Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c16: Chapter VIII: Hindu Republics in Greek Writers (C. 325 B.C.)

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c16

Language
English

Chapter VIII: Hindu Republics in Greek Writers (C. 325 B.C.)

c16.2

§ 60. The historians of Alexander's campaign have described a number of states as 'free,' 'autonomous,' or 'independent,' by which they mean republican. McCrindle recognises the significance of the expression 'independent' but as he was ignorant of the fact of Indian republics, he thought that it referred to 'the Indian village system: *“Each of its rural units they (Greeks) took to be an independent republic.”*¹ But the Greeks never mistook a village panchāyat for a republic; they treat the communities as states and not as village-units. They fought them, they negotiated treaties with them, they recorded details of their constitutions; the Greeks knew them too well to make a mistake of the sort suggested by McCrindle. Then, the Greeks may be trusted for their discrimination in matters constitutional. There cannot be any room for doubt or controversy if we see what Megasthenes, the Greek envoy at the court of Chandragupta Maurya has to say. He was not a passing raider like Alexander's companions but an observer of several years. He divides the country into two forms of government—monarchical and republican:—

c16.3

¹ *Invasion of India by Alexander*, p. 115, n.

c16.4

“They...*report every thing to the king where the people have a king, and to the magistrates where the people are self-governed*.”²

c16.5

² McCrindle, *Megasthenes*, Arr. XII. Cf. also: “The councillors of state...who 'advise the king, or the magistrates of self-governed cities, in the management of public affairs....” *Ibid.*, p. 212.

c16.6

§ 61. The republican states noted by the Greek historians may be briefly surveyed here.

c16.7

The Greek writers describe the Kathaians as one of the most powerful 'nations' of India. They were to the east of the Hydraotes or Ravi, in the area now covered by the districts of Lahore and Amritsar. Their capital was Sāṅkala. *"The Kathaians themselves enjoyed the highest reputation for courage and skill in the art of war."*¹ They along with some other republican Indians had shortly before their battle with Alexander defeated both King Poros and the King of the Abhisāras. The Kathaians are described to have formed what in Hindu tactics is called a 'śakaṭa-vyūha' or the 'waggon-formation' against Alexander, which presented a great difficulty to his soldiers. They fought very bravely and did not submit, although they were tremendously outnumbered.∗ Their men and women married by choice, and their women observed the practice of *Satī*. According to Strabo, amongst them *"the handsomest man is chosen as king."*†

c16.8

¹ See Arrian, *Anabasis*, V. 22, IIA., p. 115.

c16.9

∗ Arrian has a tendency to exaggerate the number of the Indians and their casualties, to glorify Alexander. His figures should be always compared with those given by Curtius and Diodorus.

c16.10

† Strabo, XV. 30. See McCrindle, *Ancient India as described by Classical Writers*, p. 38.

c16.11

The 'Kathaians' have been restored by some scholars into the Sanskrit 'Kshatriyas'.‡ This restoration is untenable. First of all the forms of words which the Greek writers give are based on Sanskrit pronunciation, and Katha would be a Prakritic form, and, therefore, an exception. When the whole country (Punjab) used Sanskrit forms, it is unreasonable to take Kathai as based on a Prākṛita form. Then, it is questionable whether even from the Prākṛita of Kshatriya we would get Kathai; we would get some word like *Khattiya*.

c16.12

‡ McCrindle, *Invasion of India by Alexander the Great*, p. 347.

c16.13

(*excellent system of internal government; for the multitude was* "*governed by the aristocracy, who exercised their authority* "*with justice and moderation*" (Arrian, Bk. V 25).¹ The description tallies with Kauṭilya's Vārtāśastropajīvinaḥ. They were prosperous by agriculture and kept themselves ready for war, fully depending on their own sword. It is unfortunate that the state has been left unnamed. Actual government vested in what the Greeks called an aristocracy. "But their parliament consisted of five thousand representatives."² The find-spot of Yaudheya coins suggests that this unnamed state on the Beas was probably of the Yaudheyas. Each member of parliament supplied one elephant to the state army) These Indians according to Arrian (V. 25), had elephants in greater number and of superior size and courage. As Alexander himself put it, the Macedonians had been "wont to fight only against small numbers,"³ "now "for the first time" they had to face really large armies. And they refused to move an inch forward amongst the nations whose very name, according to Alexander, filled his soldiers with terror.⁴ There was this unnamed Republic which covered the land on the other side of the Beas. There was also the great army of the Nanda waiting to give reception to the Macedonian, but the immediate cause of alarm was the prospect of meeting the republic beyond the river. Alexander's army "now began to lose heart" and "they began to hold conferences" where people "positively asserted that they would follow no further."⁵ It was from the doors of the unnamed republic that the campaign of Alexander assumed the form of retreat.

