introduced a new coin type, with Athena Alkidemos ("Protector of the people") on the reverse, which was adopted by most of his successors in the East.

Conquests east of the Punjab region were most likely made during the second half of the century by the king Menander I.

Following Menander's reign, about twenty Indo-Greek kings are known to have ruled in succession in the eastern parts of the Indo-Greek territory. Upon his death, Menander was succeeded by his queen Agathokleia, who for some time acted as regent to their son Strato I.


Culture

Buddhism flourished under the Indo-Greek kings, and it has been suggested, although direct evidence is lacking, that their invasion of India was intended to show their support for the Mauryan empire, which had a long history of marital alliances, treaties of friendship, and exchange of ambassadors and religious emissaries with the Greeks, and to protect the Buddhist faith from the religious persecutions of the Sungas. The city of Sirkap founded by Demetrius combines Greek and Indian influences without signs of segregation between the two cultures.

The first Greek coins to be minted in India, those of Menander I and Appolodotus I bear the mention "Saviour king" (BASILEOS SOTHROS), a title with high value in the Greek world which indicated an important deflective victory. For instance, Ptolemy I had been Soter (saviour) because he had helped save Rhodes from Demetrius the Besieger, and Antiochus I because he had saved Asia Minor from the Gauls.

Also, most of the coins of the Greek kings in India were bilingual, written in Greek on the front and in Pali (in the Kharoshthi script) on the back, a tremendous concession to another culture never before made in the Hellenic world. From the reign of Apollodotus II, around 80 BCE, Kharoshthi letters started to be used as mintmarks on coins in combination with Greek monograms and mintmarks, suggesting the participation of local technicians to the minting process. Incidentally, these bilingual coins of the Indo-Greeks were the key in the decipherment of the Kharoshthi script by James Prinsep (1799-1840). Kharoshthi became extinct around the 3rd century CE.

In Indian literature, the Indo-Greeks are described as Yavanas (transliteration of "Ionians"). Direct epigraphical evidence involves the Indo-Greek kings, such as the mention of the "Yavana king" Antialcidas on the Heliodorus pillar in Vidisha, or the mention of Menander I in the Buddhist text of the Milinda Panha. In the Harivamsa the "Yavana" Indo-Greeks are qualified, together with the Sakas, Kambojas, Pahlavas and Paradas as Kshatriya-pungava i.e foremost among the Warrior caste, or Kshatriyas. The Majjhima Nikaya explains that in the lands of the Yavanas and Kambojas, in contrast with the numerous Indian castes, there were only two classes of people, Aryas and Dasas (masters and slaves). The Arya could become Dasa and vice versa.


Religion

In addition to the worship of the Classical pantheon of the Greek deities found on their coins (Zeus, Herakles, Athena, Apollo...), the Indo-Greeks were involved with local faiths, particularly with Buddhism, but also with Hinduism and Zoroastrianism.


Buddhism

The Edicts of Ashoka, inscribed during the reign of the Indian emperor Ashoka (273-232 BCE), claim that the Greek populations of the northwestern Indian subcontinent (in today's Afghanistan and ancient Gandhara) had already welcomed Buddhism by around 250 BCE:

"Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dharma. (Edicts of Ashoka, 13th Rock Edict, S. Dhammika).
After the Greco-Bactrians militarily occupied parts of northern India from around 180 BCE, numerous instances of interaction between Greeks and Buddhism are recorded.


The conversion of Menander

Menander I, one of the most famous successors of Demetrius, ruled from 150 to 135 BCE. He is presented by Greek authors as an even greater conqueror than Alexander the Great. Strabo (XI.II.I) says Menander was one of the two Bactrian kings who extended their power farthest into India.

Menander, the "Saviour king", seems to have converted to Buddhism, and is described in Buddhist texts as a great benefactor of the religion, on a par with Ashoka or the future Kushan emperor Kanishka. He is famous for his dialogues with the Buddhist monk Nagasena, transmitted to us in the Milinda Panha, which explain that he became a Buddhist arhat:

"And afterwards, taking delight in the wisdom of the Elder, he handed over his kingdom to his son, and abandoning the household life for the house-less state, grew great in insight, and himself attained to Arahatship!" (The Questions of King Milinda, Translation by T. W. Rhys Davids) 

Plutarch also presents Menander as an example of benevolent rule, and explains that upon his death, the honour of sharing his remains was claimed by the various cities under his rule, and they were enshrined in "monuments" (probably stupas), in a parallel with the historic Buddha:

"But when one Menander, who had reigned graciously over the Bactrians, died afterwards in the camp, the cities indeed by common consent celebrated his funerals; but coming to a contest about his relics, they were difficultly at last brought to this agreement, that his ashes being distributed, everyone should carry away an equal share, and they should all erect monuments to him." (Plutarch, "Political Precepts" Praec. reip. ger. 28, 6).


Buddhist proselytism

During the reign of Menander, the Greek (Pali: Yona, lit: "Ionian") Buddhist monk Mahadhammarakkhita (Sanskrit: Mahadharmaraksita, lit. "Great protector of the Dharma") is said to have come from Alasandra (thought to be Alexandria of the Caucasus, the city founded by Alexander the Great, near today's Kabul) with 30,000 monks for the foundation ceremony of the Maha Thupa ("Great stupa") built by king Dutthagamani at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka, indicating the importance of Buddhism within Greek communities in northwestern India, and the prominent role Greek Buddhist monks played in them:

"From Alasanda the city of the Yonas came the thera (elder) Yona Mahadhammarakkhita with thirty thousand bhikkhus." (Mahavamsa, XXIX)

Several Buddhist dedications by Greeks in India are recorded, such as that of the Greek meridarch (civil governor of a province) named Theodorus, describing in Kharoshthi how he enshrined relics of the Buddha. The inscriptions were found on a vase inside a stupa, dated to the reign of Menander or one his successors in the 1st century BCE (Tarn, p391):

"Theudorena meridarkhena pratithavida ime sarira sakamunisa bhagavato bahu-jana-stitiye":

"The meridarch Theodorus has enshrined relics of Lord Shakyamuni, for the welfare of the mass of the people" 
(Swat relic vase inscription of the Meridarkh Theodoros)

Although the spread of Buddhism to Central Asia and Northern Asia is usually associated with the Kushans, a century or two later, there is a possibility that it may have been introduced in those areas from Gandhara "even earlier, during the time of Demetrius and Menander" (Puri, "Buddhism in Central Asia"). There is however some textual evidence to suggest that Buddhism had penetrated much earlier to Central Asia, at least in a limited form: the first two disciples of the Buddha were named Tapassu and Bhallika, from the region of Balhika (the present Balkh, and Sanskrit for Bactria), and though it cannot necessarilly be presumed that any extensive prosyletization occurred on their return journey, that the Sanskrit name for Bactria derived from the name of a Bactrian-Buddhist disciple is suggestive of some early influence. Bhallika and Tapassu were both travellers, and if nothing else, the story of their conversion and their home region's Sanskrit nomenclature illustrates the possibility of early transmission via the local trade routes.


Buddhist symbolism

From around 180 BCE, Agathocles and Pantaleon, probable successors to Demetrius I in the Paropamisadae, and the earliest Greek kings to issue Indian-standard square bilingual coins (in Brahmi), depicted the Buddhist lion together with the Hindu goddess Lakshmi.

Some coins of Agathocles in the Indian standard also show a six-arched stupa and a tree in a railing, typical symbol of the Bodhi tree in early Buddhism [26]. These coins show an unprecedented willingness to adapt to every aspect of the local culture: shape of the coinage, coinage size, language, and religion.

Later, some Indo-Greek coins incorporate the Buddhist symbol of the eight-spoked wheel, such as those of Menander I, as well as his possible grandson Menander II. On these coins, the wheel is associated with the Greek symbols of victory, either the palm of victory, or the victory wreath handed over by the goddess Nike. This symbology has led some to conclude that Menander adopted the Buddhist mantle of a "Chakravartin" during his lifetime; lit., "one for whom the wheel of law turns," translated as "King of the Wheel" in Western texts.

The ubiquitous symbol of the elephant may or may not have been associated with Buddhism. Interestingly, on some coin series of Antialcidas, the elephant holds the same relationship to Zeus and Nike as the Buddhist wheel on the coin of Menander II, tending to suggest a common meaning for both symbols. Some of the earlier coins of king Apollodotus I directly associate the elephant with Buddhist symbolism, such as the stupa hill surmounted by a star, also seen, for example on the coins of the Mauryan Empire or those of the later Kuninda kingdom.

