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

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

Magadha and the rest of India, and how his aspirations were defeated.
Alexander was brave; Alexander was a conqueror. But he was not a world-
conqueror! Conqueror of India he never was!! If at all that valiant hero was
really moved to tears, it was impossible that his tears should have been
caused by the thought that there was no other country left for conquest. For,
he himself knew that it was false. His tears then must have been caused by
the sad realization that he was not able to defeat India completely, which he
longed so much to conquer. On the contrary, he must have been much
disturbed by the thought that even the small corner of India he believed he
was able to conquer, was also very likely to be wrenched from his hands by
the rebellious Indians!
142A. As it is said in the poem “Gomantak”:
अन्यकुणाचा असो शिकंदर, परन्तु भारत जेता ना ॥
अंगण ही ना तये देखिले कला ही नाकुणाकुणा ॥
[Of whomsoever else he might be the conqueror, Alexander was never the
conqueror of India! He did not even see the courtyard (of the palatial
edifice) of India, and to many others, he was never known (even by name)!]
Super Alexander!
143. Great men should ordinarily be never compared with one another.
They are great in various ways, but if anybody tries to compare any such
and extol the one to the derogation of the other, this hoax must be exposed
and refuted completely. So long as Europe eulogizes Alexander alone as
‘the Great’ and tries to browbeat his antagonist, Emperor Chandragupta, by
evading any reference to him, we Indians must need assert that if at all they
are to be compared, Chandragupta was Super Alexander in comparison with
Alexander! Alexander ascended the throne of a strong nation, already won
by his father and commanded an army that was also formed by King Philip.
On the strength of this ancestral inheritance, he bravely built up a strong
Greek empire. But Chandragupta enjoyed no such heritage. He had not a
single soldier under his command, besides he had been banished from his
ancestral empire by his father! Only one man was at his side, it was Arya
Chanakya!! Under these circumstances, he had to start anew. Yet he built up
a mighty army, conquered the ancestral empire, and wiping out the Greek
conquests under Alexander himself and under his general Seleucos Nicator,
founded an Indian Empire mightier even than that of Alexander himself!

144. The epoch that starts with the conquest of the Yavanas by Emperor
     Chandragupta, the Super Shikandar is THE FIRST GLORIOUS EPOCH of
     Hindu victories over the aggressors.
     ❑
     .

2ND GLORIOUS EPOCH
2.
Yavana—Destroyer, Pushy Amitra
145. Emperor Chandragupta expired in 298 B.C. He was succeeded by his
son, Bindusar, who was also brave. He took for himself the epithet
‘Amitraghat’ (the annihilator of enemies). Even after the death of
Chandragupta, the ministership rested with Chanakya at least for sometime.
Naturally, Bindusar took upon himself the task of Chanakya and
Chandragupta, which was left half accomplished at the latter’s death (cf:
paragraphs 108 to 127). According to the plan, the Yavanas were sorely
beaten, the whole of India was once again free, and there was established,
as far as north India was concerned, a centrally administered unitary form
of strong empire. But there avowed objective was the consolidation of the
whole of India under one supreme ruler, for the sake of which, it was his
duty to assimilate South India into the Mauryan empire of the north!
146. Although the several states in South India at the time belonged to our
own people, they were independent in their own ways and were absolutely
free from any kind of foreign domination. It was, however, necessary that
they should have merged their separate existence into the north Indian
empire, if the whole of India was to be one indivisible nation with a central
authority to guide its destiny. To do so was their national duty.
147. Once he started on his southern campaign, Emperor Bindusar made
almost all of the southern states and principalities accept his sovereignty
either by peace talks, by grants of money or by threats of violence or even
by sowing seeds of sedition. It is recorded in history that he annexed
seventeen capitals (with their states) between the eastern and western seas
to the Maurya empire. It seems that he brought the whole of the northern,
southern, eastern and western India under his sole command and
accomplished the ideal of the India-wide unitary empire. Besides this, the
Maurya empire of Bindusar was unique inasmuch as, even according to the
standards of history, India was the mightiest in its military sense, of all the
nations of the then known world.
148. It was because of the invincible four-fold armed strength built up
according to the precepts of Chanakya. that from Chandragupta’s accasion

