What's new

Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeypore,

The Herodotus quote you posted above is the same one I did. And like I said, it seems to be limiting 'India's' borders to the lands primarily comprising modern Pakistan.
 
Jeypore,

The Herodotus quote you posted above is the same one I did. And like I said, it seems to be limiting 'India's' borders to the lands primarily comprising modern Pakistan.

Well i put this up that the word India is derived over time and the explanations of the word. But before Herodotus quote, the quote made by Darius the King he calls India (Hidush), Meaning Hindu's. Do you not find this significant that word arrived from Hindu.


The English term is from Greek Hindía (Ἰνδία), via Latin India. Hindía in Byzantine (Koine Greek) ethnography denotes the region beyond the Indus (Ἰνδός) river,
 
I found this on the origins of the name Hindu:

We must remember that the term “hindu” is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for “Hinduism.”

Most scholars feel that the name “Hindu” was developed by outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. According to Sir Monier Williams, the Sanskrit lexicographer, you cannot find an indigenous root for the words Hindu or India. Neither are these words found in any Buddhist or Jain texts, nor any of the official 23 languages of India. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning “S”, thus making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the Indus.
 
I found this on the origins of the name Hindu:

Well here is the real understand of the word India:

2. Persia, in the ancient times, was the vital link between India and the Greeks of Asia Minor . In the Avesta of Zoroaster, what we today call as India is named as Hapta Hendu, the Avesthan for the Vedic Sapta Sindhavah – the Land of Seven Rivers, that is, the five rivers of the Punjab along with the Sarasvati ( a river which has since disappeared) and the Indus. The word “Sindhu” not only referred to the river system but to the adjoining areas as well.



The name of Sindhu reached the Greeks in its Persian form Hindu (because of the Persian etymology wherein every initial s is represented by h).The Persian term Hindu became the Greek Indos/(plural indoi) since the Greeks could not pronounce "h" and had no proper "u". The Indos in due course acquired its Latin form - India . . Had the Sanskrit word Sindhu reached the Greeks directly, they might perhaps have pronounced it as Sindus or Sindia


3. King Cyrus, the founder of Persian Empire and of the Achaemenid dynasty (559-530 B.C.), added to his territories the region of Gandhara, located mainly in the vale of Peshawar . By about 516 B.C., Darius son of Hystaspes annexed the Indus valley and formed the twentieth satrapy of the Persian Empire . The annexed areas included parts of Punjab . This became the twentieth satrapy, the richest and most populous Satrapy of the Persian Empire . In the inscription at Nakshi–e-Rustam(486.BCE) a reference is made to the tributes paid to Darius by Hidush and others vassal such as Ionians, Spartans, Bactrians, Parthians, and Medes.



4. Thus, the Indus region became the easternmost boundary of the vast Persian Empire, which sprawled across all of western Asia to include, after 546 B.C., most of the Greek cities on the coast of Asia Minor. The skills and labor of all of Persia 's subjects, Greeks included, were employed in imperial building projects. Many Greeks served as officials or mercenaries in the various Achaemenid provinces. Indian troops formed a contingent of the Persian army that invaded Greece in 480 B.C. Indian troopers were also a part of the army that faced Alexander at Gaugamela in 331 B.C.


http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/05/greeks-in-india-before-alexander.htm
 
Last edited:
Jeypore,

What your posted does sort of validate the scholars opinion that the names Hindu or India do not have roots in the local language, and were in some shape or form bastardized versions of local names (by the Greeks and Persians).

Also, even if you look at the references to the Saraswati in the Rig Veda, it is a reference to a mythical river, not a real one in existence at the time, so you cannot coordinate actual geography (which parts of the region were being referred to in the Avesthan) with this particular reference in the Rig Veda. Additionally, there are some scholars who believe the Saraswati referred to in the Rig Veda is the Helmand in Afghanistan, which shifts the 'geography' of the 'India' known at that time even further West.

Regardless of which river it refers to, the point is that the reference in the Avesthan most likely used the terminology of the Vedic scriptures as a source for its own terminology for the region around the Indus, since the seven rivers were not in existence anymore, and could not form the basis of being the source for any description of "India". Therefore, even with the reference in the Avesthan, we are still looking at the regions comprising modern day Pakistan being originally referred to by the term "India', Sindhu or what have you. And that usage slowly extended to refer to more and more of South Asia.
 
