X CAUSE OF INDIA’S FALL.
“The race of mortal man is far too weak
To grow not dizzy on unwonted heights.
ALEXANDER the Great could not have won his one victory over the Hindus had it not been for the disunion existing among them. The German historian, Max Dunker, says :—” What essentially tended to make the attack easier was the discord among the States and tribes of the land of Inclus.”1
Sir William Hunter says that “ the Hindu king, Mophis of Taxila, joined Alexander with 5,000 men against Porus.”2
Professor Max Dunker says: “The Kshudraks and the Malavas forgetting their ancient hostility now combined against a common foe (Alexander), but the Kshudraks turned false and retired. The Malavas continued their resistance, and at last succeeded in lodging an arrow into the heart of Alexander and his commander, Abreas.”3 The Professor then relates how Mophis, the king of Takshasila, who was one of the most powerful kings in the Panjab, joined Alexander, and many other petty kings following his example, brought about the defeat of Porus. It should not be forgotten that when Alexander attacked Porus “his army was twice as strong (in numbers) and had been yet further increased by 5,000 Indian from Mophis and some smaller States.”4
‘Max llunker’s History of Antiquity, Vol. I V, p, 391.
2Hunter’s Imperial Gazetteer, “ India,” p, 262. See also Cunningham’s Ancient Geography of India.
3History of Antiquity, Vol., IV, p. 404,
4History of Antiquity. Vol, IV, p.
Were it not for this unfortunate disunion of the ( Hindus themselves, the Great Alexander’ would probably -na-ve—shared the fate of the Assyrian Semiramis,...)
Like the melodious song of a dying swan, India again shone forth for a moment in a]1 its glory under Vicramaditya. But this was the last faint glimmering of the consumed fire covered with ashes, the last symptoms of vitality that break upon a dying man. “ There is good reason to believe,” says Sir W. Jones, in his Preface to Sakuntala, “ that the court at Avanti was equal in brilliancy in the reign of Vikramaditya to that of any monarch in any age or country.”
The emperors Bhoj and Akbar alone of the later rulers of India made attempts to give some brilliancy to
‘Alexander’s treacherous and cruel conduct during this expedition can only be justified on the principle that all is fair in love and war.” The Hindu laws of war do not sanction an attack on an unprepared foe, it being against their chivalrous instincts to do so. Alexander, however, took the Aswakas at unawares and defeated them. Then again he tried by stratagem to defeat Cleophis (the mother of the deceased Hindu king, who had assumed the conduct of affairs. (See Curt 8, 10; Justin 12, 7.) On the death of the Hindu Commander, the Indian auxiliaries surrendered and encamped on a hill in front of the Macedonian camp, peace having been proclaimed in the town, But the surrendered Indians were killed the next day, on the pretence that they meditated treachery, and the town of the MasalTa taken by assault. “Whatever may have been the case with the supposed intention of the Indian mercenaries,” asks Max Dunker, “ and the intelligence which Alexander is said to have received of this intention—the city had fulfilled the condition imposed upon it and had given up the mercenaries,--why then was it attacked in this unexpected and unmerited. manner against the terms of the capitulation? “—History of Antiquity, Vol. IV, p. 394.
. m -
Art; Me heat cleiare (.0212helol of ‘PGfGG
CAUSE OF INDIA’S FALL.
their courts by following the example of the great Vic-
ramar in adorning them with the famous “Nau Ratna.”
India possessed a most capable and heroic leader when it was first threatened with a permanent conquest by the Moslems. The world has never seen a more chivalrous leader of men than the mighty Prithvi Raj of Ajmer. He defeated the Sultan of Gor more than once. Colonel Tod says: “Even the Moslem writers acknowledge that Shahabuddin was often ignonimously defeated before he finally succeeded in making a conquest of Northern India.”2 The Ayeen Alcbari says: “ In the reign of Raja Pithowra, Sultan Moozeddin Sam made several incursions from Ghazni into Hindustan but never gained any victory. . . . It is said that the Raja gained from the Sultan seven pitched battles.”‘
Were it not for the fatal disunion between Prithvi Raj and Jai Chand, and the traitorous conduct of the latter and of the king of Anhulwarra Patun and the Haoli Rao Hamir, India might never have fallen under the domination of the invaders from Afghanistan and Turkistan.
