VEER SAVARKAR
SIX GLORIOUS
EPOCHS
OF
INDIAN
HISTORY

SIX GLORIOUS EPOCHS
OF
INDIAN HISTORY
VEER SAVARKAR
PRABHAT PRAKASHAN
ISO 9001: 2015 Publishers

Contents
A Word in Confidence

1. Chandragupta—Chanakya
2. Yavana—Destroyer, Pushy Amitra
3. Vikramaditya, the Annihilator of Saka-Kushan Menace
4. Yashodharma, the Conqueror of The Huns
5. The Climax of Maharashtrian Valour!
6. Beginning of Muslim Incursion
7. The Peculiar Nature of the Muslim Atrocities [Sultans of
   Ghazni]
8. Perverted Conception of Virtues
9. Super-Diabolic Counter-Offensive the Only Answer
10. Intermittent Hindu Retaliation Against Muslim Religious
    Aggression
11. Tipu Sultan, The Savage
12. A Resume
13. Hindu War Policy on The Religious and Political Front
14. The Age-Long Relation of the Arabs with India
15. From the 12th Century A.D. to the end of the 13th Century
    A.D.
16. Muslim Invasions on South India upto the Beginnings of the
    14th Century.
17. Khushrukhan and Devaldevi
18. The Beginning of the Final Overthrow of the Muslim Empire
19. The Establishment of the Glorious new Hindu Empire of
    Vijaynagar
20. The end of the Sixteenth Century and After
21. Come the Avengers of the Atrocious Muslims’ Rule: The
    Marathas!

22. Not Only Attock—Even Beyond It!
23. The Sixth Glorious Epoch of Hindu Victories over the
    Aggressors

A Word in Confidence

It is with great pleasure and satisfaction that I present to the readers this
translation of the original book in Marathi. I consider it a piece of good luck
to have had an opportunity of translating such an important book by the late
Swantantrya-Veer V.D. Savarkar, which cropped up in my casual talk with
Shree Balarao Savarkar, the devoted private secretary of that Prince of
Patriots. After it was translated, every chapter went to the illustrious author
who honoured me by going through it very carefully and when I had the
good fortune to meet him personally on the completion of the undertaking,
he obliged me by saying that he was satisfied with the translation and
appreciated the hard labour it entailed. Would that Swa. Veer Savarkar had
been alive today to see this English translation of his book in print!
Veer Savarkar’s book “भारतीय इतिहासातील सहा सोनेरी पाने” is a
commentary, not a history in its academic sense—on the significant events
and periods in our national life, taking a broad survey of the growth and
survival of our Hindu race. In a way, this attempt of Savarkar has been
singular, barring a few honourable exceptions.
The general trend of the histories, written, read and taught in schools and
colleges, has been one of eulogizing the foreigners and deprecating the
Hindu race, relying wholly on the biased records of the foreign historians
and travellers. Attempts are, happily, being made to reconstruct and restate
the history of India from the national point of view, using to the utmost, all
available native records of coins and inscriptions and covert allusions in the
otherwise non-historical works, slender though they may be, but they are
still sporadic and isolated, relating to this or that particular phase of Indian
History. This volume presents ‘Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History’
since the beginning of our recorded history, i.e. from the days of
Chandragupta Maurya to the end of the British dominance over India.
Hence, like its predecessor, ‘The War of Indian Independence of 1857’,
which galvanized the public opinion and changed the world outlook on the
phase of our national life, this book too is very likely to start re-orientation
of our historical concepts and the accepted historical theories. A need for an

English translation of this book was, therefore, surely felt with a view to
introducing it to the people who are unable to read or understand Marathi.
A book of this type had to be substantiated with proofs, especially when it
was replete with thought-provoking even at times shocking—statements
and conclusions. Basic references were, therefore, an unavoidable necessity,
but the author, who had already crossed the bar of eighty years, and whose
physical ailments had already created insurmountable difficulties in the very
writing of this book, could not be expected to stand the rigour of
pinpointing his references, voluminous as they were. I, therefore, had to
shoulder that responsibility. The appendage of the basic references to this
volume is, thus, my humble contribution. They will clearly show to the
reader that the facts mentioned in this volume are fully backed by evidence.
The interpretation of these facts and the conclusions drawn from them,
however, are the author’s special privileges, if only, they obey the laws of
logical reasoning. The chapters are numbered serially from one to twenty-
three. Each paragraph is serially numbered at the beginning.
My thanks are due to my son, Shri P.S. Godbole for going through the
typewritten sheets. I am thankful to Shri B.D. Velankar, the Asiatic Society
of Bombay and the University of Bombay for library facilities. I am also
thankful to the publishers who have brought out this book.
—S.T. Godbole

