Decline of Vedic lifestyle, Shunga period and the advent of Regicide- India in 185 BC

The tenth mandala (10.90) of Rig Veda states:
ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्य कृतः।
ऊरु तदस्य यद्वैश्य पद्भयां शुद्रो अजायत॥
This verse describes the perfect human being called "The Purusha". From his mouth came Brahmanas, from his arms came Kshatriyas, from his thighs came Vaishyas and from his feet came the Shudras. This division is called "Varna" system, often misinterpreted as caste system.

Time and again the Varna system created in this verse is misunderstood, misrepresented and many a times mistranslated to show that the ancient Vedic culture (on which present Hinduism is based on) favored evils like untouchability, oppression of weaker classes, evil caste system. The verse, in no way, distinguishes men suggesting one being superior than other. This division is definitely not based on birth. So the whole concept of son of a brahmin should be a brahmin and son of a shudra should be a shudra is absurd. The varna or characteristic comes from karma(deeds) and not by birth.

The Purusha sukta also emphasizes on Yagya(sacrifice) as being the starting point in which the Purusha is used as a means (sadhana). Yagya or the act of sacrifice plays a very vital role in our ancient scriptures. While performing a yagya, the arms does the act of sacrifice (kshatriyas sacrifices the love for life and near and dear ones to protect others), mouth enchants the mantras (brahmins speak for betterment, for imparting knowledge to others), the sitting posture (lap) carries the materials to be used in the yagya (the vaishyas doing the cultivation and producing grains for others) and feet supporting the entire body of the Purusha (shudras assisting others so that they can perform their duties well). The Rig veda states that the devas (Gods) perform the Yagya and the Purusha is being used a means to perform the yagya.

The Vedic culture kept the greater part of the Indian subcontinent intact and bound by faith of belief for a very large span of time. Any social system that binds a large chunk of people always play a pivotal role in politics and path of progress for the society. But the systems fail to stay strong when they are not able to accept changes. "The only constant thing is the world is change". Any belief system should remember and imbibe this eternal truth for its growth.

Vedic period comprised of people leading their lives as prescribed in the vedas. With the progress of time and misrepresentation and wrong interpretation of the vedas, the practice of discrimination against weaker sections of society started. The yagyas became more like a promotion activity of the ruling class. The brahmins used to assist and coordinate yagyas actively only because kings used to give donations and gifts to them. Brahmins thus prospered and society started looking down upon shudras. The society started 'assigning' varnas based on birth rather than profession.The vedic period that started somewhere in 5000 BC begin to lose its grip and luster by mid 500 BC.

The advent of Buddhism in 6th-5th century BC in India changed a lot of things. Buddha's teachings led to adoption of a lifestyle which was very different from Vedic culture. Buddha censured any kind of violence and also preached the dharma of forgiveness and peace.
You can read in detail about various stories of Buddha with my sketches in post:
Buddha: the celebrated Guru

The age-old practices of vedas were being challenged. Some yagyas conducted by kings used to involve animal sacrifices. Buddha desisted violence and he also pitied and supported the weaker sections of the society. The shudras, who were already being exploited by those using corrupted interpretation of Vedic lifestyle, were supported by Buddha. The advent of Mahavira and Jainism also had the similar effect. The ascend of shudra born Mahapadma Nanada (4th century BC) to the throne of Magadha, insult of a brahmin Chanakya in Nanda court were some of the examples.
To know more about Chanakya please visit another post:
Chanakya : The God of Political Science

After the establishment of the Maurya kingdom by Chandragupta Maurya (Chandragupta Maurya: The first emperor of united India) the greater part of India was united into a single great kingdom. The power of vedic lifestyle which was fading could not hold the society together so the might of the king and expansion of his power brought everyone under one umbrella. In such a scenario, the belief system adopted and supported by the king would play a very important role, as the subjects would also tend to follow the same belief system. Chandragupta Maurya and then later his descendant Ashok focused on uniting the Indian subcontinent under one power and under one belief system.
King Ashok is considered to be the greatest king to rule India. (To know more about Ashok, please read my post: Ashoka - The greatest king of Indian history ) Ashok initially followed the policy of expansion of the kingdom through blood and war. However, having being inspired by the teachings of Buddha, he left the path of violence and started promoting Buddhism. The extent of his kingdom was vast. The influence he could have over his subjects was voluminous. With the support of the policies of King Ashok and later Mauryan kings, Buddhism prospered and various Buddhist stupas and monasteries were established throughout the length and breadth of Indian sub-continent.