The Swayarnvar of Sanjogta, daughter of the King of Kanauj, is an event of world-wide importance—of much greater importance to the world than the rape of
1 Some European critics, in the fulness of their wisdom, deny that Vieramaditya ever existed. This irresistibly reminds one of Archbishop Whately’s famous pamphlet, “ Historic doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte.”
‘-’’’c’od’s Rajasthan, Vol. II, p. 452.
3Ayeen Akbari, by Gladwin, p. 97. The popular legends of Rajputana say that when Shahabuddin was captured (see Tod’s Rajasthan, Vol. I, p. 257) Prithvi Raj ordered him to be taken round the city in a woman’s garb, and then set him free,
Helen by Paris. The lovely Sanjogta, in defiance of her father’s vain-glorious wishes, and, in contempt of the pretentions of the assembled nobility of Northern India, determined to give her hand only to the “ flower of the far-famed Rajput chivalry,” Prithvi Raj of Ajmer, threw the varmala (marriage garland) round the golden effigy of that hero, placed by Jai Chand at the portals of the palace, unconsciously as an emblem of the protective might of “ the Pride of Rajasthan,” and as a tribute to his glory as the defender of his race against foreign aggression. The chivalrous Chohan appeared at the right moment, at the imminent risk of losing his life, as well as of defeating the object of the daring enterprise, to answer the call of a noble female of a royal house, and to carry away, from amidst the united heroism of Hindustan, the prize which had attracted all the important princes of India to Kanauj—thus fully vindicating his character as the most intrepid and heroic of the Hindu princes. This magnificent feat cost Prithvi Raj his throne and the Hindu nation their independence. The Tricala Chund truly said that “ he preserved his prize: he gained immortal renown, but he lost the sinews of Dehli.” In the desperate running fight of five days, Prithvi Raj lost his hundred sanwants (heroes) the leaders of his army, the mainstay of his throne. Himself unable to overcome Prithvi Raj, and burning with revenge for his humiliation, Jai Chund now began to intrigue with the enemy of the Hindus, the Sultan of Ghor.
“The brave deserve the fair.” The brave Chohan not only secured the fair of Kanauj, but discovered at Nagore a treasure amounting to seven millions in gold.
CAUSE OF INDIA’S FALL.
This alarmed his enemies still more. Colonel Tod says: “The princes of Kanauj and Patun, dreading the influence of such sinews of war, invited Shahabuddin to aid their design of humiliating the Chohan.”‘ Abul Fazal says: “Shahabuddin formed an alliance with Raja Jai Chund, and having raised a large army, came to attack the dominions of Pithowra. The Raja (Prithvi Raj), vain with the remembrance of his former victories, collected together only a small number of troops, and with these he marched out to attack the Sultan. But the heroes of Hindustan had all perished in the manner above described: besides, Jai Chund, who had been his ally, was now in league with his enemy.”
Hamir also joined the traitors. Colonel Tod says: “There were no less than four distinguished leaders of this name (Hamir) among the vassals of the last Rajput Emperor of Dehli, and one of them who turned traitor to his sovereign and joined Shahbuddin was actually a Scythian and of the Ghikar race. The Haoli Rao, Hamir, was lord of Kangra and the G-hikars of Pamer.”2
The result of the encounter is well known, The treacherous plan of operations devised by Jai Chund and adopted by the Sultan against Prithvi Raj, resulted in the overthrow of the Hindu supremacy in India. Prithvi Raj fell into the hands of the enemy and was taken to Ghazni. But there he succeeded, with the assistance of the ever-faithful Chund, in administering death to the conqueror of his country. The following couplet of Chund confirms the popular tradition on the subject
1Tod’s Rajasthan, Vol. I, p. 256; 2 Tod’s Rajasthan, Vol, I, p.
A.bul Fazal, in his Ayeen Akbari, also says: “Tie
faithful Chund followed his prince to Ghazni and con-
trived to gain the favour of the Sultan. Having ob-
tained an interview with the Rajah, and administered
comfort to his mind, he told him that he would take an
opportunity of praising his skill with the bow, which
would raise the Sultan’s curiosity to see him perform his
feats, when he might make a proper use of his arrow.