Conversely, the bull is probably associated with Shiva, and often described in an erectile state as on the coins of Apollodotus I.

Also, after the reign of Menander I, several Indo-Greek rulers, such as Agathokleia, Amyntas, Nicias, Peukolaos, Hermaeus, Hippostratos and Menander II, depicted themselves or their Greek deities forming with the right hand a symbolic gesture identical to the Buddhist vitarka mudra (thumb and index joined together, with other fingers extended), which in Buddhism signifies the transmission of the Buddha's teaching.

At precisely the same time, right after the death of Menander, several Indo-Greek rulers also started to adopt on their coins the Pali title of "Dharmikasa", meaning "follower of the Dharma" (the title of the great Indian Buddhist king Ashoka was Dharmaraja "King of the Dharma").[27] This usage was adopted by Strato I, Zoilos I, Heliokles II, Theophilos, Peukolaos, Menander II and Archebios.

Altogether, the conversion of Menander I to Buddhism suggested by the Milinda Panha seems to have triggered the use of Buddhist symbolism in one form or another on the coinage of close to half of the kings who succeeded him. Especially, all the kings after Menander who are recorded to have ruled in Gandhara (apart from the little known Demetrius III) display Buddhist symbolism in one form or another. On the contrary, none of the kings whose rule was limited to Punjab did display Buddhist signs (with the exception of the powerful Hippostratos, who probably took under his protection many Gandharan Greeks fleeing from the Indo-Scythians (Tarn).).

A 2nd century BCE relief from a Buddhist stupa in Bharhut, in eastern Madhya Pradesh (today at the Indian Museum in Calcutta), represents a foreign soldier with the curly hair of a Greek and the royal headband with flowing ends of a Greek king. In his left hand, he hold a branch of ivy, symbol of Dionysos. Also parts of his dress, with rows of geometrical folds, are characteristically Hellenistic in style. On his sword appears the Buddhist symbol of the three jewels, or Triratana.


Representation of the Buddha

The anthropomorphic representation of the Buddha is absent from Indo-Greek coinage, suggesting that the Indo-Greek kings may have respected the Indian aniconic rule for Buddhist depictions, limiting themselves to Buddhist symbolism only. Consistently with this perspective, the actual depiction of the Buddha would be a later phenomenon, usually dated to the 1st century CE, emerging from the sponsorship of the syncretic Kushan Empire and executed by Greek, and, later, Indian and possibly Roman artists. Datation of Greco-Buddhist statues is generally uncertain, but they are at least firmly established from the 1st century CE.

Another possibility is that the Indo-Greeks may not have considered the Buddha strictly as a God, but rather as an essentially human sage or philosopher, in line with the traditional Nikaya Buddhist doctrine. Just as philosophers were routinely represented in statues (but certainly not on coins) in Antiquity, the Indo-Greek may have initiated anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha in statuary only, possibly as soon as the 2nd-1st century BCE, as advocated by Foucher and suggested by Chinese murals depicting Emperor Wu of Han worshipping Buddha statues brought from Central Asia in 120 BCE (See picture). Foucher especially considered Hellenistic free-standing Buddhas as "the most beautiful, and probably the most ancient of the Buddhas", assigning them to the 1st century BCE, and making them the starting point of the anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha.[28]

The willingness of ancient Greeks to represent local deities is also attested in Egypt with the creation of the god Serapis in Hellenistic style, an adaptation of the Egyptian god Apis. An Indo-Chinese tradition also explains that Nagasena, also known as Menander's Buddhist teacher, created in 43 BCE in the city of Pataliputra a statue of the Buddha, the Emerald Buddha, which was later brought to Thailand.

Stylistically, Indo-Greek coins generally display a very high level of Hellenistic artistic realism, which declined drastically around 50 BCE with the invasions of the Indo-Scythians, Yuezhi and Indo-Parthians. The first known statues of the Buddha are also very realistic and Hellenistic in style and are more consistent with the pre-50 BCE artistic level seen on coins. This would tend to suggest that the first statues were created between 130 BCE (death of Menander) and 50 BCE, precisely at the time when Buddhist symbolism appeared on Indo-Greek coinage. From that time, Menander and his successors may have been the key propagators of Buddhist ideas and representations: "the spread of Gandhari Buddhism may have been stimulated by Menander's royal patronage, as may have the development and spread of Gandharan sculpture, which seems to have accompanied it" (Mc Evilly, "The shape of ancient thought", p378)

The representation of the Buddha may also be connected to his progressive deification, which is usually associated with the spread of the Indian principle of Bhakti (personal devotion to a deity). Bhakti is a principle which evolved in the Bhagavata religious movement, and is said to have permeated Buddhism from about 100 BCE, and to have been a contributing factor to the representation of the Buddha in human form. The association of the Indo-Greeks with the Bhagavata movement is documented in the inscription of the Heliodorus pillar, made during the reign of the Indo-Greek king Antialcidas (r.c. 115-95 BCE). At that time relations with the Sungas seem to have improved, and some level of religious exchange seems to have occurred. The point of time when bhakti fervour would have encountered the Hellenistic artistic tradition would then be around 100 BCE.

Most of the early images of the Buddha (especially those of the standing Buddha) are anepigraphic, which makes it difficult to have a definite datation. The earliest known image of the Buddha with approximate indications on date is the Bimaran casket, which has been found buried with coins of the Indo-Scythian king Azes II (or possibly Azes I), indicating a 30-10 BCE date,[29] although this date is not undisputed. Such datation, as well as the general Hellenistic style and attitude of the Buddha on the Bimaran casket (himation dress, contrapposto attitude, general depiction) would made it a possible Indo-Greek work, used in dedications by Indo-Scythians right after the end of Indo-Greek rule in the area of Gandhara. Since it already displays quite a sophisticated iconography (Brahma and Sakra as attendants, Bodhisattvas) in an advanced style, it would suggest much earlier representations of the Buddha were already current by that time, going back to the rule of the Indo-Greeks (Alfred A. Foucher and others).


Hinduism

The first known bilingual coins of the Indo-Greeks were issued by Agathocles around 180 BCE. These coins were found in Ai-Khanoum, the great Greco-Bactrian city in northeastern Afghanistan, but introduce for the first time an Indian script (the Brahmi script which had been in use under the Mauryan empire), and the first known representations of Hindu deities, in a very Indian iconography: Krishna-Vasudeva, with his large wheel with six spokes (chakra) and conch (shanka), and his brother Sankarshan-Balarama, with his plough (hala) and pestle (masala), both early avatars of Vishnu.[30] The square coins, instead of the usual Greek round coins, also followed the Indian standard for coinage. The dancing girls on some of the coins of Agathocles and Pantaleon are also sometimes considered as representations of Subhadra, Krishna's sister.

These first issues were in several respects a short-lived experiment. Hindu anthropomorphic deities were never again represented in Indo-Greek coinage (although the bull on the vast quantity of subsequent coins may have symbolized Shiva, as the elephant may have symbolized Buddhism), and the Brahmi script was immediately replaced by the Kharoshti script, derived from Aramaic. The general practice however of minting bilingual coins and combining Greek and Indian iconography, sometimes in the Greek and sometimes in the Indian standard continued for the next two centuries.

In any case, these coins suggest the strong presence of Indian religious traditions in the northwestern Indian subcontinent at that time, and the willingness of the Greeks to acknowledge and even promote them. Artistically, they tend to indicate that the Greeks were not particularly reluctant to make representations of local deities, which has some bearing on the later emergence of the image of the Buddha in Hellenistic style.

The Heliodorus pillar inscription is another epigraphical evidence of the interaction between Greeks and Hinduism. The pillar was erected around 110 BCE in central India at the site of Vidisha, by Heliodorus, a Greek ambassador of the Indo-Greek king Antialcidas to the court of the Sunga king Bhagabhadra. The pillar was surmounted by a sculpture of Garuda and was apparently dedicated by Heliodorus to the temple of Vasudeva.


Zoroastrianism

Persian culture and religion seem to have been rather influential among the Western Indo-Greeks, who, located around the Paropamisadae, lived in direct contact with the Central Asian cultural sphere and the eastern reaches of the Parthian empire. Images of the Persian Zoroastrian god Mithra appear extensively on the Indo-Greek coinage of the Western kings, as a god with a radiated phrygian cap.