1ST GLORIOUS EPOCH
1.
Chandragupta—Chanakya

1. According to modern historical research, the first phase of the dawn of
   our national life dates back almost to five to ten thousand years ago. Like
   that of China, Babylon, Greece and other ancient nations, our ancient
   history, too, is clothed in the poetical garb of mythology. It is replete with
   anecdotes, folklore, and deification of national heroes and heroines, and
   resorts to supernatural and symbolic description. Yet these ancient
   mythologies (Puranas) of ours are the pillars supporting the edifice of our
   ancient history. Just as these extensive Puranic texts of ours are a
   magnificent treasure of our ancient literature, our knowledge, our glorious
   deeds and our grandeur and wealth, in a similar way, they are a vast
   storehouse of the accounts of our past, desultory, chaotic, even at times,
   ambiguous though it may be.
2. Our Puranas, however, are not ‘history’ pure and unadulterated.
3. Hence, I propose to set aside the consideration of the ‘Pauranic times’
   in the present context. For the ‘Glorious Epochs’ I am going to refer to, and
   dilate upon, belong not so much to the Pauranic times as to the historic
   periods of our national life.
   The Beginning of Indian History
4. The main criterion of history is that the dates and places and
   descriptions of events referred to therein must necessarily bear the stamp of
   authenticity, and that they should be corroborated, as far as possible, by
   foreign as well as indigenous evidence.
5. The account of our past which fairly stands this test begins
   approximately from the time of Lord Buddha. Hence, many Indian and
   Western Orientalists have accepted the Buddhist period as the beginning of
   Indian history. The incessant and indefatigable labours of these Orientalists
   may, in future, include some of the so-called ‘Pauranic period’ into the
   historical one, if some new evidence were to come to light. Till then, at
   least, we have to regard the Buddhistic period as the starting point of our
   history.

6. Again, in respect of establishing the authentic history of any nation
   beyond doubt, the convincing references in the contemporary literature of
   other nations are really invaluable. The ancient period of our history which
   can be supported by the now available, unimpeachable evidence in the
   historical records of countries other than India is the one that begins round
   about the times of Emperor Chandragupta Maurya. For, since the date of
   Alexander’s so-called invasion of India, numerous references to events in
   India are to be found in the historical accounts of the Greek writers and the
   description of their travels by the Chinese travellers.
7. What should be the criterion for determining the Glorious Epochs I am
   going to discuss here? For that matter, there are hundreds of glorious epochs
   in the history of our nation that stand the tests of poetic exuberance, music,
   prowess, affluence, the height of philosophy and depth of theology and
   many other criteria. But by the ‘Glorious Epoch’, I mean the one from the
   history of that warlike generation and the brave leaders and successful
   warriors, who inspire and lead it on to a war of liberation, in order to free
   their nation from the shackles of foreign domination, whenever it has the
   misfortune to fall a prey to such powerful fatal aggression and to grovel
   abjectly under it, and who ultimately drive away the enemy making it an
   absolutely free and sovereign nation. Every nation extols such epochs of the
   wars of independence which inflict crushing defeats on the enemy. Take, for
   instance, the American War of Independence. The day on which America
   wrenched her independence from England, vanquishing her completely on
   the battlefield, is a red-letter day in the history of America and is celebtrated
   like a festival all over the country. The moment recording this successful
   struggle for freedom is acknowledged as a glorious epoch in the history of
   America.
   Great Nations and the calamity of Foreign Domination
8. Moreover, the birth of the United States of America is only of a recent
   date. In the very short span of her history, it is not unnatural that only one
   such terrible calamity befell her and, consequently, gave her only one
   glorious occasion to overcome it. But the nations like China, Babylon,
   Persia, Egypt, ancient Peru, ancient Mexico, Greece, Rome and many
   others, which can boast of a history of thousands of years, naturally had
   many occasions of having been overcome and oppressed by mightier
   foreign aggressors. From these monstrous calamities, some of these nations
   freed themselves again and again with exceptional valour, and humbled and