In consequence of Chund’s representation, the Sultan
wished to see the Raja exercise his bow, when he seized
the opportunity and shot the king dead upon the spot.’”
The same fate met the next great leader of the
Hindus when Baber invaded India. Had not the Tuar
traitor who led the van of Sanga’s army gone over to
Baber, Rana Sanga2 would have settled for ever the
question of Hindu supremacy in India. Says Colonel
Tod: “With all Baber’s qualities as a soldier, supported
by the hardy clans of the ‘cloud mountains’ of Karatagin,
the chances were many that he and they terminated their
career on the ‘yellow rivulet, of Biana. Neither skill
nor bravery saved him (Baber) from this fate, which he
appears to have expected . . . . To ancient jealousies
he was indebted for not losing his life instead of gaining
a crown, and for being extricated from a condition so
desperate that even the frenzy of religion, which made
death martyrdom in this holy war, scarcely availed to
expel the despair which so infected his followers that
I See also Tod’s Rajasthan, Vol. I, p. 194.
2” Sanga organized his forces, with which he always kept the field and ere called to contend with the descendants of Timoor, he had gained eighteen pitched battles against the kings of Delhi and Malwa.— Tod’s Rajasthan, Vol. I, p. 300.
CAUSE OF INDIA’S FALL.
in the bitterness of heart he says, not a single person who uttered a manly word, nor an individual who delivered a courageous. opinion.” Colonel Tod describes the sad plight o£ Baber and the negotiations pending Baber’s blockade at Karma, and gives the name of the traitor, “who sold the cause of his country.”
“ Oh, for a tongue to course the slave
Whose treason like a deadly blight
C omes’over the counsels of the brave
And blasts them in their hour of might.”
MooRE: _Fire Worshippers.
After describing the battle, Tod says: “While the battle was still doubtful, the Tuar traitor who led the Nan (herole) went over to Baber, and Sanga was obliged to retreat from the field, which in the onset promised a glorious victory.”‘
India has fallen.a victim to her own internal dissensions and disunion. She has been betrayed by her own sons and not conquered by the foreign invader. Porus, Pirthvi Raj and Sanga were defeated by their own countrymen, not by their enemies. Thus ended the work of ruin that had begun with the Mahabharata
1-The traitor was “ the chief of Ray seen, by name Sillaide, of the Tuar tribe.” “ Treason,” says Tod, effected the salvation of Baber “— Rajasthan, Vol. I, p. 306.
OF THE WORLD.
All places, that the eye of heaven visits Are to a wise man ports and happy havens Teach thy necessity to reason thus ;
There is no virtue like necessity.
-SHAKESPEARE: Richard H.
THE turning point in the history of India, nay, in the history of the world, was the Mahabharata—the death-stroke to Indian prosperity and glory. Before this catastrophe, Hindu civilization was in full vigour. It declined gradually after the Mahabharata till it was attacked first by the Arab semi-barbarism, and then by the European civilization. Simplicity with refinement, honesty with happiness, and glory with power and peace, were the splendid results of the Hindu civilization: complexity with outward polish, selfishness and cunning with progress and prosperity, success with immoderate vanity, wealth with misery are the offsprings of the latter. The Mahabharata was a war not only between man and man, but between the two aspects of the heart, the two phases of the mind.
There are two remarkable features of that period, differing in nature but coinciding in their effect on India. These were destruction and emigration. The good and the great mesa of India either emigrated or were killed: the effect upon India was the same—inimical to her
prosperity. Whole tribes were killed: whole races emigrated. It is true that, in addition to many civilizing expeditions, there had been tribal emigrations before that momentous period. But these later emigrations sucked out the life-blood of India. These emigrations, as also the settlements and colonies of ancient Greece, differed in an important respect from the modern settlements of the Europeans. The Grecian settlements attracted the best men of Greece; and the Indian emigrations helped powerfully to set in motion those disintegrating forces that have undermined our national superiority, destroyed our independence and ruined our society and religion.
But there is no evil that is an unmixed evil: to every cloud there is a silver lining. In the present case, India’s loss was the world’s gain. Though India’s greatness began to decline, the entire Western world from Persia to Britain received in the colonists the seeds of their future greatness. The Mahabharata was thus fraught with world-wide consequences.