The later Mauryan kings however, were not as effective as Ashok. The later descendants of Mauryan dynasty failed to hold the uprising and revolt of the kingdoms won by Chandragupta and Ashok. As a result, disintegration started and various kingdoms like Ashmaka(present Maharashtra), Kalinga(Orissa), Madra, Kekaya, Gandhar(in present Pakistan) declared independence from the Magadha empire. On top of that, the Mauryan kings ruling Pataliputra (Patna, Bihar) were supporting and appeasing Buddhism while neglecting the age old Vedic lifestyle.
There was a growing sense of resentment among the people favoring old ways of Vedic lifestyle. All this resulted in a shocking event during the reign of Brihadratha, the last Mauryan king in 185 BC.

Pushyamitra Shunga was the commander-in-chief of Brihadratha's army. He was a brahmin and a strong follower of Vedic lifestyle. It is said that he was extremely unhappy with the way Brihadratha was running his kingdom. He was also not happy with the appeasement policy towards Buddhism. The appeasement and inaction of the Magadha not only led to independence of provinces but also led to military campaigns by foreign invaders. The Macedonian kings (Indo-Greek) who were vanquished by Chandragupta and who never dared to enter Indian sub continent during the reign of Ashok, attacked and captured a large portion of North western region (Gandhar, Kekaya, etc). It is said that Menander-I, also known as Milind, was ruling Sakala (Sialkot) at that time.
The Macedonians were marching against different Indian states including the Magadha empire. Some of the Indo-Greek kings were followers of Buddhism so there was a general sentiment that the king of Magadha Brihadratha would hardly show any resistance.
Frustrated by the lethargic attitude of the king, decline of the Vedic culture and favoritism of Buddhism above Vedic beliefs, Pushyamitra and his army started believing that Brihadratha is not fit to rule. In a fit of rage, one day Pushyamitra Shunga killed the king Brihadratha while he was inspecting the army. This was the advent of Regicide in Indian history.

Pushyamitra Shunga killing Brihadratha, 185 BC 

After killing the Maurya king, Pushyamitra declared himself the king. He was supported by the army and he established what the history knows today as the Shunga Empire. Soon after ascending the throne, Pushyamitra made his intentions clear. He started the Ashwamedha Yagya, a vedic sacrifice ritual conducted to extend the boundaries of the kingdom through the might of arms. He annexed many kingdoms which declared independence from the Magadha empire rule. His empire included Mathura, Sanchi and also Ujjaini and Sialkot according to some sources. It is said that Macedonian king Milind died in a military campaign and it is also said that he attacked Pataliputra at that time. There could be a possibility that Milind did attack Pataliputra but was defeated and killed by Shungas or Pushyamitra attacked Sakala and conquered it and killed Milind there. Milind was not able to conquer Magadha for sure as Shunga's descendants ruled there for some time. Whatever be the case, it is quite evident that Pushyamitra's reign must have witnessed one or more battle with the Macedonians.
Not only the Indo-Greek kings, Pushyamitra Shunga did also fight many wars with the neighboring Shatavahanas and Kalingas. However, the Shungas were able to defend the territories of Magadha against invaders.

The Shunga Empire (185 BC-73 BC)

Pushyamitra Shunga is often portrayed as villain in some Buddhist texts as he allegedly destroyed many stupas and monasteries because of his hatred towards Buddhism. Some other sources including some Buddhist sources, however, suggest that he was quiet tolerant towards Buddhism. The only thing he promoted was long lost ways of Vedic lifestyle. But by that time, the vedic culture was already corrupted. The culture of "Samanta" (Nobility) started and discrimination of varnas like Shudras started.