This Zeus-Mithra god is also the one represented seated (with the rays around the head, and a small protrusion on the top of the head representing the cap) on many coins of Hermaeus, Antialcidas or Heliokles II, or possibly even earlier during the time of Eucratides I, on whose coins the deity is said to be the god of the city of Kapisa.

The future Buddha Maitreya, usually represented seated on a throne Western-style, and venerated both in Mahayana and non-Mahayana Buddhism, is sometimes considered as influenced by the god Mithra. "Some scholars suggest he (Maitreya) was originally linked to the Iranian saviour-figure Mitra, and that his later importance for Buddhist as the future Buddha residing in the Tusita heaven, who will follow on from Sakyamuni Buddha, derives from this source." (Keown, Dictionary of Buddhism)

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Indo-Greek Kingdom".

Islamic conquest in India

The Islamic conquest of the Indian subcontinent took place during the ascendancy of the Rajput Kingdoms in North India, during the seventh to the twelfth centuries. The first incursion by the new Muslim successor states of the Persian empire occurred around 664 CE during the Umayyad Caliphate, led by Mohalib towards Multan in Southern Punjab; in modern day Pakistan. Mohalib expeditions were not aimed at conquest, though they penetrated as far as the capital of the Maili and returned with wealth and prisoners of war.

It took several centuries for Islam to spread to parts of India and is a topic of intense debate. Some quarters hold that Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam by laws favoring Muslims Citizens, and threat of naked force; the "Conversion by the Sword Theory." Others hold that this occurred by inter-marriage, conversions, economic integration, to escape caste structures or at the hand of Sufi preachers. The disputers of the "Conversion by the Sword Theory" point to the prescence of the strong Muslim communities found in Southern India, modern day Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Western Burma, Indonesia and Philippines coupled with the distinctively lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim Empires in the Indian Sub-Continent as refutation to the Conversion by Sword Theory.

Historian Will Durant wrote in The Story of Civilization (1972) that the Muslim conquest of India was "probably the bloodiest story in history." The number of people killed is estimated based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations. K.S. Lal estimated in his book The Growth of Muslim Population in India that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. The legacy of Islamic conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue even today.


Early Islamic Communities

Several reasons existed for the desire of the rising Islamic Empire to gain a foothold in Makran and Sind; ranging from the participation of armies from Sindh fighting alongside the Persians in battles such as Nehawand, Salasal, Qadisia and Makran, pirate raids on Arab shipping to the granting of refuge to rebel chiefs.

The Punjab and Sind region had also been historically under considerable flux as Central Asian Kingdoms, the Persian Empire, Buddhist Kingdoms and Rajput Kingdoms vied for control prior to the arrival of the Islamic influence.

Islam in India existed in communities along the Arab trade routes in Sindh, Ceylon and Southern India.


Muhammad bin Qasim

In 711, the Umayyad Caliph in Damascus sent two failed expeditions to Baluchistan (an arid region on the Iranian Plateau in Southwest Asia, presently split between Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) and Sindh (presently a province of Pakistan bordering on Baluchistan, Punjab, and Rajasthan, India).

The nature of the expeditions was punitive, and in response to raids carried out by pirates on Arab shipping, operating around Daibul. The allegation was made that the King of Sindh, Raja Dahir was the patron of these pirates. The third expedition was led by a 20-year-old Syrian chieftain named Muhammad bin Qasim. The expedition went as far North as Multan, then called the "City of Gold," that contained the extremely large Hindu temple Sun Mandir.

Bin Qasim invaded the sub-continent at the orders of Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef, the governor of Iraq. Qasim's armies defeated Raja Dahir at what is now Hyderabad in Sindh in 712. He then proceeded to subdue the lands from Karachi to Multan with an initial force of only six thousand Syrian tribesmen; therby establishing the dominion of the Umayyad Caliphate from Lisbon in Portugal to the Indus Valley. Qasim's stay was brief as he was soon recalled to Baghdad, and the Caliphates rule in South Asia shrank to Sindh and Southern Punjab.


Communities in the North-West

Subsequent to Qasim's recall the Caliphates control in Sindh was extremely weak under governors who only nominally acknowledging Arab control and shared power to coexisting with local Hindu, Jain and Buddhist rulers. Ismaili missionaries found a receptive audience among both the Sunni and non-Muslim populations here. In 985 a group around Multan declared themselves an independent Ismaili Fatimid State.

Coastal trade and the presence of a colony in Sindh permitted significant cultural exchange and the introduction of Islamic teachers into the subcontinent. Considerable conversions took place, especially amongst the Buddhist majority. Multan became a center of the Ismaili sect of Islam, which still has many adherents in Sindh today. This region under generous patronage of the arts provided a conduit for Arab scholars to absorb and expand on Indian sciences and pass them onwards to the West.

North of Multan non-Muslim groups remained numerous. From this period, the conquered area was divided into two parts: the Northern region comprising the Punjab remained under the control of Hindu Rajas, while the Southern coastal areas comprising of Baluchistan, Sindh, and Multan came under Muslim control.


Ghaznavid Period

Under Sabuktigin, Ghazni found itself in conflict with the Shahi Raja Jayapala. When Sabuktigin died and his son Mahmud ascended the throne in 998, Ghazni was engaged in the North with the Qarakhanids when the Shahi Raja renewed hostilities.

In the early 11th century Mahmud of Ghazni launched 17 expeditions into the Indian sub-continent. In 1001, Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi defeated Raja Jayapala of the Hindu Shahi Dynasty of Gandhara and marched further into Peshawar and in 1005 made it the center for his forces.

The Ghaznavid Jihads were initially directed against the Ismaili Fatimids in on-going struggle of the Abbassid Caliphate elsewhere. However, once this aim was accomplished he moved onto richness of the loot of wealthy temples and monastaries. By 1027, Mahmud had captured most of Northern India and obtained formal recognition of Ghazni's sovreignity from the Abbassid Khalifah, al-Qadir Billah.

Ghaznavid rule in North India lasted over 175 years, from 1010 to 1187. It was during this period that Lahore assumed considerable importance apart from being the second capital, and later the only capital, of the Ghaznavid Empire.

At the end of his reign, Mahmud's empire extended from Kurdistan in the west to Samarkand in the Northeast, and from the Caspian Sea to the Yamuna. Although his raids carried his forces across Northern and Western India, only Punjab came under his permanent rule; Kashmir, the Doab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat remained under the control of the local Rajput dynasties.

In 1030, Mahmud fell gravely ill and died at age 59. He had been a gifted military commander, and during his rule, universities were founded to study various subjects such as mathematics, religion, the humanities, and medicine. Sunni Islam was the main religion of his kingdom and the Perso-Afghan dialect Dari was made the official language.

As with the Turkic invaders of three centuries ago, Mahmud's armies looted temples in Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka. Mahmud was quite pragmatic and he even utlized uncoverted Hindu generals and troops in his expeditions. His main target remained the Shiites and Buyid Iran. There is considerable evidence from writings of Al-Biruni, Sogidan, Uyghur and Manichean texts that the Buddhists, Hindus and Jains were accepted as People of the Book and references to Buddha as Burxan or a prophet can be found. After the initial destruction and pillage Buddhists, Jains and Hindus were granted protected subject status as dhimmis.


Muhammed Ghuri

Muhammad Ghori was a Turkic-Afghan conqueror from the region of Ghor in Afghanistan. Before 1160, the Ghaznavid Empire covered an area running from central Afghanistan east to the Punjab, with capitals at Ghazni on the banks of Ghazni river in present-day Afghanistan, and at Lahore in present-day Pakistan. In 1160, the Ghorids conquered Ghazni from the Ghaznevids, and in 1173 Muhammad was made governor of Ghazni. He raided eastwards into the remaining Ghaznevid territory, and invaded Gujarat in the 1180s but was rebuffed by Gujarat's Solanki rulers. In 1186 and 1187 he conquered Lahore in alliance with a local hindu ruler, ending the Ghaznevid empire and bringing the last of Ghaznevid territory under his control, and seemed to be the first Muslim ruler seriously interested in expanding his domain in the sub-continent, and like his predecessor Mahmud initially started off against the Ismaili Shiite kingdom that had regained independence during the Nizari conflicts, and then onto booty and power.