c16.14

¹ McCrindle, *I. I. by Alexander*, p. 121.

c16.15

² "All the country beyond Hupanis is allowed to be very fertile . . . . . They "mention also an aristocratical form of government consisting of five "thousand Councillors, each of whom furnishes the State with an "elephant." Strabo, XV. 37 (McCrindle, *Ancient India as described in Classical Literature*, p. 45.)

c16.16

³ *Ibid*, p. 224.

c16.17

⁴ McCrindle, *Ibid*, p. 223.

c16.18

⁵ Arrian, V. 25. See McCrindle, *I. I. by Alexander*, p. 121.

c16.19

The large number of the members of their council is comparable with the number of the Lichchhavi-gaṇa (§ 47).

c16.20

§ 65. During this retreat Alexander came across a number of republics. In fact, all the States he met on his way back, down the Indus and up to the Indian frontier in Baluchistan, were republican. The most powerful amongst them were the Kshudrakas and the Mālavas. They are spelt by the Greeks as Oxydrakai and Malloi respectively They were on the Hydaspes, by which the Greeks apparently mean the passage of the Jhelum after its unity with the Chenab. The two states formed one league.¹ Arrian (VI. 4) says that they were the most numerous and warlike of the Indian 'nations' in those parts. "Alexander "first reached the nation called the Malloi." Near the Malloi there were their republican friends called the Siboi,² whom the Jātakas and Patañjali know as the Sivis and the Śaibyas.³ The Malloi are called a race of independent Indians (Arrian, VI 6); their cities were along the Chenab and their capital was near the Ravi. It was in the siege of the capital or one of the cities of the Malloi that Alexander nearly lost his life. Owing to the unity of the league, the Greek writers could not decide whether Alexander's narrow escape relates to the city of the Malloi or to that of the Oxydrakai. The strength of the army as given by Curtius, was 1,00,000. "*The Macedonians lost their heart at the prospect of meeting this army.*" "*When the Macedonians found that they had still on hand a fresh war in which the most warlike nations in all India would be their antagonists, they were struck with an unexpected terror, and began again to upbraid the king in the language of sedition.*"¹ These Indians were regarded by the soldiers as "*fierce nations*" who would not let them proceed without drawing their blood. The fear of the Macedonians was well justified and is attested by the account of the personal calamity of Alexander and the lamentations which followed (IIA, pp. 241-2).

c16.21

¹ Cf. the Kshatriya-dvandva of the Kāśikā on P. IV. 2. 45.

c16.22

² Curtius, IX. 4. There was no king amongst them, only the citizens filled the highest offices (Diodorus, XVII. 96).

c16.23

³ J. VI. 480; Kielhorn, II; 282. The Jātakas find them connected with Sovīra (IV. 401), *i.e.*, they then occupied the same locality where the Greeks encountered them. In the age of the Jātakas they had been monarchical. For their republican coin, and subsequent migration, see § 150 below. Patañjali treats Śibi as the name of a country or state (*vishaya*).

c16.24

¹ Curtius, Bk IX, Ch. IV; McCrindle, *I. I. by Alexander*, p. 234.