Says Mr. Pococke: “But, perhaps, in no similar instance have events occurred fraught with consequences of such magnitude, as those flowing from the great religious war which, for a long series of years, raged throughout the length and breadth of India. That contest ended by the expulsion of vast bodies of men, many of them skilled in the arts of early civilization; and still greater numbers warriors by profession. Driven beyond the Himalayan mountains in the north,, and to Ceylon, their last stronghold in the south, swept across the valley of the Indus on the west, this -persecuted people carried with them the germs of the
European arts and sciences. The mighty human tide that passed the barrier of the Punjab, rolled onward towards its destined channel in Europe and in Asia, to fulfil its beneficent office in the moral fertilization of the world.”‘
It is, of course, true that emigration from India had been going on from time immemorial. Notwithstanding the marvellous fertility of the soil and the wonderful industries that flourished in the country, India had to plant colonies to provide for her superabundant population. Professor Hceren says :—” How could such a thickly-peopled, and in some parts over-, peopled country as India have disposed of her superabundant population except by planting colonies; even though intestine broils (witness the expulsion of the Buddhists) had not obliged her to have recourse to such an enedient ?”2
(The earliest emigration appears to date sometime after Manu. One of the oldest colonies founded by the Hindus was in Egypt; America, with some other coup. tries, was also colonised before the last great Migration. The principal migration to Greece took place soon after the Great War. (The word lcapi3 for ape appears in the leiroglyphic writings of Greece of —the-17th century B.O., which sriows that the colonization of Greece must be dated long anterior to the era of Moses.
It would perhaps be interesting to know the exact time when the Mahabharata took place.
In determining dates our efforts are clogged at every step by the dearth of historical records. But it is not in historical literature alone that we have to
lIndia in Greece, p. 26. t Histarical Researches, Vol. II, p. 310. 3 Weber’s Indian Literature, p. 3.
mourn this loss. Every branch of literature, every
science and art has suffered from the ravages of ignorant
fanaticism Some have disappeared completely; others
lave come down to us in a more or less mutilated form., The present scarcity of historical works, however, should not be regarded as a proof of the absence of the Art of History any more than the present poverty of the country be accepted as a proof of its indigence in ancient times.
For one thing, the enmity of Aurangveb towards all historical writings is well known. But it is the Arab, Afghan and Tartar semi-barbarism that is responsible for the destruction of literature, whether in Egypt or in India, in Persia or in Greece. The destruction of the Alexandrian Library was one of those notorious feats by which the progress of humanity was put back by a thousand years. But the loss to humanity by the whole-, sale destruction of the libraries of India is beyond calculation. /That eminent antiquarian and explorer, Rai , Bahadur 1>d-rat Chander Dass, says: “In the lofty nine-storied temple at Buddha Gaya, which was formerly called the Mahagandhola (Gandhalaya), the images of the past Buddhas were enshrined. The nine-storied temple called Ratandadhi of Dharamganja (university) of Nalanda was the repository of the sacred books of the Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhist Schools. The temple of Odantapuri
ihara, which is said to have been loftier than either of the two (Buddha Gaya and Nalanda) contained a vast collection of Buddhist and Bratiminical works, which, after the manner of the great Alexandrian Library, was burnt under the orders of Mohamed Ben Sam, general of Bakhtyar iihilji, in 1212. A.D.”‘
The Hindustan Review for March, 1906 p. 187 (Universities in Ancient India).
Sultan Alla-ud-din Khilji burnt the famous library at Anhalwara Patan. The Tarikh Firoz Shahi says that Firoz Shah Tughlak burnt a large library of Sanskrit books at KohAna. Sayed Ghulam Husein, in his ‘well-known book, Sair Mutakhreen (Vol. 1, p. l 40), compiled in the reign of Aurangzeb, who called himself Secunder Scni, says: “Sultan Sikander (Aurangzeb) was the most bio’oted of the Sultans, and burnt the books of the Hindus whenever and wherever he got them.”
Instances of such savagery could be multiplied easily. These are all manifestations of that mental aberration to which humanity is evidently subject at intervals, the disease being the same, the occasion may be the outrages committed by the Goths and Vandals of earlier-times or the Arabs and the Tartars of the latter day.