In 1191, he invaded the territory of Prithviraj III of Ajmer, who ruled much of present-day Rajasthan and Haryana, but was defeated at Tarain by Govinda-Raja of Delhi, Prithviraj's vassal. The following year, Muhammad assembled 120,000 horsemen and once again invaded the Kingdom of Ajmer. Muhammad's army met Prithviraj's army again at Tarain, and this time Muhammad won; Govinda-Raja was slain, Prithviraj captured and Muhammad advanced onto Delhi. Within a year, Muhammad controlled Northern Rajasthan and Northern Ganges-Yamuna Doab. After these victories in India, and Muhammad's establishment of a capital in Delhi, Multan was also incorporated into his empire. Muhammad then returned east to Ghazni to deal with the threat on his eastern frontiers from the Turks and Mongols, whiles his armies continued to advance through Northern India, raiding as far east as Bengal.

Muhammad returned to Lahore after 1200 to deal with a revolt of the Ghakkar tribe in the Punjab. He suppressed the revolt, but was killed during a Ghakkar raid on his camp on the Jhelum River in 1206. Upon his death his most capable general, Qutb-ud-din Aybak, took control of Muhammad's Indian conquests and declared himself the first Sultan of Delhi.

The Delhi Sultanate

Muhammad's successors established the first dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate, while the Mamluk Dynasty in 1211 (however, the Delhi Sultanate is traditionally held to have been founded in 1206) seized the reins of the empire. Mamluk means "slave" and referred to the Turkic slave soldiers who became rulers. The territory under control of the Muslim rulers in Delhi expanded rapidly. By mid-century, Bengal and much of central India was under the Delhi Sultanate. Several Turko-Afghan dynasties ruled from Delhi: the Mamluk (1211–1290), the Khalji (1290–1320), the Tughlaq (1320–1413), the Sayyid (1414–51), and the Lodhi (1451–1526). Muslim Kings extended their domains into Southern India, Kingdom of Vijayanagar resisted until falling to the Deccan Sultanate in 1565. Certain kingdoms remained independent of Delhi such as the larger kingoms of Rajasthan, parts of the Deccan, Gujarat, Malwa (central India), and Bengal, nevertheless all of the area in present-day Pakistan came under the rule of Delhi.

The Sultans of Delhi enjoyed cordial, if superficial, relations with Muslim rulers in the Near East but owed them no allegiance. They based their laws on the Quran and the sharia and permitted non-Muslim subjects to practice their religion only if they paid the jizya (head tax). They ruled from urban centers, while military camps and trading posts provided the nuclei for towns that sprang up in the countryside.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of the Sultanate was its temporary success in insulating the subcontinent from the potential devastation of the Mongol invasion from Central Asia in the 13th century, which nonetheless led to the capture of Afghanistan and western Pakistan by the Mongols (see the Ilkhanate Dynasty). The Sultanate ushered in a period of Indian cultural renaissance, The resulting "Indo-Muslim" fusion left lasting monuments in architecture, music, literature, and religion. In addition it is surmised that the language of Urdu (literally meaning "horde" or "camp" in various Turkic dialects) was born during the Dehli Sultanate period as a result of the mingling of Sanskritic Hindi and the Persian, Turkish, Arabic favored by the Muslim invaders of India.

The Sultanate suffered from the sacking of Delhi in 1398 by Timur (Tamerlane) but revived briefly under the Lodhis before it was conquered by the Mughals in 1526, who ruled from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.

Alauddin Khilji

Other invasions from Central Asia followed his on a regular basis, such as that of Muhammad Khilji, who burned Nalanda, a major Buddhist library. The rulers of these territories became known as the Mughals and their empire as the Mughal Empire.

The Khilji Dynasty is not affiliated politically with the Mughal Dynasty, which started in the 1500s under Babur.


The Mughal Empire

India in the 16th century presented a fragmented picture of rulers, both Muslim and Hindu, who lacked concern for their subjects and failed to create a common body of laws or institutions. Outside developments also played a role in shaping events. The circumnavigation of Africa by the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama in 1498 allowed Europeans to challenge Arab control of the trading routes between Europe and Asia. In Central Asia and Afghanistan, shifts in power pushed Babur of Ferghana (in present-day Uzbekistan) southward, first to Kabul and then to India. The dynasty he founded endured for more than three centuries.


Babur

Claiming descent from both Genghis Khan and Timur, Babur combined strength and courage with a love of beauty, and military ability with cultivation. He concentrated on gaining control of Northwestern India, doing so in 1526 by defeating the last Lodhi Sultan at the First battle of Panipat, a town north of Delhi. Babur then turned to the tasks of persuading his Central Asian followers to stay on in India and of overcoming other contenders for power, mainly the Rajputs and the Afghans. He succeeded in both tasks but died shortly thereafter in 1530. The Mughal Empire was one of the largest centralized states in premodern history and was the precursor to the British Indian Empire.

Babur was followed by his great-grandson, Shah Jahan (r. 1628–58), builder of the Taj Mahal and other magnificent buildings. Two other towering figures of the Mughal era were Akbar (r. 1556–1605) and Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707). Both rulers expanded the empire greatly and were able administrators. However, Akbar was known for his religious tolerance and administrative genius while Aurangzeb was a pious Muslim and fierce advocate of more orthodox Islam.

Aurangzeb

While some rulers were zealous in their spread of Islam, others were relatively liberal. Moghul emperor Akbar was relatively liberal and established a new religion, Din E Elahi, which included beliefs from different religions. He abolished the jizya for some time. In contrast, his great-grandson Aurangazeb was more zealous and, generally, during his term non-Muslims suffered. He reimposed the jizya, and it is historically recorded that under his rule a large number of natives were put to death.

In the century-and-a-half that followed the death of Aurangzeb, effective Muslim control weakened. Succession to imperial and even provincial power, which had often become hereditary, was subject to intrigue and force. The mansabdari system gave way to the zamindari system, in which high-ranking officials took on the appearance of hereditary landed aristocracy with powers of collecting rents. As Delhi's control waned, other contenders for power emerged and clashed, thus preparing the way for the eventual British takeover.


Ahmad Shah Abdali

Decay of the Mughal power saw a series of invasions by the Persian adventurer, Nadir Shah, but no occupation per se. Following his death (something his Royal Guardsman Abdali might have contributed to), Ahmed Shah Abdali - a Pathan - decided to try his luck closer to home. The fertile Punjab was the nearest and easiest prey. A long and brutal occupation of the Punjab - reviled by Sikhs, Hindus and Punjabi Muslims - lasted till the rise of the Sikh Empire.


Iconoclasm
Nalanda

In 1193, the Nalanda University complex was destroyed by Turkish Muslim invaders under Bakhtiyar Khalji; this event is seen as the final milestone in the decline and near extinction of Buddhism in India. He also burned Nalanda's a major Buddhist library and Vikramshila University, as well as numerous Bhuddhist monasteries in India. When the Tibetan translator, Chag Lotsawa Dharmasvamin (Chag Lo-tsa-ba, 1197 - 1264), visited northern India in 1235, Nalanda was damaged, looted, and largely deserted, but still standing and functioning with seventy students. Mahabodhi, Sompura, Vajrasan and other important monastaries were found to be untouched. The Ghuri ravages only afflicted those monastaries that lay in the direct of their advance and were fortified in the manner of defensive forts.

By the end of the 12th century, following the Islamic conquest of the Buddhist stronghold in Bihar, Buddhism declined as survivors retreated to Nepal, Sikkim and Tibet or escaped to the South of the sub-continent. Hinduism and Jainism survived because they did not have large centers of worship and devotion based around heavily fortified monastaries. Furthermore, many buddhist also converted for social mobility from their status as lower castes in the hindu view. Under the tutelage of various scholars fleeing the ravages of the Mongols, and with a historically extensive familiarity with buddhists in Central Asia many impoverished peasants in East Bengal converted.


Vijayanagara

The city flourished between the 14th century and 16th century, during the height of the Vijayanagar Empire. During this time, it was often in conflict with the kingdoms which rose in the Northern Deccan, and which are often collectively termed the Deccan Sultanates. In 1565, the empire's armies suffered a massive and catastrophic defeat at by an alliance of the Sultanates, and the capital was taken. The victorious armies then razed, depopulated and destroyed the city over several months. The empire continued in slow decline, but the original capital was not reoccupied or rebuilt.