c16.25

§ 66 The Greek writers with their palpable desire to magnify the glory of Alexander² would make us believe that the Kshudrakas and the Mālavas were crushed and annihilated by Alexander. But Patañjali discloses a different story. The former mentions the league as living, and one of them, the Kshudrakas, being victorious.³ The Macedonian writers themselves describe and admit their existing importance after the war. The two 'nations' sent "*hundred ambassadors*" who "*all rode in chariots and were men of uncommon stature and of a very dignified bearing. Their robes were of linen embroidered with in-wrought gold and purple.*" "*The gods, they said, were the authors of their submission and not fear.*" They were proud of their "liberty which for so many ages they had preserved inviolate." Alexander who was very vindictive against all those who had opposed him, in spite of the personal suffering to which he had been subjected by these opponents, treated the ambassadors with uncommon hospitality. "He "gave orders for the preparation of a splendid banquet to which "he invited the ambassadors." … "Here a hundred couches "of gold had been placed at a small distance of each other, "and these were hung round with tapestry curtains which "glittered with gold and purple" (Curtius, Bk. IX. Ch. 7).¹ Alexander entertained them with shows at which wine flowed. And the "ambassadors were dismissed to their several homes." (Ch. 8).² All this does not read like the description of a crushed enemy, but rather of one whose subordinate alliance was welcomed by Alexander after he had tested their valour. Alexander had not only to secure his rear in his retreat but had also to pacify and render confident the '*seditious*' Macedonians.

c16.26

² "*Many fictions also have been recorded by historians concerning this accident, and Fame, receiving them from the original inventors, has preserved them to our own day, nor will she cease to transmit the falsehoods to one generation after another.*" Arrian, Bk. VI, Ch. 11). "Fame is never brought to a clearness in which facts can be seen as they are. They are all magnified when she transmits them. Even our [Alexander's] own glory, though resting on a solid basis, is more indebted for its greatness to rumour than to reality." McCrindle, *I. I. by Alexander*, p. 225.

c16.27

³ एकाकिभिः क्षुद्रकैर्जितम्, Patañjali on P. V. 3, 52; Kielhorn, II, p. 412

c16.28

¹ McCrindle, *ITA by Alexander*, pp. 248–51.

c16.29

² Weber (HIL., p. 223, n.) misunderstood the whole discussion and put the cart before the horse when he says that Āpisali regarded them as united and that therefore his successor Pāṇini lived after the union i.e., after Alexander. But both Kātyāyana and Patañjali are supplying the very want which arises on account of Pāṇini's rule—a rule composed at a time when there was no such union. Āpiśali gives no rule for them and the grammarian who composed the verse quoted by Patañjali is applying a rule of Āpiśali which had no reference to the Kshudraka-Mālavas. The composer of the verse knew the *vārttika* of Kātyāyana. If this exceptional rule had been anticipated before Kātyāyana's time either by Āpiśali or any one else, Kātyāyana would not have claimed the correction as he does by his *vārttika*. The whole passage is quoted here for the convenience of those who may care to follow the discussion in the original. The net result is that the league of the Kshudraka-Mālavas did not exist in the time of Pāṇini, though they themselves evidently existed, and that the league was a living institution in the time of Kātyāyana and that of Patañjali. The organisation thus evidently outlived the Mauryan empire.

c16.30

§ 67. That they existed before the time of Kātyāyana as a league is proved by his *vārttika* and the comments of Patañjali on Pāṇini *Khaṇḍikādibhyaścha* (IV. 2. 45). The league did not exist in the time of Pāṇini as he does not provide a form for their united army. Kātyāyana supplied this, and removed what he found in his time a deficiency. Their united names did exist in the Gaṇapāṭha as it was found by Patañjali, for Patañjali says, "*Kshudraka-Mālava-śabdaḥ Khaṇḍikādishu paṭhyate*," "*in the Khaṇḍikā group 'Kshudraka-"Mālava' expression is read (found)*." Patañjali quotes an old verse which holds that the Kshudraka-Mālava is not a *gotra* or tribal expression. It also gives a rule of Āpiśali which the author of the verse considers applicable to the Kshudraka-Mālava but the rule itself does not know them.³

c16.31

§ 68. Curtius says that to lead the united army a brave warrior of the Kshudrakas was selected, and that he was an experienced general (Bk. ix, Ch. 4).

c16.32

It is important to notice the composition of the so-called a m b a s s a d o r s who had come to conclude peace with Alexander from the two republics. These were the l e a d i n g m e n representing their cities and provinces. *"From the*cont

