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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

अमर्षेणोरुधृतान्याशु तेन शास्त्रमिदं कृतम्॥
—अर्थशास्त्र p. 429
“He who destroyed the Nanda and rejuvenated the national armed strength
as also the national scientific advance which were decaying under the
Nanda regime, and thus caused the uplift of his Bharatbhoomi, has written
this treatise.” He has not used even a single word in the introductory lines to
say that he destroyed Nanda to avenge his personal insult. It is for the
progress and prosperity of his own nation and motherland, that Nanda was
destroyed! Chanakya’s great work itself tells it clearly!
104. The anecdote that is told in a downright dramatic way perhaps means
only this, that his original nationalistic animus towards Nanda was whetted
more because of this personal insult.
Chanakya’s Political Activities Preceded Alexander’s onslaught
105. Chanakya had been living in the vicinity of Taxila for good many
years before the aggression of Alexander. He had a first-hand knowledge of
the political situation in the Bharatiya frontier territories right up to the
Indus.
106. Just adjoining the borderland of India had stretched far and wide,
the unitary and centrally well-organised nation, inimical to India.
Chanakya was shrewd enough to understand that in the event of an
aggression by such a well-organised and inimical country, the small native
democracies and monarchies from the Panchanad to the Indus would
utterly fail in the open battlefield, if they were to fight separately.
The Greek city-states too perished precisely for this reason
107. Just then a practical demonstration of the above-mentioned axiom
took place in Greece. The moment the Persian Emperor invaded Greece, the
small Greek city-states like their prototypes in India, were convulsed to
their bones. In the end, it is only when Philip and Alexander conquered all
of those separatist Greek city-states, forged them into a powerful empire,
was it possible for them to vanquish the Persian empire. Chanakya was not
slow to understand its significance.
108. He arrived at the firm conviction that vis-a-vis a powerful and
extensive inimical empire as its neighbour, India had only one way to
defend its independence and make its administrative machinery strong
enough to withstand any foreign aggression and that was to boil down all

the smaller monarchies and republics and to forge out of them, a centralized
unitary and strong empire.
For the Entire Undivided India
108A. But there was not a single Indian monarchy or republic throughout
the whole of the region right from Gandhar, Punjab to the Indus delta,
which could execute this plan of Chanakya, who had already appraised
their capability and inclination. Naturally, his next choice fell on the only
mighty empire of North India, namely Magadha. His head full of plans for
the future Indian revolution, Arya Chanakya came again to Magadha in
order to study secretly the political situation, visiting every place right from
a poor man’s cottage to the royal palace. As such, he was trying to get
access to the King’s court on some pretext or the other. When the question
of the appointment of Arya Chanakya as the Chairman of the ‘Grants’
Department’ (दानाध्यक्ष) was mooted, Nanda did not object to it, because
till then, he had known nothing else of Arya Chanakya, but of his
scholarship. This appointment greatly helped Arya Chanakya perfect his
secret revolutionary plans.
109. But before long, Emperor Nanda had reports that Arya Chanakya
was not a scholar pure and simple, but an expert organiser of secret plots
and was at that time busy plotting against him. Enraged at this, he publicly
insulted Arya Chanakya as already told before, deprived him of his
authority as the Chairman of the Grant’s Department, and expelled him out
of his imperial precincts. Being thus outlawed, Chanakya returned again to
Taxila.
110. In the meanwhile, the young bastard son Chandragupta, being exiled,
as has been already told, from the Magadhan court by Emperor Nanda,
went to Taxila and joined Chanakya—an incident that proved most
favourable to that patriot’s ambitious plans of establishing an all-India
empire.
Why did Chanakya back Chandragupta alone?
111. If he were to dethrone the weak and wicked Nanda, and crown in his
place on the throne of the Magadha empire any outsider, the tradition-
loving important persons from amongst the feudatories, the Indian princes
and even the common people would probably have opposed vehemently,
even though the chosen person had been endowed with the most excellent
qualities, whereas Chandragupta, though not a lawful royal prince, had yet
some native blood-relation to the throne as the bastard son of the Emperor

