There is an element of compulsion about this response which is unpleasant. The post to which I am responding was not really necessary, in my opinion. As it was made, and is on record, and demands a response if only to clear the air and clarify what an even earlier note intended to convey, it seems to be a compelling need to reply.
First, it is a
typical Indian bad habit to get side-tracked into issues relating to societal structures and the politics of societal domination. All discourses, including historical, anthropological, linguistic and cultural discourses, have been diverted in this manner. We are obsessed with caste and race and who is superior to whom, rather than with practical aspects of forming a cohesive society and getting on with things.
This thread is about the tactical methods used by Alexander and by Porus respectively; it is about military analysis. It doesn't matter a dam what Porus was, what his caste was, what his dynastic descent was, what god he worshipped, and all the rest of that. Discussing those things is typical, and also pathetic; instead of discussing military systems and methods, perhaps with a view to understanding warfare and the development of warfare better, we are sitting around discussing social systems and structures, perhaps with a view to understanding society, social processes and the development of society better. That is good. It's just that such discussions are not appropriate for this forum. If any of you want, this can be taken off-forum. Write a mail to
Thy Neighbours Life
As far as this thread is concerned, I am now looking for suggestions for the next battle to be considered, in a similar manner, on the basis of sources, rather than on the basis of our half-remembered anecdotal information, or our prejudices, inherited sometimes from distant ancestors, or said to be.
As a courtesy to the posters, I shall reply 124 and 125, and no more.
As I am the person who raised the caste issue of Porus in this thread at first, so need to clear few things;
Apart from typical habits of persons here and there and what they think, race and/or caste is a sub set of every discourse on history, anthropology, linguistics and culture. Our obsessions are our own problems stemming from our inferiority or superiority complexes etc but consideration of race is one of paramount factors that has to be investigated for an man that lived 2200 years ago.
At least for me, it is a matter of identification not superiority or inferiority.
Strong racial or tribal affiliations/prejudices has inverse relationship with cohesiveness in a multi-ethnic society, true, but why we should shy away form a scholarly discussion?
It is true that in a full and well-rounded consideration of an historical event, it is necessary to possess some elements, at least the essential elements of historiography, archaeology, linguistics and social anthropology. To that extent, you are justified in arguing that a consideration of the social anthropology of the opponents is relevant. That is a fair and proper evaluation in an abstract sphere, but it does not take into account the cultural and political context within which this discussion is taking place.
Your arguments are an insufficient reason to embark on an enquiry into race in this instance, in spite of what you have added in the later portions of your note. These are insufficient because of the very negative aspects of such an enquiry in the current political context. There are some keywords, Aryan, kshatriya, caste, that go into a contemporary political dialogue with very serious overtones, which is conducted by one side at least with a lack of information about the history of that dialogue: the historiographical foundation, so to speak. To take only the example of the Arya, it was originally not a racial term; it was a social distinction, a
"consciousness of upper-caste status in a system of varna-based society (sudras are not aryas); respectability of occupation or designation (scavengers are not aryas); using the Sanskrit language where others used a different languages; and worshipping the Vedic deities propitiated in hymns and initially as abstractions through sacrificial rituals, where others worship iconic or aniconic fertility and folk symbols through rituals other than large-scale sacrifices."
Gradually the concept of arya also changed. A Buddhist monk, essentially opposed to Vedic belief and ritual, breaking the rules of varna-based society and speaking Prakrit, was nevertheless addressed as arya by lay Buddhists as a mark of respect.
It was never about race. The subsequent use of Aryan by Europeans, and, imitating them, Indians was grossly incorrect. Aryan was a label for the Indo-Aryan languages, therefore the use of the word Aryan is legitimately a short-cut for 'speakers of Indo-Aryan languages', not for a racial category which could be defined as Aryan. Biology and linguistics should obviously never be confused. Unfortunately, they were confused; they are, in fact, confused in daily life in the context of the Indian political discourse that goes on.
This confusion was present in the writings of Max Mueller even though he admits clearly the distinction between race and language. At some subconscious level, he, however, persisted in that mistake, and in his writings, this confusion creeps in more than once. To him, a race of the Indo-Aryans went away westwards, into Iran; a race of those same Indo-Aryans invaded northern India and laid the foundation of Indian civilisation. These concepts are disastrously wrong, as has been established again and again by scholars working on these aspects. These concepts persist, however, sometimes in the form of belief-systems held by scholars. These concepts have, in fact, been taken up to justify the absorption, sometimes the forcible or coercive absorption of the tribal population into Hindu society.
I have used the concept arya and Arya to illustrate the point. The use and abuse of kshatriya, Jat and caste are similar. Their use gives rise to disastrous extrapolations into modern life, through the sheer power of the conceptual finesse and comprehensive nature of the varnasrama. (In case these descriptions are not understood as description, and
finesse is taken as a compliment and a recommendation, let me state on record that I am opposed to varnasrama and to the caste system).