c16.33

* **खण्‍डिकादिभ्‍यः ॥ ४ । २ । ४५ ॥**
**“अञ्प्रसिद्‍धिरदण्‍डादेर्ब्रौड्यै क्षुद्रकमालवात्।”**
अञ्प्रसिद्‍धिरित्येवाप्रसिद्‍धः किमर्थं क्षुद्रकमालवशब्‍दः खण्‍डिकादिषु पठ्यते । गोत्रचरणी वुञ्छान्दस-
डाद्यनार्थम् ।
**“गोत्राद्‍ वुञ् च तदौध्‍वं।”**
गोत्राद्‍वुञ्भवतीत्युच्यते न च क्षुद्रकमालवशब्‍दो गोत्रम् । न च गोत्रसमुदायो गोत्रग्रहणेन गृह्यते । तद्यथा ।
जनपदसमुदायो जनपदग्रहणेन न गृह्यते । काशिकौशलीया इति वुञ्न भवति । तदन्तविधिना प्राप्नोति ।
**“तदन्‍तान्न स पूर्वः ॥ १ ॥”**
परिगणितेषु कार्येषु तदन्तविधिर्न चेदं तत्र परिगण्यते ।
**“ज्ञापकं स्यात्तदन्तत्वे”**
एवं तर्हि ज्ञापयत्याचार्यो भवत्येव तदन्तविधिरिति ।
**“तथाचाविप्रकीर्णसिद्‍धिः।”**
एवं च कृत्वाविप्रकीर्णवाक्यस्य विधिरुपपन्नो भवति ।
धेनुर्वृन्धे समुत्पाद्यति । धेनुनां समूहो धैनुकम् ।
असमस्तौति किमर्थम् । अधेनूनां समूह आधैणुकम् ।
**“सेनाया नियमार्थं वा।”**
अथवा नियमार्थोऽयमारम्भः । क्षुद्रकमालवमन्दात्कण्वाग्रिमः । क मा भूत । क्षौद्रकमालवकसमकादिति ।
**“यथावास्येत वार्त्तृका ॥ १-४”**

c16.34

"*Oxydrakai came the leading men of their cities and their provincial governors*'"¹ They were "entrusted with full powers "to conclude a treaty." The representatives of the Malloi are reported to have said that "*they were attached more than others to freedom and autonomy, and their freedom had been preserved intact from the time of Dionysius*"² (by whom the Greeks probably meant Balarāma).

c16.35

¹ Arrian, Bk. VI. Ch. 14 McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 154.

c16.36

² *Ibid.*

c16.37

§ 69. It may be noted that the good features and fine, tall physique of these free Indians are particularly noticed by the Macedonian writers. The point is important on the question of the ethnology of Indian republics which we shall consider later (Ch. xxi).

c16.38

(The Mālavas were apparently on the lower course of the Jhelum after its unity with the Chenab, while the Kshudrakas occupied the higher regions.)³

c16.39

³ See the view of V. Smith on the location, J. R. A. S., 1903, p. 685.

c16.40

§ 70. Alexander met in the neighbourhood of the last two republics the Agsinae,⁴ who had mustered an army, if we believe Diodorous, of 40,000 foot and 3,000 horse. "They barricaded their "narrow streets, fought with great vigour, so that Alexander "in pressing the attack lost a few Macedonians."⁵

c16.41

⁴ On the identification of this name see ante § 58.

c16.42

⁵ Diodorous, BK. XVII, Ch. 96 McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 285.

c16.43

अथवा ज्ञापयत्याचार्यः पूर्वोऽपि द्वन्द्वपरसप्तमं बाधत इति । ननु चोक्तं ज्ञौत्राङ्कस्त च तद्गोत्रादिति । तदनाविधिना प्राप्नोति। अनुलोमं तद्गोत्र स सर्वत इति । ज्ञापकं स्याद्द्वन्द्वात् । एवं तर्हि ज्ञापयत्याचार्यो भवतीयं तदन्तविधिरिति । कथं पुनरेतद्दुभयं शक्यं ज्ञापयितुं भवति च तदन्तविधिः पूर्वश्च द्वन्द्वपरसप्तमं बाधत इति । उभयं ज्ञायते ॥
**अभ्यर्हितं पूर्वं क्षुद्रकमालवात्सेना संज्ञायाम्** ॥ १ ॥
**अभ्यर्हितं पूर्वं क्षुद्रकमालवात्सेनासंज्ञायामिति वक्तव्यम् । क्षौद्रकमालवी सेना चेत्। क्क मा भूत् । क्षौद्रकमालवकसच्चादिति ॥**

c16.44

—Kielhorn, *vol.* II, pp. 280-1.