However, Shunga empire did contribute a lot in the cultural and literary growth of our country. The third and most famous commentary on compilation of grammatical rules of Sanskrit language(written by an ancient acharya named Panini) was done by an acharya known as Patanjali during this period. This commentary was called "Mahabhashya".
Much of that era must have been documented. So much so that son of Pushyamitra, Agnimitra was a chief character in a play written by Kalidasa 450 years later. The play "Malavikagnimitra" by Kalidasa tells the story of king Agnimitra smitten by the beauty of a royal courtesan dancer named Malavika by just looking at the painting. He organizes a dance competition among the best of royal dance trainers just to get a chance to see Malavika in person. On a parallel track there is a story of a military expedition of Magadha towards Ujjain. While the queens of king try to keep Malavika away from the sight of the king, Agnimitra finally is able to meet Malavika with the help of his jester. Furious queen imprisons Malavika only to know that Malavika is actually a princess of Ujjain. Acknowledging the royal lineage of Malavika, the queen agrees for the marriage between king and Malavika. In the end Malavika and Agnimitra marry.

Malavika and Agnimitra Shunga from Kalidasa's play "Malavikagnimitra"

Malavika and Agnimitra Shunga from Kalidasa's play

So, the credit for keeping the Vedic lifestyle alive, keeping the foreign forces at bay and for the immense contribution towards art and literature, Shungas will always be remembered for giving a glorious past to our country between 185 BC and 73 BC. The main blot on the names of Shunga is the way they usurped the throne. The culture of regicide started by Shunga was continued for many generations later and Shungas line itself ended when the last Shunga king was killed by his own minister.

Porus - the unsung hero

In 326 BC, the famous battle of Hydespas was fought between the God like figure from Greece, Alexander 'the great' and an Indian king Porus. King Porus used to rule kindom near Jhelum river, which according to various puranic sources is Gandhar or Kekaya regions. The Jhelum river was also called "Hydespas".

King Alexander of Macedonia (Greece) was on his quest for victory. He had already won a large number of kingdoms in bloody battles covering the entire eastward region beyond Greece.

When he entered India, he was greeted by the king of Takshashila (Taxila), Ambhi. Ambhi had bitter relations with his neighbor king Porus (sometimes called as Parvateshwar or Purushottam). It is said that he helped Alexander to rage a battle against the mighty Porus.

The ever present sad mentality of people of our country to even help an outsider to settle scores with the known ones was exploited by Alexander. Alexander's army was habitual of fighting large cavalry but was never accustomed to fight war elephants and Indians were known for the use of elephants in the battle. Huge elephants with tusks dipped in poison used to carry number of archers, kings, commanders and these warriors would use the height as an advantage to attack the enemy.

Porus, was believed to be of Puru clan. Puru clan is mentioned in Rig Vedas and also in Hindu epic Mahabharata. It was believed to be started by king Puru, who was a son of king Yayati. The descendants of Puru like, Bharatas, Kurus, Pauravas used to rule various North Indian kingdoms. Porus is mentioned as the king ruling near Jhelum river, which most possibly could be Gandhar and Kekaya kingdoms.

Porus, though being a mighty figure in the story of Alexander, is somehow I believe, an unsung hero. He is mentioned as a tall 7 ft. man with huge physique. He was a great warrior. Sitting on the back of his elephant, he along with his army created havoc in the Macedonian ranks. Battle of Hydespas is believed to be most difficult, bloody and also the last battle fought by Alexander. He lost his dear horse at the hands of Porus.

The history as we read today generally says that Alexander's army though being routed by forces of Porus, eventually was able to defeat Porus because of Alexander's military tactics. It is said that Porus lost his son in the battle and Alexander asked Ambhi to bring Porus to him alive. Ambhi, who went to take Porus as prisoner, narrowly escaped the fury of the Paurava hero.

Later when Greek army was able to subdue Porus, he was brought in front of Alexander. Alexander asked him "How should I treat you Porus ?" to which Porus proudly replied, "treat me, O Alexander, as a king !".

It is said that Alexander was so much impressed by these words and also with the bravery of Porus that he not only gave him his kingdom back and also added few of his won territories to his kingdom and appointed him as his general, who were called at that time as 'satraps'.