Last edited:
Jeypore,

What your posted does sort of validate the scholars opinion that the names Hindu or India do not have roots in the local language, and were in some shape or form bastardized versions of local names (by the Greeks and Persians).

Also, even if you look at the references to the Saraswati in the Rig Veda, it is a reference to a mythical river, not a real one in existence at the time, so you cannot coordinate geography (which part of India was bei referred to) with this particular reference in the Rig Veda. Additionally, there are some scholars who believe the Saraswati referred to in the Rig Veda is the Helmand in Afghanistan, which shifts the 'geography' of the 'India' known at that time even further east.

Regardless of which river it refers to, the point is that the reference in the Avesthan most likely used the terminology of the Vedic scriptures as a source for its own terminology for the region around the Indus, since the seven rivers were not in existence anymore. Therefore, even with the reference in the Avesthan, we are still looking at the regions comprising modern day Pakistan being originally referred to by the term "India', Sindhu or what have you. And that usage slowly extended to refer to more and more of South Asia.

You have put it very eloquently.
 
Well I did mean what I typed, that the definition of Megantheles is incorrect, not that the word India itself is incorrect.

Ahh, never been to that page before, so I did not know. But I do like the disclaimer they have, clarifying the context in which "History of India" is being used.


Well for me "name" and "definition" are interchangeable. So you cannot simply decide one definition is correct and another is incorrect over subjective reasoning.

The meaning of a proper noun often doesn't conform with its underlying roots. That doesn't mean that we reject its definition as incorrect. It would be absurd.


Similarly, I imagine Maurya would be considered Bengali history, and a Bengali empire, were Bengal to be an independent nation. Bengal is a part of contemporary India (not sure how much he impacted modern Bangladesh), so the empire is correctly a part of Modern India's history.

That makes very little sense since the Mauryans did not consider themselves "Bengali".
The Bengali language and culture came after the end of the Mauryan empire.

In any case, the capital was at Pataliputra (Modern Patna, Bihar).

Now, I am not going to go as far as some others in claiming that one nation has no claim over certain portions of history. But I think that similar to European and Asian history, we have a broader classification of South Asian history, and we can then delineate it into the history of the regions comprising our nations - so each nation shares South Asian history, since it overlapped as in Asia and Europe, but each nation also has greater claim over different aspects of that history based on geographical location.

Well it would be more complicated than that. As you pointed out, the Greek empire stretched far beyond modern Greece. Since modern Greeks occupy only a tiny portion of that empire, would it be correct to consider it a Greek empire at all ?
There are other factors to be taken into account, including ethnicity and culture.

I'd be more than happy to consider South Asian history as a whole, without the hyphenations. That would be more accurate. However, if we are going to decide which country gets a greater claim over certain portions, then simply taking the land into account would be wrong.


Pakistani textbooks could teach students about the Mauryan empire or South Indian empires, but it really would not be as intimate of a subject, akin to learning about the Huns or Chinese empires. However learning about the IVC, Durrani and Rajput Kingdoms etc. would be far more personal and intimate of a history lesson, since that history took place on our land, and those ancients were possibly our forefathers.

I would consider the IVC to be as remote to Pakistanis as the Chinese or South Indian kingdoms in this context.
That would be because the ethnicity of the IVC peoples is yet unknown, and considering the lineage of the various ethnic groups comprising Pakistan, they all seem to have migrated from the west some time after or during the decline of the IVC.
 
Well for me "name" and "definition" are interchangeable. So you cannot simply decide one definition is correct and another is incorrect over subjective reasoning.

The meaning of a proper noun often doesn't conform with its underlying roots. That doesn't mean that we reject its definition as incorrect. It would be absurd.
I am not sure I understand - if someone incorrectly defines something, that is a flawed definition. If we take Megasthene's definition literally, then it would imply that the peoples inhabiting the Indus valley somehow abruptly started existing, or became radically different, only on the East of the Indus. Thats a pretty implausible view. It therefore means that Megasthene's definition cannot be taken literally, or is flawed.

That makes very little sense since the Mauryans did not consider themselves "Bengali".
The Bengali language and culture came after the end of the Mauryan empire.

In any case, the capital was at Pataliputra (Modern Patna, Bihar).
Ancient inhabitants of South Asia did not consider themselves "Indian' either - nationalism ascribes to them those identities. Chankya is now a great "Indian', similarly an independent Bengal or Bihar would have ascribed its own nationalism to its ancient 'hero's'.