c16.45

According to Curtius when those brave fellows could not further resist the odds, they made, what we know now as Rājput *Jauhar*, of their wives and children into the flames by setting fire to their houses.¹

c16.46

¹ Curtius, Bk IX, Ch 4, McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 232.

c16.47

§ 71. European scholars have proposed their identification with the Ārjunāyanas.² But this is unacceptable on philological grounds. The name is a composite of two words, *Agra* and *Śreṇi*. And the main word is found in Kauṭilya in the list of republics which did not call their president Rājan and which were martial.³ There the form *Śreṇi* only appears; the member *Agra* shows that there were probably more than one unit in the Śreṇi (§ 58).

c16.48

² *Ibid*, p. 367. At that time the Arjunāyana state does not appear to have existed. It is unknown up to Patañjali, and to the Mahā-Bhārata which notices all other republican peoples of the locality we have been dealing with (See *Sabhāparvan* LII. 14-15).

c16.49

³ See discussion above § 53.

c16.50

§ 72. The next republic mentioned by the Greeks was that of the Ambashṭhas, spelt as *Sambastai* and *Abastanoi*.⁴ "*They were a people inferior to none in India, either for numbers or for bravery.*" Their form of government was "*democratic.*"⁵ Their army consisted of 60,000 foot, 6,000 cavalry and 500 chariots. "They had elected three generals renowned for their valour and military skill."

c16.51

⁴ Diod., XVII, 102, McCrindle, *Alexander*, 252.

c16.52

⁵ Curtius, Bk IX, Ch. 8., McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 252.

c16.53

Alexander made peace with them having received fifty of the foremost citizens who had come as ambassadors "under the belief that they would be treated with all proper courtesy." It is stated by Diodorus that the embassy was sent on the Ambashṭhas' having "adopted the advice of their elders not to fight." This probably indicates that their democratic constitution allowed an Upper House, of Elders.

c16.54

§ 73. The A m b a s h ṭ h a s as a political community are mentioned by Patañjali and the Mahā-Bhārata.¹ The Purāṇas say that A m b a s h ṭ h a of the House of Aila founded a dynasty in the Punjab.² The Purāṇas in giving the early account know them as a monarchical people. The change in their constitution thus was from monarchy to republic like the change in that of the Śibis (§ 65 *n.*) The Purāṇas say the same about the Y a u d h e y a s, that they too, along with the Ambashṭhas, were monarchical. But the later monumental history of the Yaudheyas is the history of a republican people. The Purāṇic data therefore must refer to the origins.³

c16.55

¹ On Pāṇini, IV. 1. 170; *cf.* Kāśikā, pp. 292-3. Patañjali treats *Ambashṭha* as the name of a country or state, and its inhabitants he calls *Ambashṭhyas*. Sabhāparvan, Ch. XXXII, Verses 7-9, where they are placed along with the Mālavas. See also Pāṇini VIII 3. 97.

c16.56

² Pargiter, *J.R.A.S.*, 1914, p. 277.

c16.57

³ The people who were to the south of the Ambashṭhas are called *S o d r a i* by the Greek writers. (McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 293). These Sindhi people are identified by Lassen (*Ind. Alt.* II. 144, 177) with *S ū d r a s*. But the form brings it nearer the *S ' a u d r a s* [Śaudrāyaṇas] of the *Gp.* on P. IV. 2. 4.

c16.58

§ 74. The next "independent nation" was the X a t h r o i. This restored in Sanskrit will be *Kshattriya*. As I have said above, they are identical with the republic which bore the proper name '*Kshattriya*' as in the Artha-Śāstra. Kauṭilya places them together with the Śreṇis and here also we find the Ś r e ṇ i s as neighbours to the K s h a t t r i y a s. As already suggested, the *Sindhi Khattri* caste, seem to be their modern representative. According to the division of Kauṭilya they did not have a king consul.⁴

c16.59

⁴ *AS.*, XI., p. 376.

c16.60

§ 75. The O s s a d i o i were also an 'independent nation' according to Arrian.⁵ No other writer mentions them. Their proposed identification with the Yaudheyas (by Cunningham)⁶ is untenable on philological grounds. They seem to be, as suggested by V de Saint-Martin (McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 156, *n*), identical with the Vasātis of the Mahā-Bhārata (Sabha, LII. 15) who appear there as neighbours of the Kshudrakas and the Mālavas and in a group commencing with the Ambashṭhas. Kātyāyana and Patañjali mention the 'country of the Vasātis' along with that of the Śibis (on P. IV. 2. 52). The Gaṇapāṭha (on P. IV. 2. 53) places them in the group commencing with the republican *Rājanyas* (§ 160).