of Magadha. He was, moreover, endowed with valour and other qualities of
head and heart. As such, the arch-diplomat Chanakya shrewdly guessed that
even these votaries of tradition were far less likely to oppose
Chandragupta’s election to the throne of Magadha. He, therefore,
determined to champion the claim of Chandragupta to the emperorship of
Magadha—why even to that of the whole of India.
112. While the grand plan of an India-wide empire of Chanakya-and-
Chandragupta was thus being set afoot, the unfortunate event of a foreign
invasion was reported towards Persia. Alexander had already destroyed the
empire of Persia and had invaded India. Although as has been related in the
foregoing pages, he was staunchly opposed by the Bharatiya valour and
forced to retreat home, it was plain that Alexander’s well organised
imperial military might was not totally annulled.
113. Even out of this evil, some good did emerge. The republican subjects
of the frontier regions, with their faith in democratic principles shaken
rudely by the heavy knock of a foreign invasion and the bloody wars that
followed, began to agree with Chanakya and other patriotic prophets that
national independence was in peril, unless a countrywide Indian empire
was established on the lines of the vast, highly centralized well-organized
and unitary form of empire of the enemy.
114. The first happy sign of this revolutionary spirit was seen in the
general uprising throughout the smaller states and republics, conquered by
Alexander and annexed to his empire and in the fact that hardly within six
months or a year of Alexander’s death, these Indian territories shook off
the foreign rule and became independent. Justin, an ancient renowned
writer, credits the leadership of Chandragupta with the authorship of this
wonderful and noble collective uprising. “India after the death of
Alexander had shaken, as it were, the yoke of servitude from its neck and
put his governors to death. The author of this liberation was Sandrocottus.”
The ‘Sandrocottus’ of this quotation is Chandragupta. The Greeks
pronounced the name of Chandragupta in this very way.
The only way to repel re-invasion?
115. Although the general rising in these frontier provinces was successful
under the guidance of Chandragupta, Chanakya and others, the followers of
Chanakya began to warn all princes and political leaders, that it had not as
yet made Indian independence completely safe from the future Greek
onslaught. They went on preaching everywhere that Alexander himself had

vowed till the day of his death, that he would invade India once again and
conquer it thoroughly, that the chief officers of his state and commanders
were at war with one another for the division of the Greek empire, that the
triumphant one among them who would ascend the throne at Babylon
would not fail to attack India with an army more powerful than before, and
that the first victims to that aggression would be these very people, if they
remained disunited as separate Rajakas (monarchies) and Prajakas
(republics). But if they availed themselves of this opportunity of the civil
feuds of the Greeks, and they could merge the whole of India into a strong
empire with an efficient administration at the centre, this new Indian
empire, stronger than that of the Greeks, could very easily beat the
Mlenchchas, were they to come once again aggressively. Hence, they said
India should be built into one strong nation!
Invasion of Chandragupta and Chanakya on Magadha
116. Without wasting even a single moment of the golden opportunity of
the Greek internecine wars, Chandragupta and other followers of Chanakya
began openly to raise a powerful army to march first of all against
Magadha, according to Chanakya’s plan of the political revolution. A few
but very telling references to this fact are to be found in the critique named
‘Mahavamsha’. From these and from other sources, it appears that this
invading army of Chandragupta was mainly composed of the soldiers from
Panchanad, the Pauravas and the republics that were inspired with the
preaching of Chanakya for a unitary Indian empire. In order to enlist the
sympathies of the Parvateshwara, i.e. King Paurav, who was a powerful
king in those provinces, Chanakya is said to have met him secretly. As
Alexander’s sway had been completely thrown off from the Indian
territories, King Paurav was no longer a subordinate satrap of the Greeks.
From stray references in some books, it appears that not only King Paurav
offered his support for Chanakya’s cause, but some wealthy people too
helped him actively. Chanakya offered the command of the whole army to
Chandragupta. After establishing their hold on all possible regions of
Panchanad, they marched speedily on Magadha. The Indian populace and
the local powers disgusted with and enraged at the tyrannical and weak rule
of Nanda, and inspired by Chanakya’s ideal of a strong unitary empire of
the whole of India, joined Chandragupta’s army as it marched ahead
fighting.