routed the enemy. These nations, with a long tradition of thousands of
years, are naturally proud of many such glorious moments recording their
signal victories over their enemies. The history of India, as compared to that
of other nations, has a consistent and unbroken record. Most of the nations
that nourished side by side with her in the past, are now extinct and are
remembered only by their names. China stands today as an old witness of
the greatness of India.
9. Both China and India are vast countries and have maintained their
independence and power right from the ancient days. No wonder they had
to face many more mortal dangers of foreign domination than the other
shortlived nations. The unerring wheel of fortune affected them too. Just as
India was attacked by the Sakas, the Huns, the Mughals and others, so was
China too a victim of the invasions of these and other alien nations. She had
to build the world-famous China Wall all around her territory as a bulwark
against the Hunnish inroads. Nevertheless, the enemies did conquer China,
sometimes by circumventing the great wall or at times, crossing it. Mostly
only in parts, but sometimes at least, wholly, China had to writhe and
squirm under the yoke of foreign domination. Yet, every time, she could
revive her strength and overthrow the foreign aggression and regain her
independence, and even today, she is an independent and powerful nation.
This in itself is a marvel of history. An appraisal of Indian history demands
the same criterion to be adopted. But specially when our country was
smarting under the British sway, many English writers had so much
perverted the Indian history and obliged two or three generations of Indian
students in their schools and colleges to learn it in such a way, that not only
the rest of the world, but even our own people were misled. Absurd and
malicious statements implying that India as a nation has always been under
some foreign rule or the other or that Indian history is an unbroken chain of
defeat after defeat of the Hindus, have been used like currency and are
accepted by our people without affront or remonstrance or even a formal
protest. To refute these statements is essential not only from the point of
view of the honour of the nation, but also for the sake of historical truth.
Efforts being made by other historians in this direction have to be
supported, as far as possible, by propaganda. That in itself is a national
duty. That is why, I have decided here to describe the historical
achievements of those generations and of their representative leaders who
vanquished the aggressors from time-to-time and liberated their country.

Alexander’s Aggression
10. Alexander’s attack on India is the first well-known foreign invasion
during the ancient period of Indian history. It took place in 326 B.C., a
period of human history when the modern European nations like England,
France, Germany and others were not even born. The Roman Empire had
not as yet any foundation laid for it. It was only the Greeks, who were
resounding the European stage. Small Greek city-states ruled themselves
independently. Of these, Sparta and Athens were the most progressive. But
when these small separate city-states were invaded by the ruler of a vast,
well-organised, unitary and very powerful Persian empire, they were unable
to face him successfully. Those small Greek republics did their best to fight
the enemy back, but all their efforts proved fruitless before the vast ocean-
like Persian armies. Naturally, the Greeks earnestly thought of effecting a
fusion of all their separated small city-states into a powerful Greek
Kingdom and forming a united front. So, Philip, King of Macedonia, who
was fired with the same ambition, conquered all those small Greek
republics, but he died before he could develop them into a mighty nation.
However, his son, who succeeded him to the throne, was much more
ambitious, more eager to gain power than his father, whom he surpassed in
valour. It was Alexander. He inspired the whole Greek community with a
sense of solidarity and militant nationalism. He organised an invincible
army, and marched on the Persian Emperor, Darius, himself, who had been
the arch-enemy of the Greeks. This well-organised Greek army simply
routed the vast but ill-organised Persian army. At the battle field of Arbela,
(331 B.C.) the whole of Persian administration virtually collapsed. With his
victorious army, Alexander marched straight on to the Persian capital and
after conquering, it he proclaimed himself the emperor of that country. This
unprecedented success whetted his lust for conquests. With the Greek and
the Persian empires at his feet, the sky seemed to him well within his limit.
He was intoxicated with the wild ambition to conquer the whole world and,
therefore, he planned to invade India, of which the Greeks had been hearing
so much for generations together. He thought he would run over India as
easily as he had crushed the Persian as well as the ancient Babylonian
empire. In order to execute this daring plan, he formed a new powerful
army with the pick of his Greek soldiers, full of youthful enthusiasm and
equipped with glittering weapons. This army consisted of one-hundred-and-
twenty thousand foot-soldiers and cavalry fifteen thousand strong. These

