Originally posted by: maharathikarna
Chandragupta or for matter Ashoka didn't exist till 200 years back and was almost forgotten. As a student of serious history a person will realise that it changes based on times and our understanding of the past. Even today we have seriously little information about their day today lives with any certainity.
Hmm. I agree.
However, a minor modification. Chandragupta was not lost to history, as he can be found in the Persian works of Firdausi (9th century AD) ; the writers of Delhi Sultanate (12th - 16th century AD) ; and in the works of Badayuni (courtier of Mughal Emperor Akbar). It was Asoka who was brought out of the blue in 19th century by Mr. Princep. Even to me, it remains a mystery how was such a king forgotten, and to add to the confusion we have no mention of him in the Greek accounts.
It was a time 2300 years back. Having an account of the daily information about them is certainly not possible. But, we can not say that the absence of information is only due to the long time difference. Lets take an example. Alexander, we have great details by various Greek writers, though he also belongs to the same time period ; in fact the details about the Macedonian Emperor are comparable to an extent, with the fine details of what we know about Akbar. We know of at least 6 Greek writers who have written about Alexander.
The way we extrapolate their territory is how media did before Indo China war. Occupy isolated forward posts across himalayas and then draw a line connecting the same to measure how much territory we have liberated. Its correct in theory but does not have much practical implications as you cannot get your supplies in to those terrains so when enemy attacks you are left in middle of nowhere without backup.
I feel this is a very simplistic assessment, and may not withstand a careful scrutiny. Indo-China dispute is quite different from the present discussion. Indo-China border dispute, in simple words, is not due to the "media's extrapolation of territory" , but because one country (India) accepts a border line (McMahon line of 1914) and another (China) does not.
Lets go back into the origins of this problem. A simple stroll in the past.
British wanted to create a boundary in the Tibet sector after they found in the mid-19th century that Tawang was an important "trading town", but was a Tibetan territory. In 1873, the British Indian govt drew an "Outer Line" , which is now roughly the southern boundary of Arunachal Pradesh. {So, Arunachal was not part of British Indian territories according to the line in 1873, it was given to Tibet.}
Later, Britain concluded treaties with Beijing concerning Tibet's boundaries with Burma and Sikkim.
Text of Burma treaty : http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties8.html
Text of Sikkim treaty : http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties9.html
However, Tibet refused to recognize the boundaries drawn by these treaties, and British forces invaded Tibet in 1904 and imposed a treaty on the Tibetans.
Text of treaty of 1904: http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties10.html
In 1907, Britain and Russia acknowledged Chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet and both nations "agreed not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government."
Text of 1907 treaty ( See the Article 2) : http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties12.html
British interest in the borderlands was renewed when the Qing dynasty (of China) sent military forces to establish Chinese administration in Tibet (1910-12). A British military expedition was sent into what is now Arunachal Pradesh and the North East Frontier Tracts was created to administer the area (1912).
In 1912-13, this agency reached agreements with the tribal leaders who ruled the bulk of the region. The Outer Line (of 1873) was moved north (and hence NOW Arunachal came under British India), but Tawang was left as Tibetan territory.
After the fall of the Qing dynasty in China, Tibet expelled all Chinese officials and troops, and declared itself independent (1913).
Text of 1913 independence declaration of Dalai Lama : http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/tibet/tibet1.html
In 1913, British officials conferred at Shimla to discuss Tibet's status. The conference was attended by representatives of Britain, China, and Tibet. It was decided that "Outer Tibet," covering approximately the same area as the modern "Tibet Autonomous Region," would be under the administration of the Dalai Lama's government as well as the "suzerainty" of China. Suzerainty is an Asian political concept indicating limited authority over a dependent state.
Here is the text : http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties16.html
Sir Henry McMahon, the foreign secretary of British India at the time, drew up McMahon Line as the border between British India and Tibet during the Shimla Conference. The McMahon Line, drawn primarily on the highest watershed principle, demarcated what had previously been unclaimed or undefined borders between Britain and Tibet. The McMahon line moved British control substantially northwards.
The Tibetan and British representatives at the conference agreed to the line, which ceded Tawang and other Tibetan areas to the British Empire. However the Chinese representative refused to accept the line. China claimed territory in this far north down to the border of the plain of Assam. This means that China wanted going back to the boundary of 1873. But Tibet signed the treaty bilaterally with Britain.