Somnath

The first temple of Somnath is said to have existed before the beginning of the Christian era. The second temple, built by the Maitraka kings of Vallabhi in Gujarat, replaced the first one on the same site around 649. In 725 Junayad, the Arab governor of Sind, sent his armies to destroy the second temple. The Pratihara king Nagabhata II constructed the third temple in 815, a large structure of red sandstone. Mahmud of Ghazni attacked this temple in 1026, looted its gems and precious stones, massacred the worshippers and burned it. It was then that the famous Shivalinga of the temple was entirely destroyed. The fourth temple was built by the Paramara King Bhoj of Malwa and the Solanki king Bhima of Gujarat (Anhilwara) between 1026 and 1042. The temple was razed in 1297 when the Sultanate of Delhi conquered Gujarat, and again in 1394. Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb destroyed the temple again in 1706.


Historical Views

French historian Alain Danielou wrote in his book Histoire de l'Inde:

From the moment when the Muslims arrive in India, the history of India does not have any more great interest. It is long and monotonous series of murder, massacres, spoilations, destruction. 

French Historian Gustave Le Bon wrote in his book Les Civilisations de L'Inde:

There does not exist a history of ancient India. Their books contain no historical data whatever, except for a few religious books in which historical information is buried under a heap of parables and folk-lore, and their buildings and other monuments also do nothing to fill the void for the oldest among them do not go beyond the third century B.C. To discover facts about India of the ancient times is as difficult a task as the discovery of the island of Atlantis, which, according to Plato, was destroyed due to the changes of the earth... The historical phase of India began with the Muslim invasion. Muslims were India's first historians. 

Historian Will Durant wrote his book The Story of Civilization:

The Mohammadan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.
Hindu sage Padmanabha described in his KanhaDade Prabandha in 1456 AD the story of the Islamic invasion of Gujarat of 1298 AD:

The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people’s wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious slaves.

Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi the sultan's secretary wrote in the 11th century:

The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously at Thanesar that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. 

M. K. Gandhi said about the spread of Islam in the 7th century Arabia:

...I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These, and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble. YOUNG INDIA, 1924 

Renowned Arabist De Lacy O'Leary:

History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslim, sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated. ISLAM AT CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8 

Cultural Influence

The divide and rule policies, two-nation theory and subsequent partition of India in the wake of Independence from the British Empire has polarized the sub-continental psyche making objective assesment hard in comparison to the other numerous of the settled agricultural societies of India from the North West. Islamic rule differed from these others in the level of assimilation and syncretism that occurred. The retained their identity and introduced legal and administrative systems that superseded existing systems of social conduct and ethics. While this was a source of friction it resulted in aa unique experience resulting in a Muslim community strongly Islamic in character while at the same time markedly distinctive and unique among its peers.

Islamic traditions blended with language, dress, cuisine, architecture, social customs and values of the natives to give rise to much of present day Indian culture.

Islamic rule saw a greater urbanization of India and the rise of many cities and their urban cultures. The biggest impact was upon trade resulting from a common commercial and legal system extending from Morocco to Indonesia. This change of emphasis on mercantilism and trade from the more strongly centralized governance systems further clashed with the agricultural based traditional economy and also provided fuel for social and political tensions.

A related development to the shifting economic was the establishment of Karkhanas, or small factories and the import and dissemination of technology through India and the rest of the world. The use of ceramic tiles in was adopted from architectural traditions of Iraq, Iran, and Central Asia. Rajasthan's blue pottery was a local variation of imported Chinese pottery. There is also the example of Sultan Abidin (1420-70) sending Kashmiri artisans to Samarqand to learn book-binding and paper making. Khurja and Siwan became renowned for pottery, Moradabad for brass ware, Mirzapur for carpets, Firozabad for glass wares, Farrukhabad for printing, Sahranpur and Nagina for wood-carving, Bidar and Lucknow for bidriware, Srinagar for papier-mache, Benaras for jewelry and textiles, and so on. On the flip-side encouraging such growth also resulted in higher taxes on the peasantry.

Numerous Indian scientific and mathematical advances and the Hindu-Arabic numerals were spread to the rest of the world [2] and much of the scholarly work and advances in the sciences of the age under Islamic nations across the globe were imported by the liberal patronage of Arts and Sciences by the rulers. The languages brought by Islam were modified by contact with local languages leading to the creation of several new languages, such as Urdu, which uses the modified Arabic script, but with more Persian words. The influences of these languages exist in several dialects in India today.

Islamic and Mughal architecture and art is widely noticeable in India, examples being the Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_the_Indian_subcontinent

Modern Indian History

European Influence Over India

The period from 1707AD, the year when Aurangzeb died, to 1857, the year of the Indian Uprising, saw the gradual increase of the European influence in India. The Europeans had been filtering into India for a long time before they actually decided to set up shop here. Even though the British got away with the jackpot, the real pioneers to reach India were the Portuguese.

Full of crusading and commercial zeal, Vasco da Gama was the first known European to reach India in 1498, even before the Mughals arrived here. When Vasco da Gama docked his ship in Calicut, he announced that he came in search of "Christians and spices" and the very first people he met here were Christians, who were descendants of those who had settled in India way back in the 4^th century AD.

Portuguese Rule

Religious fervor forgotten, the Portuguese eventually settled down to a very prosperous trade in spices with India. The Muslim rulers in Delhi and then the Mughals never really warmed up to the idea of a foreign power continuing trade on the seas under their imperial noses. What's more, they were not exactly very honest traders too, since they thought that no word that was given to an infidel need be kept. So much so that the word phirangi, or foreigner in colloquial, came to be a hissing and a byword among locals. In fact in Goa, where the Portuguese ruled, intolerance levels ran high and even the building of Hindu temples was banned.

Alberquerque (1509-1515), who was the second Portugese viceroy in India, encouraged mixed marriages with the sole object of creating a mixed race who were Portuguese Catholics, and who would be bound by race and culture to the Portuguese. They were known as Luso-Indians at one time and now simply as Goans. One of main reasons why Portugal was never able to go anywhere further than Goa was that Spain took over the country in 1580AD.

Advent of Dutch

The Dutch came shipping in the East for the first time in 1595. However, they did not come to India initially, and established themselves at the helm of things in the spice trade in Jakarta. India came into the picture for them purely as a route to Europe, as part of a great Asian trade route that they developed which went through Ceylon and Cape Town.
Although the Dutch had their factories dotting all over (in Cochin, Nagapatam and even up in Agra) they did not attempt to gain military power, being quite content to gain in cash.

French Invaders

Although the French King Loius XII had granted letters of monopoly to French traders in 1611, it wasn’t until December 1667 that a French company was actually set up in India. This was at Surat (in Gujrat) with Francis Caron as its Director-General. Soon, in 1669, another French company came up in Masulipatnam, thanks to a grant by the king of Golconda which exempted the French from paying import and export duty. In 1672, Caron's place was taken by Francis Martin, who is regarded as the real founder of the French.

English Formed East India Company

The English formed their East India Company on the last day of 1600 and entered the East Indies hand in hand with the Dutch. Their foes were common – the Portuguese and Catholic Spain – and this brought them closer. However, familiarity breeds contempt, and soon the English realized that the Dutch were not willing to share their space in Spice Islands (East Indies) with them.

Things became grim enough for the British to finally run away and find refuge in India. It was this success of the Dutch to hang on, with characteristic tenaciousness to the Spice Islands that finally made the British to settle on India as the second-best; because spices in India were essentially only in the south where the local rulers and other Europeans already had a monopoly.

of course, they ran into trouble in their very first step, so to speak, with the Portuguese. However, here the British luck turned; perhaps the Raj was destined, after all. As said earlier, the Portuguese were not winning any popularity contests in India, and then with Spain coming into the scene they were hard pressed for resources. Finally what won the east was that old trump card of the British, their naval supremacy.

In 1612 the Mughal emperor Jahangir received Sir Thomas Roe, the first ambassador of the British to Indian aristocracy. Roe’s diplomacy with the Mughals was so successful that by a treaty in 1618 the East India Company became their unspoken, unsaid, naval aide. By 1674 Bombay came to the British as part of the dowry of Charles II's Portuguese queen Catherine, and from here they never looked back. 1708 or the dawn of the Modern Indian Era found them quite comfortably placed in India, commercially that is.