Mr. Dow, in the Preface to his History of Hindustan observes: “We must not, with Ferishta, consider the Hindus as destitute of genuine domestic annals, or that those voluminous records tIle.y_possess are mere legends framed by Brahmans.” (Wk....Wilson, with his usual fairness, remarks that “ it is incorrect to say that the Hindus never compiled history :\ The literature of the south abounds with local histories of Hindu authors. Mr. Stirling found various chronicles in Orissa, and Colonel Tod has met with equally abundant material in Raj putana.”
Professor Heeren says “ Wilson’s translation of Raj Taranyini: a history of Kashmir, has clearly_demo-nstrated that regular historical composition was an art not un. known in 11 industan, and affords satisfactory grounds for
1 Mill’s India, Volume II, page 67, footnote.
concluding that these productions were once less rare, and that further exertions may bring more relics to light.”‘
Professor Wilson’s assertion that “ genealogies2 and chronicles are found in varous parts of India recorded with some perseverance,” will be supported by all who know Hindu society.
The critics who resol utely deny the existence of the art in Ancient India on the plea that none of the productions of the art are to be found, will do well to consider the fact that even the Vedas would have been lost had the Mohamedan rule continued a century or so longer without giving birth to a Dayanand. When such has been the lot of their most adored possession, what better ‘handling could the poor Art of History have aspired to obtain ?
The illustrious Colonel Tod says: “If we consider the political changes and convulsions which have happened in Hindustan since Mahmud’s invasion, and the intolerant bigotry of many of his successors, we shall be able to account for the paucity of its national imQrks on history, without being driven to the improbable conclusion, that the Hindus were ignorant of an art which was cultivated in other countries from almost the earliest ages. Is it to be imagined that a nation so highly
1Heeren’s Historical Researches, Vol. II, p. 143.
2The genealogies are still kept and are to be found in almost every part of Hindustan proper. In Itajputana, where they are regularly kept, you may select any man of the Vaishya Varna, and, after a little search, you can generally find out the names and abodes of every member of his ancestral family for about twenty generations back. There is a clan named “Jagas” who have made this their hereditary, profession.
pivilized as the Hindus, amongst whom the exact sciences ,flourished in perfection, by whom the fine arts, architecture, sculpture, poetry and music were not only cultivated, but taught and defined by the nicest and most elaborate rules, were totally unacquainted with the simple art of recording the events of their history, the characters of their princes, and the acts of their reigns? “1
He then asks, whence did Abul Fazul obtain the materials of his ancient History of India, if there were no historical records at the time of Raj Tarangini? This, he declares, sufficiently proves the existence of the art. Then, again, he says that in Chund’s heroic history of Prithvi Raj, we find notices which authorise the inference that works similar to his own were then extant.’
It must not be supposed that the authors of these works were ignorant bards. We find that Chund’s history contains chapters on laws for governing empires; lessons on diplomacy, home and foreign. See also the admirable remarks of the French Orientalist, Monsieur Abel Renasat, in his Melanges Asiatiques.
But to return to the point. Swami Dayanand Saraswati, in his Bhumika, says that 5,007 years have passed since the beginning of the Kaliyug era. The Siddhdnta Siromani, one of the most popular of the Hindu works on Astronomy, says that the Kaliyug era,
1Introduction to Tod’s Rajasthan.
21n 1ajpiitana, many historical works are to be found, such as, (1) Vijya Vilas, (2) Surya Prakash, (3) Kheat, (4) Jagat Vilas, (5) 11-4,j Prakash, (6) Jai Vilas, (7) Khoman Rasa, (8) Mau^ Charitra. The last two are comparatively of recent date. See Rasamala or Hindu Annals of the Province of Gujarat, by the Honourable A.V.Forbes; Gujarati Edition, 1890, (Bombay).
at the time of the establishment of the Salivahan era,
was 3,179. It says:—/mil: troAqt zrTrifer ITriPtiMqiVITiurgi
The Salivahan era at present (1906 A.D.) is 1828:
so that the Kaliyuga era should now be 3179+ 1828
The author of the book, Jyatirvidha Bharan—a
history of the reign of Vicramaditya, composed in the
Sambat era 24 ( Vicrama, era )—says that that year
corresponded with the year 3068 of the Kaliyug
era. This also makes the Kaliyug era now 3068—
The Vraha Sctnghita of Vrahamihr (contemporary
of Vicramaditya) says that the constellation Saptarishi
was in Magha Nakhshatra in the reign of Yudhishtira,
and that the date of his reign may be obtained by add-
ing 2526 to the Salivahan era. According to this,
Yudhishtira reigned 2526 +1828=4354 years ago.