On assuming power after independence in 1948, the Peoples Republic of China renounced all prior foreign agreements as unequal treaties imposed upon it during the "century of humiliation" and demanded renegotiation of all borders.
Rest we know is history. India treats that boundary as the final word, while China treats it as a humiliation. This is the root cause of dispute.
The second point is about losing the war.
Since 1954, China was printing the maps which showed Indian territories as Chinese but the Indian political leadership didn't heed and took it business as usual. Forward posts were established but no steps were taken to step up the infrastructure, despite enough warnings from the intelligence. It was the naive assessment of the situation by our leadership and the betrayal of Chinese. I don't wish to write on this war, because all which comes to mind is the blunder made by our leaders of that time.
There is an excellent 900 page book about Sardar Patel by Balraj Krishna (available on Amazon), where it is mentioned that he had warned the then PM Nehru way back in 1948 about Chinese designs about Tibet, but of no avail.
There are great works by various authors on this topic, which reveal in depth about the lack of preparations by Indians and also some of the most flabbergasting inputs from the then foreign department officials.
The following article contains excerpts from the recently declassified confidential CIA files. It makes clear, to a great extent, what India was capable of doing in the war, only if it had prepared. In fact, China attacked India because it feared that India would attack first! But what happened was different. Forward posts were set up by us but not given any means to defend themselves. Total blunder! China of 1962 was not so strong like China of 2016. They had faced back to back famines before fighting this war. This goes on to show, how lax we were in handling the matter. In wars, it was most easy to make the enemy suffer when they are most vulnerable, but this opportunity was lost.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-china-feared-military-coup-in-india-during-60s-1106769
Following are the de-classified Sino-Indian Border Dispute Top Secret CIA reports of 1964, Declassified in 2007. Some bombastic claims in these too.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/polo-07.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/polo-08.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/polo-09.pdf
This is a much concise report.
http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/Henderson_Brooks_Bhagat.pdf
When you are ruling a country especially during times of chandraGupta or for that matter ashoka without advances in technology and communication holding on to a large tracts of lands in challenging terrains is a very difficult task. Central Asian tribes are fiercely independent people who could not be controlled by anyone since times immemorial for any significant period of time. They say that the rough terrains they live in makes them very tough people. My point is even in times of ashoka these tribes were given wide autonomy and were only loosely knit to the empire.
All points well said and i endorse your opinion. But. This is true even for medieval empires, not just Asoka and Chandragupta. The discussion started vis a vis Aurangzeb. He followed similar system. Infact, each and every empire followed this system. No king can rule over an empire single handedly. He has to appoint governors etc. and give them a certain degree of autonomy. But despite this fact, the entire area is ultimately counted as the empire of the king only.
Central Asian tribes are known as fiercely independent. Also, agreed that no one could contain them "for a significant amount of time" , but i want to return to an objective assessment of this issue. The discussion is about Chandragupta / Asoka, and the records agree in unanimity about their unquestioned rule in this area - Greek and Indian.
Before them, in the ancient times, this region was won first by the Ancient Persian Empire, then the forces of Alexander and later formed a part of the empires of various Indian dynasties like the Mauryas & Kushans.
BTW, in this comment i am not referring to the north of Afghanistan (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgystan). I'm more concerned about Afghanistan and the Westward movement. There are detailed accounts of the wars fought by Alexander in this region. One can find accounts of large scale massacre of people in these areas by Alexander.
It is also worth noting that the ancient Silk Route passed through the Central Asian lands. Almost entire trade passed thorough this region. In such circumstances, it was not possible to leave this area unconquered / unmanaged. It was more in the late ancient era & medieval times, we see the problem in managing the Central Asian lands, and more so after the tribes were " united " under the banner of Islam. Earlier they were not organized.
Coming to Aurangazeb, that's exactly my point. Because it happened in comparatively recent past we know his ups and down with much better detail. We know only about mauryan empire by the artifacts and pillars they have left behind and from indirect sources of visitors. Both can be highly exaggerated. A Victor writes only good things about himself and a visitor if properly honoured would not say bad things against host.
@Bold.
