Indus Valley Civilization

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

HISTORY OF INDIA

Indus Valley Civilization.

The earliest traces of civilization in the Indian subcontinent are to be found in places along, or close, to the Indus river. Excavations first conducted in 1921-22, in the ancient cities of Harappa and Mohenjodaro, both now in Pakistan, pointed to a highly complex civilization that first developed some 4,500-5,000 years ago, and subsequent archaeological and historical research has now furnished us with a more detailed picture of the Indus Valley Civilization and its inhabitants. The Indus Valley people were most likely Dravidians, who may have been pushed down into south India when the Aryans, with their more advanced military technology, commenced their migrations to India around 2,000 BCE. Though the Indus Valley script remains undeciphered down to the present day, the numerous seals discovered during the excavations, as well as statuary and pottery, not to mention the ruins of numerous Indus Valley cities, have enabled scholars to construct a reasonably plausible account of the Indus Valley Civilization.

Some kind of centralized state, and certainly fairly extensive town planning, is suggested by the layout of the great cities of Harappa and Mohenjodaro. The same kind of burnt brick appears to have been used in the construction of buildings in cities that were as much as several hundred miles apart. The weights and measures show a very considerable regularity. The Indus Valley people domesticated animals, and harvested various crops, such as cotton, sesame, peas, barley, and cotton. They may also have been a sea-faring people, and it is rather interesting that Indus Valley seals have been dug up in such places as Sumer. In most respects, the Indus Valley Civilization appears to have been urban, defying both the predominant idea of India as an eternally and essentially agricultural civilization, as well as the notion that the change from ‘rural’ to ‘urban’ represents something of a logical progression. The Indus Valley people had a merchant class that, evidence suggests, engaged in extensive trading.

Neither Harappa nor Mohenjodaro show any evidence of fire altars, and consequently one can reasonably conjecture that the various rituals around the fire which are so critical in Hinduism were introduced later by the Aryans. The Indus Valley people do not appear to have been in possession of the horse: there is no osteological evidence of horse remains in the Indian sub-continent before 2,000 BCE, when the Aryans first came to India, and on Harappan seals and terracotta figures, horses do not appear. Other than the archaeological ruins of Harappa and Mohenjodaro, these seals provide the most detailed clues about the character of the Indus Valley people. Bulls and elephants do appear on these seals, but the horned bull, most scholars are agreed, should not be taken to be congruent with Nandi, or Shiva’s bull. The horned bull appears in numerous Central Asian figures as well; it is also important to note that Shiva is not one of the gods invoked in the Rig Veda. The revered cow of the Hindus also does not appear on the seals. The women portrayed on the seals are shown with elaborate coiffures, sporting heavy jewelry, suggesting that the Indus Valley people were an urbane people with cultivated tastes and a refined aesthetic sensibility. A few thousand seals have been discovered in Indus Valley cities, showing some 400 pictographs: too few in number for the language to have been ideographic, and too many for the language to have been phonetic.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

The Indus Valley civilization raises a great many, largely unresolved, questions. Why did this civilization, considering its sophistication, not spread beyond the Indus Valley? In general, the area where the Indus valley cities developed is arid, and one can surmise that urban development took place along a river that flew through a virtual desert. The Indus Valley people did not develop agriculture on any large scale, and consequently did not have to clear away a heavy growth of forest. Nor did they have the technology for that, since they were confined to using bronze or stone implements. They did not practice canal irrigation and did not have the heavy plough. Most significantly, under what circumstances did the Indus Valley cities undergo a decline? The first attacks on outlying villages by Aryans appear to have taken place around 2,000 BCE near Baluchistan, and of the major cities, at least Harappa was quite likely over-run by the Aryans. In the Rig Veda there is mention of a Vedic war god, Indra, destroying some forts and citadels, which could have included Harappa and some other Indus Valley cities. The conventional historical narrative speaks of a cataclysmic blow that struck the Indus Valley Civilization around 1,600 BCE, but that would not explain why settlements at a distance of several hundred miles from each other were all eradicated. The most compelling historical narrative still suggests that the demise and eventual disappearance of the Indus Valley Civilization, which owed something to internal decline, nonetheless was facilitated by the arrival in India of the Aryans.

The ancient ruins of the 'Indus Valley Civilization' at Harappa

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Kautilya and Arthashastra

Much of our knowledge about state policy under the Mauryas comes from the Arthashastra written by Kautilya (more popularly known as Chanakya), who was a Brahmin minister under Chandragupta Maurya. Though it was written at the end of the fourth century BC, it appears to have been rediscovered only in 1905, after centuries of oblivion. The treatise in its present form is most likely not the text written by Kautilya, though it is probably based on a text that was authored by Kautilya; and in no case can the text in its entirety be ascribed to Kautilya, on account of numerous stylistic and linguistic variations.

The book, written in Sanskrit, discusses theories and principles of governing a state. It is not an account of Mauryan administration. The title, Arthashastra, which means "the Science of Material Gain" or "Science of Polity", does not leave any doubts about its ends. According to Kautilya, the ruler should use any means to attain his goal and his actions required no moral sanction. The only problems discussed are of the most practical kind. Though the kings were allowed a free rein, the citizens were subject to a rigid set of rules. This double standard has been cited as an excuse for the obsolescence of the Arthashastra, though the real cause of its ultimate neglect, as the Indian historian Romila Thapar suggests, was the formation of a totally different society to which these methods no longer applied.

Arthashastra remains unique in all of Indian literature because of its total absence of specious reasoning, or its unabashed advocacy of realpolitik, and scholars continued to study it for its clear cut arguments and formal prose till the twelfth century. Espionage and the liberal use of provocative agents is recommended on a large scale. Murder and false accusations were to be used by a king's secret agents without any thoughts to morals or ethics. There are chapters for kings to help them keep in check the premature ambitions of their sons, and likewise chapters intended to help princes to thwart their fathers' domineering authority. However, Kautilya ruefully admits that it is just as difficult to detect an official's dishonesty as it is to discover how much water is drunk by the swimming fish.

Kautilya helped the young Chandragupta Maurya, who was a Vaishya, to ascend to the Nanda throne in 321 BC. Kautilya's counsel is particularly remarkable because the young Maurya's supporters were not as well armed as the Nandas. Kautilya continued to help Chandragupta Maurya in his campaigns and his influence was crucial in consolidating the great Mauryan empire. He has often been likened to Machiavelli by political theorists, and the name of Chanakya is still reminiscent of a vastly scheming and clever political adviser. In very recent years, Indian state television, or Doordarshan as it is known, commissioned and screened a television serial on the life and intrigues of Chanakya.

Emperors of India

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

India has had less of a tradition of political unity than China or Japan. Indeed, most of the names for India ("India," "Hind," "Hindustân") are not even Indian. As Yule & Burnell say in their classic A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases ["Hobson-Jobson," Curzon Press, 1886, 1985, p. 433]:

It is not easy, if it be possible, to find a truly native (i.e. Hindu) name for the whole country which we call India; but the conception certainly existed from an early date. Bhâratavarsha is used apparently in the Purânas with something like this conception.

Bhâratavars.a, , meant the "division of the world" (vars.a) of the Bhâratas -- the heroes of the great Mahâbhârata epic. An independent India in 1947 decided to officially become Bhârat (the short final "a" not being pronounced in Hindi), with the earlier word emerging as Bhâratvarsh in Hindi. Probably India did not have a clear local name earlier because, like China, it seemed to be the principal portion of the entire world, and so simply the world itself.

In Chinese, we get various ways of referring to India. The modern form, , renders the name phonetically with characters of no particular semantic significance ("print, stamp, or seal" and "a rule, law, measure, degree"). This rendering, of course, is based on a name from Greek or Arabic that would have been unknown in China until modern times. The older practice,

however, was dedicated characters that might have a larger meaning. Thus, we get or

, in which can be a kind of bamboo but otherwise is just used for India.

Semantically stronger is , where is primarily used for the Indian god Brahmâ (

) and then for compounds involving India or Buddhism. Thus we get expressions like

, "Sanskrit," , "Sanskrit writing," and , "Sanskrit characters." In Japan,

India was sometimes called the Yüehchih, , the "Moon Tribe." This appealed because of

the contrast with Japan, the , "Sun Source." The Japanese knew from Chinese histories that the Yüehchih were in the West, and since they were a bit vague about what was in

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

the West, but they knew that India was also, the connection got made. They might not have known that the Yüehchih actually did enter India as the Kushans

When a unified state has occurred in Indian history, it has had varying religious, political, and even linguistic bases:   e.g. Hindu, Buddhist, Islâmic, and foreign. The rule of the Sult.âns of Delhi and the Moghul Emperors was at once Islâmic and foreign, since most of them were Turkish or Afghani, and the Moghul dynasty was founded directly by incursion from Afghanistan. The supremely foreign unification of India, of course, was from the British, under whom India achieved its greatest unity, although that was lost upon independence to the religious division between India and Pakistan. The Moghuls and British, of course, called India by its

name in their own languages (i.e. "Hindustân," or , and "India").

With a unified state in India a rare phenomenon, often under foreign influence, and with only a derivative indigenous name for the country as a whole, one might wonder if the term "Emperor," with its implications of unique and universal monarchy, is aptly applied to Indian rulers. However, from an early date there was a notion of such monarchy, which depended only on a conception of the world, whether India itself was clearly conceived or not, but with some

actual examples, beginning with the Mauryas. The universal monarch was

the Cakravartin, , "Who Turns the Wheel of Dominion." He could also be called the "One Umbrella Sovereign," after the parasol carried to mark the location of royalty. Thus, the prophecy was that Siddhartha Gautama might have become the Buddha or a Cakravartin, a world ruler. The word was ambiguous, since the term can mean simply a sovereign, but its use is paralleled by the Latin word Imperator, which simply means

"Commander" and grew, by usage, into a term for a unique and universal monarch. As it happened, many of the monarchs who began to claim ruler over all of India did usually use titles that were translations or importations of foreign words. Thus, the Kushans used titles like Râjatirâjâ, "King of Kings," and Mahârâjâ, "Great King," which appear to be translations from older Middle Eastern titles. While the original "Great King" long retained its uniqueness, thanks to the durability of the Persian monarchy, the title in India experienced a kind of grade inflation, so that eventually there were many, many Mahârâjâs. With Islâm came a whole raft of new titles. One was Sult.ân, which originally was an Arabic title of universal rule itself but had already experienced its own grade inflation. Persian titles, like Pâdeshâh, centuries after the Achaemenids, were now borrowed rather than translated. With the Moghuls, however, the names of the Emperors, more than their titles, reflected their pretensions:  like Persian Jahângir, "Seize (gir) the world (jahân)." The most remarkable title borrowed from the West is probably Kaisar, but the Latin title itself arrived with Queen Victoria, IND IMP, Indiae Imperatrix, in 1876. The last Indiae Imperator was King George VI, until 1947.

In addition to these complications, Indian history is also less well known and dated than that of China or Japan. Classical Indian literature displays little interest in history proper, which must be reconstructed from coins, monumental inscriptions, and foreign references. As Jan Nattier has said recently [A Few Good Men, The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipr.cchâ), University of Hawai'i Press, 2003]:

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

...the writing of history in the strict sense does not begin in India until the 12th century, with the composition of Kalhan.a's Râjataran.gin.î. [p.68]

Because of this, even the dating of the Mauryas and the Guptas, the best known pre-Islâmic periods, displays small uncertainties. The rulers and dates for them here are from Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford University Press, 1989], the Oxford Dynasties of the World by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002], and Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. Gordon had the only full lists I'd ever seen for the Mauryas, Kushans, and Guptas until I found the Oxford Dynasties, which has the Mauryas and Guptas but nothing else until the Sultanate of Delhi. Besides Wolpert, another concise recent history of India is A History of India by Peter Robb [Palgrave, 2002]. It is becoming annoying to me that scholarly histories like these are almost always but poorly supplemented with maps and lists of rulers, let alone genealogies (where these are known). Both Wolpert and Robb devote much more space to modern India than to the ancient or mediaeval country, and this preference seems to go beyond the paucity of sources for the earlier periods.