Well it would be more complicated than that. As you pointed out, the Greek empire stretched far beyond modern Greece. Since modern Greeks occupy only a tiny portion of that empire, would it be correct to consider it a Greek empire at all ?
There are other factors to be taken into account, including ethnicity and culture.

I'd be more than happy to consider South Asian history as a whole, without the hyphenations. That would be more accurate. However, if we are going to decide which country gets a greater claim over certain portions, then simply taking the land into account would be wrong.
I am not suggesting that it isn't complicated, but yes it would be considered a Greek empire, since it was created by the Greeks/Macedonians, and administered through Greece, and I suppose that is where the overlap occurs in history.

I would consider the IVC to be as remote to Pakistanis as the Chinese or South Indian kingdoms in this context.
That would be because the ethnicity of the IVC peoples is yet unknown, and considering the lineage of the various ethnic groups comprising Pakistan, they all seem to have migrated from the west some time after or during the decline of the IVC.

The biggest connection is land. The IVC and other civilizations existed on the land of Pakistan, and that alone brings an intimacy with history that would not exist while considering the Mauryans or South Indian history. And since we do not know what happened to the IVC people, the narrative is compelling that they did not get wiped out, rather shifted away from their cities and mingled and interbred with the newer migrants into the region.

On the issue of modern Pakistanis descending form the IVC people - I pointed this out in another thread as well, a similar mystery with the collapse of the Mayan civilization exists, with the theory being advanced that the cities just became too large to sustain, in various ways - overpopulation leading to a scarcity of resources, attractive to invasion and marauders etc.

One hypothesis being advanced is that the people just slowly shifted away from the cities and diffused and settled into the surrounding countryside in smaller more sustainable communities. We cannot merely assume that the people vanished completely, and the likely reason behind the abandonment of the IVC cities, and the fate that befell the IVC people, is probably similar to that of the Mayan cities and the Mayan people.
 
I am not sure I understand - if someone incorrectly defines something, that is a flawed definition.

This is a name, not a scientific term. There is no "correct" way to name a place.
Names are always arbitrary, and therefore to force some logic into them would be rather strange.

In any case, you cannot consider a definition which as been used for over 2000 years to be "wrong".

It makes as much sense as rejecting the current definition of "shampoo" for the oldest one, because it is "flawed".

If we take Megasthene's definition literally, then it would imply that the peoples inhabiting the Indus valley somehow abruptly started existing, or became radically different, only on the East of the Indus. Thats a pretty implausible view. It therefore means that Megasthene's definition cannot be taken literally, or is flawed.

The point is not the reasoning behind Megasthenes' definition, but the definition itself.
As I said, we take the definition 'as is' and to question it would be highly absurd.

It is pure conjecture as to why Megasthenes defined India the way he did, but the fact remains that he did, and that definition has been used since.


Ancient inhabitants of South Asia did not consider themselves "Indian' either - nationalism ascribes to them those identities. Chankya is now a great "Indian', similarly an independent Bengal or Bihar would have ascribed its own nationalism to its ancient 'hero's'.

But the fact remains that there is no Bengali or Bihari nation, and therfore things are interpreted quite differently.

I am not suggesting that it isn't complicated, but yes it would be considered a Greek empire, since it was created by the Greeks/Macedonians, and administered through Greece, and I suppose that is where the overlap occurs in history.

Exactly, so the tribe/ethnic group which created the empire is also taken into account.


The biggest connection is land. The IVC and other civilizations existed on the land of Pakistan, and that alone brings an intimacy with history that would not exist while considering the Mauryans or South Indian history.

On the contrary, pre-Islamic Pakistan (Vedic and post-vedic era) would have had much in common with the Mauryans and South Indian history, far more than present day Pakistan with the IVC.

Moreover, the ethnic makeup would have been quite similar to the present-day Pakistan.

However, present-day Pakistan has only the land in common with the IVC, and there is significant doubt as to whether there is significant similarity in terms of ethnic makeup.

India on the other hand has far more in common with the Harappans in terms of culture, and possibly in terms of ethnicity.

And since we do not know what happened to the IVC people, the narrative is compelling that they did not get wiped out, rather shifted away from their cities and mingled and interbred with the newer migrants into the region.

On the issue of modern Pakistanis descending form the IVC people - I pointed this out in another thread as well, a similar mystery with the collapse of the Mayan civilization exists, with the theory being advanced that the cities just became too large to sustain, in various ways - overpopulation leading to a scarcity of resources, attractive to invasion and marauders etc.