MITE IPA.: litTefff 12Eif 7,NfzE
7,m*: IllwrekfccEr KMV
Kalhan Bhatta, in his famous work, Raj Taringin4
says that Yudhishtira was born when 653 years of the
Kaliyuga era had passed.
swfiriirs (qiik) ‘ -4.-/?f
This, too, shows that 4354+ 653-5007 years have passed since the commencement of the Kaliyug era.
The astronomers, Parasar and Arya Bhatta respectively hold that the Mahabharata took place 666 56 years and 662; years after the commencement of the Kaliyug.1
Bradhgarghmuni, on the contrary, holds that the saptarishi were in the Alagha Nakhshatra at the junction of the Dwapar and the Kaliyug. He says :—
According to him, therefore, Yudhishtira flourished at the beginning of the Kaliyug.
An inscription in a Jain temple on a hill near Yahola, Kaladaggi district, Deccan, says that the temple, built by King Pnlkeshi Il, of the Chalukya family, was erected 3735 years after the Mahabharata, and when 556 years of the Saka era had passed, thus proving that the Great War took place 3735 —556= 3179 years before the Saka era; in other words, 3179 + 1828 (Saka era) = 5007 years ago. The inscription runs as follows :—
tfqTEM Tft tid,t
Following evidently the view held by Bradhgargh Muni, the author of the Ayeen-i-Akbari, says that Vicramaditya ascended the throne in the 3,044th year of the Yudhishtira era. This also makes the Yudhishtira era begin 3044 + 1963 ( Vicrama era) = 5007 years ago.
Thus, the authorities are all agreed that the Kaliyuga commenced 5,007 years ago: opinion, however, is
1” Indian Eras,” p, 8.
2The Indian Antiquary, Vol. VIII, p. 242.
divided as to when the Great War took place. Tradition seems to say that the Mahabharata took place at the commencement of the Kaliyug, while the astronomers think that it took place about the middle of the 7th century of the Kaliyuga era. Whichever view is correct—the former or the latter—we know, on a comparison of these times with the dates of Scriptural history, that the Kaliyug era commenced before the birth of Noah, and that the Great War took place either before his time or soon after it.
The migrations from India, as stated before, took place Eastwards as well as Westwards and Northwards. The Eastern migrations were to the Transgangetic peninsula, to China, to the islands of the Indian Archipelago, and to America. The Northern and the North-western to Turkistan, Siberia, Scandinavia, Germany and Britain, as well as to Persia, Greece, Rome and Etruria. The Western, to the eastern parts of Africa and thence to Egypt, We find that Egypt, Persia, Assyria, and Greece all derived their learning and civilization from India and that the Egyptian, the Assyrian, the Grecian, the German, the Scandinavian and the Druidic Mythologies were all derived from the Hindu Mythology.
Sir Walter Raleigh strongly supports the Hindu hypothesis regarding the locality of the nursery for rearing mankind, and that India was the first peopled country-.’
The Central Asian theory of emiration is unable to meet the difficulty presented by the fact that “ the
‘History of the World, p. 99. He would_ at once have found the origin of Ararat had he known that the Hindus call their country, Aryavarta.’
Astronomy of the Hindus and oe the Chinese appear to be the remains rather than the elements of a Science.” The advocates of the theory are obliged to assume that in ancient times a nation existed more advanced than either, the remains of whose achievements in Science still survive in the literature of the Hindus and the Chinese.
“That the Hindus, the Persians, the Egyptians and the Chinese, from the earliest periods of their history divided the time alike, namely, the year into 12 months and 36a days, and the day into 24 hours; that they divided the Zodaic alike into 12 signs; that they divided the week alike into seven days, which being an arbitrary division, could not be the result of accident, but proves that they obtained it from the common source of an ancient people who already possessed a high degree of civilization.” But what nation flourished anterior to the Hindus, the Chinese and the Persians, no one has yet theorised; much less has it been proved that that primitive nation attained to a high degree of civilization. On the contrary, all competent authorities are unanimous in bolding that “Hinduism (Hindu Literature, Science and Arts) developed itself on the shores of the Ganges and the Jumna,” and that “the Hindu civilization originated and attained to its highest pitch only in India.”