More satisfying than Wolpert and Robb is another recent history, A History of India by John Keay [Harper Perennial, 2000, 2004]. Keay has an apt comment for the phenomenon just noted in the other histories:

In contriving maximum resolution for the present, there is also a danger of losing focus on the past. A history which reserves half its narrative for the nineteenth and twentieth centuries may seem more relevant, but it can scarcely do justice to India's extraordinary antiquity. [p.xxi]

Keay thus does a better job of dealing with the eras (and their obscure events) that fall between the Mauryas, Guptas, and the Islamic states with their new, foreign traditions of historiography. One drawback of Keay's book is its total innocence of diacritics. Indeed, it is even innocent of any acknowledgement of this, which would leave the reader wondering why a word is given as "Vidisha" in one citation and "Vidisa" in another [cf. p.90]. Keay also exhibits the occasional ignorance of Indianists for the Persian and Arabic backgrounds of some words, where here I explain the difference between Ghazna and Ghaznî and between Moghul and Mughal. We also find Keay carelessly referring the capital of the Caliph al-Walîd as Baghdad, a city that was not yet founded [p.185].

The "Saka Era," as the Indian historical era, significantly starts rather late (79 AD) in relation to the antiquity of Indian civilization. Indeed, like Greece (c.1200-800 BC) and Britain (c.400-800 AD), India experienced a "Dark Ages" period, c.1500-800 BC, in which literacy was lost and the civilization vanished from history altogether. Such twilight periods may enhance the vividness of quasi-historical mythology like the Iliad, the Arthurian legends, and the Mahâbhârata. The earliest history of India is covered separately at "The Earliest Civilizations" and "The Spread of Indo-European and Turkish Peoples off the Steppe." The affinities of Indian languages are also covered at "Greek, Sanskrit, and Closely Related Languages." Readers should treat with caution some scholarship and a great deal of the material on the internet about the Indus Valley Civilization and its relationship to Classical Indian civilization, or all of civilization. The claims have progressed to the point now where not only are all of Indian civilization and all of its languages regarded as autochthonous (with Indo-European languages

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

said to originate in India, and derived from Dravidian languages, rather than arriving from elsewhere and unrelated to Dravidian), but the civilization itself is said to extend back to the Pleistocene Epoch (before 10,000 BC), with any ruins or artifacts conveniently covered by rising sea levels. The urge towards inflated nationalistic claims is familiar. Particular claims about India are treated here in several places but especially in "Strange Claims about the Greeks, and about India."

Mahapadma Nanda became King of Magadha and created what looks like the first "Empire" in Northern India. While Indian history begins with some confidence with the Mauyras, the Nandas are now emerging into the light of history with a little more distinctness. Of special importance is the circumstance that Magadha was the venue for the life of the Buddha. The previously favored chronology for the life of the Buddha, which had him dying around 483 BC (and so a contemporary of Confucius) now looks to be wrong, and a much later date, around 386 BC, looks much more reasonable (making him a contemporary of Socrates). This would put the Buddha possibly within the lifetime of Mahapadma, or certainly during the tenure of one of the Nanda Kings. The First Buddhist Council, soon after the death of the Buddha, was held at the Magadha capital, Rajagriha, and so would have been under the patronage of a Nanda King. However, traditionally it was King Bimbisara of Magadha (of the Hariyanka

Dynasty) who was supposed to have sponsored the Buddha, and Bimbisara's patricide son and successor, Ajatashatru, who sponsored the First Council. The reckoning of their dates goes with the earlier traditional dating, with Bimbisara ruling c.545-493 BC. Since the reconstruction of the early Kings of Magadha is based on legendary material in the much later Puran.as, it is difficult to have much confidence in them as history. And the whole structure of the dates hangs on how long before Ashoka the Buddha lived. If a short chronology is preferable, some serious rethinking will be necessary about the relationlship of Bimbisara to the Nandas, whose own chronology of course, such as it is, is speculative.

THE NANDAS, c.450?-c.321

Mahapadma Nanda c.450?-c.362?

Pandhuka c.362-?

Panghupati

Bhutapala

Rashtrapala

Govishanaka

Dashasidkhaka

Kaivarta

Dhana Nanda(Argames)

?–c.321 BC

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

The Mauryas are the true beginning of historical India. This inception is particularly dramatic when we realize that Chandragupta seems to have actually met Alexander the Great in person. Perhaps realizing that there were no historians writing down his deeds, the greatest king of the Dynasty, Ashoka, commemorated himself with monumental rock inscriptions, and especially on a series of pillars, erected around India. The most famous of the pillars is at Sarnath, where the Buddha began preaching. The lion capital of the pillar at Sarnath is now used as the official crest of the modern Republic of India, with the Wheel of the Law (Dharmachakra) on it (as at right) featured the flag of India. Indeed, Ashoka is the most famous for converting to Buddhism (or something, his references are to the dharma but are otherwise vague) and sending missionaries abroad. He was not the first Maurya to get religion late in life. Chadragupta himself is supposed to have renounced the throne, become a Jain monk, and eventually starved himself to death, in Jain fashion, in Bhadrabahu Cave in Karnataka.

Ashoka can be rather well dated because he sent letters to the contemporary Hellenistic monarchs, Antigonus II Gonatas (Antikini) of Macedonia , Antiochus II Theos (Anityoka) of the Seleucid Kingdom, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Turamaya) of Egypt, Alexander II (Alikasudara) of Eprius, and Magas (Maga) of Cyrene, urging them to convert to Buddhism themselves. Greek history contains no record of these requests. There is also an attested eclipse in 249 dated with a regal year date. Ashoka's reign is used to date the life of the Buddha, since tradition in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is that the Buddha died 218 years before Ashoka came to the throne. That would put his death in 487 BC, which is close to the generally used date. The Ceylonese chronology is now often questioned, with alternative reckonings placing the Buddha's eath about a century later.

John Keay's history inclines in

While the Mauryas are the beginning of historical India, a great deal had already been going on (like the life of the Buddha) that in a Greek or Chinese context we would expect to be within historical time. In traditional Indian terms, such events were already covered by the "Fifth Veda," the historical Epics of the

THE MAURYAS, c.322-184 BC

Chandragupta(Gk. Sandrokotos)

c.322-301

Bindusâra 301-269

Ashoka 269-232

Kunala ? 232-225

Dasharatha 232-225

Samprati 225-215

Shâlishuka 215-202

Devadharma/Devavarman

202-195

Shatamdhanu/Shatadhanvan

195-187

Br.hadratha 187-185

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Mahâbhârata and the Râmâyan.a. One reason for the lack of interest in history in Indian secular literature may have been the feeling that, as only eternity is significant and all other time is cyclical and repetitive, the Epics thus represent everything that can possibly happen in history. There is even a saying, "Everything is in the Mahâbhârata." Our lack of knowledge of individual Indian philosophers from this early period, even though we possess much of an undoubted early date in the Upanis.ads, may also be due to the idea that such texts, as parts of the Vedas, were actually part of eternal revelation and were not originated by their authors.

Indian Philosophy

Buddhist Philosophy

The decline of the Mauryas coincided with the rise of a neighboring Greek Kingdom in Bactria. This was also important for the history of Buddhism, as

the Kings became converts. A classic of Buddhist literature, the "Questions of Milinda," (Milindapañha) records the conversion of one King in particular, Menander Soter Dikaios (Milinda, 155-130). This is part of the history of India, but the kingdom is listed with other Hellenistic monarchies. It now seems like one of the oddest things in history that there was once a kingdom of Greek Buddhists in Afghanistan. There are no Greeks or Buddhists in Afghanistan now. The Greek rulers then survive well into the period of the Sakas and Parthians, as follows.

MACEDONIAN KINGS OF BACTRIA256-c.55 BC

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

The Sakas (or Shakas) were an Iranian steppe people who descended into India, much as the Arya had earlier -- indeed, it is a pattern that would be repeated again and again until the Moghuls. The Sakas spoke an Iranian language. This is classified as "South-Eastern" Iranian, which geographically locates where the Sakas ended up, but not where they began, which was on the steppe north and east of the Aral Sea. The "North-Eastern" Iranian languages, Sarmatian and Scythian (which are poorly attested), ended up in the far North-West, north of the Caspian Sea and in the Ukraine, respectively. From the Sarmatians came the Alans, whose language survives in the Caucasus as Ossetian. Also North-Eastern Iranian was Sogdian, which remained North-East and continued to be an important Central Asian language until the Arab conquest. It has a small survivor in the Pamirs, Yaghnobi. After the arrival of the Kushans, the Sakas were simply driven further into India, into Rajasthan, where they became assimilated as Hindu Kshatriyas. Since Rajasthan later became famous for its warriors, this may indicate the cultural preservation of Saka nomadic fierceness.

There are no historical documents or preserved narratives from this period, and the rulers are mostly known from coins, which may have dates,

but in eras or reckonings that often cannot be identified. Since 1957, the National Calendar of India uses the Saka Era (78 AD = year 0), but the origin of this benchmark is itself uncertain (cf. Explandatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, edited by P. Kenneth Seidelmann, University

Science Books, 1992, pp.591-594). It has been thought that the Era was established by the Kushan monarch Kanishka I, and may even have dated his reign, but he now appears to have ruled somewhat later. It is certainly representative of the problems with Indian history that its own historical era dates an unknown event in a period, long after the beginning of Indian history, that itself is all but innocent of dates and historical evidence.

The Calendar in India

Simultaneously with the descent of Sakas into India, Parthians (Pahlavas) or Suren appear from the west, and some of them become established in India independent (or not) of the Parthian King. The Parthians spoke a "North-Western" Iranian language, though its origin was far south of the Scythians. The sources are sometimes confused about which Indian rulers are Sakas and which are Parthians, since they are never attested as which. Gudnaphar (Greek Gondophernes), who traditionally is supposed to have welcomed the Apostle Thomas to India, seems to have

THE SAKAS,c.130 BC

Maues 97-58 BC

Vonones

 Spalyris

Spalagademes

Spalirises

Azes I c.30 BC

Azilises 

Azes II

THE PARTHIANS/SUREN

Pakores 

Orthagnes

Gudnaphar(Gondophernes)

c.19-45 AD

Abdagases

 Sasas

Arsaces Theos

Nahapa 119-124 AD

THE SAKA ERA,THE INDIANHISTORICAL ERA

79 AD

2000 AD - 78 = 1922 Annô Sakidae

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

been Parthian. The legend of the mission of Thomas to India is now of renewed interest because of the discovery of the text of the Gospel of Thomas, one of the Gnostic Gospels, in Egypt in

1945.

The Kushans also began as an Indo-European steppe people, known to the Chinese as the

Yüehchih, , the "Moon Tribe." They seem to have been a group who moved far east on the steppe very early, speaking a language with many archaic features. By attacking the Hsiung-nu,

, probably the later Huns, the Chinese of the Han Dynasty drove them back into the Yuèzhi, who then migrated (170 BC) into the Tarim Basin

(the Lesser Yüeh-chih, ) and

Transoxania (the Greater Yüeh-chih, ), areas which they dominated c.100 BC-300 AD. The language of the Lesser Yüeh-chih is attested in Buddhist texts in two dialects of Tocharian (A and B). The Greater Yüeh-chih, as the Kushans, followed other steppe people down into India. Some small uncertainty perisisted over the identification of the Yüeh-chih with the Kushans and the writers of Tocharian, but the debate over Tocharian seems to have been resolved with a positive identification. The recent discovery of

well-preserved, European-looking mummies along the Silk Road serves to affirm the European and so Indo-European bona fides of the still illiterate (from a period long before Tocharian) local culture. Unfortunately, the Tocharian texts do not include historical works, which might have removed uncertainties and added an invaluable framework for understanding the area.