Porus surrenders to Alexander - art by Mrinal Rai

Now there has been a lot of debate about was Alexander actually able to defeat Porus ? or is it fabricated history that we are reading. Of course, I believe that history is written by winners and all that we know about Alexander and of his era is mainly from western historians. There are lot of things to take into consideration. I did a little research from my side over Internet and there are few points to consider:

• It is said that after defeating Porus, Alexander wanted to defeat the powerful Nanda empire in Magadha. But the soldiers of Alexander already frightened by the war elephants of Porus, became paranoid of the Nanda army when they came to know of its strength in numbers. It is said that the soldiers rebelled against the idea of marching ahead and asked Alexander to return home. Alexander tried to persuade them but in vain. It is said that Alexander returned back from the Beas river to his land without fighting the Nandas in 326 BC. Before his departure he appointed his general Phillip as satrap of the provinces he won in west of Hydespas, and Porus and Ambhi were asked to act as satraps too.
• Phillip was murdered soon, a year later in 325 BC, as part of a conspiracy. Alexander appointed Eudemus and Taxilas as satraps till he appoint any replacement for Phillip. But Alexander died in 323 BC from illness, which left Eudemus and Taxila started ruling on their own.
• It is mentioned in Indian history that a king named Chandragupta Maurya defeated the satraps left by Alexander and overthrew the Nanda king in 321-320 BC and became the emperor of Magadha. It is said that he took help of a king from mountain regions (sometimes mentioned as a Himalayan king) Parvateshwar, who also claimed a share in Magadha kingdom. The clever minister of Maurya, Chanakya conspired and get this king Parvateshwar killed by sending a Vishkanya (poison maiden), or sometimes it is mentioned that he was killed by giving poison. This story is particularly backed up by an ancient play called 'Mudra Rakshas'.
• It is mentioned in Greek history that Eudemus went to help another Greek hero Eumenes in a war against a Macedonian general Antigonus in 318-317 BC. It is said that he went from India, never to return, with a plenty of war elephants that he has got from kingdom of Porus after 'treacherously murdering him'.
• It is said that after conquering Magadha, Maurya successfully routed all the Macedonians by 316 BC

King Parvateshwar (sometimes identified as Porus) killed in a conspiracy by Chanakya- art by Mrinal Rai

Keeping all these points in place, it seems that  the king who helped Chandragupta Maurya to defeat the Nandas was none other than the king Porus himself who was later killed in a conspiracy by the mastermind of Chankya.  

Maurya did fight against a number of Macedonian satraps. He may have fought Eudemus too. Eudemus may have sought for a peace treaty and Chandragupta may have given the war elephants to him in his fight against Eumenes, and these he may have procured after capturing Magadh and killing Porus treacherously (should be somewhere between 319-317 BC).

Now to get to our point whether Alexander actually defeated Porus or not, lets take the scenario where Alexander was unable to defeat Porus. He might have surrendered and Porus may have let him go (as general gesture of Indian kings, example, Prithvi Raj Chauhan), or, Porus, who was eyeing for Magadha might have asked Alexander to help him defeat Nanda, to which his army mutinated fearing another defeat and he was forced to go back.

It must be noted that Alexander appointed Phillip as satrap of provinces west of Hydespas and Porus's kingdom was in the east. Phillip's muder can be linked to Chanakya and Chandragupta again as they were trying to win the territories in that region that time.

Timeline of the events

According to those who believe that Porus defeated Alexander at Hydespas, this entire theory of treating Porus like a king even after defeat is so 'unlike' Alexander who had a lust of victory. Returning a defeated king with his kingdom and helping him annex other territories and then suddenly started feeling 'home sick' after a great victory sounds a bit absurd. May be westerners don't want to belittle their God like figure.

Moreover it is mentioned that army of Porus was carrying figure of Herakles, who can be made synonymous with Krishna of India.

If we believe that Porus did defeat Alexander, the personality of this great king deserves a bow. The king who may have defeated the greatest conqueror who ever walked on this earth, was defeated and killed in a treacherous way.

Whether the theory is true or not, I would say that king Porus was definitely a legend of India and deserve due respect. 

  

Chanakya: part II- Tweaking of history with noble intentions

Chanakya is a story of Magadha, the then existing Patna in Bihar. The great king Mahapadam Nanada of Nanda dynasty ruled the Magadha empire and Pataliputra was its capital. This kingdom was vast and very strong. So strong to fear away the soldiers of Alexander who has penetrated deep in the then existing Indian Subcontinent.