brave soldiers, mad with victory after victory, had been so much impressed
by the unbroken chain of Alexander’s conquests, that they looked upon this
great General and Emperor as a divine being. Alexander himself began to
pose as the son of the Greek God, Zeus.
Geographical Dimensions of India
11. In those days, some two-thousand-and-five hundred years ago, the
Indian community and Indian kingdoms had spread far beyond the Indus,
right up to the boundary of Persia. The mountain range known today as the
Hindukush was at that time called Paropnisus by the Greeks. The modern
Afghanistan was called Gandhar, known in Indian tradition by the name
Afghanistan, while the river Kabul has been called Kubha in our ancient
literature. Throughout the whole region up to the Hindukush mountain, ruled
peacefully various states, some small, others large. Right from these Indian
states, all along the banks of the Indus, straight up to the place where it leaps
into the sea, was a long and unbroken chain of Indian states, which strictly
followed the Vedic religion. Most of them were republics and were then
called ‘Ganas’ or ‘Ganarajyas’. Their constitution was essentially
democratic. There were only two or three monarchies worth the name, one
of which, the biggest and strongest, was ruled by a Pourav King, whom the
Greeks called Porus.
Dr. Jayaswal’s ‘Hindu Polity’
12. Dr. Jayaswal, one of the prominent members of the revolutionary
party, ‘Abhinava Bharat’, during the critical years of 1907-1910, and later
on a world-famous Orientalist, has given, after a critical research, a very
detailed account of the different ‘Bharateeya Ganas’, spread along both the
banks of the Indus right up to its confluence with the sea.
13. According to Greek mythologies, they seem to have believed that their
ancestors had migrated as a separate branch of the original Aryan stock
from Gandhar and other regions beyond the Indus. When Alexander’s
forces entered the precincts of India, they accidentally came across a small
community of people who called themselves the original Greeks. They had
been completely merged with the Indians, but as soon as they saw this
Greek army, they avowed that they were the ancient brethren of those
Greeks. Alexander, too, was led to believe that India must be the original
abode of his ancestors. He and his whole army were so much delighted at
the sight of this, their antique fatherland, that they stopped fighting for some

days and celebrated a great festival. The Greeks performed a sacrifice and
offered oblations to propitiate their Greek deities.
14. The Greek Gods resembled the Vedic ones very closely. Their names
had undergone changes in pronunciation by corruption in course of time.
The Greeks too performed sacrifices as the Indo-Aryans did, and offered
oblations through the fire to their various deities. They were also called
Ionians.
‘Lonian’ and ‘Yavan’
15. It is likely that these Greeks were the descendants of Anu, the son of
Yayati! One wonders if Anwayan was later on corrupted to Ionian. This bit
of a guess must, however, be left to the research scholars. The fact remains
that the Indians called these Greeks ‘Yavanas’ from the very beginning, as
is seen from the Sanskrit literature. It is from the Greek word ‘Ionians’, that
they came to be called ‘Yavans’ or ‘Yons’ in India.
Buddha not heard of from Gandhar—Panchanad to Sindh
16. One more fact deserves mention here. The contemporary Greek
writers have given in their books detailed descriptions of the varied life of
the people from those parts of India where Alexander moved—from
Gandhar to Panchanad (the Punjab) and, thence along both the banks of the
Indus, to the very place where it flows into the sea. But throughout all these
descriptions, not a single reference to either Lord Buddha or the Buddhistic
cult or sect can be found, whereas there are numerous references to the
Vedic Hindus. From this and, of course, from other contemporary
references, it is quite clear that, at least, till that time the Buddhist sect was
quite unknown beyond the Shatadru (Sutlej) river. It means that for about
two hundred and fifty to three hundred years after the death of the Buddha,
the Buddhist cult spread here and there round about Magadha and not
farther off, a fact that deserves special notice for the proper interpretation of
subsequent history.
A Greek Means a Yavan!
17. Our contemporary Indian ancestors called these aggressive Greek
foreigners, who professed a slightly alien religion, ‘Yavans’. But that is not
the reason why we should call all foreign aggresssors ‘Yavans’. It is
obviously a mistake. Especially, when our people began to call the Muslims
‘Yavans’, they really committed a blunder. Although the Greeks were
aggressors and foreigners, they were, comparatively speaking, considered to
be particularly devoted to learning and highly cultured and civilized,