c16.61

⁵ Arrian, Bk. VI. Ch. 15; McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 156; Strabo, Bk. XV. Ch. 34.

c16.62

⁶ Cunningham, *A. S. R.*, Vol. XIV., p. 140.

c16.63

§ 76. It is not certain whether the next state had a regal or popular constitution. Alexander's companions admired their constitution and laws. "They regard the excessive pursuit of any art, as war for instance and the like, as wickedness." (Strabo, XV. 34). The realm was reported to be the most opulent in India.¹ The citizens took their meals in common, a practice also mentioned in the Atharva Veda.² They did not recognise the institution of slavery (Strabo, XV 34). It is possible to recover the name of this free people from our literature. The identification, proposed by Lassen,³ with the Mushikas cannot stand. The Mushikas were below the Sahya or the Vindhyas.⁴ *Mousikanos* seems to stand for what we have in the Kāśikā (p. 313, on P. IV. 2. 80) as *Muchukarṇa* to denote

c16.64

¹ McCrindle, *Ancient India as described in Classical Literature*, p. 41.

c16.65

² ज्यायस्वन्तश्चित्तिनो मा वि यौष्ट संराधयन्तः सधुराश्चरन्तः। अन्यो अन्यस्मै वल्गु वदन्त एत सध्रीचीनान्तः संमनसस्कृणोमि ॥ ५ ॥ समानी प्रपा सहवोन्नभागः समाने योक्त्रे सह वो युनज्मि ।......।। ३।३०।५—६ ॥

c16.66

³ McCrindle, *IIA*, p. 157 n.

c16.67

⁴ Jayaswal, *Hathigumpha Inscription of the Emperor, Kharavela, J. B. O. R. S.*, Vol. IV, p. 376.

c16.68

"Following your leader, of (the same) mind, do ye not hold yourselves apart! "Do ye come here, co-operating, going along the same wagon-pole, speaking agreeably "to one another! I render you of the same aim, of the same mind.
"Identical shall be your drink, in common shall be your "share of food! I yoke you together in the same traces . . . . . "
—Bloomfield, *S. B. E.* Vol. xlii, p. 134.

c16.69

the proper name of a country (*Mauchikarṇika*). The spelling of the word is corrupt in the printed Gaṇapāṭha, but the Kāśikā reading is supported by Vardhamāna in his Gaṇa-Ratna-Mahodadhi¹ (IV 285) who gives it on the authority of Śakaṭāṅgaja. Another reading seems to have been *Muchikarṇa*² (corrupt *Śuchikarṇa*, G. R. M., p. 174).

c16.70

¹ Ed. by Bāhumaṇus, 1898 (Allahabad), p. 174.

c16.71

² The Greeks were evidently rendering *Mauchikarṇa*. The change of *ch* into *s* is regular in their renderings.

c16.72

[The neighbouring states of Sambos and the Presti (probably the Prasthalas of the Mahā-Bhārata³) are also described as kingdoms.]

c16.73

³ *Sabhāparvan*, Ch. XIV.

c16.74

§ 76A. The city of 'the nation called Brachmanoi' (Arrian, VI. 16; Diodorus, XVII, CII), also mentioned as the 'country of the Brachmans' (Dio. XVII. CIII) was next reduced by Alexander. This seems to have been identical with what Patañjali calls Brāhmaṇako nāma Janapadaḥ (II. p. 298) '*the country* (state) *called Brāhmaṇaka.*' *Janapada* here is in the same sense as in Pāṇini and on the coins, i. e. a politically self-contained country or a state. The Greek idea of the identity of tribe and state is so strong that on account of the existence of a state the citizens are turned into a tribe as in the cases of all other independent cities and states in the Punjab and Sind, while Indian authorities, contemporary with the states in question, treat their names as derived from 'countries', e. g. Pāṇini (IV I. 168—177). In other words, the Indian view is territorial, not tribal.

