Alexander and India

7/28/2019 Alexander and India

1/12

Alexander and India

Author(s): A. K. NarainSource: Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 12, No. 2, Alexander the Great (Oct., 1965), pp.155-165Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/642312 .

Accessed: 20/05/2011 03:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Greece & Rome.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/642312?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/642312?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/12

ALEXANDER AND INDIABy A. K. NARAINN O army leader has become more famous in history than Alexander.He has been praised and admired as well as blamed and cursed.But even if blemishes can be found in his career and character, no onecan deny his 'daemonic' strength of will and leadership, which alone aresufficient to mark him out as one of the greatest generals history hasseen. Opinions may, however, differ as to whether he was more thanthat.

We are told Alexander's invasion of Persia was a pan-Hellenic war ofrevenge and he was elected as the leader of the League of Corinth forthe purpose. It is said he was influenced by Isocrates' Philippus; if so,he should have envisaged the conquest of Asia Minor only. And Tarnwould have us believe that Alexander did not cross the Dardanelleswith any definite design of conquering the whole of the Persian empire(Tarn, i. 9). But when it comes to Alexander's invasion of India, hestates, 'India had been part of the empire of Darius I; and Alexander'sinvasion was only the necessary and inevitable completion of his con-quest of that empire. It had nothing to do with any scheme of worldconquest; indeed it could not have, for in the far East the 'world', like'Asia', only meant the Persian empire; nothing else was known' (ibid.i. 86-87). He goes one step further and adds, 'possibly the Beas [= Hy-phasis] had been the boundary of Darius I; it would agree with whathappened. For at the Beas the army mutinied and refused to go farther'(Tarn, i. 98). Tarn would not like Alexander to dream of more than heactually achieved. For nothing succeeds like success and a fulfilleddream is the perfection of success.But Alexander was certainly more ambitious than that; perhaps hisambition had no end. Describing the return march of Alexander, whenhe reached the Pasargadae and Persepolis, Arrian pauses to remark'that Alexander had no small or mean conceptions, nor would ever haveremained contented with any of his possessions so far, not even if hehad added Europe to Asia, and the Britannic islands to Europe; butwould always have searched far beyond for something unknown, beingalways the rival if of no other, yet of himself'.' Even if Alexanderdreamt of more than Isocrates recommended he might very well havestopped with the collapse of the power of Darius III or when the latter

SA. vii. I. 4 (Loeb translation).


3/12

156 ALEXANDER AND INDIAdied, and he would still be remembered as the glorious Captain of theLeague who succeeded not only in avenging the prestige of Hellas butalso in bringing the Achaemenid era to an end. But he did not stop.He dragged his war-weary army to Sogdiana and the Punjab. He couldhave even taken them beyond the Beas, but he was fortunate, as he wasin his death (cf. Tarn, i. 121), that the army refused to listen to him.Of course, it serves no purpose to speculate what would have hap-pened if Alexander had not retreated from the Beas, just as it does nothelp to discuss what would have happened if Napoleon had not marchedinto Russia. But certainly there is no evidence to extend the empire ofDarius I east of the Indus and certainly not as far as the Beas. Evenif it was Alexander's mission to conquer the whole of the Persian empire,whether to Hellenize it or for Homonoia, he had no justification incrossing the Indus, for 'the Indus river was the boundary betweenIndia and Ariana, which latter was situated next to India on the westand was in the possession of the Persians at that time'.' Doubtlesstherefore Alexander did nourish an ambition to conquer India, perhapseven to reach the 'Eastern ocean' (Tarn, i. 99). Otherwise the crossingof the Indus was meaningless. Of course, Alexander hardly invadedIndia within its present boundaries because the point he reached at theBeas is only a few miles within the Indian Union. India, as his con-temporaries knew it, did not end at the Beas either, and it was reportedto him that the main power of India was really beyond this river. Butthe conquest of India remained an unfulfilled dream of Alexander.However, even what remains of Alexander's story would be shorn ofall its romance and glory if his campaigns in Sogdiana and the Punjabwere deleted and if there were no Spitamenes and Porus, Scythians andthe Malloi.