to the throne of Magadha to the time when Ashoka courted Buddhism and
even his death, i.e. for about a hundred years, no enemy from the outside
world could give any kind of offence to this all India Maurya Empire, either
by land or sea, or by crossing any frontier whatsoever!
Ashoka the Holy!
149. Samrat Bindusar died in 273 B.C. this son, Ashoka ascended the
throne after him by putting aside his elder brother. Emperor Ashoka truly
deserved to be included in the list of virtuous and holy kings not only of
India but of the world. However, according to the criterion laid down in
paragraphs 7 to 9 of this book, the Ashokan epoch does not fit in properly in
the scope of the glorious epochs. Hence, we cannot do anything more than
bypass him with only a slight reference.
150. But after his conversion to Buddhism, Ashoka carried out an
excessive propaganda in favour of certain Buddhist principles like Ahimsa
and the rest, which have caused so much harm to the Indian political
outlook, her political independence, and her empire, that it has become
absolutely necessary to discuss at some length here as well as in other
chapters, not only the principles of Ashoka but also those of Buddhism and
their practices.
Hail to Lord Buddha!
151. Before discussing here some of the anti-national Buddhist preachings
and practices and their effects, I consider it my duty to state in the
beginning—so that there may not be any misunderstanding or perversion of
my views—that on the whole, I have a very high regard for Lord Buddha
and his religion. In Indian history, there are several lofty Himalayan peaks
of world famous personalities and the name of one of those sublime heights
is Bhagwan Buddha! As regards this reverence for him, I, too, would gladly
join his disciples in bowing down my head before his idol, saying. “Hail to
thee, O Lord Buddha!” The Hindu nation too, which gave birth to such a
divine, considers him the ninth incarnation of Lord Vishnu.
Causes of Decline of Buddhism in India
152. The Buddhist cult for that matter was being preached in the vicinity
of Magadha, at least three hundred years before Ashoka. It was mostly
propagated, till then, by persuasion and conviction on matters of principles.
Naturally, its progress was slow. It has already been pointed out in
paragraph no. 16 that till the time of Alexander and Seleucos, Buddhist
religion was hardly known in Punjab, Sindh, Gandhar and other provinces.

The Greeks knew nothing of it. Good many historians are under the
impression that because Buddhism did not regard the authority of the Vedas
as the highest and because on the whole, it appeared atheistic, the followers
of the Vedic religion at that time opposed it very vehemently and, as such,
the Buddhist religion was exterminated from India. But this belief firmly
established in the minds of the people throughout the ages till the very
present day, is not wholly right; for, the belief that Lord Buddha founded
any non-Vedic atheistic cult is in itself wrong. Round about the time
Gautam Buddha was born, there were nearly fifty or sixty creeds in vogue,
and this, the Buddhist books themselves admit as true. It was customary to
hold intellectual debates of the Vedic and non-Vedic philosophies. Whoever
was convinced by persuasion and discussion, adopted freely the religion he
liked. Although it is true that Buddhism suffered a sort of defeat in this
philosophical and intellectual warfare, that went on throughout the long
period from the days of the Buddha to those of Shankaracharya, the disgust
and hatred the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and the other Hindu people felt for
the Buddhist sect and the corrupt practices they followed, were mainly due
not to the philosophical or intellectual, but to the national and political
reasons. How all this happened will be explained, so far as the scope of this
book will permit.
Ashoka Enforces Buddhism
153. After courting the Buddhist cult, Ashoka became such a great zealot
of his new religion towards the end of his career, that he was not satisfied
with persuasive type of religious conversion so far prevalent in society. He
declared penal all those Vedic religious practices, which were taboo from
the point of view of the Buddhists, but which were the very foundation of
Vedic religion. For want of space, we shall cite not more than two or three
instances. He banned all those sacrifices throughout his empire, which
admitted of violence. Sacrifice was the main stay of the Vedic religion,
round which the Bharatiya civilization had flourished ever since the Vedic
period. The discontent, therefore, that must have been caused amongst the
eighty per cent of the population, which comprised Brahmins, Kshatriyas
and other Vedic people, when those sacrifices were declared penal offences
by the government, can best be imagined. Ashoka even banned hunting.
The Vedic religion considered hunting one of the essential duties of a
Kshatriya. Not only was it forbidden by Ashoka to kill fish and fowl for the
food of millions of people, but simply for upholding the extremist principle

of the Buddhistic ‘total Ahimsa’, it was also declared unlawful to hunt wild
beasts like lions and tigers, which very often broke upon human habitations
and caused great distress by carrying away men and animals. If practised
sincerely and without making any exceptions, these principles prove utterly
harmful to mankind. While he was, thus, tyrannically overriding the
religious practices of the Brahmin-Kshatriya and Vedic people, Ashoka
went on erecting great pillars and inscribed thereon his famous edicts,
enjoining on his subjects to be tolerant to all religionists, to give respect to
the Shramanas (ascetics) and Brahmins alike. It is really strange that an
emperor, calm, cool, composed and considerate like Ashoka, should not be
able to realize the inconsistency between his precept and practice.
154. Nearly fifty years before Ashoka, Chanakya had already visualized
the inevitable, horriblle effect of some of the teachings of the Buddhist cult
on the national strength and the foundation of the society as a whole. As
such in his famous political treatise, “Arthashastra”, on which was erected
the whole edifice of the Maurya empire, he had laid down certain
restrictions that were essential from the national point of view on those,
who thought of leaving the wordly life and become ‘bhikksu’. For instance,
one of the Chanakyan rules forbade a minor girl to enter the Buddha
‘Sangham’ without the express permission of her parents and the
government. Another of his rules prohibited every man from becoming a
‘bhikksu’, unless and until he had provided amply for the dependants, his
wife and children.
But during the reign of Ashoka and later also, these restrictions
disappeared, and every man or woman, young or old, became absolutely
free to renounce the worldly ways to enter the Buddhistic Sanghas.
Thousands of these ‘bhikksus’ in the ‘Sanghas’ were allowed free food,
clothing, beddings and abodes as charities, at the cost of the state. Ashoka
spent crores of rupees from the imperial treasury on building gigantic
viharas and on the maintenance of millions of such bhikksus living in them.
The major part of the revenue collection of the imperial treasury was made
from the estates of the Vedic Hindus, yet it was spent on the universal
propaganda of the Buddhistic sect, which antagonised them. This
squandering away of their wealth for the growth of their antagonists,
naturally bred great discontent among the Vedic populace.
A blow to the Imperial Might!