Kshatriya is used to indicate dominant status, and has been co-opted, without justification, by dominant sections of Indian society to imply some superiority of social status. Other than those who call themselves Varma, both in north India and in south India, there are no legitimate Kshatriyas who have survived into today's age and day. Some Varmas are those who have born the title from times immemorial; they are proably Kshatriya. Others took it originally as part of their name, not as caste descriptor but merely name; these include sudras; these are mistakenly considered to be Kshatriya.
The word Kshatriya itself has survived, and has been used, however, to legitimise feudal remnants, and to imply their dominant, leadership role in society, which is quite wrong and is positively dangerous, seeking as it does to set up a social system which subverts democracy and the democratic value of equality.
We can argue similarly against the idea of caste, and urge that it be swept away, however long it takes, and to avoid taking it as a socially significant category, or any category or concept that dilutes the democratic desideratum of equality.
If, Porus was a Kshtriya, then we can discern his principles of warfare, weapons employed, etc. (in short, military systems and methods, as you wrote) in the light of huge plethora of literature, info, wisdom or lack of that, that is available to us in Mahabharata, Dhanurveda(s), Nitisaras, Agnipurana etc. etc.
A horrible error. This places legitimate and acceptable sources of history in the same category as myth and fable. The equivalent examples may be illustrative. We accept Herodotus as authentic history, and, subject to critical analysis (elimination of men with one leg, gold-mining ants, those who slept in the shelter of their own ears), we take his account as a starting point in some instances. We do not take the Iliad and the Odyssey as history. Sources which inform us about Achaian Greek culture, perhaps, but not as history, not even as historical sources. Why, then, allow ourselves the luxury of converting our own myths into history, or as sources of history. This implies accepting the king-lists of the Puranas, the proto-history recorded in the Vedas and the Puranas, accepting the split into Puru-descended Bharat in the north of north India, and Turvasus and Yadus in the south of north India, accepting the Krishna myth as authentic, and tracing his troubles from an intrusion of the Yadu clan into the Mathura region, an internal usurpation of power by a sub-section of the ruling Yadus (and Vrishni and Astaka), a defeat of the usurper and threats from the suzerain in Magadha, leading to a precipitate flight into the Gujarat-Saurashtra region.
Are we to take this as historical fact? As we did Herodotus, in our parallel, eliminating daityas and danavas, and wonderful weapons shot from a bow which could destroy the world, all of creation for that matter, flying chariots, sons born of Asura wives who could change shape from a thumb-sized to a colossal giant who could kill an entire akshauhini in his fall?
If we are to bring these myths and fables in, and try to force fit the weapons-craft of the epics into real-life battles and wars, can we find anything comprehensible? It is certainly an option, but it is not an option for the professional or amateur historian, and by extrapolation, not an option for the military historian or the analyst. If we bring in one idiot example, we bring in the lot; we then have to submit to the earnest Pakistani army officer instructing his planners that one Pakistani soldier is equal to five Indian soldiers, only to be interrupted by his indignant senior, who intones that the correct ratio is one is to seven (the figures vary from fable to fable).
I can cite other examples from fanboy accounts of the Kargil conflict, or, to switch to the Indian side, some from the conflict with the Chinese in 62. From kshatriya, we are one short step away from martial races and the rest of that British mythology born out of their need to change the composition of their forces immediately after the Mutiny. From caste-based paradigms, we are one short step away from refusing to heed historical records about Bhils and Doms used as infantry in the west of India and the east respectively; they do not belong to the correct caste, so they can't possibly have been used).
For example, Greeks spoke of mighty bowmen of Indica, wielding a bow of equivalent height of bowman, whose one nock/edge has to be pressed with left foot after placing it on the ground and an arrow of about 3 cubit long can be discharge by pulling bow string way back the head. Now, I am unable to find any such bow which meet the description, method of holding the bow, method of discharge of arrow...... in any ancient literature of warfare mentioned above.
Why strain to find something in fabulous literature? This is incredible; your argument amounts to saying that an observation from real life is somehow illegitimate because it is not corroborated by myth!
furthering my point, Greeks also spoke of a caste system, which, in my view, has only fleeting semblance of what we find in literature.
Again, a dangerous fallacy. We have the accounts of the Greeks; we have a system described in the literature which perhaps never existed in real life, except as a theoretical taxonomy; and we have the reality as it exists around us today. Why must the first and the third be force-fitted to the dimensions demanded by the second?
And if Porus is not Kshtriya, then, I don't know what to make of it.
How this dilemma exists in the first place is difficult to understand. It seems - again - that your assessment of the historical record is determined by its validation by mythology.
Are you serious?
I would be thankful to you for your kind gesture, but I would hold that discussion is far from over.
For one, we had not established the decisive factor(s) in the success of Macedonian army and/or it was a victory of stalemate (remember...)?
This is perfectly correct, and perfectly out of context. My self-imposed restriction was to avoid any commitment to sorting out the mish-mash of fable and myth and literary quandary that could possibly be deployed around a caste-description of Porus which is not established, not by writers who knew the significance and context of caste, and which in any case has nothing to do with the battle per se.
If it had not drifted, and we had still been at a consideration of the reasons for arguing either for a decisive victory for the Macedonians or a stalemate, I would have participated very happily. That option, as it seemed by the diversion that the discussion took, was no longer left to me.