It is beyond the scope of the present paper to give a detailed accountof Alexander's conquest. But we can make a summary review of Alex-ander's march from Kabul to the Beas and from the Beas to the lowerIndus. Alexander took almost two years to cover this area, which isproportionately a longer time for a lesser space than in his other cam-paigns, and the battles fought were as dangerous, as glorious, as full ofbravery and adventure.It was earlysummer of 327 when Alexander recrossed the Hindu Kushand divided his army. He sent Hephaestion and Perdiccas with thebaggage and part of the army through the Khyber pass to the Indus andhimself followed the old route through Laghman, ascended the Kunarriver, and crossed into Swat. The people of these mountain tracts were

Strabo, xv. I. io (Loeb translation).


4/12

ALEXANDER AND INDIA I57called the Aspasians, Gouraians, and Assakenians by Arrian (iv. 23. i).They were brave people and it was hard work for Alexander to taketheir strongholds, of which Massaga and Aornus need special mention.At Massaga, Alexander massacred 7,000 mercenaries because they re-fused to join him against their own countrymen (A. iv. 27. 3 ff.; D. 84).What makes this massacre 'a foul blot on Alexander's martial fame'" ishis treachery to the mercenaries who had capitulated, and the accountgiven by Diodorus of the desperate fight which both the men and thewomen gave to meet a glorious death 'which they would have disdainedto exchange for a life with dishonour'z is really heart-rending. AtAornus, the fighting was at once fierce and dangerous. Ptolemy, whohad taken a vantage point at the far end of the fortress by surprise, wascut off there for two days and hard pressed before the main body underAlexander could break through to him (A. iv. 29). The valley of theSwat was thus subjugated.After these prodigious encounters, Alexander had a pleasant reliefwhen he reached Nysa. The leader of the Nysaeans, Acuphis, not onlyoffered submission but claimed kinship on account of their Greekorigin and traditional association with the mythical Dionysus (A. v. 1-2;C. viii. 10. 7 ff.). It pleased the fancy of Alexander and his army. TheNysaeans were left undisturbed in their rule and Alexander gave hisarmy licence to fraternize and enjoy Bacchanalian revelry.Alexander joined Hephaestion at the Indus. Hephaestion hadalready bridged the river at Ohind, sixteen miles above Attock.3 Hecrossed the Indus and was welcomed by Ambhi and lavishly entertainedin Taxila for three days. Alexander also made return presents toAmbhi, enjoyed the hospitality there and allowed Ambhi and thosewho were unable to defend themselves to live in peace.4 But the ambi-tion of the impetuous and aggressive Alexander as well as the bravewarrior in him did not wander so far only to enjoy stale luxury in thecompany of cowards and those who did not value freedom. He appointedPhilippus as a satrap and left a garrison there (A. v. 8. 3) and proceededto the Jhelum (= Hydaspes) without wasting more time, for he wasgetting restive to meet Porus, perhaps more because he wanted to testhis mettle than to help Ambhi in his designs.

K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Age of the Nandas and Mauryas (Banaras, 1952), 50.2 D. xvii. 84; see R. C. Majumdar, The Classical Accounts of India, 163. Majumdarhas reproduced the extract from McGrindle, The Invasion of India by Alexander theGreat as describedby Arrian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch and Justin (London,1896).3 A. v. 3. 5; D. xvii. 86. 3; C. viii. 1. 4 ff.4 A. v. 3. 5; 8. 2 ff.; D. 86. 4 ff. ('Mophis'); all the Diodorus references are toBook xvii unless otherwise stated; C. loc. cit. ('Omphis').