117. In this daring and stormy march of theirs, Chandragupta and
     Chanakya had many times to face very grave dangers to their lives. Once
     their whole army was routed by a violent knock of the opposing forces, and
     Chandragupta and Chanakya had to flee into the forest to save their lives.
     One night they had to sleep on the bare hard ground, but undeterred by any
     of these calamities, Chandragupta and Chanakya formed their armies again
     and again and kept on marching ahead, and in the end, entered the precincts
     of Pataliputra, the Magadhan capital itself.
118. The arch-diplomat, Chanakya had bribed the army and the people in
     the capital of Nanda. On the strength of this general sedition, the daring
     Chandragupta fell like an arrow-shot upon the city of Pataliputra.
     Mahapadmanand Beheaded
119. When Chandragupta’s army rushed into the capital, blocking it very
     rigidly from every side, there was a great havoc everywhere. Chandragupta
     himself entered the royal palace but Mahapadmanand had already left it in
     the general disorder that had ensued, and was trying to slip out of the capital
     secretly. He was, however, caught on the way and beheaded almost
     instantaneously.
     Samrat Chandragupta ki Jaya!
120. Chandragupta was soon proclaimed Emperor of Magadha. He
     adopted Maurya as his family name after that of his mother, Mura. Hence,
     he and his royal dynasty came to be known for ever in history by that very
     name ‘Maurya’. As soon as he publicly ascended the throne of Magadha, he
     appointed Chanakya the Chief Minister of the empire, approximately in
     B.C. 321.
121. Alexander died round about B.C. 323. It means, therefore, that within
     about two years, Samrat Chandragupta and Chanakya effected this gigantic
     revolution that established the independent and powerful Indian empire,
     dispelling all gloom of despondency and disintegration, while on the other
     side, the Greek feudal lords were quarrelling amongst themselves. In order
     to avail himself fully of this opportunity, Chanakya immediately busied
     himself with the establishment of internal peace and order.
     The basic principle of Chanakya’s Political theory—Military Might
     First
122. But the peace and order of even a unitary empire ultimately depends
     on its military strength alone, which forms the bedrock of the whole
     imperial structure. This was the basic principle of Chanakya’s political

theory. Warlike spirit and armed-strength, he said, were the very life-breath
not only of the political but also of the civil life of a community. Let that
warlike spirit mitigate itself a bit and all religions, all sciences, all arts why
the whole life of a nation is doomed!
सर्वे धर्मा प्रक्षयेयुर्विवृद्धाः। क्षात्रे त्यक्ते राजधर्मे पुराणे॥
“In the event of the Kshatriyas forsaking their old kingly duty, all the
religions are (bound) to perish.” A huge building without a (proper)
foundation, as also, an empire without an (adequate) military strength, are
bound to topple down even with a stormy wave of wind. Arya Chanakya, who
preached all this, first of all began to reorganize a huge powerful army, which
was well-commanded and inspired with the ambition to win in order to defend
the newly-born empire. This he did with such an amazing speed, that during
three or four years, not only his subjects came to have faith in his great powers
but also the enemies of India began to fear it.
123. What did this huge army of Chandragupta so well planned and so
well organised, amount to?
124. Hardly four years earlier, when Chandragupta-Chanakya vowed
secretly to establish an independent Indian empire under a unitary
command, their armed might was literally nil! That very Chandragupta who
started with this ‘nil’, had now a well-equipped loyal army of 6,00,000 foot
soldiers, 30,000 cavalry; 2,000 war-elephants and 4,000 chariots!
125. With this powerful army, Chanakya wiped out the chaos created by
the separatist small states, republics and monarchies in north India, which
wanted to lead an independent life of their own, and established peace and
unitary organization. In the end, all the territory on this side of the Indus up
to the Punjab, the Kingdom of the Pauravas and Sindh proper, were
annexed to the Mauryan empire.
126. Had any political thinker and administrator or an Indian emperor felt
proud to have established for the first time, such a unitary Bharatiya empire,
it would have been but natural.
India’s Frontier Hindukush not Indus
127. But Chandragupta and Chanakya were not satisfied with extending
the boundaries of their empire up to the banks of the Indus only, they had
vowed to establish the Bharatiya empire over the whole of India, and to
annihilate the unruly Mlenchchas! At that time the (north-western) frontier
of India did not rest with the eastern bank of the Indus. But it reached much
farther beyond the Indus, so as to include among its fold the regions like the