Declining of Mughal Regime

Post Aurangzeb the decline of the Mughals was shockingly swift. A confused state of affairs reigned supreme in India before the British finally took control. It is hardly surprising that the more insular Brits thought it was their divine right or the Whiteman's burden to set the house in order for the natives who seemed to be their own worst enemies.

Powerful nobility was ruling the day at the Mughal court whose grandiose and power had fallen into disarray and disgrace. Nautch girls, poetry and wine flowed; unfortunately so did the gold from the coffers of the treasury. Clearly it was that twilight zone; when dynasties just linger on for want of anything or anyone better.

Invasion of Nadir Shah

Then there were the inevitable, though disastrous, invasions. The first of these was led by the famous Persian king Nadir Shah in 1739. At this time the court in Delhi was busy fighting the Marathas and one of their best generals, Nizam-ul-Mulk was in war against them.

Nizam met Nadir when the latter arrived near Delhi and succeeded in changing his mind about sacking Delhi by offering him a booty of Rs 50,00,000. However, here again court politics had the upper hand; one of Nizam's rival generals convinced Nadir he was settling for too little and the fabulous riches of Delhi were to be seen to be believed. So Nadir marched over to Delhi in time to have a khutba read in his name. Unfortunately, around this time a rumour started doing the rounds that Nadir was dead, which was not only celebrated by the inhabitants of Delhi, but everyone got bold enough to actually attack a few Iranian soldiers.

The result was that on March 11, 1739 an order went forth from Nadir Shah, and yet another one of those terrible massacres that Delhi was a regular witness to took place. The areas of Chandini Chowk, the fruit market, the Dariba bazaar and the buildings around Jama Masjid were burnt to cinders. Each and every inhabitant of the area was killed as an example. The people of Delhi will still point at the Khooni Darwaza (Blood Gate) in the old city and tell you about the massacre which happened here as if it were only yesterday. The royal treasury was sacked and its contents seized. When Nadir Shah left Delhi after 57 days of staying here, he also took along the fabulous Peacock Throne of the Mughals with him. and along with it also the final vestiges of the Mughal pride.

Afghans Invaded Delhi With Ahmad Shah Abdali

The next invasion that rocked Delhi was led by the Afghans, with Ahmad Shah Abdali, an ex-general of the same Nadir Shah, as their commander. Abdali led as many as seven invasions into India between 1748-1767.

After the plundering that Delhi received by Nadir Shah, the Mughals seemed to have just given up. Abdali was all over the place ransacking Lahore, Punjab and so on, but it seemed like the Delhi court couldn't care less. It was left to the powers-that-be, the Marathas, to face the Abdali challenge. He promptly reduced the Marathas to the powers-that-had-been in the third and final battle of Panipat on January 13, 1761.

That was one of the reasons why the British found India completely at a loose end when they came here – most of the rising powers had been ground to dust by invading armies before they could amount to anything.

Abdali Captured Delhi

In January 1757 a carnage of the Nadir Shah vintage was repeated. After pillaging Delhi the Afghans marched on to overrun most of Northern India. It is said that following the ransacking of the cities of Mathura, Brindaban and Gokul, for `seven days the waters of the Jamuna flowed of a blood-red colour.’

An outbreak of cholera in his army forced Adbali to withdraw; but not before he had made the Delhi court cough up around 120,000,000 rupees (that the Delhi court still had that kind of money speaks for the unbelievable riches which the Mughals once commanded). Also he demanded, and got, Kashmir, Lahore, Sirhind and Multan. This was unfortunately not the last time that Abdali invaded India.

It was left to the powers-that-be, the Marathas, to face the next Abdali challenge. Seeing the ruins of a powerful kingdom and the immense riches that Hindustan had in its womb in Delhi, Abdali thundered in again. On January 13, 1761, he took on the Maratha confederation under Bhao Rao, promptly reducing them to the powers-that-had-been in the third and final battle of Panipat. This was the end of the Maratha power in the north, for they stayed away for the next 10 years.

Abdali returned in 1764, driven once again by a hunger not for power but for gold. His sixth invasion had the Sikhs (who had by then carved out a kingdom under the famous Maharaja Ranjit Singh) up in arms. The determined Sikh power had put up a stiff challenge not only for Abdali, but were the main reason why the Marathas were never able to be very successful up north. When Abdali invaded India for the last time in 1767, they managed to inflict defeat on him and the Sikhs took Lahore and Central Punjab. However the areas from Peshwar up remained with Abdali.

It was an India exhausted with war and battle; an India badly in need, and indeed glad, of someone who could take charge. She had gone around a circle in the cycle of history. It was a great leap too – from the cultured, sophisticated and erudite civilisation under the Mughals to the power hungry and superstitious dark ages of the late 18^th and 19^thcentury. The status of women in society fell like never before: Huge weddings which were a drain to the bride's family took place; oppression reared its nasty head in the form of a rigid caste system (even with the Muslims); and Sati, the Rajput ritual of a widow being cremated with her dead husband, and so on which were never a part of Indian 'culture' became so now.

No, we were not putting on out best faces for the phirangis.

British Rises To Power

Against this troubled backdrop the British rise to power was slow, but remarkably steady. Slow because the path was far from smooth; first there were the French to deal with. The commercial rivalry that cropped up with such a vengeance amongst the British and the French had roots in the prevailing political situation in Europe, and even then as long as the French carried on business in a small way in India the British left them to themselves.

The real trouble started between 1720 and 1740, when the French company's trade with India increased by about ten-fold to come up to half the volume that the English company was generating at that time. Now the stakes were just too much for each to ignore the other – especially taking in the factor that this Indian trade amounted for more than ten percent of Mother England's revenue.

This was the time when the War of Austrian Succession (1740-48) had broken out in Europe, following Fredrick the Great of Prussia's seizure of Silesia in 1740. The French and British found themselves in opposing camps in this war. Later, during the Seven Years War too (1756-63) both were at loggerheads with each other, supporting rival camps. These two wars of Europe, by Europe and for Europe in the end totally changed the balance of power as India knew it.

The War Between French and English Arose

Between 1746-48 the French and English finally came to blows in the first Carnatic War (1746-48) in the Deccan. There were two more of these skirmishes and they were to seal the fate of the French company as far as India was concerned. The first Carnatic War was merely an echo of the Austrian War of Succession as said earlier. The fight was over Madras and though the French captured it, it was given back to the English as part of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748.

What had happened in the meanwhile was that the British and the French had got their fleets upto the Indian mainland, an important development as the balance of power was now shifting fast in the favor of the Europeans. and Dupleix, the French governor of the time, decided that this power could be used to gain a support base within the country.

Dupleix The French Governor

Dupleix was a very shrewd and resourceful character, with great diplomatic skills, and his understanding of local politics was formidable, though flawed by a hyper temperament which made him extremely difficult to work with. The perfect opportunity came in 1748 when the Nawab of Arcot (in present Tamil Nadu) died and the question of who would succeed him arose.

Dupleix was so successful in his intrigue that he succeeded in enthroning a Nizam of his choice, Chanda Sahib. The new Nizam was supported by the old Nawab's grandson Muzzafar Jung and backed up by French troops under the able command of De Bussy.
The idea was to close in on Madras by surrounding it with French territory. The plan would have developed pretty neatly but for Robert Clive, sent away to Madras by his family to become a clerk, who turned out to be a brilliant strategist.
His seizure of Arcot in 1751 with a mere 210 men upset all of Dupleix's subtle strategies. Chanda Sahib was killed and a British nominee was put on the Arcot throne. Two years later Dupleix was recalled to France.

Dupleix was succeeded by Godeheu, who sued for peace with the British. By the new treaty both the French and the British agreed not to interfere in Indian internal matters and went back to their old positions. But though the British got a town the French agreed to give up everything they had taken so far. Godeheu was denounced for having "signed the ruin of the country and the dishonor of the nation," but the damage was done. The British emerged much stronger after the second Carnatic War.

The third and final phase of this Anglo-French war for supremacy was brought on by the Seven Years War in the shape of the third Carnatic War (1756-63). However, despite some heroics by French generals like De Bussy and Lally, the British were able to decisively beat the French who eventually lost practically everything they had in India. With the close of the third Carnatic War, the French were finished as far as India was concerned. Thanks to their superior sea-power, greater resources and steadier support from Europe, the English were able to vanquish the dream of dominion de l'empire de la France in India forever.