155. This excessive propaganda for unrestricted 'ahimsa', which Ashoka
     carried on by the use of his political authority throughout his empire and the
     countries beyond it, cut at the very root of the Indian empire, and was even
     more harmful than any other acts of his for the national existence and
     national independence! Thousands of bhikksus, appointed and maintained
     by Ashoka, preached everywhere that armed strength of every sort was
     violent and sinful, and that all those who followed the life of a Kshatriya,
     were violent and so irreligious! Everyone who vowed to practise 'ahimsa',
     everyone who renounced the use of weapons and his family life and lived
     the life of a 'bhikksu' in the viharas according to the Buddhistic principles
     was greater, holier and so more praiseworthy than the brave Kshatriya
     soldier, who fought and bled and died in the defence of his nation.
     Naturally, the common people too came to think that any and every
     wandering parasite of a 'bhikksu' was more respectable and religious-
     minded, than the brave armed warrior.
156. Ashoka had precepts, commonly preached by other religions also,
     inscribed on his 'pillars': "Religious victory is more valuable than the one
     gained by means of arms." But was this religious victory possible in the
     earthly life? Was it practical? A draught of nectar is said to make a man
     immortal, maybe! But can anybody tell the whereabouts of the shop where
     that nectar is available?
     156A. Whoever can satisfy his hunger by eating the rice and curry made
     of words?
     बोलाचीच कढी बोलाचाचभात। जेवूनिया तृप्त कोण झाला॥
157. Was not the empire of Ashoka with the unlimited resources, power
     and wealth, with which he could carry out, throughout the whole of India
     and abroad, a vigorous propaganda 'that religious victory was superior to
     victory on the battlefield', itself gained on the strength of the mighty and
     invincible four-fold army built up by Chandragupta and Chanakya? Had all
     that army forsworn arms and lived the idle parasitic life of the 'bhikksu' in
     the 'Viharas' embracing Buddhism, as soon as Ashoka ascended his
     ancestral throne, would it have been possible for him to sit there securely
     as an emperor even for a moment? Even at that time, the Greek states
     beyond the Indian border and farther off than these the more ferocious wild
     tribes of the Saka-Kushan-Hun type, who recognized 'violence' as the only
     mean of achieving their objectives were anxiously waiting for an
     opportunity to pounce, like a lion, on India, but they feared the four-fold

invincible Indian army. Would they all not have taken this golden
opportunity to throttle the ‘bhikksu-ridden’ India and Ashoka’s religious
triumph without the use of arms, and drawn its blood?
158. But it is hardly necessary to indulge in these ‘ifs’ and ‘whens’. At
that very time, India had unfortunately to suffer the grievous consequences
of the preaching, not only of Ashoka but of the Buddha himself, as has been
shown in my play, ‘Sanyasta Khadga’. The miserable plight of the people
and the successful resistance, which the Vedic Hindus offered, will be
described hereafter.
159. While describing these sad consequences, I do not, at all, intend to
analyse the comparative merits and demerits of all religious principles,
practices or rituals of both the Vedic and the Buddhist religions like the
sacrifices, penances, sanyas and the like, from the ‘other worldly’ point of
view, nor do I wish to examine them thoroughly and comparatively from
‘this worldly’ outlook. To see how many of those principles are trustworthy
today, or how many of those rituals are worth following at the present time,
is also out of the scope of this book. So these points will not be raised. I,
however, wish to discuss in this book, the nation-wide consequence of
different religious principles and actions of their followers on political life
of India of those days. For without any such historical analysis, the different
currents and undercurrents of history of those times cannot be properly
shown.
After the Death of Ashoka
160. This pious emperor, Ashoka, who till his end, laboured hard
according to his own religious faith, for the ultimate good of mankind, died
in 232 B.C.
161. His death proved to be the beginning of the end of that magnificent
Maurya Empire!
162. During the last 25 years of his life, he had applied himself heart and
soul to the propagation of the Buddhistic cult. His descendants, who
succeeded him as emperors, were all honest Buddhists, and that is why, they
turned out to be nominal rulers, weak in armed strength. Because of the
criminal neglect of the imperial military might for these forty years or so by
the ‘extremists’ among the followers of the Buddhist principle of ‘non-
violence’ and their rulers, the whole military organization of the Maurya
empire right up to the frontiers, and espeicially the north-western frontier,
gradually went into complete disorder. This was allurement enough for the