according to the standards of the time. The Muslim hoarders that invaded
India, centuries afterwards, were highly fanatical, diabolic and ruthlessly
destructive. It would have been in the fitness of things to call them
‘Mussalmans’ in view of their demonic nature. To call them ‘Yavans’ is
doubly wrong inasmuch as it unduly flatters them and does a very great
injustice to the word ‘Yavan’ itself. The Mussalmans may be called
‘Mlenchhas’, not ‘Yavans’.
Alexander and stupid Muslims
18. A stupid notion common amongst most of the Muslims is worth a
mention here. The name ‘Alexander’ was corrupted into ‘Shikandar’ in the
Persian language. So long as the Greek empire had Persia under its sway,
many of the Persian people highly impressed by the unprecedented valour
of Alexander named their new born sons Shikandar. Later on, even after the
Persians were converted to Islam, this practice of naming their children
after ‘Shikandar’ persisted. The Muslim converts in India adopted that
practice. But ignorant of the historical origin of the word ‘Shikandar’,
thousands of Muslims in India, fondly believe that like Mohammad Ali,
Kasim and others, the name Shikandar is a Muslim name, and that valiant
Alexander must be some Muslim personality. Nay, he could be so very
valiant and a world conqueror simply because he was a Muslim. If any one
tries to convince these fanatic, vulgar and vainglorious Muslims that
‘Shikandar (Alexander) was not a Muslim, that he could never be one, as
Mohammed Paighamber, the founder of the Muslim religion, was himself
born not less than a thousand years after the death of Shikandar, these,
diehard Muslims, would call that person uninformed.
19. The eastern boundary of Alexander’s empire at that time was the
Hindukush mountains. After having crossed these mountains, he marched
with his vast armies straight to Taxila in India. The King of Taxila, King
Ambuj (Ambhi) accepted his overlordship without giving him any battle.
Some Greek writers assert that this very King of Taxila had invited
Alexander in order to put down his rival, King Porus. If that is so, Ambhi
had quit naturally to pay for his treachery by his willing, through abject
submission to the Greeks.
University in Taxila and a strange coincidence
20. Taxila was the seat of the most famous Indian University of the time,
where students from different countries came to study various sciences and
arts. Even the princesses of different states came there, learnt political

science and got lessons in the art of governance, warfare and strictly
observed the rules of discipline prevalent there.
21. By some strange coincidence, just when Alexander was marching at
the head of his army into India, after reducing Taxila, a brilliant youth, who,
a little later, was destined to carve a glorious page in the history of India,
was learning the sciences of war and politics in the same University of
Taxila. He was called Chandragupta. The old teacher who was well-versed
in different lores of the time, and was also an astute politician, and was
giving lessons in politics and national revolutionary activities to this
splendid youth under the portals of the same University, was Chanakya.
22. But in the confusion wrought by this invasion of Alexander, these two
exceptionally gifted personalities had not yet attracted public attention in
themselves. Both of them had been watching very closely the movements of
Alexander's vast forces. Alexander had, as it were, put all the crowns and
coronets of kings, and kings of kings and of all the small rav's and kaval's
into a metlting pot and forged a single crown to proclaim himself the
Emperor of India; while the old sage, Acharya Chanakya, was secretly
planning an easy transfer of that covetable crown to his young disciple's
head by means of a coup d'etat.
War with Porus
23. The king of Taxila, Ambuj or Ambhi had, as already stated, bowed
down to the Greek might without fighting a single battle, and, therefore,
everybody began to jeer at his treacherous act, as it humiliated the braver
spirits. In order to counteract it, the neighbouring Indian monarchies and
republics decided to force a bitter struggle on the Greeks. It is really
unfortunate that these various independent Indian states did not think of
making it a common cause, or perhaps had no time to do it. As soon as he
reached Taxila, Alexander, without any loss of time, sent ultimatum to all
the neighbouring Indian states, demanding unconditional surrender, and
when Taxila's very next neighbour, King Porus, ignored his ultimatum and
took up the challenge, the Greek captain-general marched on him.
24. King Porus mainly depended on his war chariots and elephants,
whereas the Greeks relied upon their cavalry brigades. The river Vitasta
(Jhelum) separated the two armies. All of a sudden, even before the two
armies joined battle, torrential rains overflowing the river with high floods
began to assail them all round. Alexander searched high and low and in a
few days, found to the north, a place where the river was fordable. With