5/12

158 ALEXANDER AND INDIAAlexander had learnt that Porus was ready at the far side of the

Hydaspes with all his army, determined to prevent his crossing or atleast to attack him, should he attempt it.' Although hemmed in byenemies, cowards, and traitors, both in front and rear, the undauntedspirit of Porus refused to submit. We are told, when envoys went tohim to summon him to meet Alexander, he proudly replied that hewould indeed meet him, but at his frontiers and in arms.2 This was asufficient challenge for Alexander and he reached the Jhelum in earlyJune 326. He found Porus ready with his forces on the opposite bank(see P1. I, Figs. 3a and b). Both sides made active preparation for theinevitable war, of which the details of strategy and movements are sowell known that we need not repeat them.a The part played by therains also need not be gainsaid. Porus fought bravely, and even whenhe saw his army had almost perished, 'he did not copy the example ofthe great king Darius and set his own men an example of flight, but solong as any part of the Indian troops held their ground in the fight, solong he battled bravely', but having been wounded in the right shoulder'he wheeled his elephant and retreated'. 'Alexander having seen himplay a great and gallant part in the battle desired to save him' (A. v. i8).First Ambhi was sent with Alexander's message, but, when Porus sawhim coming, he once again turned his elephant and rode up topierce him with a javelin and Ambhi could save himself only with greatdifficulty and returned. Alexander sent others in relays and finallyMeroes who had long been a friend of Porus. 'But Porus, hearingMeroes' message, and being also much distressed by thirst, halted hiselephant and dismounted; and after drinking, and recovering hisstrength, bade Meroes conduct him at once to Alexander. Porus was thenconducted to Alexander, who, learning of his approach, rode a horse andmet him in advance of the line with a few of the Companions; then halt-ing his horse, he admired the great size of Porus, who was over fivecubits in height, and his handsomeness, and the appearance he gave ofa spirit not yet tamed, but of one brave man meeting another brave manafter an honourable struggle against another king for his kingdom.'4We need not repeat again the very well known conversation betweenAlexander and Porus. Porus was not only reinstated but further terri-tories were added to his kingdom. Alexander thus became greater inpeace than in war; according to Indian codes he acted as a Dharmavijayis

I A. v. 8. 4; D. 87; C. viii. z2. 2 C. loC.cit.3 See pp. 151-4.4 A. v. I8. fin.-i9, init. (Loeb translation); cf. C. viii. 14; P. 60.s Dharmavijayi means 'conqueror through righteousness'.


6/12

ALEXANDER AND INDIA 159like Samadragupta, the great king of the Magadhan empire, whobehaved in this way towards the kings of South India in the middle ofthe fourth century A.D.'Alexander then proceeded further and crossed the Chenab and theRavi (= Acesines and Hydraotes) and on the way defeated anotherPorus2 and also obtained the submission of Abhisares.3 He then crossedthe Ravi and entered the country of the Cathaeans (Kathas),4 who wereamong the best fighters of the Punjab and first among 'the self-governingInfdians'; they gave Alexander some of the toughest experiences of hiscampaign.s He did capture Sangala, the hill fortress of the Kathas, byassault in which 'there perished some seventeen thousand of the Indians,and over seventy thousand were captured, with three hundred waggons,and five hundred horsemen'; however, Alexander had at one time toleap down from his horse and lead the Phalanx on foot, and over twelvehundred, including several of the officersand Lysimachus, were seriouslywounded besides those who were slain (A. v. 24. 5-8). Alexander razedthe city of Sangala to the ground and advanced towards the Beas.

Phegeus, a near-by king who submitted to Alexander without re-sistance in order that his subjects might attend to the cultivation of theirfields according to their needs, told Alexander about the extent andpower of the Nanda empire east of the Beas, and Porus also confirmedhis statements.6 Of course, such statements whetted Alexander's eager-ness to advance further; but his troops, especially the Macedonians, hadbegun to lose heart at the thought of the distance they had travelledfrom their homes, and the hardships and the dangers they had beencalled upon to face after their entry into India. Alexander's exhortationsand the reply of Coenus, which form a classic dialogue between ageneral and his army, are well known.7 The army mutinied and refusedto march further. It was a severe blow to Alexander. He saved hisface by offering a sacrifice preliminary to crossing the river, and, finding