The Revolt of 1857

Since then the story of the British rise to power in India became sort of predictable. Except for one small hiccup in 1857 during the Indian Uprising. Debate has continued and will always go on about whether 1857 was actually the first Indian War of Independence or simply a mutiny. Well, a little of both, we conclude. It was far too limited in its scope and aims to be dignified as the first Indian War of Independence; but nor was it that restricted that one can dismiss it as just a mutiny.

There is enough evidence to support the fact that the Uprising had been planned for months before the actual outbreak. What the revolutionaries did, apart from the fact that they failed to spread the word beyond Central India and Delhi, was that the Uprising did not go according to plan. It broke out before the appointed date; if D-day had gone according to schedule the Uprising would have broken out in many areas simultaneously, and then it would have been very difficult for the British to control it. However, as things were, trouble broke out sporadically in various places in May 1857 and there was little, if any, co-ordination about the whole thing. So, the British were able to curb it with relative ease.

The Tales of 1857 Revolt

There are stories and stories about the British and Indian confrontation in Delhi in 1857. There are tales of valour and bravery from both sides; and also accounts of unimaginable horror and barbarity.

While books are full of vivid reports of the horror and humiliation that the British had to face and the courage they displayed, very little has been written about what innocent Indians were put through by vindictive British on the teach-the-natives-a-lesson path. What made the Indians rebel in the first place hasn’t been written about much either.

It is true that the old poet-king in Delhi, Bahadur Shah Zafar and his cohorts, Tatia Tope of Gwalior (Gwalior itself did not rebel, Tope was merely a general), the Rani of Jhansi and so on had very narrow and selfish aims to achieve – their petty kingdoms, money and power.None of them would have rebelled if the British had not snapped their purse-strings, the ‘compensation’ they were paid by the British in return for a share in government.

The common people - of Delhi, Lucknow, Gwalior and so on - however had nothing to gain. Except independence. A place to call their own. Their war was not for a small kingdom, they were fighting for freedom. Which is why, while admitting that 1857 was limited in its scope, one cannot just dismiss it as a mutiny. Far too many emotions and resentments were involved which the British had long ignored.

1857 convinced the British that they could no longer just sponge off India, getting rich at its expense without giving anything back. That was what led the Crown to formally relieve the East India Company of its charge and take over itself.

Cultural Revolution In Progress

For a long time before 1857, a cultural revolution had been in progress in Indian society. As a result of this Sati was banned, new religions like the Arya Samaj were formed, education for women was encouraged and a whole new breed of intellectuals – mostly from Bengal – came to the forefront.

This new breed of rich Indian was well-read and also well-travelled; of course, this meant that a new age of political awareness was rising out of the mists of the turmoil that had immediately preceded. As a result the British, or rather an administrator called A O Hume, convinced the then Governor General of India Lord Dufferin that it might be profitable to have roughly a sort of His Majesty's opposition comprising of Indian politicians in India who would advice the government.

Though Dufferin was not exactly convinced of what good the idea would do, he okayed it and so in December 1885 the Indian National Union (which would soon be renamed Indian National Congress) met in Bombay. Seventy-two delegates came from different parts of India, and presiding them was Dadabhai Naoroji, an eminent lawyer and political leader.

Indian National Congress

So was born the party that must surely have given the British government much cause to regret that they had ever thought it up at all. For, much to the British government's chagrin, the Indian National Congress took its job seriously. In its early phase, which is called the phase of the Moderates (1885-1905), the Congress was thoroughly loyal to the British.

Its members were British in all aspects except where it mattered the most, in colour. They were a class of elite erudite men who were into philosophy and intellectual discussions; the much more popular `peoples’ leaders’ were to follow. Dadabhai Naoroji, the most prominent among their leaders observed: "Let us speak out like men and proclaim that we are loyal to the backbone; that we understand the benefits the English rule has conferred upon us."

Understandably, the man on the road was hardly aware they were alive. and nor, if their attitude is anything to go by, was the British government.

The Policies of British Government Leads To Dissatisfactions

In 1907 there was split in the Congress as those members who were unsatisfied with the scheme of affairs under the Moderates, including popular leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, parted company with them. This hardly helped their cause because for the next eight years the Congress, for all contents and purposes, went into hibernation.

This was the time when extreme nationalists came into the scene, especially after the controversial partition of Bengal into west and east Bengal in 1905 by the highly unpopular and obnoxiously highhanded Lord Curzon. The decision evoked sharp reactions from all over India and there was violent agitation against it.

October 16, 1905, the day on which the partition came into effect, was observed as a day of mourning and fasting throughout Bengal. Rabindranath Tagore, the famous Nobel-laureate and writer, spoke out against it through a passionate poem. This was the time when the Swadeshi movement was first launched; that is, Indians burnt foreign clothes, cigarettes, soap and anything made across the seas in huge bonfires and turned to Indian made articles instead. Many factories manufacturing indigenous clothes, textiles and whatever else was required were set up. Lots of earnest young leaders of Bengal took up the task of educating people. On August 15, 1906, a national council of education was introduced under the educationist Aurobindo Ghose.

The government came down heavily on the demonstrations, choosing to break up meetings, insult leaders and beat up peaceful protestors. In 1907, leaders Lala Lajpat Rai and Sardar Ajit Singh were deported from the Punjab. In 1908, Bal Gangadhar Tilak was arrested and sentenced to six years imprisonment. Aurobindo Ghose was arrested, prosecuted and though acquitted, chose to retire to Pondicherry.

The agitation to oppose the partition of Bengal (although the partition was reverted in 1911) saw the coming of age of Indian nationalism. India was together like never before and the country was bristling with nationalistic fervor. However, the idea of independence from the British was still not an option that nationalists were considering.

Home Rule Movement Started

When Great Britain was deeply enmeshed in the World War I, India's national movement though intermittent continued to throw up surprises. One of them was the Home Rule Movement. In December 1915, Tilak, who was one of the first nationalist leaders with a following and deep understanding of the grassroots of India, voiced the thought of Home Rule (instead of `swadeshi’, that being a word the British were wary about). It was for the first time that someone had mentioned the word Home Rule as being the goal for the Indian National Movement. On April 28, 1916, the Home Rule League was set up with its headquarters in Poona (Pune). Tilak went on a whirlwind tour of the country, appealing to everybody to unite under the banner of Home Rule League. Anne Besant of the Theosophical Society fame also assisted him in this task.

Under face of this attack, the government fell back to that old reliable – stricter laws. Laws were formulated to prevent agitations, to prevent `undesirable aliens’ from entering India, propaganda came under government control, and so on.

The importance of the Home Rule movement was that for the first time the independence of India came to be clearly the goal of the Indian national movement. The public at large was first an audience and then terrorist nationalists who bombed parliaments and blew up railways, and they must have further scared the middle class away from the movement. and history will tell you no movement for independence was ever a success without the involvement of the bourgeoisie. So, while the idea of freedom was gaining ground, the populace at large was not really involved.

And then, as Jawaharlal Nehru would later say, Gandhiji came.

Gandhiji

Suddenly everything changed. The man dressed in a dhoti, kurta and pugri with a lathi in hand (initially) and mingled with elegantly dressed British-Indian moderates. He was not a rabble-rouser; he would have been loath to do a Demosthenes. Nor was he anyone's idea of a charismatic leader. Just a short, thin, shrivelled man, with what Sarojini Naidu called `Mickey Mouse ears’ and a twinkle in his eyes. He talked of peace. of loving his enemies, not of bombs or murders. of non-violence, ahimsa. That was his only weapon; and, as the British were to find out to their expense, boy did it work!

When Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi came back to India from South Africa at the age of 49, he had already built a tremendous reputation for himself as a political leader. Almost immediately upon docking in Bombay, he was offered to lead the national Movement.

Gandhi, however, begged out, opting to travel and know the country thoroughly first. The first causes he chose to associate with were minor local affairs and it would almost seem that the nationalist leaders of the time did not know what to think of this almost too-mild, too-moral and too-impractical maverick.

During 1917-18, hectic political moves were being made by a worried British government. One of the results of this was the Rowlatt Act proposed by Justice Rowlatt. Among other things this act gave the courts the right to try political cases without a jury and provincial governments, apart from the centre, the power of internment without trial. Gandhi, in his typical style, said that the Rowlatt Act raised issues of trust and self-respect, and hence should be met by a moral response in shape of a hartal, or a traditional Indian way of protest involving cessation of activities for a day.

