Betrayed

(Belgaum)

The "History of India" is a history of invasions; Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushanas, Hunas and the Mohammedans, one after another, swept over the land in quick succession and established their supremacy over it for some centuries. Such a sweep, it is often said, was possible because of the lack of courage, unity and discipline among the Hindus. A careful examination of historical facts, however, makes us think that such a view is not only wrong, but positively unfair to the Indians. How could a nation, whose very women rushed into fire in thousands to save themselves from the sight of the enemies, be accused of want of courage and daring? Certainly, it passes one’s understanding. The Greek historians who accompanied Alexander and whose sympathies towards the Hindus were none too praise-worthy were compelled to admire the Hindus for their sense of self-respect, discipline and unity. It is recorded by the Greek historians that one thousand Indian mercenaries had gone from the Punjab to help the Asvakas against the Greeks. But after the fall of their city, Massaga, these mercenaries entered the Greek army. But, not liking to fight against their own countrymen, they stole away from their camp. In the words of E. R. Bevan, "They encamped on a little hill apart. There as they talked together, itseemed to them a horrible thing that they should march with the Yavanas against their own people. They determined to slip away, when night fell, and make across the hills for home. But when night fell, they found the hill beset on all sides with the soldiers of Alexander; for someone had betrayed their design. The Macedonians suffered none of them to livetill morning."

Again we hear of several confederations of the Hindusto face the enemy, and some of them didsucceed inkeeping the enemy at bay for some time. The rise of the famous Vijayanagar Empire itself was the result of a huge confederation among the rulers of South India. Instances are not wanting to prove that even South Indian Kings sent men and money to North Indian Rulers to enable them to drive out the foreigners. Someswara, for example, King of the Deccan, who was in no way affected by the fate of the princes in the North, yet sent his soldiers to help his contemporaries against the attacks of foreigners. It is therefore clear that the idea of Nationalism was always there. Nor were the Hindus weak in military equipment, for the readers of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata know how the Indian weapons of warfare were far in advance of those of other countries, and a mother was often gladder to see her son die in a battlefield than to see him return defeated. Says the Mahabharata:

"Sweet it is to die in battle,
The path to heaven lies in fighting."

The cause of India’s downfall is therefore to be found elsewhere. It is the opinion of the present writer that this is to be found in the treacherous activities of some of her own kings and nobles who, though few, were enough to upset the whole edifice. Is not a match-stick enough to destroy a palace? Again and again we see some men from the Hindu fold betraying them to the enemy and thus making the path easy for the invaders. It has been the besetting sin of the Hindus as a nation.

The earliest foreign people to knock at India’s frontiers were the Persians. Cyrus the Great himself was welcomed by an Indian King, and, according to Xenophon this king served Cyrus in a ‘delicate matter of espionage.’ Again when Alexander the Great of Macedonia issued his command to the army to enter into India after annexing Balkh and Badakshan, the treacherous Raja of Taxila, instead of organising an opposition, preferred the easier path of submitting to the invader. Ambhi, the Raja’s son, sent his envoys to the Greeks promising fidelity to the great invader. While Alexander was still in Bokhara, Ambhi even began to negotiate on his own account. Envoys from Takshasila made their way over the ridges of the Hindukush. They were charged with the message that Ambhi was ready to march by Alexander’s side against any Indians who might refuse to submit. Ambhi was so depraved that, even when his father died, he refused to ascend the throne without the permission of Alexander. "The first act of the new Raja had been to send a message of homage to Alexander; he would not assume his ancestral kingdom except pending the great King’s pleasure. He would take his kingdom only from Alexander’s hand, As Alexander moved on to Takshasila from the bridge, Ambhi went out to meet him in state, at the head of the forces of his principality. For a moment, when the Greeks saw an Indian army displayed across their path, they suspected treachery. The Raja saw that there was trouble in the ranks and galloped forward with a few attendants. He assured Alexander through an interpreter that everything he had was his over-lord’s." He sent 200 talents of silver, 3,000 oxen and 10,000 sheep and 30 elephants to the Greeks. It was this very ruler who wanted Poros of Jhelum to surrender to Alexander. But Poroswouldnot;even he however had to bow down to the inevitable, because of the treachery of the king of Abisara; and he opened the gates of their city to the enemy. It is too well known that even Sandrokottos (Chandragupta Maurya) was not free from such treacherous inclinations. Smarting under the iron discipline of the Nandas, Chandragupta proceeded to Alexander and asked him for help. He must have appraised Alexander of the strength and weakness of the Nandas. Fortunately for India, Alexander was compelled to give up the conquest of India. If Alexander had invaded India at the suggestion of Sandrokottos, Indian History would have had no Mauryan period, and world history would have been the poorer less Asoka, But Alexander had a hard time with the tribes, Asvakas, Ksatriyas, Malavas and the Oxydrakoi who preferred death to loss of independence. Again, in contrast to these treacherous rulers, we have the naked ascetics living a few miles away from Takshasila who cared a pin for Alexander. When Alexander sent word to them through Onesicritus, they coolly said that they had nothing to gain by seeing such men. If however Alexander wanted to see them, they had no objection. It is not often realised that Alexander had to return because of the stern resistance of the Hindu Republics and Monarchies.