Although the dates are still very uncertain, historical information in India is rather better than for the preceding period. Of special importance is King Kanishka, under whom the Fourth Great Buddhist Council is supposed to have been held, as the Third was under Ashoka. Kanishka is said to have been converted to Buddhism by the playwright Ashvaghosha. The earliest actual images of Buddhas and Boddhisattvas date from his reign. Also of interest are the Kushan royal titles, Maharaja Rajatiraja Devaputra Kushâna. Rajatiraja, "King of Kings," is very familiar from Middle Eastern history, since monarchs from the Assyrians to the Parthians had used it. Maharaja, "Great King," is very familiar from later India but at this early date betrays its Middle

THE KUSHANS

Kujula Kadphises c.20 BC-c.30/64 AD

Wima/Welma Taktu c.30-c.80

Welma Kadphises c.80-c.103

Kanishka I c.103-c.127 AD

Vasishka I c.127-c.131

Huvishka I c.130-c.162

Vasudeva I c.162-c.200

Kanishka II c.200-c.220

Vasishka II c.220-c.230

Kanishka III c.230-c.240

Vasudeva II c.240-c.260

Vasu late 3rd century

Chhu late 3rd century

Shaka 3-4th century

Kipanada 4th century

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Eastern inspiration, since it was originally used by the Persian Kings. Devaputra, "Son of God," sounds like the Kushans claiming some sort of Christ-like status, which is always possible, but it may actually just be an Sanskrit version of a title of the Chinese Emperor, "Son of Heaven."

The Roman trading posts in Kushan India bespeak a great deal of trade and contact, about which we get the occasional notice in Greek and Roman writers, but which do not become a source of any extensive knowledge of India or its history recorded by either.

Something else overlooked by Classical historians nevertheless turns up in Chinese history. That is, a Roman Embassy made its way by way of India by sea to the China of the Later Han Dynasty. It is recorded that in the year 166 AD (in the time of King Vasudeva I) an embassy

arrived in Lo-Yang from a ruler of , "Great Ch'in," named Andun, which looks like a rendering of Antoninus. The year 166 was in the early days of Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus). Since we know, besides the presence of Romans in India, that there were well traveled sea routes to China (see the voyage of Fa-Hsien below), this Roman Embassy easily passes the test of credibility. It is a shame that such a project, like the letters written by Ashoka to Hellenistic monarchs, escaped the notice of Greek and Roman historians.

While the imperial maps here until 1701 are based on Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford University Press, 1989], the map for the Kushans is based on the The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume I [1974, Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, p.42], which now has been reissued in identical form as The Penguin Atlas of World History, Volume I [Penguin Books, 1978, 2003].

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

The rule of the Guptas was one of the classic ages of Indian history, for whose culture we have a rather full description by the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Fa-Hsien, who was in India between 399 and 414 (see map below), in the time of Chandra Gupta II. This was the last time that the North of India would be united by a culturally indigenous power.

The Guptas patronized the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain religions equally. Consequently, they now become celebrated, like Ashoka and Akbar, as examplifying a modern liberal ideal of tolerance and enlightenment. This is anachronistic but not inappropriate as long as we realize the limitations of such an identification. The Indian monarchs, however relatively enlightened, were autocrats, and thus comparable less to liberal democracy than to "Enlightened Despots" like Frederick the Great of Prussia. Thus, their magnanimous patronage of religions certainly did not extend to the toleration of political opposition.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

While the name of Chandragupta, the founder of the Mauryas, is

usually given as one word, the "Gupta," ("guarded, protected"), element in names of the Gupta dynasty is usually, but not always, written as a separate word. The Oxford Dynasties writes them together. Classical Sanskrit, of course, like Greek and Latin, ordinarily did not separate words at all.

One of the unique monuments of the Gupta dynasty is the Iron Pillar of Delhi, seen at right. This is a solid piece of wrought iron more than 22 feet tall. Delhi may not have been its original location, but exactly where that would have been and when or why the pillar was brought to Delhi is a matter of conjecture. The pillar is dedicated to Vishnu, but any other Hindu structures around it were demolished by the Sultâns of Delhi, who built the nearby Qutub Minar tower and the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque. Dating the pillar is also a matter of some uncertainty, since its inscription merely mentions a King named "Chandra." This is generally taken to mean Chandra Gupta II, reinforced by the evidence of the style and language of the pillar, in comparison to known art of the Guptas, like the coins of Chandra Gupta II. It is also sometimes said that the pillar was erected to commemorate Chandra Gupta by his successor Kumâra Gupta I. The Pillar, however, is such an extraordinary artifact that some people reject the mundane historical explanations and prefer that the object is much, much older, or even the work of extra-terrestrials. The Pillar does testify, however, to the sophistication of Indian iron work, of which there is much other evidence. The steel of the famous Damascus steel swords of the

Middle Ages was actually manufactured and exported from India, with techniques that had been used for centuries. The Pillar, although not itself steel, does exhibit the technique that leaves it appearing to be a single piece of iron -- forge welding, where hot iron is hammered and fused

together. This is the technique that

The pilgrimage of Fa-Hsien (Faxian) is noteworthy for many things, but one feature in particular evident from the map is that the entire homeward leg of the journey was by sea. This reminds us of the sea routes that had been busy since the Greeks and extended all the way from Egypt to China. We frustratingly have little in the way of historical documents about this business, but when we do get an

THE GUPTAS, ,c.320-551 AD

Gupta 275-300

Ghat.otkacha 300-320

Chandra Gupta I 320-335

Samudra Gupta 335-370

Rama Gupta ? 370-375

Chandra Gupta II 375-415

Kumâra Gupta I 415-455

Skanda Gupta 455-467

Kumâra Gupta II 467-477

Budha Gupta 477-496

Chandra Gupta III ? 496-500

Vainya Gupta 500-515

Narasimha Gupta 510-530

Kumâra Gupta III 530-540

Vishn.u Gupta 540-551

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

account, as with Fa-Hsien, we realize how routine the communication was (with understandable hazards and misadventures).

Towards the end of the period, the Guptas began to experience inroads from the Huns (Huna), the next steppe people, whose appearance in Europe (it is supposed that these are the same people), of course, pressured German tribes to move into the Roman Empire. By 500, Huns controlled the Punjab and in short order extended their rule down the Ganges. They don't seem to have founded any sort of durable state and eventually suffered defeats. The Huns were the last non-Islamic

steppe people to

The following period might very well be called the Warring States Period of India, on analogy with that of China. Unlike China, however, it would be brought to an end only by foreign invasion and conquest.

In the political fragmentation of the era, we still have some Guptas, the "Later Guptas," but these are evidently former vassals, not relatives, of the Imperial Guptas, in Magadha on the lower Ganges. They are players, but not dominant ones. Harsha Vardhana, from Thanesar, north of Delhi, was one ruler who for a while united most of the North of India again, and, as luck would have it, we have the account of Hsüan-tsang (Xuánzang, 600-664), another Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, who went to India between 629 and 645, during his time. This follows an account we have from the other direction, that of a Greek sailor, Cosmas

Indicopleustes, who visited India, Ceylon, and even Axumite Ethiopia some time before 550 AD, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Justinian. Unfortunately, Cosmas was a bit of a crackpot who seemed just as concerned with proving, despite widely accepted evidence (recounted in detail by Aristotle), that the Earth was flat rather than spherical. Thus, we can imagine that Cosmas, whose book was the Christian Topography, was hostile to a round earth for much the same (religious) reasons that contemporary anti-Darwinians are hostile to Evolution.

Vardhanas of Thanesar

Naravardhana? c. 500-?

Rajyavardhana I?  

Pushyabhûti  

Adityasena Vardhana c.555-580

Prabhakaravardhana c.580-c.605

nephew of Mahâsenagupta

Rajyavardhana (II) c.605-606

Harsha Vardhana 606-647The Later Guptas, ofMagadha, c.550-700 AD

Kumâragupta c.550-560

Dâmodaragupta c.560-562

Mahâsenagupta c.562-601

vassals of Kâlachuris,595/6-c.601

Mâdhavagupta c.601-655

Âdityasena c.655-680

Devagupta c.680-700

overthrown by Yashovarmanof Kanauj, 725-730

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Harsha enjoyed a long reign but, when he attempted to expand south into the Deccan, he was defeated by Pulakeshin II of Vâtâpi (or Badami). Subsequently, we get dynasties whose power occasionally spans the country, but none are able to secure hegemony for long.

Indian Buddhism, although patronized by Harsha, already seemed to be in decline to Hsüan-tsang, and some important Buddhist sites were already neglected or abandoned. John Keay cites the Pala Dynasty of Bengal (8th-9th centuries AD) as the "last major Indian dynasty to espouse Buddhism" [op.cit. pp.192-193]. Indeed, I think the contemporary development of Tantrism was obscuring the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism -- Keay agrees with this [p.194, in a comment marred by the rationalism he attributes to the pure original Buddhism of the

Buddha]. It was also during this period that we begin to get identifiable individual Indian philosophers, like Shankara (c.780-820), from whom we have a classic formulation of the doctrine of the Vedanta School. With the period of the Classical Empires over, it is striking that only now do individuals appear in the light of history in Indian philosophy. There is speculation that Shankara already represents a reaction to the arrival of Islâm on the borders of India.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Initial invasions by the Arab Ommayad Caliphs, starting in 644, were repulsed by 737, after episodes of the Arabs slaughtering local populations or deporting them as slaves. The following period, then, is the calm before the full force of Islâm burst on the country with the invasions of Mah.mûd of Ghazna, from 1001 to 1024. While

Shankara's views were later criticized as too influenced by Buddhism, they are more faithful to the Upanishads than the theism of the critics, who themselves seem increasingly influenced by the monotheism of Islâm. There also appears to be a decisive influence from Islâm on Indian dress. While in Classical India women are typically shown bare breasted, as at left, the rigors of

the Middle Eastern nudity taboo came into full force in modern India, at least for women. I am not aware just when this transition occurs. John Keay cites several references from the 13th to the 15th century on the nudity of the Indians, including a Russian traveler, Athanasius Nikitin, who around 1470 described Indians going about all but naked, with "their breasts bare" [op.cit. p.277]. By the 19th century Krishna's lover Radha is shown in a full shoulder to floor woven dress. Someone could easily chronicle the transition by cataloguing such sculpture and portraiture.

My source for the list of the rulers from the fall of the Guptas (551) to the dominance of the Sultanate of Delhi (1211), beginning with the line of the Châlukyas, was originally from Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. I took details of the period from Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford, 2000, pp.95-103]. There was clearly uncertainty about the dates, since Wolpert has Krishna I Râs.t.rakût.a, patron of the remarkable Kailasanatha temple to Shiva, reigning 756-775, while Gordon has 768-783. This is, of course, not too surprising, given the problems with Indian historiography. Later, however, I found a much more thorough treatment of the period in Ronald M. Davidson's Indian Esoteric Buddhism, A Social History of the Tantric Movement [Columbia University Press, 2002], which has an extensive summary of the whole period [pp.25-62], with

the Deccan,the Carnatic, & Maharashtra

Châlukyas of Vâtâpi

Pulakeshin Ic.543-566

Kîrtivarman Ic.567-597

Mangaleshac.597-609

Pulakeshin IIc.609-642

overthrows Kâlachuris, c.620; killed in battle by Narasimha Varman I of Pallava, 642; interregnum, 642-655; Arab attacks, 644

Vikramâditya I654/5-681

Arab attacks, 677

Vinayâdityac.680-696

defeats Later Gupta Devagupta, 695

Vijayâdityac.696-733/4

Vikramâditya IIc.733-744/5

defeat and explusion of Arabs from India, 737

Kirtivarman II744/5-753

Râs.t.rakût.asof Ellora & Malkhed

Dantidurgac.735-744

Krishna Ic.755-772

Dhruva Dhârâvarshac.780-793

defeats Gangetic powers but abandons North

Govinda IIIc.793-814

occupies North again, height of

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

maps and lists of many of the rulers. Here we find Krishna I with the dates c.755-772, in much closer agreement with Wolpert, but still, of course, residual uncertainties. John Keay's A History of India [Harper Perennial, 2000, 2004] covers the period with similar thoroughness.