The Massacre At Jallianwallah Bagh

The flash-point came in Punjab. On April 12, 1919, General Dyer, who had taken over the troops in Punjab the day before, prohibited all meetings or gatherings. So of course a public meeting was announced to be held the very next day, April 13, in Jallianwallah Bagh (a park enclosed on all sides with only a single narrow entrance) at 4.30pm. We all know what happened that day.
It has been repeated in emotion-charged words in books and in poignant scenes in movies. That day 6000 to 10,000 people, including women and children, were shot dead in that park as an example of what happened to people who disobeyed the orders of the British Raj. In the court martial which followed later, General Dyer coldly observed that he had fired only 1600 rounds of ammunition on the crowd; that was because that was all he had. He added that he would fired more if he had so seen fit.

The brutality of the Jallianwallah Bagh tragedy shocked the country. It also woke up the moderates.

What was more important was that it brought Gandhi out in the open.

The Beginning of Non Co-operation Movement

In 1920, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian National Congress launched the first of his innovative movements of protest, the Non Co-operation Movement. It involved surrender of all titles, honorary offices and nominated posts in local bodies.
People stopped attending government functions and darbars. Parents were requested to withdraw their children from government schools and colleges. British courts and the army was boycotted. Indians were to stand for elections to any government body or legislature. Ahimsa or non-violence was to be observed strictly.

The hugeness of the idea of Non Co-operation amazed every political leader in India, who started realising that Gandhi was not so meek after all. The idea captured popular imagination and suddenly, in one sweep, the National Movement was taken to every man on the street.

People came out in their thousands to support Gandhi and his movement. The government machinery did not actually break down, but came under visible strain.

Unfortunately, in the time when the movement was showing signs of real success, an incident occurred in Chauri Chaura, in which a mob of 3000 people killed 25 policemen and one officer. Similar tragic events had happened earlier on November 17, 1921, in Bombay and on January 13, 1922, in Madras. Gandhi, who was the last of the ethical political leaders, immediately withdrew his movement. and got arrested in the bargain, on March 13, 1922. However, the Mahatma did get his way, the Rowlatt Act was repealed.

Gandhi was severely criticised almost everywhere for disassociating himself from the Non Co-operation Movement; for certainly the moment he went, so did the masses. This was not the first difference of opinion that was to happen in the Congress about Gandhi's actions. Many more such occasions were to crop up, though everyone invariably gave in to the Mahatma. Gandhi was already the invisible ruler of the country.

A committee was set up in 1927 to review the status of Indian affairs by the British government, under Sir John Simon. So far, so good. However, the committee did not include even a single Indian, a situation which convinced the Congress that action was called for.

This was time when young radicals like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose were insisting on total independence being the goal for the Congress. The new Viceroy Lord Irwin had got the Labour government in London to agree to a declaration that dominion status was the goal of British policy and a round table conference was called to consider the next step. After coming out one of his famous thinking breaks, Gandhi was for the offer. But the mood in the country was totally contrary to this. So rather than let the radical element take over, Gandhi decided to control the situation by leading a non-violent movement himself.

The Demand of Complete Independence - Purna Swaraj

At midnight, on December 31, 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru unfurled the Tricolor on the banks of the river Ravi in Punjab and the Congress called for complete Independence, purna swaraj. January 26, 1930, was declared as Independence Day. From February 14 to 16, 1930, the Congress Working Committee met at Gandhi's famous ashram in Sabarmati and vested Mahatma Gandhi with launching his Civil Disobedience movement "at a time and place of his choice."

On February 27, the plan of agitation was announced. The entire nation was in ferment. Everyone was waiting in eager suspense about what would the Mahatma do next; none more than the British government, though not so eagerly, one presumes.

On March 12, 1930, accompanied with 78 colleagues of the Sabarmati Ashram, Mahatma Gandhi embarked on a 60-mile march to the sea coast of Dandi. He intended to defy the Salt tax, paid indirectly by every peasant. The first instinct of the government was to let him walk as much as he wanted, and ignore him. However, the Gandhi magic worked. Soon protests, hartals, processions were taking place all over India. Gandhi was arrested on May 5, 1930, and his place was taken by Abbas Tyabji as the leader of the movement. When Tyabji was arrested, Sarojini Naidu, the famous nightingale of India, replaced him. All over India, the mood was ablaze, the atmosphere tense and the people were on the streets. Louis Fischer wrote about the Civil Disobedience: "The British beat the Indians with batons and rifle butts. The Indians neither cringed nor complained nor retreated. That made England powerless and India invincible."

First Round Table Conference

When the first Round Table Conference was held in London from November 12, 1930 to January 19, 1931, it turned into a failure for not a single Congressman attended. The British now appealed to the Congress to work with them. Lord Irwin also declared that Mahatma Gandhi and the other members of the Congress Working Committee would be freed soon to consider the matter "freely and fearlessly."

The Mahatma was persuaded to meet Irwin and the result was the Irwin-Gandhi pact under which the Civil Disobedience Movement was withdrawn and a second Round Table Conference with Congress participation was agreed upon. This peace did not last long. Gandhi attended the Second Round Table conference in London in 1931 as the sole representative of the Congress. He demanded control foreign and defence affairs, and there was complete deadlock over the matter of minorities, thanks to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, His Highness the Aga Khan and Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar. Gandhi returned to India on December 28, 1931 empty handed.

By May 1934, the Civil Disobedience Movement was completely withdrawn.

During the second World War the Congress decided that India should co-operate with Britain on the understanding that complete independence be granted to India after that. The British, however, stuck to the policy of `no change during war and whatever you want will be discussed after that’. This attitude did not exactly ease the minds of the Congress members as to the intentions of the government. Now also was visible a wide open split between Jinnah's Muslim League and the Congress' aims and demands. Early in 1940 Jinah declared Pakistan as the goal of the league.

After the fall of France in 1940, Gandhi declared, "We do not seek independence out of Britain's ruin." The British reply to this was an offer that an Indian constituent assembly as well as Dominion status would be discussed `after the war’. The offer was spurned. The result? A deadlock which was not to unlock till 1947.

Gandhi, with his usual skill for the innovative, now rallied the country and Congress behind him with his Quit India movement. The threat was the launch of a Civil Disobedience movement which could have coincided with the Japanese advances from the far-east towards India. "After all," he said, "this is open rebellion."

The movement was launched on August 8, 1942 in Bombay. Gandhi declared: "I want freedom immediately, this very night, before dawn, if it can be had. You may take it from me that I am not going to strike a bargain with the Viceroy for ministers and the like… Here is the mantra, a short one, that I give you… Do or die. We shall either free India or die in the attempt."

Independence Was Just Ahead
From 1942 onwards it was quite clear that independence of India was only a matter of time now.

New Delhi, the new capital of India, was hardly seven years old then. The British did not live long in the beautiful New Delhi they created. Thus, again fulfilling the age-old prophecy about those who build Delhi don’t live in it for long.

In 1946, Lord Mountbatten arrived in Delhi amid a buzz of political activity. The British, following their World War II concerns, wanted to basically wash their hands off India. Also, the Indians wanted to get back what was rightfully theirs. However, there were too many emotional ties – the British and the Indians went too far back together for the British to just pack up and leave. They had a responsibility. Unfortunately Mountbatten, although a favorite with the Indians because of his youthful good looks, was the wrong man for the job. He was in such a hurry to get back to England that he seemed to just go along with the first proposal that found favor with both the Congress and the Muslim League without taking into account what the people really wanted.

Partition of India

The rest is history. Partition, one of the worst mass movements of people in recent history after that of the Jews in the World War II, happened. Two republics were born from one nation on August 15, 1947 – Pakistan and India.

Gandhi, the father of the nation, did not join the celebration that followed. He was in Bihar working in riot torn areas, praying for peace. For him independence, in the shape that it came, meant failure. With this in mind, Gandhi withdrew from active politics.

Accusations by Hindu fundamentalists that he had sided with the Muslims in giving away Pakistan too easily dogged Gandhi since the day the state of Pakistan was declared. On January 30, 1948, a Hindu fundamentalist called Nathu Ram Godse shot and killed the man who was the Mahatma.