Samadragupta was the fourth king of the Gupta dynasty. He was a great conquerorand Smith thought of him as the Indian Napoleon. An account of the campaigns of theking is inscribed on an Asokan pillar found at Allahabad. It refers to the defeat ofseveral kings of South India whose names are given and it says that the king reinstatedall those kings after their defeat, having obtained only their allegiance. He did notannex their territories.2 Arrian (v. 21. 2 ff.) refers to him as 'Porus, the bad one', because he was reportedto have left his own province and fled. Some sources believe that this Porus wasa cousin of the great Porus; cf. D. 91. I.A. v. 20o. 5; C. ix. 1. 7 ff.; cf. D. 90. 4. * A. v. 22. I; D. 91. 2 ff.5 A. v. 20. 5-6; 24. 2; D. 91. 4. Cathaeans had a non-monarchical form of govern-ment and they were the 'republics' of ancient India, like the Malloi (Malavas), Oxy-dracae (Kshudraka), and others.6 C. ix. I. 36 ff.; D. 93. I. 7 A. v. 25 ff.; C. ix. 2-3; cf. D. 94, fin.; P. 62.


7/12

i6o ALEXANDER AND INDIAthe omens unfavourable, as expected, he proclaimed his decision toreturn.' The army received the announcement with tears of joy andgrateful shouts. They hardly realized what was still in store for them.For Alexander had yet to fight some of his fiercest and most dangerousbattles. From the bank of Beas he returned to the Jhelum, handed overall the country between the Jhelum and the Beas to Porus, and saileddown the Jhelum on his return journey.Below the confluence of the Jhelum and the Chenab the armies ofAlexander camped and he prepared for his last important campaignagainst the Malloi (Malavas).2 Unlike the monarchical states of thePunjab, the 'republican' states had the sense to unite against the com-mon aggressor. The spectacle of Alexander's success did not deterthem. The Cathaeans fought alone and failed. The Malloi thereforemade a confederacy with the Oxydracae (Kshudraka) and planned todefend themselves together. But by his quick movements Alexanderprevented the Oxydracae from joining the Malloi3 and the latter had toface the aggression alone, and it is clear from the accounts that theyfought bravely. In fact, among Alexander's campaigns this is uniquein its dreadful record of mere slaughter. Indeed, it was the leastcreditable of the campaigns, and the deep wound Alexander got in hischest as a result of his desperate expedient in the fight with the Malloileft him weakened and indirectly hastened his end. The Oxydracae,who could not join the Malloi, had no alternative but to submit after thecollapse of their confederates the Malloi.'The progress of the flotilla down the Chenab and the Indus cannotbe traced, nor the places mentioned be identified, because all the rivers,more especially the Indus, have since altered their course many times'(Tarn, i. 103). But obviously more 'peoples' and kings fought with him.The most important among them were the Brahmanas and a king calledMusicanus.4 About the end of July 325, Alexander reached Patala.Here the Indus bifurcated and Alexander halted to prepare for the laststage of his journey out of India and back to Hellas (Tarn, i. io4).How did contemporary India react to his invasion? The followinginformation about 'the wise men' and 'philosophers' of ancient Indiais significant in this connexion:Arrian refers to Indian wise men, some of whom, the story goes,were found by Alexander in the open air in a meadow, where they used

I Ibid. 2 A. vi. 3-1I; D. 97 ff-; C. ix 5.4 15 ff; P. 63.3 A. vi. I I. 3 (Loeb translation): '... they (the Mallians) had determined to join theOxydracae and to fight t gether, but Alexander reached them too quickly .. .'. Adifferent account in D. 98; confused in C.4 A. vi. 16; D. Ioz-3; C. ix. 8. 8 ff. ('the Musicani').