Pulakeshin II ruled from the Deccan Plateau, which now emerges as a force that often intrudes into the North of India. Wolpert [p.101] introduces the subject by mentioning the territory of Mahârâshtra ("Great country"). We are left with the implication that the Châlukya Dynasty, which ruled the area, was of Maharashtran origin. However, Wolpert also mentions that the Châlukya capital was Badami (Davidson says Vâtâpi), "just south of the River Krishna" (Kistna). This is not in the modern state of Mahârâshtra, but in Karnâtaka. These modern states are drawn with linguistic boundaries. The language of Maharashtra is Marathi, while that of

Karnataka is Kannada (or Kanarese). As it happens, the inscriptions of the Vâtâpi Châlukyas are in Kannada, and a correspondent drew my attention to the problem that it would be a confusion to associate them with Maharashtra or the Marathas. On the other hand, as Davidson notes, the meaning of expressions like

"Maharashtra" was previously rather vague had more to do with geography than with language. Wolpert was continuing to reflect that circumstance. John Keay, however, provides a citation that removes doubt in the matter:  Hsüan-tsang met Pulakeshin II and refers to him as the ruler of "Mo- ho-la-ch'a," i.e. Mahârâshtra [p.168].

More importantly, the history of India in this period is not the national history of linguistic communities. It is dynastic history, and dynasties like the Châlukya were much more interested in territory, anywhere, than in national origins, homelands, or languages. Thus, Châlukyas ruled elsewhere, without much regard for the local language, with branches of the dynasty in what is now Andhra Pradesh (Telugu speakers) and Gujarat (Gujarati). When the Vâtâpi Châlukyas were

Kârkot.asof Kashmir

Candrâpîd.a c.711-720

asks for alliancewith China, 713

Târâpîd.a c.720-725

LalitâdityaMuktâpîd.a

c.725-756

overthrows Yashovarman of Kanauj, 733; secures Ganges Valley, 747; dies in Tarim Basin

Kuvalayâpîd.a ?

Vajrâditya ?

Prthivyâpîd.a ?

Samgrâmâpîd.a ?

Jayâpîd.aVinayâdirya

c.779-810

The Gurjara-Pratîhârasof Ujjain & Dantidurga

Nâgabhat.a I c.725-760

helps defeat Arabs, 725

Devarâja c.750-?

Vatsarâja ?-c.790

Nâgabhat.a II c.790-833

occupies Kanauj and middle Ganges, 815

Râmabhadra c.833-836

Mihira Bhoja c.836-885

Mahendrapâla I c.890-910

Mahîpâla c.910-?

Bhoja II ?-914

Vinâyakapâla I c.930-945

Mahendrapâla II c.945-950

Vinâyakapâla II c.950-959

Vijayapâla c.960-1018

invasions of Mahmud of Ghaza, 1001-1024

Râjyapâla c.1018-1019

Trilocanapâla c.1019-1017

Mahendrapâla III ?

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

overthrown by their vassals, the Râs.t.rakût.as of Ellora, this was a dynasty definitely seated in a Marathi speaking area of Maharashtra, though they subsequently moved their capital to Malkhed, virtually at the border between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The Râs.t.rakût.as were in time displaced by a branch of the Châlukyas again, who in turn fell to the Kâlachuris, a dynasty from a region in modern Madhya Pradesh that now speaks Hindi. Thus, the language of their domain was not nearly as important to all these rulers as the possession of dominion.

As the Châlukyas moved, they could also take a geographical name with them. The British rendering of "Karnataka" was as the "Carnatic" (much like the word in Hindi, where a short final "a" would not be pronounced). The name "Carnatic" migrated south and south-east, with the movements of the Châlukya dynasts. On the Bay of Bengal, the Eastern Châlukyas became established, and we also find the name "Carnatic" applied there. That eastern "Carnatic" then also came to be associated with the large Vijayanagara realm, which straddled the modern states of Karnataka, Tamil Nâdu (the language is Tamil), and Andhra Pradesh. Thus, on old maps of India, the name "Carnatic" can sometimes be found adjacent to the west coast, and on others along the south-eastern coast. The name disappeared altogether for a while between Maharashtra to the north and the later state of Mysore to the south. The modern Indian state of Karantaka was originally itself called "Mysore," but this was changed in 1973 to "Karnâtaka" to reflect its linguistic character.

Pulakeshin II declared himself "Lord of the Eastern and Western Waters." Although the Châlukyas never united the north or dominated the country like the Guptas or Harsha, they would appear there, and I have focused on them and their successors as the best sequence to span the period down to the Sult.âns of Delhi. There were many other states of similar size and power during this era, several often called "Empires." Now I include lists for Kashmir and for the Gurjara-Pratîhâras, whose realm centered on Ujjain in the western part of the modern Madhya Pradesh. All of these states contended at one time or another for the Ganges Valley and thus were candidates for achieving a North Indian hegemony. Their successes proved only temporary, often because of rebellions in their rear.

The Châlukya dynasty suffered a severe reverse when Pulakeshin II was killed in battle by Narasimha Varman I of Pallava, and Vâtâpi occupied. After reestablishing themselves, they most importantly planted cadet lines in the East and in Gujarat, which would eventually provide for the restoration of the dynasty.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

The Râs.t.rakût.as appeared in force in the Ganges Valley more than once, but they were never able to retain a grip on the region. The restoration of the Châlukyas was followed by their overthrow in turn by the Kâlachuris and then the Yâdavas. This merry-go-ground of power in the center of India did no good with the new Islamic powers of the Ghaznawids and Ghûrids just over the horizon, forcing their way into India. There would be no unity of force such as repelled the Arabs in 737.

One of the "Empires" of the period was the Kingdom of Chola. As it happens, this is a realm in origin and history with a decidedly linguistic basis, in the Tamil language of modern Tamil Nâdu. The Chola Kings cultivated Tamil literature and are remembered as heroic patrons of Tamil power, learning, and religion. Chola is in the competition as an "Empire" because of it spread north, briefly all the way to the mouths of the Ganges, and, most strikingly, by its projection beyond the sea, initiated by King Rajaraja I Deva, whose name has the decidedly Imperial ring of "King of Kings, god." With grave portent for future history, the first such projection of Chola power was into Ceylon. Tamils had settled in Ceylon and briefly ruled there already, and even the Chola occupation was relatively short lived, but it all contributed to a durable Tamil ethnic presence that, in the modern day, exploded into a vicious and protracted civil war, whose appalling course and sobering lessons are examined elsewhere.

Of dramatic course and great portent in its own way is the other projection of Chola power, which was across the sea of the Bay of Bengal, through isolated land such as the Andaman Islands, all the way to Sumatra, Malaya, and the trade route of the Straits between those Indonesian islands. It is hard to know how much of the area was actually occupied and ruled. Some maps (optimisticly or nationalisticly) show a Chola domain over entire islands like Sumatra and over the entire peninsula of Malaya. Other maps (more realistically) show a Chola presence along the coastlines. In whichever form, this is the first example we know of an incursion that will be significantly mirrored in later history. Four hundred years after the Chola presence, the Chinese would arrive in the Straits from the opposite direction and initiate what was probably much the same kind of process, finally arriving themselves

Chola Kingdom

Vijayalayac. 846-c. 871

Asitya I c. 871-907

Parantaka 907-947

Rajaditya I 947-949

Gandaraditya 949-956

Arinjaya 956

Parantaka II 956

Aditya II 956-969

Madhurantaka Uttama 969-985

Rajaraja I Deva the Great

985-1012

Conquest of Ceylon, 993

Rajendra I Choladeva 1012-1044

Rajadhiraja I 1044-1052

Rajendra II Deva 1052-1060

Ramamahendra 1060-1063

Virarajendra 1063-1067

Adhirajendra 1067-1070

Rajendra III 1070-1122

Diplomatic mission to China, 1077

Vikrama Chola 1122-1135

Kulottunga II Chola 1135-1150

Rajraja II 1150-1173

Rajadhiraja II 1173-1179

Kulottunga III 1179-1218

Rajaraja III 1218-1246

Rajendra IV 1246-1279

Overthrown by Delhi, 1279

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

at Ceylon and the coast of Tamil Nâdu. As we will see below, this did not last long. Not long after the Chinese left, however, the Portuguese arrived from across the Indian Ocean, themselves occupied Ceylon and areas on the mainland of India, and then followed in the wake of the Chola voyagers into Indonesia. This produces occupations of considerable extent and duration, though mostly consumated by the Dutch and the British who replaced the Portuguese. The Chola "Empire" thus pioneers the colonial history of Indonesia -- though the hiatus between the Chola presence and the arrival of the Chinese will see a heavy Islamicization, by influence of trade alone, of the area.

Chola was finally broken up by the Sultanate of Delhi, which, however, was unable to retain a dominant position in the south. Thus, the small kingdom of Madura became the successor state at the southern tip of India, while the larger kingdom of Vijayanagar came to dominate much of the

South, including the old

The map shows the aggressive powers of the 11th century in India. In the South, Chola looks on its way to making the Bay of Bengal into a Cholan lake, but apparently it never does have much success on the coast of Burma, where Pagan has grown into a powerful kingdom with its own brilliant civilization. The darker green in the image shows the conquests of Rajendra I, the son of Rajaraja I.

Otherwise, what we see is the domain of the conqueror

Mah.mud of Ghazna. He began raiding into India in the year 1001 (enough to warm the heart of any ordinalist). Eventually he established a presence in the Punjab, but he also continued raiding deeper into India, usually with the aim of plunder, to be sure, but practiced with particular relish in the sacking of Hindu and Jain temples. This allowed for the particuarly Islamic diversion of smashing idols -- where in most Islamic conquests, in Christian and Persian lands, there had actually been few to smash. This set a poor precedent in the area, since in recent years the savage vandals of the Tâlibân regime in Afghanistan determined to smash all the Buddhist art in the Kabul Museum and that present around the country on cliff-face sculpture, including two great cliff carved Buddhas in Bamian province, 175 and 120 feet tall. This certainly represents the worst of Islamic Fascism. Given the fury of his own attacks, Mah.mud's treatment of the Hindu population was actually more conciliatory than one might expect, and it laid the groundwork, once the smashing was finished, for durable Islamic regimes in India.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

A curious linguistic issue arises when we deal with

Mah.mud. The name of the city of Ghazna, , is written in the Arabic alphabet with the letter "y" at the end. Ordinarily, this would indicate the long vowel "î"; but sometimes in Arabic, and originally in this case, the "y" is pronounced as the vowel "a." This is called alif maqs.ura and occurs in some very common words in Arabic.

Thus, sources that one might expect to be intimate with Arabic, like The New Islamic Dynasties, by Clifford Edmund Bosworth [Edinburgh University Press, 1996], use "Ghazna." In Arabic, where "y" indicates the long vowel "î," we get two dots under the letter. However, in Persian, the dots are not used (and vowels rarely indicated), the word

is written , and, consequently, alif maqs.ura tends to end up getting read in the more obvious way, as a long "î." Eventually this happened with Ghazna, which today is locally pronounced "Ghaznî," which would have been

written in Arabic. Thus, sources whose focus is more on India and less on Islam or on Arabic, tend to project the modern, Persian pronunciation back on the figure who therefore tends to get called "Mah.mud of Ghaznî." It is instructive to know why this variation occurs.