Climate change is also a theory, which led to the gradual eastward migration of the Harappan people.

The Cemetery-H culture which succeeded the Harappan one was shifted significantly eastward into the gangetic plains (all this has been discussed before).
 
This is a name, not a scientific term. There is no "correct" way to name a place.
Names are always arbitrary, and therefore to force some logic into them would be rather strange.

In any case, you cannot consider a definition which as been used for over 2000 years to be "wrong".

It makes as much sense as rejecting the current definition of "shampoo" for the oldest one, because it is "flawed".

The point is not the reasoning behind Megasthenes' definition, but the definition itself.
As I said, we take the definition 'as is' and to question it would be highly absurd.

It is pure conjecture as to why Megasthenes defined India the way he did, but the fact remains that he did, and that definition has been used since.
It is not pure conjecture that Megasthenes's definition canot be taken literally since the literal meaning is so absurd. As you said, it is not a scientific term, or a scientific definition - it is a translation from the wroks of an ancient scholar, and therefore should not be looked at literally.

But the fact remains that there is no Bengali or Bihari nation, and therfore things are interpreted quite differently.

Exactly, so the tribe/ethnic group which created the empire is also taken into account.

Your second line validates the first point I was making, that a Bengali/Bihair nation woudl have claimed the Mauryan - but since they are part of an Indian state, it is considered Indian.

On the contrary, pre-Islamic Pakistan (Vedic and post-vedic era) would have had much in common with the Mauryans and South Indian history, far more than present day Pakistan with the IVC.

Moreover, the ethnic makeup would have been quite similar to the present-day Pakistan.

However, present-day Pakistan has only the land in common with the IVC, and there is significant doubt as to whether there is significant similarity in terms of ethnic makeup.

India on the other hand has far more in common with the Harappans in terms of culture, and possibly in terms of ethnicity.



Climate change is also a theory, which led to the gradual eastward migration of the Harappan people.

The Cemetery-H culture which succeeded the Harappan one was shifted significantly eastward into the gangetic plains (all this has been discussed before).

We do not know what the culture of the IVC was or how similar it was to the vedic culture. I am not talking about commonalities between the cultures of thoise days and today's Pakistan either, by that the history on the lands of Pakistan is far more intimate to Pakistanis, through ancestry and lovcation, then that of South India or China would be.

Just because the cultures may have evolved far beyond what they were originally, does not make it any less our history.
 
It is not pure conjecture that Megasthenes's definition canot be taken literally since the literal meaning is so absurd. As you said, it is not a scientific term, or a scientific definition - it is a translation from the wroks of an ancient scholar, and therefore should not be looked at literally.

Really? the literal meaning is "absurd"?

Comeon Agno, you can do better than that.

The defintion of the boundaries of India has to be taken literally - unless you have found out some novel way of interpreting it in terms of metaphors.

What I am trying to explain here is that the meaning of a word doesn't have to conform with its origins and not that the meaning of the word cannot be taken literally.

The origin of the word "India" might have been from "Sindhu", but that doesn't make its meaning wrong or absurd. Its the usage which matters, not the origin.


We do not know what the culture of the IVC was or how similar it was to the vedic culture.

Rigvedic aryans did not have much similarity with the IVC peoples, but the later composite culture which developed did inherit a lot of the IVC culture along with the cultures of the post-IVC settlements.

I am not talking about commonalities between the cultures of thoise days and today's Pakistan either, by that the history on the lands of Pakistan is far more intimate to Pakistanis, through ancestry and location, then that of South India or China would be.

And I am simply saying that location is not everything, but ancestry and culture should be taken into account while deciding ownership.

Just because the cultures may have evolved far beyond what they were originally, does not make it any less our history.

However, if both culture and genes have been supplanted to a large extent, it does dilute the ownership by a significant factor.
 
Last edited:
Really? the literal meaning is "absurd"?

Comeon Agno, you can do better than that.

The defintion of the boundaries of India has to be taken literally - unless you have found out some novel way of interpreting it in terms of metaphors.

What I am trying to explain here is that the meaning of a word doesn't have to conform with its origins and not that the meaning of the word cannot be taken literally.