8/12

ALEXANDER AND INDIA 161to have their disputations, and who, when they saw Alexander and hisarmy, did nothing further than beat with their feet the ground on whichthey stood. Then when Alexander inquired by interpreters what thisaction of theirs meant, they replied: 'O king Alexander, each man pos-sesses just so much of the earth as this on which we stand; and you beinga man like other men, save that you are full of activity and relentless,are roaming over all this earth far from your home troubled yourself,and troubling others. But not so long hence you will die, and will possessjust so much of the earth as suffices for your burial' (A. vii. I. 5 ff.).Plutarch says that, 'the philosophers gave him (Alexander) no lesstrouble . . . because they reviled the princes who declared for him andencouraged the free states to revolt from his authority. On this accounthe hanged many of them'.'Plutarch2 also refers to a certain Indian 'philosopher', Kalanus, asshowing Alexander a symbol of his (Alexander's) empire. Kalanusthrew down on the ground a dry and shrivelled hide and planted hisfoot on the edge of it. But when it was trodden down in one place, itstarted up everywhere else. He then walked all round it and showedthat the same thing took place wherever he trod, until at length hestepped into the middle, and by doing so made it all lie flat. This symbolwas intended to show Alexander that he should control his empire fromits centre, and not wander away to its distant extremities.There is again a reference3to the captureof ten of the 'gymnosophists',who had been principally concerned in persuading Sabbas (?) to revoltand who had done much harm to the Macedonians in other ways. Theywere all to be executed for this, but before their execution they wereasked certain questions. One of them was asked for what reason he hadinduced Sabbas to revolt. He answered, 'Because I wished him to livewith honour or die with honour.'4The contemporary Indian observations made above are at oncephilosophical and patriotic. They indicate two things. First, there wasan emotional love of freedom and a patriotic sense of honour. Second,India, with her peculiarly philosophical attitude, was not at all overawedby the greatness of Alexander and not only regarded the Indian cam-paign as most unjustifiable, but also anticipated its futility. The astuteBrahman politician Chanakyas and the youthful Kshatriya commoner

I P. 69; see R. C. Majumdar, op. cit. 200. 2 Ibid. 65; Majumdar op. cit. 20zo-2.3 Ibid. 64; Majumdar op. cit. 2oo-I. 4 Ibid.5 Chanakya was a Brahman scholar of Taxila (?), who was offended by the Nandaking. He later became the Chief Minister of Chandragupta after having helped him tooverthrow the Nandas. He wrote the famous treatise on Polity known as Kautalya'sArthasastra.3871.2 M


9/12

162 ALEXANDER AND INDIAChandragupta,' who seems to have had a first-hand view of Alexander'scampaign in the Punjab, and who had perhaps met and offendedAlexander (J. xv. 4), understood the Indian pulse of reaction correctly.Even while Alexander was in Gedrosia, the only alien satrap appointedby him in India was murdered,2 and when Alexander was dying inBabylon, Chandragupta and Chanakya,perhaps with the help of Porus,3were liberating and unifying the Punjab as a prelude to the final over-throw of the great Nanda power of the Ganges valley, which the armyof Alexander dreaded so much that the latter was forced to withdrawfrom the Beas. Alexander's campaign in India was therefore certainlynot a political success. And it is also true that it left no permanent markon the literature, life, or government of the people. The name of Alex-ander is not found in Indian literature. Certainly, Alexander did notintend his conquests in India to be as meaningless as this. But it was so.One Indian historian4 feels that 'the adventure was no doubt highlycreditable, but cannot be regarded as a brilliant military achievement,as he had never been brought face to face with any of the great nationsof Hindusthan'. The same historian makes a note of 'the untold suffer-ings inflicted upon India--massacre, rapine, and plunder on a scale tillthen without a precedent in her annals, but repeated in later days bymore successful invaders like Sultan Mahmud, Tamerlane, and NadirShah. In spite of the halo of romance that Greek writers have wovenround the name of Alexander, the historians of India can regard himonly as the precursor of these recognized scourges of Mankind'.s Thismay be an extreme statement., But so is the statement that Alexander'proclaimed for the first time the unity and brotherhood of mankind'.6If the Indian historian suffers from sentiment, the western historiansuffers from guilt; if one sees in Alexander's campaign an unjustifiedaggression, the other sees a justification for his mission, and neither ofthem needs to be blamed for his attitude. Shorn of these overstatements,Alexander's image remains that of an admirable armyleader who sufferedno defeat before he died, an image of a youthful person full of ambitionand adventure curbed only by death, and above all an image of a human

According to the Buddhist sources, Chandragupta was born in a self-governingKshatriya tribe known as the Moriyas in the Nepalese Terai.2 Philippus: A. vi. 27. 2; C. x. I. 2o.3 According to Indian literary sources, Chandragupta and Chanakya were helpedin their bid to overthrow the Nanda power by a certain Indian king named Parvartakawho ruled in the Punjab and who may be identified with Porus.4 Radha Kumud Mukherjee, The Age of Imperial Unity (Bombay, i95i).5 Ibid.6 Tarn i. 147 cf. ii, Appendix 25. Against this, however, E. Badian, Historia vii( 958), 425 ff.