Gandhar and the rivers now lost to Afghanisthan, but once well-known to
Vedic Aryans, like the Kubha (the Kabul of today), the Kramu (the Kurram
of today), the Suwastu (the Swat of today), the Gomati (the Gumal of
today) and others, right up to the peaks of the Hindukush mountains. To that
far end, were spread our republics following the Vedic religion and born of
a Bharatiya race! And over these regions had been ruling the traditional
royal dynasties of India. As our people in that ice-cold regions were
comparatively whiter, it was also called by some “White India”. Naturally
the national aspiration, as embodied in Chandragupta-Chanakya scheme of
things, fortified its imperial boundaries not only up to the eastern bank of
the Indus with a strong army, but it also busied itself with the planning and
preparation and execution of the imperial boundaries right up to the natural
geographic frontiers of India, the Hindukush mountain and yearned to hoist
its flag on the top of that mountain!
“These also laboured in the cause espoused by the other sages.”
Greek Feuds and the Division of the Empire
128. In the meanwhile, the Greek civil feuds had temporarily ceased by
dividing Alexander’s empire, ceding its vast portion from the Indian
frontiers up to Babylon to Seleucos Nicator, one of the bravest and most
experienced veteran of Alexander’s military officers, who ruled it as an
independent sovereign. He was supposed to inherit the claim to the region
beyond the Hindukush, which was formely conquered by Alexander.
129. He, therefore, demanded the surrender of that region from
Chandragupta, who had appropriated it to himself. Of course, Seleucos did
not realize that now the Greeks had to face not an Ambhi of Taxila as
before, nor any cowardly minister, but King Chandragupta and his minister,
Chanakya! They not only scoffed at this frivolous demand of Seleucos, but
demanded in return the surrender of the region from Gandhar to Hindukush
beyond the river Indus.
Seleucos Attacks India with a Mighty Army
130. Enraged at this rebuff, Seleucos marched against India round about
315 B.C. with a Greek army, trained under Alexander. If we leave aside the
little-known invasion of Gandhar by Alexander in B.C. 329, this was the
second invasion of India by the Greeks after the famous one, already fully
described, by Alexander in B.C. 326.
131. But this time, after he crossed the Indus, Seleucos was amazed to see
that the region, instead of being divided into separate Indian republics as at

the time of Alexander, had undergone a complete change, both political and
military, because of the brave efforts of Chandragupta and Chanakya. He
was confused. Right from the northern most part of Punjab on the bank of
the Indus to the waters of the Western Sea (Sindhusagar), he saw erected, as
it were, a steel wall of well-organized, centrally controlled fourfold Indian
army to check his advance! And at the head of it was Chandragupta
himself!
132. As soon as the two armies thirsting to fight met, a bitter war started.
The Greeks did their utmost, but at last, the Indian forces on two or three
battlefields somewhere on the banks of the Indus (the place or places are
unknown yet), put them to such a pitiful rout that hardly four years earlier,
when Chandragupta-Chanakya vowed secretly to establish an independent
Indian empire under a unitary command, their armed might was literally
nil! That very Chandragupta who started with this ‘nil’, had now a well-
equipped loyal army of 6,00,000 foot soldiers, 30,000 cavalry, 2,000 war-
elephants and 4,000 chariots!
Seleucos could not help capitulating to the victorious Chandragupta.
Revenge of the Defeat of King Paurav
133. Thus was avenged by this decisive victory of Chandragupta over the
vanquished Greeks, the old sore of the defeat of King Paurav and other
atrocities and insults meted out to the Indians by Alexander! So...
The Vanquished Seleucos Meekly Accepted all the terms of the
Victorious Chandragupta
134. According to these terms of the treaty, Seleucos relinquished his right
to the Indian region this side of the Indus, which he had so far maintained.
But when he was firmly told by Chief Minister Chanakya, that the war
would not end unless the whole region from Gandhar to Hindukush, which
was till then in the Greek hands, was yielded to the Indian Emperor, he
submitted to it meekly and the thousands of Greek warriors, who proudly
held their brave chests and their swords drawn up while crossing the Indus
on their march against India, now returned crestfallen, with their heads and
swords held down. They crossed not only the Indus backwards but retreated
to the farthest end of the Hindukush mountain.
Love is Impossible Without fear
(भय बिन होय न प्रीत)
135. This singular victory of Chandragupta brought the Indian frontiers
quite close to those of the Greek empire of Seleucos and the dividing line