Râjâs of Mysore

Ballala I1100-1110

Vishnuvardhana1110-1152

Narasimha I1152-1173

Ballala II1173-1220

Narasimha II1220-1238

Somesvara1233-1267

Narasimha III1254-1292

Ballala III1291-1342

Vijayanagara rule after 1336

Virupaksha Ballala IV1342-1346

Vacant, 1346-1399

Wadiyar, Wodeyar Dynasty

Yadu Raya1399-1423

Hiriya Bettada Chamaraja I

1423-1459

Timmaraja I1459-1478

Hiriya Chamaraja II1478-1513

Hiriya Bettada Chamaraja III

1513-1553

Timmaraja II1553-1572

Vijayanagara broken up by Moghuls, 1565

Bola Chamaraja IV1572-1576

Bettada Devaraja1576-1578

Raja Wadiyar1578-1617

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

While, Islâm came to India in great measure in the person of Mah.mûd of Ghazna, this progressed to permanent occupation under his successors, the Ghûrids. Their viceroys in India, originally from slave troops like the Mamlûks in Egypt, drifted into independence at the beginning of the 13th century. These "Slave Kings" thus founded the Sult.ânate of Delhi. This began an Islâmic domination of India, especially the North of India and the Ganges Valley, that lasted until the advent of the British.

The consequences of the Islâmic conquest of India can hardly be underestimated. Up to a quarter of all Indians ended up converting to Islâm. Buddhism disappeared. Some of the greatest monuments of Indian architecture, like the Taj Mahal, really reflect Persian and Central Asian civilization rather than Indian. Indian Moslems became accustomed, as was their right under Islâmic Law, to be ruled by a Moslem power. In practical terms, that meant that they did not want to be ruled by Hindus, when and if India should become independent. Today, the separation of Pakistan and Bangladesh from the Republic of India, with ongoing strife between them, and the occasional riot between Hindus and Moslems in India itself, are all the result of this.

Mysore (Mahisur, Maysûr, Mahishûru, Mysuru) began as a dependancy of the rulers of the Deccan to the North. In 1100, in the days of the Châlukyas of Kalyân.î, Mysore became independent under the dynasty that had been in place since the 6th or 7th century. However, after the passage of the Sultâns of Delhi, Mysore then became a dependency of the Vijayanagara kingdom that was established in 1336. The Wodeyar Dynasty was a cadet line of Vijayanagara. The subordination of Mysore was broken up after Vijayanagara was defeated by the Moghuls in 1565. Moghul rule, such as it was, seems to have ebbed and flowed in presence and affectiveness. The domination by Aurangzeb was certainly a brief one, after which Mysore was independent.

Mysore lost its traditional Hindu rule and became a center of conflict when its own general, H.aydar Alî, who had defeated the Marathans, seized power in his own right. The Râjâs were retained as figureheads until deposed in 1796 by H.aydar's son, the celebrated Tîpû. The rule of these Muslim warriors quickly led to repeated conflict with the British. H.aydar Alî became an active ally of the French in the War of American

SULT.ÂNS OF DELHI (DILHÎ)

Mu'izzî or Shamsî Slave Kings

Aybak Qut.b adDîn

Malik in Lahorefor Ghûrids,1206-1210

Ârâm Shâh 1210-1211

Iltutmish Shams adDîn

Sult.ân in Delhi,1211-1236

Fîrûz Shâh I 1236

Rad.iyya BegumSult.âna,1236-1240

Bahrâm Shâh 1240-1242

Mas'ûd Shâh 1242-1246

Mah.mud Shâh I 1246-1266

Balban Ulugh Khân

viceroysince 1246

1266-1287

Kay Qubâdh 1287-1290

Kayûmarth 1290

Khaljîs

Fîrûz Shâh II Khaljî

1290-1296

Ibrâhîm Shâh IQadïr Khân

1296

Muh.ammad Shâh I'Alî Garshâsp

1296-1316

'Umar Shâh 1316

Mubârak Shâh 1316-1320

Khusraw Khân Barwârî

1320

Tughluqids

Tughluq Shâh I 1320-1325

Muh.ammad Shâh II

1325-1351

Fîrûz Shâh III 1351-1388

Tughluq Shâh II 1388-1389

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Independence, 1778-1783 (the Second Anglo-Mysore War, 1780-1784), but his invasion of Madras, with some French troops, was defeated. However, after his death (1782), Tîpû crushed a British force of 2000, killing 500 and taking the rest prisoner. This made him the "Tiger of Mysore." Tîpû amused himself with a six-foot long mechanical figure of a tiger gnawing at the throat of an Englishman and snarling at the turn of a crank.

Continuing with the enemies of his enemy, Tîpû entered into relations with Revolutionary France, whose rationalists, deists, and atheists curiously found a kindred spirit in a fanatical and tyrannical Muslim -- a dynamic we may see today in the affinity of the Left for Islamic Fascism. When Napoleon landed in Egypt in 1798, it looked like help might be on the way; but there really wasn't much that the French Republic could do for "Citizen Tipu." The British whittled away at Tîpû's realm until he was killed in 1799. The Wodeyar Râjâs were restored, doubtless with some relief to Hindus who had undergone forced conversion and circumcision by Tîpû.

On the map of India in 1236, the Sult.ânate of Delhi has completed its conquest of the North of India, all the way down the Ganges to the Bay of Bengal. Although the fortunes of the state will vary, this area will generally be preserved until the coming of the Moghuls.

This map is based on Stanley Wolpert [op.cit.]; but the following map, and those of Harsha and of Chola above, are based on maps in The Harper Atlas of World History [Pierre

Vidal-Naquet, Editor, Jacques Bertin, Cartographer, Harper & Row, New York, 1986, p.117]. In assembly information for the maps on this page, this is the only source I have that shows Chola or the Sult.ânate at its high water mark.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

On the map for

1335, we see the Sult.ânate of Delhi astride the whole Sub-Continent. This is the largest Indian state in a long time, if not the largest ever. But it will not last long.

The following map below, for 1350, indicates the kingdoms in the South that are the result of the earlier states (like Maharashtra and Chola) being broken up by Delhi, which, then unable to remain dominant in the area, was driven out.

We also see the routes travelled by Zheng He, the Chinese admiral who led seven great voyages of exploration, trade, and military intervention during the early days of the Ming Dynasty, from 1405 to 1433. The military intervention became less a factor the further West we get. It was intense in Indonesia, where considerable battles were fought and kings were made -- or sent back to China for execution. A Chinese base was established and fortified at Malacca. In Ceylon, we still get some intervention, with King Vira Alakeshvara of Raigama (1397-1411) captured and sent back to China. But the Emperor apologized for this, and returned the King to Ceylon (though not, apparently, to his throne). Further West, trade and embassies seem to have been the rule. All this stopped abruptly in 1433, as China withdrew from foreign contact. When the Portuguese arrived in 1498, the Chinese were long gone.

The kingdom of Vijayanagar, based in the area of Kannada speakers again (stretching East in Telugu speaking country), originates in

Vijayanagar

SANGAMA

Harihara I1336-1356

Bukka I1356-1377

Harihara II1377-1404

Virupaksha I1404-1405

Bukka II1405-1406

Devaraya I1406-1422

Rama-chandra

1422-1430

Vira Vijaya IBukka Raya

1422-1424

Devaraya II1424-1446

Vijaya II1446-1447

Mallikarjuna1446-1465

Virupaksha II1465-1485

Praudha Raya 1485

SALUVA

Narasimha-devaraya

1485-1490

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

revolt against the Sult.ânate of Delhi, which only briefly dominated the South, but nevertheless broke up the older powers in the area. Vijayanagar reestablishes local independence. It will continue dominant until the arrival of the Moghuls. We do not, however, see a simple conquest any cleaner than what Delhi had managed to accomplish in the same area. In 1565, Akbar defeated and disrupted the power of the state, but the result was not Moghul occupation. Instead, a cadet line of Vijayanagar at Mysore begins to overshadow its parent state, as recounted above and shown on the maps below. By the time Aurangzeb returned to briefly conquer the area, Vijayanagar had faded away. In 1646 the capital itself was seized by the Sult.âns of Bijapur and Golkonda. The last king, Venkatapati II, was thus himself an exile in some small fragment of the

former kingdom.

Sikhism, from Pâli sikkha (Sanskrit shis.ya), "follower," was a new religion, founded in the days of the Sult.ânate of Delhi, that attempted to reconcile and replace Hinduism and Islâm. Although there are some 18 million Sikhs today, this never made much of a dent in the numbers of Hindus or Moslems, and long earned the Sikhs little but hostility from both. After the Fifth Gurû ("Teacher") was executed by the Moghuls, the Sixth rejected Moghul authority and was forced to flee to the mountains. When the Ninth Gurû was later again executed by the Moghuls, the Tenth, Gobind Râi, took things a step further by transforming the community into an army, the Khâlsâ, "Pure."

Every Sikh became a Singh, "Lion." The succession of Gurûs was then ended.

At first this transformation did not seem to improve things much. Gobind Singh and his temporal successor, Bandâ Singh Bahâdur, both died violent deaths, and the community fragmented. But with the decline of Moghul power, opportunity knocked. The Khâlsâ was soon again unified and installed in Lahore, under Ranjît Singh, who became Mahârâjâ of the Punjab. Henceforth the Sikhs, although never more than a minority, were the greatest military power in northern India. The death of Ranjît, however, led to a chaotic succession and conflict among his heirs. Two sharp wars with the British led to the annexation of the Punjab, after which Sikh warlike ambitions could be directed through membership in the British Indian Army, where the Sikhs stood out with their characteristic turbans and beards.

Sikh Gurûs

1 Nânak 1469-1539

2 An.gad 1539-1552

3 Amar Dâs 1552-1574

4 Râm Dâs Sod.hi 1574-1581

5 Arjun Mal 1581-1606

6 Hargobind 1606-1644

7 Har Râi 1644-1661

8 Hari Krishen 1661-1664

9 Tegh Bahâdur 1664-1675

10 Gobind Râi Singh 1675-1708

Khâlsâ, 1699

Bandâ Singh Bahâdur 1708-1716

Khâlsâ Râj, Punjab, 1761

Ranjît Singh 1780-1839

Kharak Singh 1839-1840

Nao Nehal Singh 1840

Chand Kaur 1840-1841

Sher Singh 1841-1843

Duleep Singh1843-1849,d. 1893

First Sikh War, 1845-1846;Second Sikh War, 1848-1849;annexed by British, 1849

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

In modern India a movement began for Sikh independence from India, with the Indian Punjab becoming Khâlistân. Led by Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrânwale, this led to a catastrophic showdown in 1984 when the Golden Temple in Armitsar, the fortified center of the Sikh Faith, was stormed by the Indian Army, and Bhindrânwale killed. When Prime Minister Indria Gandhi was assassinated later the same year by Sikh bodyguards, few doubted that this was an act of revenge. Sikh nationalism continues to trouble India.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Moghul, , is Persian (Mughûl in Arabic) for "Mongol" -- although the Moghuls were rather more Turkish than Mongol. An alternative pronunciation in Persian is Moghol, which, with a different final vowel, would give a Hindi-Urdu

pronunciation of Mughal -- written in Urdu,

in Hindi -- which now tends to be used by historians. However, Persian was the Court language of the Moghuls themselves. "Mughal" would be strange to them, as Hindi-Urdu, or Hindustani, was simply the language that ended up adopted as the language of their army -- as it remained the language of command in the British Indian Army. It has gone on, of course, to be the principal language of India, although it is used as a first language mainly in the North.

Pretensions to universal rule, which figure in Indian mythology, in Persian imperial tradition, and in the titles of earlier Indian rulers, are reflected in many of the actual names of Moghul emperors. "Akbar" in Arabic is "Greatest." "Jahângir" in Persian means to "seize" (gir) the "world" (jahân). "Shâh Jahân" is also Persian for "World King." "'Âlamgir" and "Shah 'Âlam" both simply substitute the Arabic word for "world," 'âlam, for the Persian word. As the Moghul state decays in the 18th century, of course, these names and pretentions become increasingly farcical.