precipitate haste, he crossed the river and with his fine cavalry, dashed
against the forces of King Porus. This disturbed the whole plan of Porus.
Still, he fought on a fierce battle. But the rains had turned the field muddy,
rendering utterly useless Porus’s two great instruments of war, namely
chariots and elephants. He could not, therefore, successfully check the brisk
and energetic attacks of Alexander’s horsemen. In the thick of the battle,
Porus seated on his elephant and desperately fighting was grievously
wounded and fell into the hands of the enemy. Thus, partly because of
Porus’s misfortune and partly because of Alexander’s military skill on the
battlefield, the Greeks were crowned with success.
Victory—Shrewd Political Strategy
25. When Porus was taken as a captive before Alexander, the latter asked
the Indian King, ‘How should I treat you?’ Porus promptly replied, ‘Like a
King’. This apt reply evoked the comment of European as well as our own
historians, that impressed by this bold reply, Alexander returned to Porus
his territory making him a governor under him, instead of putting him to
death. But this interpretation of Alexander’s treatment of Porus is wrong,
and therefore, such platitudes should be avoided in school textbooks.
26. Obviously, Alexander was not like the artless simple Indian King,
Harishchandra, who gave away his kingdom in his wakeful hours in order
to fulfil a promise made in a dream. He knew if he killed Porus or liquidated
his kingdom, placing in his place some Greek Satrap, the high-minded
people of the state would be aflame with rage and hatred towards the
Greeks. Now Alexander wanted to fight his way all along to the chief
Capital of India, namely Pataliputra! Could he ever do so with the sole
support of his own Greek army? On the other hand, it was far more
profitable to win over Porus with apparent magnanimity and kindness, as he
had done to King Ambhi of Taxila (Takshashila) and enlist his active
support in order to facilitate the accomplishment of his daring plan of the
conquest of India. It is, therefore, not for the sake of appreciating the bold
rejoinder of Porus but as a clever political strategy, that the arch diplomat
Alexander returned to Porus his Kingdom. He even annexed the smaller
neighbouring states, which he had conquered immediately before or after
his clash with Porus to the latter’s Kingdom. He had appointed him his
satrap (governor) of this vast Indian Province. Porus too gave his assent to
Alexander’s proposals simply to wait for his time, for fortune had played
foul with him. Porus had done his duty, as a Kshatriya warrior would do of

fighting till the end against the enemy of his nation. In fact, तावत कालम्
प्रतिक्षेताम् (Bide the time!) is a valuable tenet in political science.
Knowing that the submission of King Porus was only time serving, the
Indian populace also did not take it amiss. It will be shown later, how at the
opportune time, King Porus (now Satrap Porus) turned the tables against
Alexander himself.
27. After the end of the war with Porus, Alexander set himself up to the
task of stabilising the newly conquered neighbouring states, and began a
careful study of the life of the people there and in the yonder regions.
Besides, to replenish his army that was depleted in numbers and energy
because of the incessant wars from the Hindukush to the Panchanad,
Alexander ordered fresh regiments of forces from his Satraps in Babylon
and Greece, and sent back those of his fighting forces, who were wounded
and rendered invalid and also those who were shirkers.
Inquiry of the Indian Ascetics
28. The scouts, whom Alexander had sent round to survey the local
condition of the people in the subjugated as well as non-subjugated
provinces, brought, among other reports, detailed descriptions of the
penance-groves in the forests, and of the ascetics, anchorites, recluses, freed
from all worldly bonds, wandering about all alone in search of knowledge
and also of those sages, who were deeply engrossed in philosophical
thought. Alexander himself was fond of learning and philosophical
discussions, for he called himself the disciple of the great philosopher,
Aristotle. He had already heard much in Greece itself of such ascetics and
of austere Brahmins. So, he earnestly desired to see personally at least some
of these austere Brahmins in India, who the Greeks called ‘Gymnosophists’
and have talks with them. So, he sent for some of such hermits from their
forest abodes and some he saw in their secluded cells. The Greek writers
themselves had given some interesting tales about such occasions. I would
like to cite a tale or two from among those in words of the Greek writers
themselves, so as to throw some light on the thoughts and feelings of the
Greeks and their leader, Alexander.
29. “This philosopher (Kalanos), we are told, showed Alexander a symbol
of his empire. He threw down on the ground a dry and shrivelled hide and
planted his foot on the edge of it. But when it was trodden down in one
place, it started up everywhere else. He then walked all round it and showed