The administration of Pataliputra under the Nanda rule, consisted of a council of ministers, the prime minister, the senapati (commander-in-chief) and a special position of Amatya; who sometime acts a chief advisor of the king and sometimes as the principal administrative head under the king.

Though very little is known about the story of Chanakya, various sources confirm this flow: Chanakya a.k.a. Vishnugupta was a Brahmin and a learned scholar and acharya of Taxila, a great university of that time, and Chanakya was thrown out of the Magadha court after being insulted by the king Dhana Nanda, the son of Mahapadam Nanda. Infuriated Vishnugupta swore revenge and later he helped a brave man named Chandragupta Maurya to overthrow the Nanda dynasty and established him as the ruler of Magadha.

The serial has expanded to this basic story by telling that Dhana Nanda was an unjust and corrupt ruler (which most historic sources agree with). The chief minister of Dhana Nanda rebels against him and is imprisoned. Then an acharya Chanak, a friend of the minister, rebels against the king and he too is imprisoned and later dies in cell. Vishnu Gupta is the son of Chanak, who leaves Pataliputra and reaches Taxila where he learns Vedas by heart and becomes a great acharya himself in Taxila.

It was a time of the invasion by Alexander the great in India. Taxila was the northwestern frontier of the then existing Indian subcontinent and the security of all Indian kingdoms were dependent on the protection provided by Taxila. But the ambitious king of Taxila forms alliance with Alexander and opens the gates of India for him. Vishnu Gupta Chanakya was annoyed by the ideologies of the then existing small kingdoms in the Indian Subcontinent (which were called janapadas) which was limited to safeguarding their own boundaries. Disregarding his hatred he begs help to Magadha king Dhana Nanda and his ministers and asks them to lead the forces against the Greek incumbent forces, but affluent with his position, king Dhana Nanda insults Chanakya and throws him out of his court.

A furious Chanakya vows revenge and opens his shikha (hair), an act which was consider unworthy for a Brahmin, and swears that unless he uproots the Nanda king and all those who will be hurdle in establishment of a united and fortified India, he will not tie his hair.

Vishnu Gupta takes with him to Taxila, a cowherd boy Chandragupta from Pataliputra after watching possibilities of him in becoming a king. He teaches Chandragupta and several other Brahmins about the national integrity and sovereignty.

Meanwhile after defeating many kingdoms in India Alexander defeats mountain king of Kekaya, Parvateshwar, popularly known as Porus. Porus accepts the friendship of Alexander which only turns out to be a slavery of his men when he has left India. Alexander’s forces tired of fighting and fearing of encountering another huge force similar to that of Porus again in India, refuse to march ahead and Alexander had to return and he appoints his chieftains, known as satrap, in the provinces he has won.

Chandragupta and Chanakya’s mission starts after Alexander’s departure. With the help of growing rebels Chanakya compels king of Taxila to help him and he forms a small army under the leadership of Chandragupta. Chanakya’s strategies led to the assassination of the satrap of Alexander and after the death of Alexander in Greece, Chandragupta leads a force and frees all the kingdoms previously won by Alexander. With the help of the his long time friend and minister in Kekaya, Chanakya makes king Porus an ally of Chandragupta and under the alliance, many kingdoms of Northern mountain countries come under the leadership of Chandragupta and with the advice of Chanakya, Chandragupta marches with that army towards Magadha to overthrow the Nanda king.

But Magadha was not an easy target. With exceptional military strategies, spy networks, dedicated loyal army chieftans, an honest prime minister and the ever watchful Amatya Kartikeya, popularly known as Amatya Rakshasa, it was not possible to uproot Magadha. But Chanakya returns to Pataliputra with a plan. He exploits the deep rooted corruption in the system led by the aging and retiring king Dhana Nanda, corrupt Commander-in-chief and jealous princes. He creates a situation of civil war and the sons of the king and the commander is killed and king has to leave the city. Amatya Rakshasa goes in hiding seeking plot to revenge the downfall of Nanda dynasty.

When Chandragupta enters Pataliputra, he faces no opposition. Chanakya is appointed as new amatya and he appoints to the council all those loyal to Magadha. Meanwhile, the supporter kings of Chandragupta want a share of either kingdom or wealth of Magadha. Chief among them is Laghu Paurav, the nephew of king Porus. Paurav is looking for a way to remove Chandragupta to become sole ruler of Magadha. For this, he takes help of amatya Rakshasa who is living in hiding. But Chanaky plays above all of them. He, with his guile and techniques, kills all the enemies of Chandragupta and compels amatya Rakshasa to surrender before him. When he does so, Chankaya humbly appoints him the amatya of Chandragupta and thus King Chandragupta is crowned as ruler of Magadha.

Now the serial does tweak a lot with the historical information that we know. But since most of the information about that period is either ambiguous or unconfirmed so it does no harm in accepting Dr. Dwivedi’s version. There are many differences.

The most startling difference is the mentality of unity of Indian subcontinent by Vishnu Gupta which does not seem possible at that time because the concept of Indian subcontinent and something known as “Maa Bharati” was not known at that time. Chanakya’s motives as the historians put it, was to overthrow Nanda king. But the serial shows hiss motive of united and protected India, which is very soothing.

Another difference is that Chandragupta is mentioned as a cowherd boy and not a Kshatriya. Most sources say that Chandragupta was a Kshatriya and was dissatisfied with Nanda king.

Perhaps the greatest difference is the overthrowing of Nanda. The historical sources say that Chandragupta does fight series of wars in guerilla techniques with the Nanda army and Chanakya’s initial attempt to defeat Nanda failed and then he changed his strategies by weakening enemy at around its edges. In the serial, however, Dhana Nanda’s empire is brought down in just one night by a series of activities happening outside the king’s palace which are actually result of Chanakya’s strategies. Infact Chandragupta did not fight at all with the Nanda king or his army. Rather it is shown that the army starts the civil war as it gets divided between the supporters of the commander-in-chief Bhadrashaal (beautifully portrayed by Irrfan Khan) and army chief Balabhadra (played by Narendra Suri).

Another difference is related to an old Sanskrit play “Mudra Rakshasa”. The later episodes of Chanakya which tells the story of post-Nanda is based on this play where Chanakya tries to win over the equally intelligent amatya Rakshasa who is living in hiding and seeking plot for revenge. According to the play, Rakshasa sends a poison damsel popularly known as Visha kanya to Chandragupta to kill him but Chanakya makes her kill Paurav king who was anyway a hurdle in Chandragupta’s ascending to throne. In the TV serial it is shown that Rakshasa does send a dancer played by Neena Gupta to kill Chandragupta as part of a plan formed by amatya Rakshasa and laghu Paurav. But before the dancer could kill Chandragupta, Chanakya reveals that laghu Paurava was already under his watchful eyes through spy networks and then Paurava is murdered and the dancer is sent back.

The story of the serial is gripping followed by excellent performances by lead actors. I would particularly quote the performance of Dr. Dwivedi as exceptional and a result of immense hard work. His silent glances, movements, walking style makes him a perfect Vishnu Gupt. Equally commendable performance was by veteran actor Surendra Pal, popularly known for his portrayals of Dronacharya in Mahabharata, Kilvish in Shaktimaan and Vikranta Jabbaar in ZEE horror show. Surendra Pal’s personality, tall figure, deep voice and very expressive face made the character of amatya Rakshasa loveable.

Also the producer of the serial, Prakash Dwivedi played two roles in the serial. One was Jeevasiddhi, Buddhist monk and another was of the wicked laghu Paurav. The latter was an awesome portrayal.

Popular actors Irrfan Khan, Sanjay Mishra, Manoj Joshi, Deepraj Rana, Sooraj Chaddha played important roles in the serial.

The flow of the serial was however flawed. I read over internet that there was some controversy over the serial and channel was not giving extension for further episodes so Dr. Dwivedi completed the serial in a hurry, it seems. The later episodes based on Mudra rakshasa does not gel well with the former episodes. Most importantly the serial doesnot show whether Vishnu Gupt was able to fulfill his vow.

But if these flaws can be ignored, the television serial is worth watching and the one thing that we learn from producers and directors of that age is that for providing good knowledge and imparting values, even if we have to tweak with history or to add items from our own side for non existing pieces or to club some historical facts, then its not only Ok but quite commendable work.