between the two empires was the range of the Hindukush mountain! The
might of this Indian emperor and the personality of Chandragupta and
Chanakya impressed the Greek Emperor, Seleucos, so much that he was
fully convinced of the advisability of having friendly relations with such a
mighty empire rather than to be on inimical terms with it! Secondly,
Seleucos had enemies on the other frontiers, although they too were Greeks.
Friendship with Chandragupta, therefore, was calculated to overawe them
too! For these reasons, the Greek Emperor Seleucos wholeheartedly signed
a treaty of permanent peace with Emperor Chandragupta.
136. Moreover, with a view to cementing this political and international
friendship with a wedlock between the two royal families and personal
affinities and ties, the Greek emperor celebrated the marriage of his
daughter with Chandragupta.
137. This offer of the royal princess in marriage by Seleucos, erected a
golden pinnacle bedecked with jewels over the magnificent temple of the
success of Emperor Chandragupta!
The Glorious Treatise of Mahamatya Chanakya!
138. How very effectively and firmly with full regard to the propriety of
the case and yet how very discreetly Chanakya managed the affairs of the
state, can be clearly seen from his treatise on body politic named
Kautaleeya Arthashastra, and from the far-reaching influence of the
invincible Indian Empire, which kept on increasing for at least a hundred
years afterwards. The account of Megasthenese, the Greek ambassador at
the court of Chandragupta, also testifies to the part this treatise played in
maintaining peace and order and affluence in the whole empire.
139. At times a single historical event happening overnight or within a
single day, changes the whole current of history for over a thousand years to
come. This decisive victory of Chandragupta over the Greeks had also had
far-reaching effects. The English historian, Vincent Smith, has this remark
to offer: “For almost a hundred years after the failure of Seleucos Nikator,
no Greek sovereign presumed to attack India.”
140. “...The first Indian emperor, more than two thousand years ago thus
entered into possession of that ‘Scientific frontier’ sighed for in vain by his
English successors and never held in its entirety even by the Moghul
monarchs of the 16th and 17th centuries. “(Early History of India, 4th ed.
1924 by V.A. Smith p.126).
Did Alexander Conquer India? No.

141. In the ancient period throughout the whole of Europe, the Greek
     civilization was the only one which was far ahead of others. Almost all the
     modern nations of Europe, therefore, rever it as their source. Naturally, the
     name of a valiant Greek emperor of that time like Alexander is, therefore, a
     source of living inspiration to them. The European histories, therefore, call
     him “Alexander the Great”, and many anecdotes and legends in the
     mythical manner are colourfully taught to the young pupils through their
     history textbooks. But the commonly educated European people—not of
     course the few learned historians—are blissfully ignorant of the then Indian
     antagonists of Alexander and his Greek empire, Chandragupta, and his
     minister, Chanakya! Such perversion of history can be overlooked so far as
     the Europeans are concerned. But after the establishment of the British rule
     over India in our schools and colleges too, the same disproportionate
     praises were sung of Alexander in the history textbooks and other types of
     literature. Because three or four generations of ours have been imparted the
     same English education, our educated classes are also impressed by the
     name Alexander the Great. But they too probably never knew who
     Chandragupta or Chanakya was. This perversion of history, and the
     misunderstanding it has created in the minds of our people, should no more
     be tolerated hereafter. We may not mind the other traditional anecdotes
     about Alexander, but those, at least that are connected with Indian history
     and that extol Alexander disproportionately to the derogation of the Indian
     people, must be deleted from our school textbooks and from our literature.
     Take for example, the one colourfully told in the school and college books
     of Europe and other types of literature, and which was widely published in
     our country also by the English.
142. The Greeks and other European people believed that Alexander was
     a world conqueror and he had conquered the whole of India. When that
     war-like Emperor returned home after his world conquest, he is said to have
     burst into tears at the sad thought that no more country remained for him to
     be conquered. This anecdote about Alexander is, proudly told not only in
     Europe but even in India! Now it can be very clearly seen how very absurd
     and ludicrous this belief is from the short account given earlier in these
     pages. To the great nation of those times, China, he never turned his face.
     But even if we leave this fact aside, we have already shown how he was
     baffled and made to retreat, when he came conquering to the Western
     frontiers of India with the ambitious design to conquer the Empire of