that the same thing took place wherever he trod, until at length he stepped
into the middle and by doing so made it all lie flat. This symbol was
intended to show Alexander that he should control his empire from its
centre and not wander away to its distant extremities.”
The Canon of Dandamis
30. Alexander keenly felt that he should send for and have a personal talk
with one Brahmin, of whom he had heard so much in Taxila (Takshashila).
The Greeks called this Brahmin ‘Dandamis’, but I have not so far
succeeded in tracing down his original Sanskrit name. The Brahmin, bent
with age and knowledge, was free from all worldly ties and wandered naked
everywhere. He did not pay any heed to Alexander’s messages. Thereupon,
Alexander sent his own officer ‘Onesikretos’ to this selfless recluse, who
told him, “Alexander, the very son of God Zeus (Sansk: Dyus) and a world-
conqueror has summoned you to his court. If you still fail to come, you will
be beheaded instantaneously.” The Brahmin began to laugh vociferously at
this threat and replied, “If Alexander is the son of Zeus, in the same manner
and for the same reason, I am also the son of that very Zeus (Dyus). As to
his boast of being a world-conqueror, it is absolutely vain! He has not as yet
seen the other bank of the river Vyas. If he successfully faces the brave
Indian states beyond and, yonder still, the powerful empire of Magadha and
still remains alive, we shall have time to consider whether he is a world-
conqueror. Alexander offers me land and gold; but go and tell him that
ascetics like me spit upon such things. This motherland of mine provides
me with everything I want, wilh the loving care of a real mother. If
Alexander is going to chop my head off, then my head and body would mix
up with this earth of what they are made, but he would never be able to
murder my soul. It is invincible, indestructible and immortal. Go and tell
him, that he should issue these threats to those, who are slaves of gold and
power and are afraid of death. Before us, these threats of a mortal like
Alexander fall flat and are powerless. For, a true ascetic Brahmin can never
be won over by gold, nor does he ever fear death. I won’t come go away.”
31. We have quoted only some of the sentences from the reply of
Dandamis to Alexander. Greek writers have given the full text of his
fearless and direct reply. Plutarch, too, has mentioned these tales. Some
writers, astounded by his dauntless and straightforward answer, have
remarked, “If, at all, anyone in the world has so successfully defied

Alexander, who had conquered so many kingdoms, it was this naked, old
Brahmin ascetic of India.”
Brahmins hanged for Political Conspiracy
32. In his survey, Alexander came to know that although these world-
forsakers, ascetics, recluses and others were wandering all alone, their
opinions exerted a powerful influence because of their disinterestedness,
fearlessness and their disregard for any consequences whatsoever, upon the
governments of Indian republics and also on the monarchies. The tongues
of these free and fearless Brahmin ascetics, had sharp edges like the swords
of the Indian Kshatriyas and they protested against the unjust Greek
aggression very sharply and spread, openly or secretly, great discontent
against Alexander amongst the Indian populace. Naturally, his first
adoration of these ‘Gymnosophists’ suddenly gave place to his intense
hatred against the Brahmin hermits. Thereupon, he began to seize some
such Brahmins and hang them. Before beheading one such Brahmin, when
Alexander asked him why he instigated a certain Indian ruler against the
Greeks, he fearlessly and firmly replied that it was his most sacred tenet and
that, if he were to live, he ought to live honourably, else he should die
honourably.” (Plutarch LXIV).
33. After defeating King Porus, Alexander thought his dazzling victory
should unnerve the neighbouring states and force them to submit meekly,
but his hopes in this respect mostly belied him. As he crossed the Vitasta
(Jhelum) and marched onward, the various republics, big or small, on his
way began to offer sanguinary battles. Without a decision at the battlefield,
they would never accept his overlordship meekly. Although the superior
number and might of the Greeks went on overpowering the Indians, the
consequent strain of incessant fighting did not fail to make itself felt on the
Greeks.
34. Greek writers have described many such battles with various Indian
republics, but this is no occasion to mention them, either at some length or
briefly. However, some of the chosen incidents have got to be given here at
some length, at least as a mark of respect to those brave Indian republics
who, though not jointly yet severally, offered the toughest of resistance to
that mighty Greek army of a hundred thousand gallant soldiers and their
brave, world-famous, captain-general Alexander, who had vowed
pompously to trample over the whole of India and conquer the Crown of