c16.75

This little republic showed great spirit and patriotism, and was especially marked down for revenge by Alexander. 'These philosophers,' says Plutarch in the biography of Alexander (LIX), referring to the city of the Brahmins (McCrindle, *ILA.*, p 306) 'gave him no less trouble than the 'mercenaries, because they reviled the princes who declared for 'him and encouraged the free states to revolt from his 'authority. On this account he hanged many of them.'

c16.76

To the south of the above there was the state of Patala in the delta of the Indus. Before Alexander arrived, the whole community had migrated to avoid submission This preference for migration to submission was a settled practice amongst smaller Indian republics. The Vṛishṇis, according to the Jātakas and the Mahā-Bhārata, left Mathurā and went to Dvārakā when pressed by Jarāsandha. The movements of the Śibis from the Punjab to Rajputana and of the Mālavas from the Punjab to Malwa were probably results of similar circumstances. In the constitution of Patala their ruler was called *Moeres*.¹ It is evidently identical with the derivative of *Mura* of the Gaṇapāṭha (P. IV. 1. 151), which Vardhamāna in his Gaṇa-Ratna-Mahodadhi (III. 209) takes as a ruler designation. Curtius treats him as a monarch, a confusion which seems to have been occasionally made by these writers. Diodorus, however, gives the constitution of the state in these words: *"A city of great note with a political constitution drawn on the same line as the Spartan; for in this community the command in war vested in two hereditary kings of two different houses while a Council of Elders ruled the whole state with paramount authority."*²

c16.77

¹ Curtius, Bk. IX, Ch. 8, McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 256

c16.78

² McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 296, Diodorus, Bk. xvii. Ch. civ.

c16.79

The Patala of the Macedonians has been identified with Haidarabad (Sind), whose ancient name is still remembered as *Potalpuri*.³ It seems to be the Pātana of the Gaṇapāṭha (on P. IV. 1 14) and the Pātanaprastha 'a Vāhīka town' of Patañjali (P. V. 2. 104).

c16.80

³ McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 356.

c16.81

With Patala the chapter of Hindu states closes in the history of Alexander. There were some minor communities on the frontier of Baluchistan which it would not be accurate to describe as Indian.

c16.82

§ 78. Some of the states treated ambiguously by the Greeks were very likely Saṁghas. We have already seen a few of this class. The state of *Phegelas* is probably another of them.¹ The name has been taken by scholars to be identical with Sanskrit *Bhagala*, in view of the Gaṇapāṭha's *Bhāgala*² which comes along with the republican Traigartas. Alexander's *Phegelas* occupied the same region. Another such state was that of the *Glausai* or *Glaukanikoi*³ (Arrian) who appear to be republican. They are identical with the *Glauchukāyanakas* of the Kāśikā.⁴

c16.83

¹ McCrindle, *Alexander*, pp. 121, 221, 281.

c16.84

² On P., IV. 2. 80.

c16.85

³ McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 111. *Glaukanikoi* according to Aristoboulos, *Glausai*, according to Ptolemy.

c16.86

⁴ On P. IV. 3. 99.

c16.87

The major portion of the Punjab and Sind which came under the survey of the Greek writers, shows only two or three monarchies, the important ones of which were the kingdoms of Poros and the Abhisāras. Otherwise the whole country was republican. This is also evident from Plutarch's (LX) account about Poros.⁵ "Alexander then not only reinstated 'Poros in his kingdom with the title of Satrap, but added a 'large province to it, subduing the inhabitants whose form of 'government was the republican.'"

c16.88

⁵ Not to be identified with *Paurava*, but with the derivative of *Puru* of the *Gaṇapāṭha* on Pāṇini IV. 1. 151 which is given in the list of the Punjab and Sind ruling designations. Consult also Vardhamāna (G. R. M.) on the word. McCrindle, *Alexander*, p. 308.

c16.89

§ 79. Alexander's raid and retreat did not cover the whole of the Punjab. There was still the valley of the Sutlej and that of the Beas in the Vāhīka country to be traversed. The republics in those regions are to be recovered only from Indian literature. The *Yaudheyas* and the *Āraṭṭas* were in those regions, and so were also probably some of the republics mentioned in the Kāśikā which draws on ancient literature, *e.g.*, the *Śayaṇḍas*, the *Gopālavas*, the *Kāuṇḍibṛisas* (Kāśikā, P. V. 3. 114, p. 456).

Linked texts (11)