There is thus an abrupt break in the Central Asian theory of emigration. The theory sketched out in the following pages alone can satisfactorily explain all such difficulties. Count Bjornstjernal says: “It is there (Aryawarta) we must seek not only for the cradle of the Brahmin religion, but for the cradle of the high civilization
1 Theogony of the Hindus, p. 168.
of the Hindus, which gradually extended itself in the West to Ethiopia, to Egypt, to Phoenicia; in the East, to Siam, to China, and to Japan; in the South, to Ceylon, to Java and to Sumatra; in The North, to Persia to Caldoea and to Colchis, whence it come to Greece and to Rome, and at, length to the remote abode of the Hyperboreans.”
Colonel Olcott says: “The modern school of comparative Philology traces the migration of Aryan civilization into Europe by a study of modern languages in comparison with the Sanskrit. And we have an equally, if not a still more striking means of showing the outflow of Aryan thought towards the West in the philosophies and religions of Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Northern Europe. One has only to put side by side the teachings of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Horner, Zeno, Hesiod, Cicero, Scmvola, Varro and Virgil with those of Veda-Vyasa, Kapila, Gautama, Patanjali, Kanada, Jaimini, Narada, Panini, Marichi, and many others we might mention, to be astonished at their identity of conceptions—an identity that upon any other theory than that of a derivation of the younger philosophical schools of the West from the older ones of the East would be simply miraculous. The human mind is certainly capable of evolving like ideas in different ages, just as humanity produces for itself in each generation the teachers, rulers, warriors and artisans it needs. But that the view s of the Aryan sages should be so identical with those of the later Greek and Roman philosophers as to seem as if the latter were to the former like the reflection of an object in a mirror to the object itself, without an actual, physical transmission of teachers or books from the East to the West, is something opposed to common sense. And this again corroborates our convictions that the old Egyptians were emigrants from. India; nearly all the famous ancient philosophers had been to Egypt to learn her wisdom, from the Jewish Moses to the Greek Plato.”
Sir William Jones says: “Of the cursory observations on the Hindus, which it would require volumes to expand and illustrate, this is the result, that they had an immemorial affinity with the old Persians, Ethiopians and Egyptians, the Phoenicians, Greeks, and Tuscans, the Scythians, or Goths, and Celts, the Chinese, Japanese) and Peruvians.” 2
The author of “India in Greece” says: “Although the province of Pelasa or Behar sent forth a body of emigrants so powerful as to give a general name to the great Oriental movement which helped to people the mainland and islands of Greece, yet the numbers from this province alone give no adequate idea of the population that exchanged the sunny land of India for the more temperate latitudes of Persia, Asia Minor, and Hellas. The mountains of Ghoorka; Delhi, Oude, Agra, Lahore, Multan, Kashmir, the Indus, and the provinces of Rajputana, sent forth their additional thousands to feed the living tide that flowed towards the lands of Europe and of Asia. With these warlike pilgrims on their journey to the far West—bands as enterprising as the race of Anglo-Saxons, the descendants, in fact, of some of those very Saras of Northern India—like them, too, filling the solitudes, or facing the perils of the West, there marched a force of native warriors, sufficiently
) See the Theosophist for Mardi 1881, F. 121, 2 Asiatic Researches, Vol. I, p. 126,
powerful to’ take possession of the richest of the soil that lay before them.
“ Though unsuccessful in the great struggle that terminated in the expulsion of themselves and their religious teachers, their practised hardihood left them nothing to fear from the desultory attacks of any tribes who might be bold enough to obstruct their march.”‘
- He again says: “The actual extent of the Pelasgic race (which in fact became a synonym for the general population of India, when transplanted to Europe and Asia), far exceeded the idea of Neibuhr. So vast were their settlements, and so firmly-rooted were the very names of kingdoms, the nomenclature of tribes, that I do not scruple to assert that the successive maps’ ofSpain, Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Persia, and India, may be read like the chart of an emigrant.”2
lIndia in Greece, pp..29 ans1,30.
2India in Greece, p. 32.