Such treacherous men, unfortunately for India, cropped up again and again. During the invasions of the Sakas and Pallavas, we hear of one Saubhagya Sena who treacherously befriended one Antiochos III. Again, when the Hunas invaded India during the reign of Bhanugupta, we hear of two brothers Dhanya Krishna and Matravishnu who deserted the Guptas and joined the Hunas. It is no wonder we find Dhanya Krishna praising Toramana, the Huna ruler, as the Maharajadhiraja, in the Eran Pillar inscription.

Again, after the death of Harsha Vardhana of Kannauj when India was in the grip of the Chinese Wang-Houen-Tse, it was one Kumara of Kamarupa who helped the foreigners. It is said that he helped Wang-Houen-Tse, with "thirty thousand oxen and horses and provisions for his army." It is said that he even entered into an alliance with Wang to help him to conquer India. Again when India was invaded by the Arabs, the Rashtrakutas of the Deccan, instead of joining the forces that opposed them, offered help to the Arabs. They allowed them to build mosques and granted them several commercial privileges. When Mohammad of Ghazni invaded, some of our kings got themselves converted into Islam. Shankarapala was therefore made a ruler of Multan, while Anandapala was said to have supplied the invader with every necessary of life. The story of Prithvi Raja and Jayachandra is too well known to need any elaboration in these pages. Their domestic disputes resulted in the establishment of the Slave dynasty in India. The Moghuls entered into India because of the invitation sent to Babar by one of the Indian Governors. In recording the events which occurred after the battle of Panipat, Babar writes: "Although Rana Sanga, the Pagan, when I was in Kabul, had sent me an ambassador with professions of attachment and had arranged with me that, if I would march from that quarter into the vicinity of Delhi, he would march from the other side upon Agra, yet when I defeated Ibrahim and took Delhi and Agra, the Pagan, during all my operations did not make a single movement." We do not question the courage of Rana Pratap who later on made such a bold stand against Babar–but it is India’s misfortune that even he was not free from such treacherous inclinations. The victory of Akbar in the battle of Haldighat against Rana of Mewar was again due to Raja Man Singh. Many Rajputs helped Akbar to put down their own men. It was on one such occasion that Badaoni asked Asaf Khan how they were to distinguish between the hostile and friendly Rajputs in such a confused mass, and the prompt reply of the general was that, on whichever side these were killed, it would be a gain to Islam. The battle of Plassey was won by the British because of the treachery and unfaithfulness of Mir Jaffer to his master, and they ruled over India by making use of a handful of Rajputs against their brethren.

How the Peshwas played into the hands of the Europeans and thus destroyed the Maratha Confederacy must be green in the mind of all students of British History. The treaty of Bassein is only a culmination of the policy that we have been discussing so far. The Peshwa, Baji Rao II, fought with Scindia, and the defeat of his ally naturally prompted him to seek the protection of the British in Bassein in 1802. Nothing was more welcome to the then Governor-General, Marquis of Wellesley, than this. He consented immediately and the Peishwa entered into a Subsidiary Alliance. He agreed to maintain a Subsidiary Force, and promised that he would enter into no alliance with his own men without the consent of the British.

Indeed the history of India is a history of great betrayals.