Almost from the first, Moghul policy was to tolerate and win the cooperation of Hindus, especially the warriors of Rajasthan. With Akbar this approached a policy of positive toleration and religious syncretism, which earned Akbar the disfavor of Moslem clerics but, like Ashoka, the esteem of modern liberal opinion. Akbar even toyed with the idea of a universal syncretistic religion, to be called the Din-e Allâh, the "Religion of God." This was rather like what the Sikhs has originally been trying to do. But while Hinduism was always open to various kinds of syncretism, Islâm certainly was not.

MOGHUL EMPERORS

Great Moghuls

Bâbur

1498-1500,1500-1501in Transoxania

1526-1530

Humâyûn1530-1540,1555-1556

Akbar I 1556-1605

Jahângîr 1605-1627

Dâwar Bakhsh 1627-1628

Shâh Jahân I Khusraw

1628-1657,d. 1666

Awrangzîb 'Âlamgîr I 1658-1707

Shâh 'Âlam I Bahâdur 1707-1712

Jahândâr Mu'izz adDîn 1712-1713

Farrukh-siyar 1713-1719

Shams adDînRâfi' adDarajât

1719

Shâh Jahân IIRâfi' adDawla

1719

Nîkû-siyar Muh.ammad 1719

Muh.ammad ShâhNâs.ir adDîn

1719-1748

Looting of Delhi by Nâdir Shâh, 1739

Ah.mad Bahâdur Shâh I 1748-1754

'Azîz adDîn 'Âlamgîr II 1754-1759

Shâh Jahân III 1759

Shâh 'Âlam II1759-1788,1788-1806

Diwani of Bengal granted to East India Company, 1765; Marathans eject Afghans from Delhi, 1770

Bîdâr-bakht 1788

Mu'în adDîn Akbar II 1806-1837

Moghul authority replaced by Britain, 1827; English replaces Persian, 1828; Suttee illegal, 1829; suppression of Thugee launched, 1836

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Even the most basic elements of Moghul policy, however, were reversed by the fanatical Awrangzîb (or Aurangzeb), who briefly brought the Empire to its greatest extent but whose measures against Hindus and Sikhs (the execution of the ninth Sikh Gurû) fatally weakened the state. Non-Moslems no longer had any reason to support the Moghuls, and in short order the Empire was only a shell of its former strength and vigor, with the Persians sacking Delhi itself (1739), under the Emperor, Muh.ammad Shâh, who had done somewhat well at maintaining things.

Henceforth, the shell of Moghul authority would stand just until a new conquering power would appear. After a surge of French influence under their brilliant governor Joseph Dupleix (d.1763), that turned out to be the British, who, however, only gradually conceived the notion of actually replacing nominal Moghul authority with an explicit British Dominion in India. Although the last Moghul was deposed in 1858, the full process was not complete until Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of Indian in 1876. The British Râj would then last exactly 71 more years -- testimony to the rapidity of modern events after the 332 years of the Moghuls. How durable the British heritage will be is a good question. The form of government in India, which has in general remained democratic, is far more British than that of other former British possessions. And English, with its own distinctive Indian accent and vocabulary, remains the only official

language of the country that

The maps of Moghul India begin to feature European colonial possessions. Portugal is first, and for a good while they have the scene to themselves. Goa is the center of the operation, which then would extend all the way to China and Japan. St. Francis Xavier (d.1552) entered Japan and learned Japanese, and his reportedly incorrupt body is now still enshrined at Goa. Although nearly lost among the billion people of India, a fair number of Catholics survive from Portuguese missionary

activity, often with Portuguese names, like D'Souza. Famous Portuguese missionaries in China, like Matteo Ricci (d.1610), also passed through Goa. The Kingdom of Kandy in Ceylon came to be in a rebellion against the Portuguese (1590) and then would survive in the mountains all through the Dutch tenure on the island, until the British took over (1815).

Until this point the maps of Imperial domains in India are based on Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford University Press, 1989]. Now, however, they are largely based on the The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume I [1974, Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann,

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor] and Volume II [1978], and the Historical Atlas of

the World [Barnes & Noble,

A century after Akbar, as the Moghul Empire totters a moment before falling, things are getting a bit crowded, with Britain, the Dutch, the French, and even the Danes piling on. One of the earliest British toeholds was Bombay, which was actually a gift from Portugal in the dowry of Catherine of Braganza when she married Charles II of England in 1664. In 1701, it looks like the Dutch have the strongest hold, but as the 18th century progressed, and the Moghul domain crumbled,

France and Britain would become the principal rivals for hegemony.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

The genealogy of the Moghuls is entirely from The New Islamic Dynasties, by Clifford Edmund Bosworth [Edinburgh University Press, 1996]. Some brief reigns given by Bosworth, which are so ephemeral as not to figure in most lists of the Moghuls, including the table above, are marked as "disputed." Otherwise, the title, Pâdishâh, "Emperor," and an imperial crown are given. The most memorable monument of the Moghuls is the Tâj Mahal, "Crown Palace." Shâh Jahân built this mausoleum in tribute to his favorite wife, Mumtâz-i-Mahal, "Select of the Palace" (in Persian, this would be pronounced Momtâz-e-Mahal -- mumtâz is Arabic [root myz] and can mean "distinguished," "exquisite," "select," "excellent," etc.), the mother of Aurangzeb. He lies there now with her, but his reign did not end well. He became ill and his sons then fell out among themselves, until Aurangzeb, the last of the Great Moghuls, gained control -- and imprisoned Shâh Jahân for the rest of his life.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

One might say that Aurangzeb ruled with such force that the Empire shattered in his hands. For a good while, as the realm broke up, the Throne was passed between brothers and cousins. Some stability was achieved when it no longer made much difference. The last, aging Moghul,

Bahâdur Shâh II, threw his lot

The gravest, indeed the fatal, blow to the Moghul imperium was the disaffection of warlike Hindu people like the Rajputs and the Marathis. The Marathans were already in revolt under Sivaji I the Great, and Aurangzeb was only able to put them down with difficulty. Shambhuji I was tortured and killed in 1689. After furious resistance and battles, Aurangzeb could claim victory; but after his death and the release from captivity of Shahu I, Marathan power recovered quickly and a large part of central India was lost to the Moghuls forever. Although the Marathan domain is often called an "Empire," we also see it called merely a "Confederacy." This may indicate some difficulties in holding the domain together, which ultimately rendered it less powerful than its extent might indicate. We also get the curious circumstance that Shahu I began to leave the responsibilities of government to his minister, Balaji Vishvanath. The line of ministers, the Peshwas, come to exercise the rule of the Marathan domain, which is

sometimes then said to simply be the realm "of the Peshwas." In three wars between 1776 and 1818, the British defeated the Marathans and annexed a good part of their territory.

Maratha (Mahratta) Confederacy/Empire

Chattrapatis, Kings

Sivaji I the Great 1674-1680

Shambhuji I 1680-1689

Rajaram I 1689-1700

defeat and occupation by the Moghuls, 1700

Tara Bai regent,1700-1708

Chattrapatis, Kings Peshwas, Ministers

Shahu I 1708-1749

Balaji Vishvanath 1713-1720

Baji Rao I 1720-1740

Balaji Baji Rao 1740-1761

Ramaraja II 1749-1777

Madhava Rao Ballal 1761-1772

defeated by Afghans,battle of Panipat, 1761,occupation of Delhi, 1770

Narayan Rao 1772-1773

Raghunath Rao 1773-1774

Madhava Rao Narayan 1774-1796

Shahu II 1777-1808Chimnaji Appa 1796

Baji Rao II 1796-1818Pratap Singh 1808-1839

Shahji Raja 1839-1848

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

 With the Marathans astride the sub-continent in 1756, we are just past the moment of the maximum influence of the French, who had greatly extended their possessons and influence under Joseph François Dupleix (d.1763). Dupleix engineered French candidates into the offices of Nawwâb of the Carnatic, the coast around the French city of Pondichéry (and threatening to the British city of Madras), and of S.ûbadâr of Hyderabad. When Dupleix defeated the Nawwâb Anwar ud-Din's army of 8000-10,000 men with only 450 French troops in 1744, this opened the eyes of Europeans to the relative weakness of Indian military strength and, subsequently, the ease with which the politics of Indian states could be maniplated or dominated.

Both the Nawwâb Anwar ud-Din of the Carnatic and the S.ûbadâr Nâs.ir Jang of Hyderabad were killed in battle with the French allied to pretenders to their positions. French forces were sent with Muz.affar Jang to support his government in Hyderabad. However, in 1752 their candidate for the Carnatic, Chanda Sahib, was defeated in battle, surrendered, and then was executed by the British candidate, Muhammad 'Ali, who would then rule under British protection for many years.

By 1756, Dupleix had been recalled (in 1754), and his policies repudiated. His job, after all, was to make money, not to make war on the English or take over Indian states. He had done this with some justification during the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) but his aggressive actions had continued after the Peace. This was a problem, and, indeed, the adventure in Hyderabad never did make any money for the French.

In retrospect, Dupleix's recall looks ill considered, as the Seven Years War (1756-1763) was about to begin; the local French forces would need to make war on the English; and France would need as strong a position as possible to do that. She wasn't going to have it, and the British would be just as victorious in the war in India as in the Americas. But that is in hindsight. Back in France in 1754, it would not have been appreciated that Dupleix had created a whole new dynamic in Indian history. Formerly, Moghul authority continued to external appearances and Europeans approached local officials deferentially with nothing but trade privileges in mind. Now, with some exceptions and setbacks, the European traders could make and unmake local authorities at will. This was at first discovered and exploited by the French, but the British would prove far better and

Nawwâbs of theCarnatic, at Arcot

Zulf'iqar 'Ali Khan

c.1690-1703

Da'ud Khan1703-1710

Muhammad Sa'adat-Allah Khan I

1710-1732

Dost 'Ali Khan1732-1740

Safdar 'Ali Khan

1740-1742

Sa'adat-Allah Khan II

1742-1744

Anwar ud-Din Muhammad

1744-1749

defeated by the French, 1744; defeated by the French & killed, 1749

Chanda Sahib1749-1752

installed by the French under Dupleix, 1749; defeated by the British, surrendered, executed, 1752

Wala Jah Muhammad 'Ali

1749-1795

installed & supported by the British

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

more successful at the game.

Originally the Moghul governors of Bengal, the decline of Moghul power resulted in effective independence for the Nawwâbs. The clash with British power, however, spelled the end of independence and the beginning of British India. Clive became the effective founder of the British Empire in India, and the Battle of Plassey, 1757, where Clive defeated and dethroned the Nawwâb of Bengal, Sirâj adDawla, was one of the supreme moments of British Imperial history.

In 1765, Clive obtained from the Moghul Emperor Shâh 'Âlam II, who was a fugitive in British care, a grant of the Diwani, or revenue responsiblity for the province of Bengal. This made the British East India Company, as the Diwan of Bengal, part of the consitutional order of the Moghul Empire, and it is often considered the beginning of British

Rule, the "Râj," , in India. However, Clive had no intention of replacing the Nawwâbs, and the Company intended to leave local officials in place to collect the actual revenues of Bengal. This was consistent with Clive's previous policy of supporting local rule, when he installed Mîr Qâsim as Nawwâb in 1760. Mîr Qâsim was a competent ruler, but, after Clive left, he was essentially doubled-crossed by the enemies of both himself and Clive, manueuvered into a war, and then driven from Bengal. The incompetent Mîr Ja'far was restored, evidently with the intention of employing him only as a puppet. Clive, on his return, could not undo this coup, but he did try to retain the Nawwâb as a real factor in the governance of Bengal, with the East India Company as Dîwân.

The Nawwâb at least remained so in name until 1880, when Mansur Ali Khan, the last Nawwâb of Bengal, was deposed. His son, however, Hassan Ali Mirza Khan Bahadur, succeeded with the title Nawwâb of Murshidabad. The titular line of Nawwâbs actually continued until 1969, when the main line died out and the succession was left in dispute.