Magadha for himself, which finally forced him to stirke a retreat homeward,
from the very threshold of India.
Republics of Saubhootis and Kathas
35. The constitution of both these republics was democratic. Writes a
Greek writer Diodoros “They were governed by laws in the highest degree
salutary and their political system was admirable. One special feature of
these republics was that with a view to promoting healthy, strong and
handsome progeny, the procreation of human species was not left to
individual whims and fancies, but was controlled by the state. They were
very fond of physical beauty. Hence, marriages were arranged not with an
eye on the handsome dowry, but with proper consideration of mutual
physical fitness, beauty and health, and the ability of the bride and the
bridegroom to bring forth healthy and sturdy children. Even while electing
their leaders, who were to guide the nation and bear the yoke of national
welfare, sufficient weightage was given to the candidate’s build of the body
and physical strength. Their laws regarding the proper production of human
species were so strict that within three months of their birth, children were
medically examined by the state authorities, and if a child were found with
some native defect or to be suffering from some incurable disease or
deformed, it was immediately put to death under state orders without any
mercy.”
35A. Readers of history know well that the Republic of Sparta had similar
laws about heredity.
36. Though not so very strict and ruthless as the Saubhootis and the
Kathas, there were other Ganas or republics in India, which paid special
attention to heredity, and bringing forth of strong and handsome children.
The ‘Vrishnis’ were also very particular, from the ancient times, about the
physical beauty and strength of their leaders and state officials. The
physical strength and beauty of the world famous leader of these Vrishnis,
Lord Shree Krishna, has been immortalized. Lord Shri Krishna’s sons, too,
have been credited by the Puranas with exceptional beauty.
Republic Subsisting by Arms
37. A good many republics in the Panchanad (the Punjab) and along both
the banks of the Indus, right up to its great leap into the sea, were said to be
living on weapons. The most remarkable fact about them was that not only
the men but the women too in those republics had necessarily to undergo
military training so that at the time of war, literally the whole nation could

be drafted for military action. Although different from each other in some
particular respects, their constitutions, needless to say, were essentially
democratic. Whether big or small in size, they were all independent.
The Republic of the Youdheyas
38. The Republic of the Youdheyas, spread far and wide in the fertile
lands to the south of the river Vyas in the Panchanad (the Punjab), was the
most prominent of them all. It was looked upon with awe and respect by
every one because of its valiant youths who always fought for their
independence, regardless of their lives. It was truly called, by the foreign
historians, ‘A nation in arms’. They too had a law necessitating everyone
between the ages of 18 and 21 to undergo sound military training, which
kept not only their male but even the female population well-equipped with
arms.
39. On seeing Alexander march down the Vitasta (Jhelum) and the
Chandrabhaga (Chenab) in order to cross the Vyas, after defeating King
Porus, the adjoining republics and the hill tribes, the gallant Youdheyas,
who were to the south of the river, spurned Alexander’s ultimatum of abject
surrender and began all-out preparations for war. Yet the so-called Emperor
of Magadha, the cowardly Dhananand, was not roused from his stupor. That
lily-livered coward does not seem to have sent any mlitary help to the
gallant Youdheyas in order to vanquish Alexander at the very portals of
India. Nevertheless, the Youdheyas got ready to face Alexander, relying on
nothing but their own strength.
Alexander’s Army Struck with Terror
40. When Alexander’s army came fighting to the banks of the river Vyas,
after crossing the Indus, the Vitasta, and the Chandrabhaga, they came to
know that beyond that river, the democratic Youdheyas had taken arms to
fight for their independence against the Greeks. Besides, they learnt about
their bravery, and also of the fact that beyond the Youdheyas, mightier
Indian states along the banks of the Ganges were making ready to fight with
them. The Greek soldiers, already spent and disgusted with unceasing
warfare with the Indians in the Panchanad, dared not cross the Vyas and
join battle with the courageous and daring Indian states like the Youdheyas
and others.
41. But the lust for war and conquest of their war-intoxicated, enterprising
and exceptionally courageous captain-general and emperor, Alexander was
not quenched in the least. He proclaimed, throughout all the divisions of his