The origin of the word "India" might have been from "Sindhu", but that doesn't make its meaning wrong or absurd. Its the usage which matters, not the origin.
I already explained to you why the Megasthenes definition of the boundaries of India was absurd, you haven't really countered my argument. To suggest that the land and peoples on the West of the Indus (relatively immediate West) were dramatically different from those on the East, does not make sense. Therefore I believe it was a more general statement, with a significant geographical marker (river Indus) being used as a reference.


Rigvedic aryans did not have much similarity with the IVC peoples, but the later composite culture which developed did inherit a lot of the IVC culture along with the cultures of the post-IVC settlements.

And I am simply saying that location is not everything, but ancestry and culture should be taken into account while deciding ownership.

However, if both culture and genes have been supplanted to a large extent, it does dilute the ownership by a significant factor.
Genes and land do matter, otherwise the Greeks woudl have no claim to the Greek mythology worshiping ancestors of theirs.

It has not been shown that the IVC people migrated away from the lands of Pakistan, or were completely eliminated. So, as I argued above, conjecture around similar abandonment of Mayan cities is that the residents moved to the surrounding countryside, which woudl indicate that the genes live on in Pakistanis as those residents mingled with other incoming migrants to the region.

So Pakistanis have genes and land as a claim to that history, whether they still follow that culture is immaterial, since like the Greeks, our culture and beliefs have evolved.
 
My quote from Megasthenes was infact from his book- Indika. Here is the excerpt reproduced in full:
_____________________________________________________________


(35.) India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward.

India has many huge mountains which abound in fruit-trees of every kind, and many vast plains of great fertility--more or less beautiful, but all alike intersected by a multitude of rivers.

The greater part of the soil, moreover, is under irrigation, and consequently bears two crops in the course of the year. It teems at the same time with animals of all sorts,--beasts of the field and fowls of the air,--of all different degrees of strength and size. It is prolific, besides, in elephants, which are of monstrous bulk, as its soil supplies food in unsparing profusion, making these animals far to exceed in strength those that are bred in Libya. It results also that, since they are caught in great numbers by the Indians and trained for war, they are of great moment in turning the scale of victory.

(36.) The inhabitants, in like manner, having abundant means of subsistence, exceed in consequence the ordinary stature, and are distinguished by their proud bearing. They are also found to be well skilled in the arts, as might be expected of men who inhale a pure air and drink the very finest water. And while the soil bears on its surface all kinds of fruits which are known to cultivation, it has also under ground numerous veins of all sorts of metals, for it contains much gold and silver, and copper and iron in no small quantity, and even tin and other metals, which are employed in making articles of use and ornament, as well as the implements and accoutrements of war.

In addition to cereals, there grows throughout India much millet, which is kept well watered by the profusion of river-streams, and much pulse of different sorts, and rice also, and what is called bosporum, as well as many other plants useful for food, of which most grow spontaneously. The soil yields, moreover, not a few other edible products fit for the subsistence of animals, about which it would be tedious to write. It is accordingly affirmed that famine has never visited India, and that there has never been a general scarcity in the supply of nourishing food. For, since there is a double rainfall in the course of each year,--one in the winter season, when the sowing of wheat takes place as in other countries, and the second at the time of the summer solstice, which is the proper season for sowing rice and bosporum, as well as sesamum and millet--the inhabitants of India almost always gather in two harvests annually; and even should one of the sowings prove more or less abortive they are always sure of the other crop. The fruits, moreover, of spontaneous growth, and the esculent roots which grow in marshy places and are of varied sweetness, afford abundant sustenance for man. The fact is, almost all the plains in the country have a moisture which is alike genial, whether it is derived from the rivers, or from the rains of the summer season, which are wont to fall every year at a stated period with surprising regularity; while the great heat which prevails ripens the roots which grow in the marshes, and especially those of the tall reeds.

But, farther, there are usages observed by the Indians which contribute to prevent the occurrence of famine among them; for whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil, and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they neither ravage an enemy's land with fire, nor cut down its trees.