If i endorse this opinion, this would tantamount to falsification of entire ancient history which we are reading. :)
The method of demarcating the land under any ancient empires is not so easy. Historians from across the world debate a lot before any standard was arrived at. History of Chandragupta can be cross checked from the Greek - Jain - Buddhist - Sanskrit, etc sources. Chandragupta - "the victor" , did not tell us about anything regarding his victories. We found about them from others.
Exaggeration is always possible, and this is when the idea of cross checking from various sources comes into play. More about this topic, i have explained below.
Our way of looking at things and our outlook also affects what we see when we look back in past. Just like aurangazeb could not hold on to his country continuously. It would be similarly difficult to hold on to a country as diverse together much further in past without technological advances during times of mauryas.
I agree here also, but i will add my views to add more diversity to the discussion.
@Bold.
Let us see the following points, with respect to your statement. It is a very simplistic view of a complex issue.
Why Aurangzeb faced problems has to be analyzed properly. It is not correct to say that since Aurangzeb faced this problem, hence CGM should also have faced the same problem.
- Aurangzeb went into unknown territory, where no one had earlier gone from North, except Alaudin Khilji. Moreover, he was not like Akbar who could carefully weigh in pros and cons. He spent 25 years fighting in Deccan only!
On the other hand, the Central Asian opposition was already humbled by the Greek forces before Chandragupta. Dynasties and cities were uprooted by Alexander while marching towards India. Greeks remained in Central Asia for next 3 centuries even after defeat in 305 BCE!
- Aurangzeb touched a raw nerve almost everywhere : Sikhs, Marathas, Hindus etc. His idea of governance was of little or no autonomy and complete adherence to only his religious diktats. He could not eve tolerate the free conduct of his own daughter and sons!
Do read this post :
http://mariam-uz-zamani.blogspot.in/2014/12/aurangzeb-personality-assessment.html#.WByFAhJ2m1s
Contrasting this with Chandragupta, most historians and political scientists have termed the administration setup of Chanakya as the ONLY genuine democratic system which existed in reality. Arthashastra is a great source and so in Megasthenese.
- Aurangzeb's failure also lies in the fact that there were capable leaders who stood against him like Shivaji, Sikhs, Jodhpur state, etc.
Contrasting this with Chandragupta Maurya, we do not find any such capable opposition. Eastern India was already subjugated by Nandas. Western dynasties were uprooted by Alexander who was in turn taken over by Chandragupta. Complete absence of any major political power / empire, or any dynasty.
- Technological advances is not a great reason in my opinion. I don't think Mauryans were technologically inferior. Ancient India, was quite advanced. Lets even go back, in time, 2600 years before Mauryans. C. 2800-3000 BCE , in the Indus Valley Civilizations. The kind of weapons / system / efficient planning etc which those people had would stun us even today.
In fact, i have a counter thought. I feel it was easier to manage ancient India compared to medieval times. I have listed few reasons above, and another was absence of diversity in people vis-a-vis medieval times. I am not saying ancient India lacked diversity. We had as many as 84 sects in ancient times! What i am saying is - they were not so efficiently mobilized as were the rival empires of medieval era. We had no Sikhs, Rajputs, Marathas, Nizam, etc in Mauryan era, and neither such prominent religious conflicts which were accentuated by Aurangzeb / medieval era.Its just food for thought. My name is Bhaskar. You can call me the same😊.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading your views, Bhaskar! Hence responded at length. Will be looking forward to more such discussions with you. :D
Read your blog about nandas. It has come out very nicely and very informative too. Seriously didn't think about the parashuram nanda link before. Moreover the land south of vindhyas was not in mahajanapadas and is known as land of parashuram. Its definitely a good logical chain of thought.
Thank you. Even i never thought about Sri Parashurama connection, before reading about it. BTW, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel is also compared with Sri Parashurama by many of his contemporaries, as he too "extinguished" the "princely states" and merged them into the Union of India.
But, we had mahajanapadas south of Vindhyas too. I mentioned few lines about the Assaka Mahajanapada in the blog post, as point number 8f in the endnotes, along with a map. It was (700-300 BCE) an ancient kingdom located between the Godavari and Krishna Rivers, south of Vindhyas. Accounts that people in the region are descended from the sage Viswamitra are found in the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Puranas.
comment:
p_commentcount