Bengal became one of the three "Presidencies" through which direct British rule in India was effected (with different arrangements for the Princely States, which remained nominally under

Nawwâbs of Bengal, 1704-1765

Murshid Qulî Khân 'Alâ' adDawla

1704-1725

Shujâ' Khân Shujâ' adDawla 1725-1739

Sarfarâz Khân 'Alâ' adDawla 1739-1740

'Alîwirdî Khân Hâshim adDawla

1740-1756

Mîrzâ Mah.mûd Sirâj adDawla 1756-1757

Defeated & dethroned by Robert Clive,Battle of Plassey, 1757

Mîr Ja'far Muh.ammad KhânHâshim adDawla

1757-17601763-1765

Mîr Qâsim 'Alî 1760-1763

Najm ud-Dawlah 1765-1766

Saif ud-Dawlah 1766-1770

British East India Company Rule,1765-1858, Presidency of Calcutta;Nawwâbs continue as pensioners

Robert CliveGovernor,1755-1760,1764-1767

Henry Vansittart 1760-1764

First Anglo-Mysore War, 1766-1769

Henry Verelst 1767-1769

John Cartier 1769-1772

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

local rule). The others were Bombay and Madras. However, Bengal was also the seat of general British authority; and when the Governor of Bengal became the actual Governor-General of India, his seat continued to be in Calcutta. The capital of India was not moved to Delhi until rather late in British rule, in 1912. New Delhi became the capital in 1931.

The British conquest of India was the first that progressed up rather than down the Ganges. Previous invasions had all come from Central Asia over the Hindu Kush and the Khyber Pass. This had happened so often, beginning with the Arya in the 2nd millennium BC, that is rather difficult to say just how many such invasions were there. The British, however, like all the European powers, had come by sea. Where the Persians or the Afghans, most recently, would head straight for Delhi, the British were coming up all the way from Calcutta. They wouldn't get

to Delhi until 1803.

The situation in India in 1780 was with the British poised for conquest. At that point, wars had already been fought with Mysore and with the Marathans. More would come. The Punjab, in the distance, would be a project for some years later. Meanwhile, The French would shortly be down to four cities, which they would surrender to the newly independent India in 1947. The Portuguese, from their former hegemony, were reduced to three possessions, which they would retain until forcibly

taken by India in 1961. The two Danish cities were sold to Britain in 1845. The British were unwilling to pay for the Danish Nicobar Islands, but then, after the Danes had left in 1837, they complained about piracy there. The Danes returned 1845-1848. After Denmark renounced sovereignty in 1868, the British occupied the islands.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

The next step in the evolution of British government in India occurred in 1772, when Warren Hastings, as the first British Governor General of India, moved to take over in all its details the functions of the Diwani, the revenue collection, of Bengal. At the same time, the British also informally took over the Nizamat, the criminal and police administration of Bengal, including the courts, leaving the Nawwâb with no remaining public duties. He was, however, left unmolested with his pension at the capital of Murshidabad. The Nizamat was not formally assumed by the Company until 1793.

Hastings thus inaugurates de facto direct Birtish rule over India, even if it is still really only the East India Company, and even if the fiction of Moghul sovereignty is retained for a while. British rule is often called "the Raj," from the Sanskrit and Hindi-Urdu word for "King." This is written

in Urdu and in Hindi. There is no reason not to call the regime of the Moghuls or Guptas "the Raj" also, but the term seems to be restricted to the British dominion.

The very odd thing about this period is the ambiguity about just who owned British possessions in India and who the real sovereign authority was. The British constitutional authority in Bengal under Hastings was still based on authorizations from the Moghul Emperors. Some fiction of Moghul sovereignty was maintained at least until 1827 -- although the Moghul Emperor himself had been living under British rule since 1803. In 1813, when the charter of the East India Company was renewed, the British Parliament did formally assert the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Company's territories in India. This unilateral declaration, although recognized after 1815 by other European powers, was less obviously asserted in India itself. Lord Hastings did not meet with the Emperor Akbar II in 1814 because the Emperor expected to receive the Governor-General as a vassal rather than an equal. It would then be in Akbar's reign that most of the remaining signs of Moghul sovereignty would be

British Governors-General of India

Warren HastingsGovernor-General1772-1785

First Anglo-Maratha War, 1776-1782; Second Anglo-Mysore War, 1780-1784

John MacPherson 1785-1786

Lord Cornwallis1786-1793& 1805

Third Anglo-Mysore War, 1789-1792

Sir John Shore 1793-1798

Lord Mornington 1798-1805

Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, 1798–1799; Second Anglo-Maratha War, 1803-1805

Sir G. Barlow 1805-1807

Lord Minto 1807-1813

Lord Moira(Lord Hastings)

1813-1823

Gurkha War, 1814-1816; Third Anglo-Maratha War, 1817-1818

Lord Amherst 1823-1828

First Burmese War, 1824-1826; Moghul authority replaced by Britain, 1827

Lord Bentinick 1828-1835

English replaces Persian, 1828; Suttee illegal, 1829; name of Moghul Emperor removed from coinage, 1835

Lord Metcalfe 1835-1836

Lord Auckland 1836-1842

suppression of Thugee launched, 1836; First Afghan War, 1839-1842

Earl of Ellenborough 1842-1844

Lord Hardinge 1844-1848

First Sikh War, 1845-1846

Earl of Dalhousie 1848-1856

Second Sikh War, 1848-1849; Punjab annexed, 1849; Second Burmese War, 1852; Oudh annexed, 1856

Lord Canning

1856-1858

Viceroy,

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

stripped away. The Moghul court language, Persian, was replaced by English in 1828. Originally British Indian coins simply said "East India Company." In 1835, the face of the King of England (William IV) began appearing on East India Company coins. The ambiguities were not all settled until 1858, when the Last Moghul, Bahâdur Shâh II, was deposed (he had sided with the Mutineers), the East India Company was abolished, and the Governor-General became the Viceroy, the sovereign agent for Queen Victoria. Nevertheless, another ambiguity continued, which is what kind of entity India was, simply a "Crown Colony" or something else? This was cleared up in 1876, when Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India, meaning that India itself was an Empire, as it was presumed to be under the Moghuls. Thus, the slow process was

completed by

The slow progress of claims to sovereignty may indicate the ambivalent nature of the British presence in India. They really were there just to make some money; and the very idea that the British would rule in India like Ashoka or Akbar was something that was both foreign and repugnant to a great deal of British public opinion. The Whigs and their successors, the Liberals, were never happy about British "imperialism." In this era an interesting example of the controversy was the impeachment (1787) and prosecution (1788-1795) of Warren Hastings, the first formal Governor-General of India, after his return home. This was led by Edmund Burke and other Whig leaders, charging that Hastings had been a corrupt tyrant exploiting and victimizing the people of India. While many would now think of the whole British sojourn in India as of that nature, and there is no doubt that in the 1770's and '80's there was a bit of a Wild West feel to many who wanted to make their fortune in the country, Hastings himself actually seems to have been relatively conscientious and benevolent. The fury of Burke's attacks and the extraordinary length of the trial may have helped generate positive sympathy for Hastings -- the cartoon shows him literally attacked by, from left to right, Burke, Lord North, and another Whig leader, Charles James Fox. He was acquited. The whole business, however,

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

exposes such uncertainties as can never have troubled the likes of Mahmud of Ghazna or Bâbur the Great Moghul.

Two remarkable undertakings in this period were the suppression of Suttee and of Thugee. Suttee was the burning of widows on the pyres of their husbands. This was supposed to be voluntary, as an act of devotion, as Sita did for her husband Rama in the Epic Ramayana (though a correspondent has denied this), but it mainly became an act of murder, by which the husband's family could rid themselves of an unwanted daughter-in-law (now I hear the claim that it was only done to protect widows from rape by British soldiers -- though the murder of daughters-in-law and widows is not unheard of in recent India). The Thugs were devotees of the goddess Kali, who murdered and then robbed in her name (the practice of Thugee). Since the Thugs were a secret society, exposing and arresting them was a more difficult and protracted process. That these practices were worthy of suppression provides an interesting subject for arguments about cultural relativism. At the time they did raise fears that the British intended to replace native religion with Christianity, which helped provoke the Great Mutiny.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Oudh was a Moghul province that drifted into independence. The growth of British influence after 1764 led to a treaty in 1801 that required "sound government." British judgment that there wasn't such government became the pretext for deposing the king and imposing direct British rule in 1856. This and other resentments over British rule in India helped spark the Great Mutiny of British Sepoy (i.e. Indian) troups in 1857-1858 -- "sepoy" is the Ango-Indian rendering of sipâhî in Persian, which simply meant "soldier." Oudh was a center of the rebellion. The British were besieged in Cawnpore and Lucknow. The siege of Cawnpore ended in a massacre of the whole British garrison, women and children included -- to which the British retaliated with their own massacre later. The siege of Lucknow ended better. One relief force simply joined the besieged, then another rescued the garrison but abandoned the city. Finally the city was retaken in 1858. This all led to a transformation of British rule in India, with the East India Company being disbanded and the Royal Government taking responsibility for the country.

Convicted Mutineers were often "blown from the guns," i.e. strapped to the mouth of a cannon that was then fired, tearing the body of the condemned apart. I long thought that this appalling practice was invented on the spot out of a spirit of savage, Imperial(ist) vengeance on the part of the British. However, such a form of execution had always been used in the British Indian Army, and it was actually inherited from the Moghuls. This reveals another ambivalence about British rule in India. On the one hand, the British were themselves appalled by many traditional practices in the country, where Moghul courts often inflicted the death penalty, for instance, in the form of impalement. One English officer asked, "How much longer are we to be outraged by the sight of writhing humanity on stakes?" [Sir Penderel Moon, The British Conquest and Dominion of India, Duckworth, Indiana University Press, 1989, pp.155-156]. On the other hand, it would be some time before it was believed proper simply

to impose European sensibilities on the country and reform the government and judiciary on 18th century Enlightenment or 19th century Liberal principles. Thus, even when the East India Company began to take over the courts of Bengal, Islamic law continued for some time to be applied, as under the Moghuls. Although the imposition of British values offends cultural relativism and now seems a salient and offensive characteristic of British rule in India, most objections to the Raj even now tend to revolve around features of the regime inherited from the

Nawwâbs & Kings of Oudh(Awadh), 1722-1856

Sa'âdat Khân Burhân alMulk

1722-1739

Abû Mans.ûr KhânS.afdâr Jang

1739-1754

H.aydar Shujâ' adDawla

1754-1775

Âs.af adDawla 1775-1797

Wazîr 'Alî1797-1798,d. 1817

deposed by British

Sa'âdat 'Alî Khân 1798-1814

H.aydar I Ghâzî adDîn

1814-1827;King, 1819

H.aydar II Sulaymân Jâh

1827-1837

Muh.ammad 'Alî Mu'în adDîn

1837-1842

Amjad 'Alî Thurayyâ Jâh

1842-1847

Wâjid 'Alî1847-1856;d. 1887

Deposed by British, Oudh annexed to British India, 1856; Great Sepoy Mutiny, 1857-1858

Barjîs Qadïr1857, during the Mutiny

British Rule, 1858-1947

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Moghuls. The very idea of foreign conquest and rule being wrong, for instance, by which the whole British presence in India can be condemned, is itself a supremely Liberal judgment, unrelated to any value from traditional India. Nothing would have been so traditional as for Queen Victoria to have proclaimed herself, not the Empress, but the Chakravartin -- certainly apt for a ruler who possessed a realm upon which the Sun Never Set. Thus, it is shocking to think of Mutineers being "blown from the guns," but who are we to ethnocentrically criticize traditional Indian practices? [irony]

Hyderabad, originally most of the Deccan plateau, was another Moghul province (under a s.ûbadâr) that drifted into independence. Despite the collapse of Moghul power, becoming surrounded by the British, and becoming allies of the British against states like Mysore, the Niz.âms still listed the Moghul Emperors on their coins all the way until the end of the line in 1858. British sovereignty was not acknowledged until 1926. Although Hyderabad was relatively improverished compared to the surrounding British territories, the last Niz.âm eventually accumulated enough wealth to be considered the richest man in the world -- he was called that by Time magazine in 1937. His throne did not outlive British rule by long. When India was partitioned, the Moslem Niz.âm toyed with independence, going with Pakistan, or some kind of loose relationship with India. Since Hyaderabad was landlocked and surrounded by India, and was overwhelmingly Hindu, the new Dominion of India, ironically with King George VI of England still as official Head of State, already fighting with Pakistan over Kashmir, soon invaded and attached Hyderabad to India by force. The Niz.âm himself, however, lived out a respected and active life in India.

Oudh and Hyderabad are distinguished by color on the map below. A striking microcosm of the effect of British rule was the difference between the economic development of Hyderabad and that of the adjacent coast, under direct British rule. Although these encompassed the same Telugu speaking Hindu people and were included in the same state of Andhra Pradesh on independence, the greater economic development of the British area resulted in complaints from Hyderabadis that they were being taken over, exploited, etc. by migrants from the coast. The result was political moves to create preferential policies for the natives of Hyderabad. That the "exploited" colonial area is more economically developed than the area left to traditional rule is something that should not be surprising, but it is if all one has done is read Leninist economics [see Thomas Sowell, Preferential Policies, An International Perspective, "Andhra Pradesh," pp.65-69, William Morrow & Co., 1990]. Hyderabad is an important case to demonstrate that

Niz.âms of Hyderabad,(Haydarâbâd) 1720-1948

Chin Qïlïch KhânNiz.âm alMulk

1720-1748

Nâs.ir Jang 1748-1750

overthrown by the French, under Dupleix, killed in battle, 1750

Muz.affar Jang 1751-1752

installed by the French,under Dupleix

S.alâbat Jang 1752-1762

installed by the French,under Dupleix

Niz.âm 'Alî Khân 1762-1803

Sikandar Jâh 1803-1829

Farkhanda 'Alî KhânNâs.ir adDawla

1829-1857

Mîr Mah.bûb 'Ali IAfd.al adDawla

1857-1869

Mîr Mah.bûb 'Ali II 1869-1911

Mîr 'Uthmân 'Alî KhânBahâdur Fath. Jang

1911-1948,d.1967

Annexation byDominion of India, 1948

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

economic development can vary with history even where race, language, culture, and religion are otherwise identical.

The map shows the growth of British India from 1805 to the time of the Mutiny in 1858. At first, direct British rule already extends from Bengal all the way up the Ganges to Delhi (where a fiction of Moghul sovereignty persists) and down the East coast to Ceylon. By 1858, extensive areas have been added, notably the Punjab and into Burma. Oudh is also a recent acquisition, distinguished for its importance in the Mutiny. The yellow areas contain Princely States that are British dependents by treaty.

Most would remain so until the end of British rule, a reluctance for further annexations having overcome the British after the Mutiny. However, on the eve of Indian Independence, the Princes would be rather bluntly informed that their territories were indeed going to be annexed, either to India or Pakistan. Their existence had become an anachronism. Such government was all that existed in the 18th century, but the British, by leaving them in place, had inadvertently managed to preserve them as living fossils into a very different age. Some people began to think that the British kept them in place just to make fun of them. Fossils or not, their actions were not always without contemporary consequences. The choice of the Hindu ruler of the majority Muslim Kashmir to go with India led to wars, tensions, and terrorism that persist until today.

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

In explicitly assuming the sovereignty of India, Queen Victoria assured her new Subjects that their religions would be respected. The British had been shaken, however, and units of the Indian Army, for instance, were never again trusted with artillery.

The list of British Viceroys was originally compiled from The British Conquest and Dominion of India, Sir Penderel Moon [Duckworth, Indiana University Press, 1989]. Lord Reading was actually Jewish, probably the highest ranking Jew in the history of the British Empire, where the Viceroy of India, always raised to the Peerage for his office, held the highest Office of State next to the Throne itself.

When India became independent in 1947, it legally became a British Dominion, which means that the King of England was still the formal Head of State. Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy, was asked by Jawaharlal Nehru, the new Prime Minister, to stay on as Governor-General of the Dominion. There was then only one Indian Governor-General before the country was declared a Republic in 1950. The first Governor-General of Pakistan, which similarly became a Dominion, was the Moslem nationalist leader, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah died of cancer in 1948, and there were several Pakistani Governors-General before the country became a

Republic in 1956.

BRITISHEMPERORS

OF INDIA

Viceroys & Governors-General of India

Victoria

Queen,1858-1901

Lord Elgin 1862-1863

Lord Lawrence 1863-1869

Duar War, withBhutan, 1864-1865

Lord May 1869-1872

Lord Northbrook 1872-1876

Empress,1876-1901

Lord Lytton 1876-1880

Second Afghan War,1878-1881

Lord Rippon 1880-1884

Lord Dufferin 1884-1888

Lord Landsdowne 1888-1894

Third Burmese War, 1885

Lord Elgin 1894-1899

Lord Curzon 1899-1905

Edward (VII) 1901-1910Lord Minto 1905-1910

George (V) 1910-1936

Lord Hardinge 1910-1916

Capital moved from Calcuttato Delhi, 1912,to New Delhi, 1931

Lord Chelmsford 1916-1921

Third Afghan War, 1919

Lord Reading 1921-1926

Lord Irwin(Lord Halifax)

1926-1931

Lord Willingdon 1931-1936

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

What the British heritage in India tends to stand for is something democratic, unifying, fair, and evenhanded -- a plus for India and a tribute to the British. One accusation against British evenhandedness was what seemed their preference for Muslims, which may have led to unnecessary haste in deciding to partition the country. However, it has always been the policy of every imperial power to use the services of minorities who dislike or fear the prospect of government by the majority communities. When minorities are subsequently oppressed, expelled, or massacred afterways, the majority community tends to justify the matter as retribution for cooperation with the occupiers. However, if the minorities had been oppressed before the arrival of the imperial power, this rationalization rings a little hollow.

In India, Islam arrived with the imperial power of Ghazna, the Ghurids, and the Moghuls, and Muslims had never lived under a Hindu majority government. For reasons both rational and irrational, the movement arose to avoid this. Whether or not the British, who certainly included Islamophiles like Sir Richard Burton, favored Muslims (though others, like Colonel James Tod, admired the warlike Hindu Rajputs, cf. Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 1829, 1832), we are now familiar enough with the cultural dynamic of Islâm to see that very little favor indeed, if any, was necessary to produce the nationalism of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Even if the British had granted independence to India in 1919 or 1930, before Jinnah's movement began, it is not difficult to see a certainty of the emergence of something much like it, whose consequence would have been civil war rather than quick Partition -- however terrible things often were during the Partition, with many indicidents of mutual massacre, though sometimes these were stopped by the remarkable influence of Gandhi. The partition that Muslims favored in India as

the minority, of course, they

On the map we see the final form of British India, with Burma thrown in for good measure. The special North West Frontier Province and the imposition of direct British rule along the southern border of Afghanistan both bespeak increasing British concern about the advance of the Russians in Central Asia. The espionage and diplomatic maneuvering associated with Russian actions and intentions were often called the "Great Game." In retrospect, not much seems to have come of it all; but at the time, Russia, actually

with the largest economy in the world, seemed more powerful and aggressive than it looks now. We forget that Russia was at the time conquering Central Asia, and the British remembered well the hard fight of the Crimean War (1853-1856). The principle consequence of the Russian

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

approach was British intervention in Afghanistan, either to attach the kingdom to the Empire, or at least preserve it as a buffer state. The First Afghan War (1839-1842) was a famous catastrophy, with, after intitial successes, the entire British force wiped out in retreat from Kabul. The Second Afghan War (1878-1881) at least accomplished the task of rendering Afghanistan under British protection as a buffer against the Russians, just as the Russians actually were arriving in the mountains to the north. The most famous casualty of this war is the fictional John H. Watson, M.D., whose wound and small income led to him to find a roommate in the person of one Sherlock Holmes. The rest is, after a fashion, history. The practical end of the Great Game may have come in 1905, when the Wakhan salient was attached to Afghanistan to separate India from Russia. It still gives Afghanistan a small border with China. The Third Afghan War (1919), led to full formal Afghan independence in 1921. The Russians eventually arrived after all in 1979 but in the end probably wished that they had not bothered, with the Soviet Union itself collapsing shortly after the Russian occupation ended in 1989. Now, however, after Afghanistan began harboring Islamist terrorists, an American and NATO military presence (2001) has mainly succeeded in chasing the radicals and their allies into the mountains within the Pakistani border. This region, shown as annexed by the British in 1890 and 1893, is a primitive tribal area that was never very much under British control. The Pakistanis have not done markedly better with the place, which is still protected by the fearsome terrain, the resolute anarchy of the inhabitants, and now by the political problem of Islamist and pro-terrorist sentiment within Pakistan itself, which makes a sustained crackdown unpopular. La plus ça change...

BRITISHEMPERORS

& KINGSViceroys & Governors-General of India

Edward (VIII) 1936Lord Linlithgow 1936-1943

George (VI)

Emperor,1936-1947

Lord Wavell 1943-1947

Lord Mountbatten

1947

King; India1947-1950,Pakistan1947-1952

Governor-Generalof India,1947-1948

Mohammad AliJinnah

Governor-Generalof Pakistan,1947-1948

Chakravarti,Rajagopalachari

Governor-Generalof India,1948-1950

KhwajaNazimuddin

Governor-Generalof Pakistan,1948-1951India becomes

a Republic, 1950

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

Elizabeth (II) Queen, Pakistan,1952-1956

Ghulam Mohammad

Governor-Generalof Pakistan,1951-1955

Iskander Mirza

Governor-Generalof Pakistan,1955-1956

Pakistan becomesa Republic, 1956

Although many Indians preserve an ideological or nationalistic animus towards the British (which they may or may not have, for instance, towards the Moghuls), believing that the British exploited India and inhibited its development -- for instance I find an equestrian statue of Edward VII in Toronto that had been relocated from an apparently unwelcoming Delhi (shouldn't the Tâj Mahal be deported to Bâbur's Farghâna?) -- there is the striking circumstance that, while on independence in 1947 the

Indian economy was twice the size of that of China, that advantage was lost by 1990, and the Chinese economy by 2003 was more than twice the size of India's. Thus, it seems to be that the British promoted Indian development more than otherwise and that the socialist and autarkic policies instituted by Nehru, and later his daughter Indira Gandhi, have done more damage than can ever be blamed on the British (unless it be on the influence of British socialists). Fortunately, these policies began to be reversed in the 1990's and great improvement has occurred, as discussed elsewhere. Today, an American calling a customer service number for an American company may well find themselves speaking to somebody in India. Some resent this, but it is really rather marvelous and would seem to bespeak a handsome kinship between two different subjects of the former British Imperium. Americans are otherwise familiar with the entrepreneurial talent of Indian immigrants to the United States, where they are disproportionately successful in a number of areas of business, including hotels and motels, of all things. In 1982 I was personally bewildered when my car broke down in Artesia, New Mexico, to find a motel run by people from India. The industry of Indians is beyond doubt, all they

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

needed was the sympathy and

Index of Princely States & Protectorates of British India

The Calendar in India

British Coinage of India, 1835-1947

The Caste System and the Stages of Life in Hinduism

Prime Ministers of India

Prime Ministers of Pakistan

The Sun Never Set on the British Empire

World War II in Burma

The Kings of England, Scotland, & Ireland

British Coins before the Florin, Compared to French Coins of the Ancien Régime

The Bank of England

Sangoku Index

History of Philosophy, Indian Philosophy

History of Philosophy, Buddhist Philosophy

Philosophy of History

Home Page

Copyright (c) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

DR.P.VISWANATHAN

The Bara ('Big') Imambara at Lucknow, constructed in the Mughal style