(37.) India, again, possesses many rivers both large and navigable, which, having their sources in the mountains which stretch along the northern frontier, traverse the level country, and not a few of these, after uniting with each other, fall into the river called the Ganges. Now this river, which at its source is 30 stadia broad, flows from north to south, and empties its waters into the ocean forming the eastern boundary of the Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king: for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals. [Thus Alexander the Macedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai, as be did on all others; for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, and had subdued all the other Indians, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war.] Another river, about the same size as the Ganges, called the Indus, has its sources, like its rival, in the north, and falling into the ocean forms on its way the boundary of India; in its passage through the vast stretch of level country it receives not a few tributary streams which are navigable, the most notable of them being the Hupanis, the Hudaspes, and the Akesines. Besides these rivers there are a great many others of every description, which permeate the country, and supply water for the nurture of garden vegetables and crops of all sorts. Now to account for the rivers being so numerous, and the supply of water so superabundant, the native philosophers and proficients in natural science advance the following reasons:--They say that the countries, which surround India--those of the Skythians and Baktrians and also of the Aryans--are more elevated than India, so that their waters, agreeably to natural law, flow down together from all sides to the plains beneath, where they gradually saturate the soil with moisture, and generate a multitude of rivers.

A peculiarity is found to exist in one of the rivers of India,--that called the Sillas, which flows from a fountain bearing the same name. It differs from all other rivers in this respect,--that nothing cast into it will float, but everything, strange to say, sinks down to the bottom.

(38.) It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous; and moreover that India neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation. The legends further inform us that in primitive times the inhabitants subsisted on such fruits as the earth yielded spontaneously, and were clothed with the skins of the beasts found in the country, as was the case with the Greeks; and that, in like manner as with them, the arts and other appliances which improve human life were gradually invented, Necessity herself teaching them to an animal at once docile and furnished not only with hands ready to second all his efforts, but also with reason and a keen intelligence.

The men of greatest learning among the Indians tell certain legends, of which it may be proper to give a brief summary. They relate that in the most primitive times, when the people of the country were still living in villages, Dionusos made his appearance coming from the regions lying to the west and at the head of a considerable army. He overran the whole of India, as there was no great city capable of resisting his arms. The heat, however, having become excessive, and the soldiers of Dionusos being afflicted with a pestilence, the leader, who was remarkable for his sagacity, carried his troops away from the plains up to the hills. There the army, recruited by the cool breezes and the waters that flowed fresh from the fountains, recovered from sickness. The place among the mountains where Dionusos restored his troops to health was called Meros; from which circumstance, no doubt, the Greeks have transmitted to posterity the legend concerning the god, that Dionusos was bred in his father's thigh. Having after this turned his attention to the artificial propagation of useful plants, he communicated the secret to the Indians, and taught them the way to make wine, as well as other arts conducive to human well-being. He was, besides, the founder of large cities, which he formed by removing the villages to convenient sites, while he also showed the people how to worship the deity, and introduced laws and courts of justice. Having thus achieved altogether many great and noble works, he was regarded as a deity and. gained immortal honours. It is related also of him that he led about with his army a great host of women and employed, in marshalling his troops for battle, drums and cymbals, as the trumpet had not in his days been invented; and that after reigning over the whole of India for two and fifty years he died of old age, while his sons, succeeding to the government, transmitted the sceptre in unbroken succession to their posterity. At last, after many generations had come and. gone, the sovereignty, it is said, was dissolved, and democratic governments were set up in the cities.

(39.) Such, then, are the traditions regarding Dionusos and his descendants current among the Indians who inhabit the hill-country. They further assert that Herakles also was born among them. They assign to him, like the Greeks, the club and the lion's skin. He far surpassed other men in personal strength and prowess, and cleared sea and land of evil beasts. Marrying many wives he begot many sons, but one daughter only. The sons having reached man's estate, he divided all India into equal portions for his children, whom he made kings in different parts of his dominions. He provided similarly for his only daughter, whom be reared up and made a queen. He was the founder, also, of no small number of cities, the most renowned and greatest of which he called Palibothra. He built therein many sumptuous palaces, and settled within its walls a numerous population. The city he fortified with trenches of notable dimensions, which were filled with water introduced from the river. Herakles, accordingly, after his removal from among men, obtained immortal honour; and his descendants, having reigned for many generations and signalized themselves by great achievements, neither made any expedition beyond the confines of India, nor sent out any colony abroad. At last, however, after many years had gone, most of the cities adopted the democratic form of government, though some retained the kingly until the invasion of the country by Alexander. Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their ancient philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable: for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that, enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess: for those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor to cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot: for it is but fair and reasonable to institute laws which bind all equally, but allow property to be unevenly distributed.