10/12

ALEXANDER AND INDIA 163being who could commit crimes and atrocities and yet feel remorse andsympathy. Alexander will no doubt remain 'great', but not because ofhistorians seeing more in him than what he actually was, but ju'st forwhat he actually was.But when all is said, we must admit two indirect results of Alexander'sraid. People of the North-West, perhaps, realized that 'emotional loveof independence was no match to the disciplined strength of a deter-mined conqueror';' and it was felt that the existence of small states wasnot in the wider interests of the country. Chandragupta had probablyhimself witnessed the spirit of resistance, which the freedom-lovingpeople of the Punjab had shown. He organized a disciplined army outof them and unified the Punjab and later the whole of Northern Indiaafter overthrowing the Nandas; he even added territories in the southand within a few years the first big Indian empire was established.2 Tothis empire were also added the four satrapies of Aria, Arachosia,Gedrosia, andParopamisadae,which were ceded by Seleucus to Chandra-gupta only a few years after the death of Alexander.3 Seleucus I sentMegasthenes as an ambassador to the Mauryan court of Chandragupta.4We have no evidence to tell us whether Chandragupta sent a returnembassy to Seleucus. But stray references do indicate the continuanceof diplomatic exchanges between the Hellenistic kingdoms and India.Athenaeus tells us, on the authority of Hegesander, that Amitrochates,king of the Indians, wrote to Antiochus I of Syria asking that monarchto buy and send him sweet wine, dried figs, and a sophist. The Syrianking replied, 'We shall send you figs and the wine, but in Greece thelaws forbid a sophist to be sold' (Ath. xiv. 652 ff.). Diodorus testifiesto the great love of the king of Palibothra, apparently a Mauryan king,for the Greeks (D. ii. 6o). Strabo refers to the sending of Deimachus tothe court of Allitrochades, son of Sandrokottos (ii. I. 9, 70c). Plinymentions another envoy, Dionysius, from Ptolemy II of Egypt (NHvi. 58). Asoka's friendly relations with the Yavanas of Western Asiaand Egypt are well known. The thirteenth Rock Edict, a version ofwhich has also been found in Greek recently at Kandahar,5refers tothe Dhammavziaya of Asoka in the kingdoms of Antiochus II of Syria,

K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, op. cit. (p. 157, n. 1), 79.2 His empire is definitely known to have included an area from Aria to Bengal andfrom Kashmir to Mysore. This empire over which the Mauryas ruled up to the timeof Asoka was never ruled again by any single king or power in Indian history.3 The discovery of an Asokan inscription in Greek characters in Kandahar shoulddispel whatever lurking doubts some scholars might have had in this regard.

4 Strabo, ii. i. 9, 70 c; xv. I. 36, 702 c; A. v. 6. 2; Pliny, NH vi 58; Clem. Alex.Strom. i. 72. 5.s D. Schlumberger, L. Robert, etc., Une bilinguegrico-aramdenned'Asoka (Paris, 1958).


11/12

164 ALEXANDER AND INDIAPtolemy Philadelphus II of Egypt, Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia,Magas of Cyrene, and Alexander of Corinth.' Asoka arranged for themedical treatment of men and cattle in the dominions of Antiochus IIand his neighbours.2 It is not unlikely that his description of himselfas Devanampriya Piyadassi is an echo of the deification of kings currentamong Alexander's successors in the Hellenistic East,3although the styleof his edicts is clearly influenced by edicts of Darius.4 These strayreferences do give a cumulative impression of a continuous contact ofIndia with the Hellenistic world. The very fact that both Megasthenesand Kautilya refer to a state department run and maintained specificallyfor the purpose of looking after foreigners,s who were mostly Yavanasand Persians, testifies to the impact created by these contacts. It alsoexplains the occurrence of such finds as the fragmentary handle of aterra-cotta vase recovered from Taxila,6 showing Alexander's head inlion's skin, or random finds from the Sarnath, Basarh, and Patna regionsof terra-cotta pieces of distinctive Hellenistic appearance or with definiteHellenistic motifs and designs.7 (P1. II, Fig. I.)The second indirect result was the rise of the Yavana power inBactria and its ultimate expansion and rule over what is now known asAfghanistan and Western Pakistan for about one hundred and fiftyyears.8 I have shown elsewhere that these 'Greeks' were not necessarilyHellenistic Greeks, but mostly the descendants of earlier settlers pre-serving their traditions but much intermixed with the Iranian peoplesand in some measure reinforced by the newcomers, the veterans ofAlexander or colonists of the Seleucids. But they no doubt got theirchance owing to the invasion of Alexander and the resultant dismem-berment of the Achaemenid empire. There are as many as forty-onenames of men who ruled this Yavana kingdom known from coins alone.9It is to these kings that Strabo referred when he mentioned that 'moretribes were subdued by them (i.e. the Indo-Greeks) than by Alexander-mostly by Menander (at least if he actually crossed the Hypanistowards the east and advanced as far as the Imanus), for some weresubdued by him personally and others by Demetrius, the son ofEuthydemus, the King of the Bactrians ...'. I have shown elsewhere

I See the text of Rock Edict XIII; Hultzsch, Inscriptionsof Asoka in Arch. Sur. Ind.(Calcutta and Oxford, 1925).2 K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, op. cit. 354. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 358.s Ibid.; see Kautilya's Arthasastra, ed. and trans. by Shama Sastri.6 Marshall, Taxila (Cambridge, 1951), ii. 433, iii. P1. 130.

7 L. Bachhofer, Early Indian Sculpture (Paris, 1929), i. P1. 13-8 See A. K. Narain, The Indo-Greeks (Oxford, 1957).9 Ibid. I81.


12/12

ALEXANDER AND INDIA 165that Menander was the most powerful among the Indo-Greek kings.'He is the only king who has survived in Indian literature and tradition(see P1. I, Fig. i). He is known to have become a Buddhist and atradition connects with Menander the origin of the most famous statueof Buddhism in Indo-China, the statue of Buddha of the Emerald, whichMenander's Indian teacher Nagasena materialized out of a magicemerald by supernatural power.z The discussions between Menander,who is known as king Milinda in the Pali-Buddhist literature, and Naga-sena are embodied in a book called The Questions of King Milinda.Plutarch (Moralia 82ID-E) says that when Menander died the citiescelebrated his funeral in other respects as usual, but in respect of hisremains they put forth rival claims and divided the ashes equally toerect monuments on the relics, which is typical of the Buddhist custom.Numismatists belive that the occurrence of the wheel on some coins ofMenander is the Dharma Qakra, the wheel of righteousness connectedwith Buddhism.3 We also know from an inscription engraved on aGaruda pillar (see P1. I, Fig. 4) found at Besnagar near Bhilsa (in thestate of Madhya Pradesh) that an inhabitant of Taxila named Helio-dorus, son of Dion, came as an envoy from Antialcidas, an Indo-Greekking, to the court of the Indian king, Bhagabhadra,and that Heliodoruswas a follower of the Bhagawat sect of Hinduism.4 We also know fromlater evidence about Greeks who adopted not only Indian religionsbut also Indian names. The Indo-Greeks were more influenced byIndian religion and thought than was any Hellenistic king by the faithand ideas of the land in which he lived and ruled. No Seleucid ever putIranian or Babylonian legends on his coinage, no Ptolemy ever usedEgyptian, but the Indo-Greeks introduced Indian legends in Indianscripts on their money (see P1. I, Fig. 2). They came, they saw, butIndia conquered.

Narain, op. cit. 97.2 Bulletin de l'EPcoleranfaise d'Extrime-Orient, xxv (1925), 112; xxxi (1931), 448.Marshall, Taxila, i. 33-34. 4 Narain, op. cit. 118.

Alexander and India

Documents

Transcript of Alexander and India