(40.) The whole population of India is divided into seven castes, of which the first is formed by the collective body of the Philosophers, which in point of number is inferior to the other classes, but in point of dignity preeminent over all. For the philosophers, being exempted from all public duties, are neither the masters nor the servants of others. They are, however, engaged by private persons to offer the sacrifices due in lifetime, and to celebrate the obsequies of the dead: for they are believed to be most dear to the gods, and to be the most conversant with matters pertaining to Hades. In requital of such services they receive valuable gifts and privileges. To the people of India at large they also render great benefits, when, gathered together at the beginning of the year, they forewarn the assembled multitudes about droughts and. wet weather, and also about propitious winds, and diseases, and other topics capable of profiting-the hearers. Thus the people and the sovereign, learning beforehand what is to happen, always make adequate provision against a coming deficiency, and never fail to prepare beforehand what will help in a time of need. The philosopher who errs in his predictions incurs no other penalty than obloquy, and he then observes silence for the rest of his life.

The second caste consists of the Husbandmen, who appear to be far more numerous than the others. Being, moreover, exempted from fighting and other public services, they devote the whole of their time to tillage; nor would an enemy coming upon a husbandman at work on his land do him any harm, for men of this class, being regarded as public benefactors, are protected from all injury. The land, thus remaining unravaged, and producing heavy crops, supplies the inhabitants with all that is requisite to make life very enjoyable. The husbandmen themselves, with their wives and children, live in the country, and entirely avoid going into town. They pay a land-tribute to the king, because all India is the property of the crown, and no private person is permitted to own land. Besides the land-tribute, they pay into the royal treasury a fourth part of the produce of the soil.

The third caste consists of the Neatherds and Shepherds and in general of all herdsmen who neither settle in towns nor in villages, but live in tents. By hunting and trapping they clear the country of noxious birds and wild beasts. As they apply themselves eagerly and assiduously to this pursuit, they free India from the pests with which it abounds,--all sorts of wild beasts, and birds which devour the seeds sown by the husbandmen.

(41.) The fourth caste consists of the Artizans. Of these some are armourers, while others make the implements which husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings. This class is not only exempted from paying taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer.

The fifth caste is the Military. It is well organized and equipped for war, holds the second place in point of numbers, and gives itself up to idleness and amusement in the times of peace. The entire force--men-at-arms, war-horses, war-elephants, and all--are maintained at the king's expense.

The sixth caste consists of the Overseers. It is their province to inquire into and superintend all that goes on in India, and make report to the king, or, where there is not a king, to the magistrates.

The seventh caste consists of the Councillors and Assessors,--of those who deliberate on public affairs. It is the smallest class, looking to number, but the most respected, on account of the high character and wisdom of its members; for from their ranks the advisers of the king are taken, and the treasurers, of the state, and the arbiters who settle disputes. The generals of the army also, and the chief magistrates, usually belong to this class.

Such, then, are about the parts into which the body politic in India is divided. No one is allowed to marry out of his own caste, or to exercise any calling or art except his own: for instance, a soldier cannot become a husbandman, or an artizan a philosopher.

(42.) India possesses a vast number of huge elephants, which far surpass those found elsewhere both in strength and size. This animal does not cover the female in a peculiar way, as some affirm, but like horses and other quadrupeds. The period of gestation is at shortest sixteen months, and at furthest eighteen. Like mares, they generally bring forth but one young one at a time, and this the dam suckles for six years. Most elephants live to be as old as an extremely old man, but the most aged live two hundred years.

Among the Indians officers are appointed even for foreigners whose duty is to see that no foreigner is wronged. Should any of them lose his health, they send physicians to attend him, and take care of him otherwise, and if he dies they bury him, and deliver over such property as he leaves to his relatives. The judges also decide cases in which foreigners are concerned, with the greatest care, and come down sharply on those who take unfair advantage of them. [What we have now said regarding India and its antiquities will suffice, for our present purpose.]
______________________________________________________

Source: Project South Asia

______________________________________________________
 
Flint,
That doesn't really answer my argument.

I would still point out that the people and land on the West of the Indus, unless you are getting closer to Baluchistan or NWFP, are essentially the same as those on the East. So Megasthenes's description of the Western boundary of India cannot be taken literally.
 
Apparently Megasthenes was in Chandragupta Maurya's court as an ambassador for Seleucus I of Syria.

That would mean that his descriptions of India are in fact those of Maurya's empire, which might explain why he arbitrarily chose the Indus as his Western boundary, since the land and the people would not have suddenly changed across the river - East and West of the Indus is all the Indus plain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom