Chapter XVIII: Part 18

"The peculiar tenet of Independency … consists in the belief
that the only organization recognised in the primitive Church
was that of the voluntary association of believers into local
congregations, each choosing its own office-bearers and
managing its own affairs, independently of neighbouring
congregations, though willing occasionally to hold friendly
conferences with such neighbouring congregations, and to
profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted,
this right or habit of occasional friendly conference between
neighbouring congregations had been mismanaged and abused,
until the true independency of each voluntary society of
Christians was forgotten, and authority came to be vested in
Synods or Councils of the office-bearers of the churches of a
district or province. This usurpation of power by Synods or
Councils, it is said, was as much a corruption of the
primitive Church-discipline as was Prelacy itself. … So, I
believe, though with varieties of expression, English
Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original
warrant for their clews in the New Testament and in the
practice of the primitive Church, … they admit that the
theory of Independency had to be worked out afresh by a new
process of the English mind in the 16th and 17th centuries,
and they are content, I believe, that the crude immediate
beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions
propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert
Brown, a Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a
preacher at Norwich. … Though Brown himself had vanished
from public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as
they were called, had persisted in their course, through
execration and persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the
pale of ordinary Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans
disowned connexion or sympathy. One hears of considerable
numbers of them in the shires of Norfolk and Essex, and
throughout Wales; and there was a central association of them
in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or shifting
from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to
elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592,
the police broke in upon one of the meetings of the London
Brownists at Islington. … There ensued a vengeance far more
ruthless than the Government dared against Puritans in
general. Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold. …
Among the observers of these severities was Francis Bacon,
then rising into eminence as a politician and lawyer. His
feeling on the subject was thus expressed at the time: 'As for
those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the
most, a very small number of very silly and base people here
and there in corners dispersed, they are now (thanks be to
God), by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and
worn out, so as there is scarce any news of them.' … Bacon
was mistaken in supposing that Brownism was extinguished.
Hospitable Holland received and sheltered what England cast
out."

_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 4, sections 1-2._

"The name 'Brownist' had never been willingly borne by most of
those who had accepted the distinguishing doctrine of the
heresiarch to whom it related. Nor was it without reason that
a distinction was alleged, and a new name preferred, when,
relaxing the offensive severity of Brown's system, some who
had adopted his tenet of the absolute independence of churches
came to differ from him respecting the duty of avoiding and
denouncing dissentients from it as rebellious, apostate,
blasphemous, antichristian and accursed.
{1699}
To this amendment of 'Brownism' the mature reflections and
studies of the excellent Robinson of Leyden conducted him; and
with reference to it he and his followers were sometimes
called 'Semi-separatists.' Such a deference to reason and to
charity gave a new position and attractiveness to the sect,
and appears to have been considered as entitling Robinson to
the character of 'father of the Independents.' Immediately on
the meeting of the Long Parliament [1640], 'the Brownists, or
Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from
house to house for twenty or thirty years, resumed their
courage, and showed themselves in public.' During this period
of the obscurity of a sect which, when arrived at its full
vigor, was to give law to the mother country, the history of
the progress of its principles is mainly to be sought in New
England. … Their opponents and their votaries alike referred
to Massachusetts as the source of the potent element which had
made its appearance in the religious politics of England."

_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 2, chapters 1, 2 and 7._

_L. Bacon,
Genesis of the New England Churches._

_B. Hanbury,
Historical Memorials of the Independents,
volume 1._

_G. Punchard,
History of Congregationalism,
volume 3._

_H. M. Dexter,
The Congregationalism of the last 300 Years,
lectures 1-5._

See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640, and PURITANS:
IN DISTINCTION FROM THE INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
The church at Scrooby and its migration to Holland.

"The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from
becoming the leader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That
honour was reserved for William Brewster, son of a country
gentleman who had for many years been postmaster at Scrooby."
After King James' Hampton Court Conference with the Puritan
divines, in 1604, and his threatening words to them,
nonconformity began to assume among the churches more
decidedly the form of secession. "The key-note of the conflict
was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewster had
not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists.
Now he withdrew from the church, and gathered together a
company of men and women who met on Sunday for divine service
in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. In organizing this
independent Congregationalist society, Brewster was powerfully
aided by John Robinson, a native of Lincolnshire. Robinson was
then thirty years of age, and had taken his master's degree at
Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning and rare
sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a
broad and tolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the
Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike
bear witness to his spirit of Christian charity and the
comparatively slight value which he attached to orthodoxy in
points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong in supposing
that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouth
colonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers of
Massachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding
influence of the teachings of this admirable man. Another
important member of the Scrooby congregation was William
Bradford, of the neighbouring village of Austerfield, then a
lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable for maturity of
intelligence and weight of character, afterward governor of
Plymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of
his colony; and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure
and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of
the migration that started from Scrooby and ended in Plymouth.
It was in 1606—two years after King James's truculent
threat—that this independent church of Scrooby was organized.
Another year had not elapsed before its members had suffered
so much at the hands of officers of the law, that they began
to think of following the example of former heretics and
escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt in the
autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later in
accomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to
find a home. But here they found the English exiles who had
preceded them so fiercely involved in doctrinal controversies,
that they decided to go further in search of peace and quiet:
This decision, which we may ascribe to Robinson's wise
counsels, served to keep the society of Pilgrims from getting
divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in 1609, just as
the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopeless
task of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the
Twelve Years Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the
Pilgrims remained in Leyden, supporting themselves by various
occupations, while their numbers increased from 300 to more
than 1,000. … In spite of the relief from persecution,
however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied with their new
home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove that
this relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete
toleration did not fill the measure of their wants. Had they
come to Holland as scattered bands of refugees, they might
have been absorbed into the Dutch population, as Huguenot
refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America.
But they had come as an organized community, and absorption
into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. They wished
to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep
up their organization, and find some favoured spot where they
might lay the corner-stone of a great Christian state. The
spirit of nationality was strong in them; the spirit of
self-government was strong in them; and the only thing which
could satisfy these feelings was such a migration as had not
been seen since ancient times, a migration like that of
Phokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. It was too late
in the world's history to carry out such a scheme upon
European soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated.
The only favourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of
America, where English cruisers had now successfully disputed
the pretensions of Spain, and where after forty years of
disappointment and disaster a flourishing colony had at length
been founded in Virginia."

_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_G. Punchard,
History of Congregationalism,
volume 1, chapters 12-15._

_G. Sumner,
Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 3d series,
volume 9)._

_A. Steele,
Life and Time of Brewster,
chapters 8-14._

_D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapter 17 (volume 2)._

{1700}

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1617-1620.
Preparations for the exodus to New England.

"'Upon their talk of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have
them go under them, and made them large offers'; but an inborn
love for the English nation and for their mother tongue led
them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of
England by enlarging her dominions. They were 'restless' with
the desire to remove to 'the most northern parts of Virginia,'
hoping, under the general government of that province, 'to
live in a distinct body by themselves.' To obtain the consent
of the London Company, John Carver, with Robert Cushman, in
1617, repaired to England. They took with them 'seven
articles,' from the members of the church at Leyden, to be
submitted to the council in England for Virginia. These
articles discussed the relations which, as separatists in
religion, they bore to their prince; and they adopted the
theory which the admonitions of Luther and a century of
persecution had developed as the common rule of plebeian
sectaries on the continent of Europe. They expressed their
concurrence in the creed of the Anglican church, and a desire
of spiritual communion with its members. Toward the king and
all civil authority derived from him, including the civil
authority of bishops, they promised, as they would have done
to Nero and the Roman pontifex, 'obedience in all things,
active if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or
passive if it be.' They denied all power to ecclesiastical
bodies, unless it were given by the temporal magistrate. …
The London company listened very willingly to their proposal,
so that their agents 'found God going along with them'; and,
through the influence of 'Sir Edwin Sandys, a religious
gentleman then living,' a patent might at once have been
taken, had not the envoys desired first to consult 'the
multitude' at Leyden. On the 15th of December, 1617, the
pilgrims transmitted their formal request, signed by the hands
of the greatest part of the congregation. … The messengers
of the pilgrims, satisfied with their reception by the
Virginia company, petitioned the king for liberty of religion,
to be confirmed under the king's broad seal. But here they
encountered insurmountable difficulties. … Even while the
negotiations were pending, a royal declaration constrained the
Puritans of Lancashire to conform or leave the kingdom; and
nothing more could be obtained for the wilds of America than
an informal promise of neglect. On this the community relied,
being advised not to entangle themselves with the bishops. 'If
there should afterward be a purpose to wrong us,' thus they
communed with themselves, 'though we had a seal as broad as
the house-floor, there would be means enough found to recall
or reverse it. We must rest herein on God's providence.'
Better hopes seemed to dawn when, in 1619, the London company
for Virginia elected for their treasurer Sir Edwin Sandys, who
from the first had befriended the pilgrims. Under his
presidency, so writes one of their number, the members of the
company in their open court 'demanded our ends of going; which
being related, they said the thing was of God, and granted a
large patent.' As it was taken in the name of one who failed
to accompany the expedition [Mr. John Wincob], the patent was
never of any service. And, besides, the pilgrims, after
investing all their own means, had not sufficient capital to
execute their schemes. In this extremity, Robinson looked for
aid to the Dutch. He and his people and their friends, to the
number of 400 families, professed themselves well inclined to
emigrate to the country on the Hudson, and to plant there a
new commonwealth under the command of the stadholder and the
states general. The 'West India company was willing to
transport them without charge, and to furnish them with
cattle; but when its directors petitioned the states general
to promise protection to the enterprise against all violence
from other potentates, the request was found to be in conflict
with the policy of the Dutch republic, and was refused. The
members of the church of Leyden, ceasing 'to meddle with the
Dutch, or to depend too much on the Virginia company,' now
trusted to their own resources and the aid of private friends.
The fisheries had commended American expeditions to English
merchants; and the agents from Leyden were able to form a
partnership between their employers and men of business in
London. The services of each emigrant were rated as a capital
of £10, and belonged to the company; all profits were to be
reserved till the end of seven years, when the whole amount,
and all houses and land, gardens and fields, were to be
divided among the share-holders according to their respective
interests. The London merchant, who risked £100, would receive
for his money tenfold as much as the penniless laborer for his
services. This arrangement threatened a seven years' check to
the pecuniary prosperity of the community; yet, as it did not
interfere with civil rights or religion, it was accepted. And
now, in July, 1620, the English at Leyden, trusting in God and
in themselves, made ready for their departure."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 1, chapter 12 (volume 1)._

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1620.
The exodus of the Pilgrims to New England.

See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1646-1649.
In the English Civil War.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH);
1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and after.

----------INDEPENDENTS: End--------

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

----------INDIA: Start--------

INDIA.
The name.

"To us … it seems natural that the whole country which is
marked off from Asia by the great barrier of the Himalaya and
the Suleiman range should have a single name. But it has not
always seemed so. The Greeks had but a very vague idea of this
country. To them for a long time the word India was for
practical purposes what it was etymologically, the province of
the Indus. When they say that Alexander invaded India, they
refer to the Punjab. At a later time they obtained some
information about the valley of the Ganges, but little or none
about the Deccan. Meanwhile in India itself it did not seem so
natural as it seems to us to give one name to the whole
region. For there is a very marked difference between the
northern and southern parts of it.
{1701}
The great Aryan community which spoke Sanscrit and invented
Brahminism spread itself chiefly from the Punjab along the
great valley of the Ganges; but not at first far southward.
Accordingly the name Hindostan properly belongs to this
northern region. In the South or peninsula we find other races
and non-Aryan languages. … It appears then that India is not
a political name, but only a geographical expression like
Europe or Africa."

_J. R. Seeley,
The Expansion of England,
pages 221-222._

"The name 'Hindustan' … is not used by the natives as it has
been employed by writers of books and map-makers in Europe.
… The word really means 'the land of the Hindus'; the
northern part of the Peninsula, distinguished from the
'Deccan,' from which it is parted by the river Narbada. …
The word Hindu' is of Zend (ancient Persian) origin, and may
be taken to denote 'river-people,' so named, perhaps, from
having first appeared on the line of the Indus, q. d., 'the
river.'"

_E. G. Keene,
Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
page 1._

"Sinde, India, and Hindu-stan are various representatives of
the same native word. 'Hindu' is the oldest known form, since
it occurs in one of the most ancient portions of the
Zendavesta. The Greeks and Romans sometimes called the river
Sindus, instead of Indus."

_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1, note._

INDIA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.

"Our earliest glimpses of India disclose two races struggling
for the soil. The one was a fair-skinned people, which had
lately entered by the north-western passes,—a people who
called themselves Aryan, literally of 'noble' lineage,
speaking a stately language, worshipping friendly and powerful
gods. These Aryans became the Brahmans and Rajputs of India.
The other race was of a lower type, who had long dwelt in the
land, and whom the lordly newcomers drove back into the
mountains, or reduced to servitude on the plains. The
comparatively pure descendants of these two races are now
nearly equal in numbers; the intermediate castes, sprung
chiefly from the ruder stock, make up the mass of the present
Indian population. … The victorious Aryans called the early
tribes Dasyus, or 'enemies,' and Dasas, or 'slaves.' The
Aryans entered India from the colder north, and prided
themselves on their fair complexion. Their Sanskrit word for
'colour' (varna) came to mean 'race' or 'caste.' The old Aryan
poets, who composed the Veda at least 3,000 and perhaps 4,000
years ago, praised their bright gods, who, 'slaying the
Dasyus, protected the Aryan colour;' who, 'subjected the
black-skin to the Aryan man.' They tell us of their own
'stormy deities, who rush on like furious bulls and scatter
the black-skin.' Moreover, the Aryan, with his finely-formed
features, loathed the squat Mongolian faces of the Aborigines.
One Vedic poet speaks of the non-Aryans as 'noseless' or
flat-nosed, while another praises his own 'beautiful-nosed'
gods. … Nevertheless all the non-Aryans could not have been
savages. We hear of wealthy Dasyus or non-Aryans; and the
Vedic hymns speak of their 'seven castles' and 'ninety forts.'
The Aryans afterwards made alliance with non-Aryan tribes; and
some of the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled by
non-Aryan kings. … Let us now examine these primitive
peoples as they exist at the present day. Thrust back by the
Aryan invaders from the plains, they have lain hidden away in
the mountains, like the remains of extinct animals found in
hill-caves. India thus forms a great museum of races, in which
we can study man from his lowest to his highest stages of
culture. … Among the rudest fragments of mankind are the
isolated Andaman islanders, or non-Aryans of the Bay of
Bengal. The Arab and early European voyagers described them as
dog-faced man-eaters. The English officers sent to the islands
in 1855 to establish a settlement, found themselves in the
midst of naked cannibals; who daubed themselves at festivals
with red earth, and mourned for their dead friends by
plastering themselves with dark mud. … The Anamalai hills,
in Southern Madras, form the refuge of many non-Aryan tribes.
The long-haired, wild-looking Puliars live on jungle products,
mice, or any small animals they can catch; and worship demons.
Another clan, the Mundavers, have no fixed dwellings, but
wander over the innermost hills with their cattle. They
shelter themselves in caves or under little leaf sheds, and
seldom remain in one spot more than a year. The thick-lipped,
small-bodied Kaders, 'Lords of the Hills,' are a remnant of a
higher race. They live by the chase, and wield some influence
over the ruder forest-folk. These hills abound in the great
stone monuments (kistvaens and dolmens) which the ancient
non-Aryans erected over their dead. The Nairs, or hillmen of
South-Western India, still keep up the old system of
polyandry, according to which one woman is the wife of several
husbands, and a man's property descends not to his own sons,
but to his sister's children. This system also appears among
the non-Aryan tribes of the Himalayas at the opposite end of
India. In the Central Provinces, the non-Aryan races form a
large part of the population. In certain localities they
amount to one-half of the inhabitants. Their most important
race, the Gonds, have made advances in civilisation; but the
wilder tribes still cling to the forest, and live by the
chase. … The Maris fly from their grass-built huts on the
approach of a stranger. … Farther to the north-east, in the
Tributary States of Orissa, there is a poor tribe, 10,000 in
number, of Juangs or Patuas, literally the 'leaf-wearers.'
Until lately their women wore no clothes, but only a few
strings of beads around the waist, with a bunch of leaves
before and behind. … Proceeding to the northern boundary of
India, we find the slopes and spurs of the Himalayas peopled
by a great variety of rude non-Aryan tribes. Some of the Assam
hillmen have no word for expressing distance by miles or by
any land-measure, but reckon the length of a journey by the
number of plugs of tobacco or pan which they chew upon the
way. They hate work; and, as a rule, they are fierce, black,
undersized, and ill-fed. … Many of the aboriginal tribes,
therefore, remain in the same early stage of human progress as
that ascribed to them by the Vedic poets more than 3,000 years
ago. But others have made great advances, and form communities
of a well-developed type. These higher races, like the ruder
ones, are scattered over the length and breadth of India, and
I must confine myself to a very brief account of two of
them,—the Santals and the Kandhs. The Santals have their
home among the hills which abut on the valley of the Ganges in
Lower Bengal.
{1702}
They dwell in villages of their own, apart from the people of
the plains, and number about a million. Although still
clinging to many customs of a hunting forest tribe, they have
learned the use of the plough, and settled down into skilful
husbandmen. Each hamlet is governed by its own headman, who is
supposed to be a descendant of the original founder of the
village. … Until near the end of the last century, the
Santals lived by plundering the adjacent plains. But under
British rule they settled down into peaceful cultivators. …
The Kandhs, literally 'The Mountaineers,' a tribe about
100,000 strong, inhabit the steep and forest-covered ranges
which rise from the Orissa coast. Their idea of government is
purely patriarchal. The family is strictly ruled by the
father. The grown-up sons have no property during his life,
but live in his house with their wives and children, and all
share the common meal prepared by the grandmother. The head of
the tribe is usually the eldest son of the patriarchal family.
… The Kandh system of tillage represents a stage half way
between the migratory cultivation of the ruder non-Aryan
tribes and the settled agriculture of the Hindus. … Whence
came these primitive peoples, whom the Aryan invaders found in
the land more than 3,000 years ago, and who are still
scattered over India, the fragments of a pre-historic world?
Written annals they do not possess. Their traditions tell us
little. But from their languages we find that they belong to
three stocks. First, the Tibeto-Burman tribes, who entered
India from the north-east, and still cling to the skirts of
the Himalayas. Second, the Kolarians, who also seem to have
entered Bengal by the north-eastern passes. They dwell chiefly
along the north-eastern ranges of the three-sided tableland
which covers the southern half of India. Third, the
Dravidians, who appear, on the other hand, to have found their
way into the Punjab by the north-western passes. They now
inhabit the southern part of the three-sided tableland as far
down as Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India. As a
rule, the non-Aryan races, when fairly treated, are truthful,
loyal, and kind. Those in the hills make good soldiers; while
even the thieving tribes of the plains can be turned into
clever police. The non-Aryan castes of Madras supplied the
troops which conquered Southern India for the British; and
some of them fought at the battle of Plassey, which won for us
Bengal. The gallant Gurkhas, a non-Aryan tribe of the
Himalayas, now rank among the bravest regiments in our Indian
army, and lately covered themselves with honour in
Afghanistan."

_W. W. Hunter,
Brief History of the Indian People,
chapters 2-3._

ALSO IN:
_R. Brown,
Races of Mankind,
volume 4, chapter 1._

_R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of British Colonies and Dependencies,
chapter 3._

See, also,
TURANIAN RACES.

INDIA:
The immigration and conquests of the Aryas.
The hymns and prayers of their religion.
Vedism.
Brahmanism.
Hinduism

"The immigration of the Aryas into India took place from the
west. They stand in the closest relation to the inhabitants of
the table-land of Iran, especially the inhabitants of the
eastern half. These also call themselves Aryas, though among
them the word becomes Airya, or Ariya, and among the Greeks
Arioi. The language of the Aryas is in the closest connection
with that of the Avesta, the religious books of Iran, and in
very close connection with the language of the monuments of
Darius and Xerxes, in the western half of that region. The
religious conceptions of the Iranians and Indians exhibit
striking traits of a homogeneous character. A considerable
number of the names of gods, of myths, sacrifices, and
customs, occurs in both nations, though the meaning is not
always the same, and is sometimes diametrically opposed.
Moreover, the Aryas in India are at first confined to the
borders of Iran, the region of the Indus, and the Panjab.
Here; in the west, the Aryas had their most extensive
settlements, and their oldest monuments frequently mention the
Indus, but not the Ganges. Even the name by which the Aryas
denote the land to the south of the Vindhyas, Dakshinapatha
(Deccan), i. e., path to the right, confirms the fact already
established, that the Aryas came from the west. From this it
is beyond a doubt that the Aryas, descending from the heights
of Iran, first occupied the valley of the Indus and the five
tributary streams, which combine and flow into the river from
the north-east, and they spread as far as they found pastures
and arable land, i. e., as far eastward as the desert which
separates the valley of the Indus from the Ganges. The river
which irrigated their land, watered their pastures, and shaped
the course of their lives they called Sindhu (in Pliny,
Sindus), i. e., the river. It is, no doubt, the region of the
Indus, with the Panjab, which is meant in the Avesta by the
land hapta hindu (hendu), i. e., the seven streams. The
inscriptions of Darius call the dwellers on the Indus Idhus.
These names the Greeks render by Indos and Indoi. … Products
of India, and among them such as do not belong to the land of
the Indus, were exported from the land about 1000 B. C., under
names given to them by the Aryas, and therefore the Aryas must
have been settled there for centuries previously. For this
reason, and it is confirmed by facts which will appear further
on, we may assume that the Aryas descended into the valley of
the Indus about the year 2000 B. C., i. e., about the time
when the kingdom of Elam was predominant in the valley of the
Euphrates and Tigris, when Assyria still stood under the
dominion of Babylon, and the kingdom of Memphis was ruled by
the Hyksos. … The oldest evidence of the life of the Aryas,
whose immigration into the region of the Indus and settlement
there we have been able to fix about 2000 B. C., is given in a
collection of prayers and hymns of praise, the Rigveda, i. e.,
'the knowledge of thanksgiving.' It is a selection or
collection of poems and invocations in the possession of the
priestly families, of hymns and prayers arising in these
families, and sung and preserved by them. … We can ascertain
with exactness the region in which the greater number of these
poems grew up. The Indus is especially the object of praise:
the 'seven rivers' are mentioned as the dwelling-place of the
Aryas. This aggregate of seven is made up of the Indus itself
and the five streams which unite and flow into it from the
east—the Vitasta, Asikni, Iravati, Vipaça, Çatadru. The
seventh river is the Sarasvati, which is expressly named 'the
seven-sistered.' The land of the seven rivers is, as has
already been remarked, known to the Iranians. The 'Sapta
sindhava' of the Rigveda are, no doubt, the hapta hendu of the
Avesta, and in the form Harahvaiti, the Arachotus of the Greeks,
we again find the Sarasvati in the east of the table-land of
Iran.
{1703}
As the Yamuna and the Ganges are only mentioned in passing …
and the Vindhya mountains and Narmadas are not mentioned at
all, the conclusion is certain that, at the time when the
songs of the Aryas were composed, the nation was confined to
the land of the Panjab, though they may have already begun to
move eastward beyond the valley of the Sarasvati. We gather
from the songs of the Rigveda that the Aryas on the Indus were
not one civic community. They were governed by a number of
princes (raja). Some of these ruled on the bank of the Indus,
others in the neighbourhood of the Sarasvati. They sometimes
combined; they also fought not against the Dasyus only, but
against each other."

_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 4)._

"When the Indian branch of the Aryan family settled down in
the land of the seven rivers. … now the Panjab, about the
15th century B. C., their religion was still nature-worship.
It was still adoration of the forces which were everywhere in
operation around them for production, destruction, and
reproduction. But it was physiolatry developing itself more
distinctly into forms of Theism, Polytheism, Anthropomorphism,
and Pantheism. The phenomena of nature were thought of as
something more than radiant beings, and something more than
powerful forces. … They were addressed as kings, fathers,
guardians, friends, benefactors, guests. They were invoked in
formal hymns and prayers (mantras), in set metres (chandas).
These hymns were composed in an early form of the Sanskrit
language, at different times—perhaps during several
centuries, from the 15th to the 10th B. C.—by men of light
and leading (Rishis) among the Indo-Aryan immigrants, who were
afterwards held in the highest veneration as patriarchal
saints. Eventually the hymns were believed to have been
directly revealed to, rather than composed by, these Rishis,
and were then called divine knowledge (Veda), or the eternal
word heard (sruti), and transmitted by them. These Mantras or
hymns were arranged in three principal collections or
continuous texts (Samhitas). The first and earliest was called
the Hymn-veda (Rig-veda). It was a collection of 1,017 hymns,
arranged for mere reading or reciting. This was the first
bible of the Hindu religion, and the special bible of Vedism.
… Vedism was the earliest form of the religion of the Indian
branch of the great Aryan family. … Brahmanism grew out of
Vedism. It taught the merging of all the forces of Nature in
one universal spiritual Being—the only real Entity—which,
when unmanifested and impersonal, was called Brahma (neuter);
when manifested as a personal creator, was called Brahmā
(masculine); and when manifested in the highest order of men,
was called Brāhmana ('the Brāhmans'). Brahmanism was rather a
philosophy than a religion, and in its fundamental doctrine
was spiritual Pantheism. Hinduism grew out of Brahmanism. It
was Brahmanism, so to speak, run to seed and spread out into a
confused tangle of divine personalities and incarnations. …
Yet Hinduism is distinct from Brahmanism, and chiefly in
this—that it takes little account of the primordial,
impersonal Being Brahma, and wholly neglects its personal
manifestation Brahmā, substituting, in place of both Brahma
and Brahmā., the two popular personal deities Siva and Vishnu.
Be it noted, however, that the employment of the term Hinduism
is wholly arbitrary and confessedly unsatisfactory. Unhappily
there is no other expression sufficiently comprehensive. …
Hinduism is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and
superstitions of Buddhists [see below: B. C. 312—] and
Non-Aryan races of all kinds, including Dravidians, Kolarians,
and perhaps pre-Kolarian aborigines. It has even been modified
by ideas imported from the religions of later conquering
races, such as Islam and Christianity."

_M. Williams,
Religious Thought and Life in India,
part 1, chapter 1, and introduction._

ALSO IN:
_R. Mitra,
Indo-Aryans._

_F. Max Müller,
History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature._

_F. Max Müller, editor,
Sacred Books of the East,
volume. 1, and others._

_A. Barth,
Religions of India._

_Rig-Veda Sanhita,
translated by H. H. Wilson._

See, also,
ARYANS.

INDIA: 6th Century, B. C.
Invasion of Darius.

See PERSIA: B. C.621-493.

INDIA: B. C. 327-312.
Invasion and conquests of Alexander the Great.
Expulsion of the Greeks.
Rise of the empire of Chandragupta.

"The year B. C. 327 marks an important era in the history of
India. More than two centuries are supposed to have elapsed
since the death of Gotama Buddha. The great empire of Magadha
was apparently falling into anarchy, but Brahmanism and
Buddhism were still expounding their respective dogmas on the
banks of the Ganges. At this juncture Alexander of Macedon was
leading an army of Greeks down the Cabul river towards the
river Indus, which at that time formed the western frontier of
the Punjab.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

… The design of Alexander was to conquer all the regions
westward of the Indus, including the territory of Cabul, and
then to cross the Indus in the neighbourhood of Attock, and
march through the Punjab in a south-easterly direction,
crossing all the tributary rivers on his way; and finally to
pass down the valley of the Ganges and Jumna, via Delhi and
Agra, and conquer the great Gangetic empire of Magadha or
Pataliputra between the ancient cities of Prayaga and Gour.
… After crossing the Indus, there were at least three
kingdoms in the Punjab to be subdued one after the other,
namely;—that of Taxiles between the Indus and the Jhelum;
that of Porus the elder between the Jhelum and the Chenab; and
that of Porus the younger between the Chenab and the Ravee.
… When Alexander had fully established his authority in
Cabul he crossed the Indus into the Punjab. Here he halted
some time at the city of Taxila [Taxiles, the king, having
submitted in advance], and then marched to the river Jhelum,
and found that Porus the elder was encamped on the opposite
bank with a large force of cavalry and infantry, together with
chariots and elephants. The decisive battle which followed on
the Jhelum is one of the most remarkable actions in ancient
story. … Porus fought with a valour which excited the
admiration of Alexander, but was at last wounded and compelled
to fly. Ultimately he was induced to tender his submission.
… The victory over Porus established the ascendancy of
Alexander in the Punjab." It "not only decided the question
between himself and Porus, but enabled him to open up a new
communication with Persia, via the river Indus and the Indian
Ocean.
{1704}
He sent out woodmen to cut timber for ship-building in the
northern forests, and to float it down the Jhelum; and he
founded two cities, Bukephalia and Nikæa, one on each side of
the Jhelum. … Whilst the fleet was being constructed,
Alexander continued his march to the Chenab, and crossed that
river into the dominions of Porus the younger," who fled at
his approach, and whose kingdom was made over to the elder
Porus, his uncle. "Alexander next crossed the Ravee, when he
was called back by" a revolt in his rear, which he suppressed.
"But meantime the Macedonians had grown weary of their
campaign in India. … They … resisted every attempt to lead
them beyond the Sutlej; and Alexander, making a virtue of
necessity, at last consulted the oracles and found that they
were unfavourable to an onward movement. … He returned with
his army to the Jhelum, and embarked on board the fleet with a
portion of his troops, whilst the remainder of his army
marched along either bank. In this manner he proceeded almost
due south through the Punjab and Scinde. … At last he
reached the Indian Ocean, and beheld for the first time the
phenomena of the tides; and then landed his army and marched
through Beloochistan towards Susa, whilst Nearchos conducted
the fleet to the Persian Gulf, and finally joined him in the
same city. … Alexander had invaded the Punjab during the
rainy season of B. C. 327, and reached the Indian Ocean about
the middle of B. C. 326. Meantime Philip remained at Taxila as
his lieutenant or deputy, and commanded a garrison of
mercenaries and a body-guard of Macedonians. When Alexander
was marching through Beloochistan, on his way to Susa, the
news reached him that Philip had been murdered by the
mercenaries, but that nearly all the murderers had been slain
by the Macedonian body-guards. Alexander immediately
despatched letters directing the Macedonian Eudemos to carry
on the government in conjunction with Taxiles, until he could
appoint another deputy; and this provisional arrangement seems
to have been continued until the death of Alexander in B. C.
323. The political anarchy which followed this catastrophe can
scarcely be realized. … India was forgotten. Eudemos took
advantage of the death of Alexander to murder Porus; but was
ultimately driven out of the Punjab with all his Macedonians
by an adventurer who was known to the Greeks as Sandrokottos,
and to the Hindus as Chandragupta. This individual is said to
have delivered India from a foreign yoke only to substitute
his own. … By the aid of banditti he captured the city of
Patali-putra, and obtained the throne; and then drove the
Greeks out of India, and established his empire over the whole
of Hindustan and the Punjab."

_J. T. Wheeler,
History of India: Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical,
chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
Arrian,
_Anabasis of Alexander
(translated by Chinnock),
books 4-6._

_T. A. Dodge,
Alexander,
chapters 38-43._

INDIA: B. C. 312
Chandragupta and Asoka.
The spread of Buddhism and its Brahmanic absorption.

"The first tolerably trustworthy date in Indian history is the
era of Candra-gupta (=Sandro-kottus) the founder of the Maurya
dynasty, who, after making himself master of Pataliputra
(Palibothra, Patna) and the kingdom of Magadha (Behar),
extended his dominion over all Hindustan, and presented a
determined front towards Alexander's successor Seleukos
Nikator, the date of the commencement of whose reign was about
312 B. C. When the latter contemplated invading India from his
kingdom of Bactria, so effectual was the resistance offered by
Candra-gupta that the Greek thought it politic to form an
alliance with the Hindu king, and sent his own countryman
Megasthenes as an ambassador to reside at his court. To this
circumstance we owe the first authentic account of Indian
manners, customs, and religious usages by an intelligent
observer who was not a native, and this narrative of
Megasthenes, preserved by Strabo, furnishes a basis on which
we may found a fair inference that Brahmanism and Buddhism
existed side by side in India on amicable terms in the fourth
century B. C. There is even ground for believing that King
Candra-gupta himself was in secret a Buddhist, though in
public he paid homage to the gods of the Brahmans; at any
rate, there can be little doubt that his successor Asoka did
for Buddhism what Constantine did for Christianity—gave an
impetus to its progress by adopting it as his own creed.
Buddhism, then, became the state religion, the national faith
of the whole kingdom of Magadha, and therefore of a great
portion of India. This Asoka is by some regarded as identical
with Candra-gupta; at any rate, their characters and much of
their history are similar. He is probably the same as King
Priyadarsi, whose edicts on stone pillars enjoining 'Dharma,'
or the practice of virtue and universal benevolence, are
scattered over India from Katak in the east and Gujarat in the
west to Allahabad, Delhi, and Afghanistan on the north-west.
What then is Buddhism? It is certainly not Brahmanism, yet it
arose out of Brahmanism, and from the first had much in common
with it. Brahmanism and Buddhism are closely interwoven with
each other, yet they are very different from each other.
Brahmanism is a religion which may be described as all
theology, for it makes God everything, and everything God.
Buddhism is no religion at all, and certainly no theology, but
rather a system of duty, morality, and benevolence, without
real deity, prayer or priest. The name Buddha is simply an
epithet meaning the perfectly enlightened one,' or rather one
who, by perfect knowledge of the truth, is liberated from all
existence, and who, before his own attainment of Nirvana, or
'extinction,' reveals to the world the method of obtaining it.
The Buddha with whom we are concerned was only the last of a
series of Buddhas who had appeared in previous cycles of the
universe. He was born at Kapila-vastu, a city and kingdom at
the foot of the mountains of Nepal, his father Suddhodana
being the king of that country, and his mother Maya-devi being
the daughter of King Suprabuddha. Hence he belonged to the
Kshatriya class, and his family name was Sakya, while his name
of Gautama (or Gotama) was taken from that of his tribe. He is
said to have arrived at supreme knowledge under the Bodhi
tree, or 'tree of wisdom' (familiarly called' the Bo tree'),
at Gaya, in Behar (Magadha), about the year 588 B. C., and to
have commenced propagating the new faith at Benares soon
afterwards. … Buddhism was a protest against the tyranny of
Brahmanism and caste. According to the Buddha, all men are
equal.
{1705}
… We have five marked features of Buddhism:

1. disregard of all caste distinctions;

2. abolition of animal sacrifice and of vicarious suffering;

3. great stress laid on the doctrine of transmigration;

4. great importance assigned to self-mortification, austerity,
and abstract meditation, as an aid to the suppression of all
action;

5. concentration of all human desires on the absolute
extinction of all being.

There is still a sixth, which is perhaps the most noteworthy
of all; viz., that the Buddha recognized no supreme deity. The
only god, he affirmed, is what man himself can become. A
Buddhist, therefore, never really prays, he only meditates on
the perfections of the Buddha and the hope of attaining
Nirvana. … Brahmanism and Buddhism [in India] appear to have
blended, or, as it were, melted into each other, after each
had reciprocally parted with something, and each had imparted
something. At any rate it may be questioned whether Buddhism
was ever forcibly expelled from any part of India by direct
persecution, except, perhaps, in a few isolated centres of
Brahmanical fanaticism, such as the neighbourhood of Benares.
Even in Benares the Chinese traveller, Hiouen Thsang, found
Brahmanism and Buddhism flourishing amicably side by side in
the 7th century of our era. In the South of India the Buddha's
doctrines seem to have met with acceptance at an early date,
and Ceylon was probably converted as early as B. C. 240, soon
after the third Buddhist council held under King Asoka. In
other parts of India there was probably a period of
Brahmanical hostility, and perhaps of occasional persecution;
but eventually Buddhism was taken by the hand, and drawn back
into the Brahmanical system by the Brahmans themselves, who
met it half way and ended by boldly adopting the Buddha as an
incarnation of Vishnu. … Only a small section of the
Buddhist community resisted all conciliation, and these are
probably represented by the present sect of Jains [who are
found in large numbers in various parts of India, especially
on the western coast]. Be the actual state of the case as it
may, nothing can be clearer than the fact that Buddhism has
disappeared from India (the island of Ceylon being excepted),
and that it has not done so without having largely contributed
towards the moulding of Brahmanism into the Hinduism of the
present day."

_M. Williams,
Hinduism,
chapter 6._

ALSO IN:
_M. Williams (now Sir Monier Monier-Williams),
Buddhism._

_H. Oldenburg,
Buddha._

_P. Bigandet,
Life and Legend of Gaudama._

_A. Lillie,
Buddha and the Early Buddhists._

_W. W. Rockhill,
The Life of the Buddha._

INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
Under the Ghaznavide and Mameluke empires.

"Aryan civilisation was … germinating, but it was in
uncongenial soil. Like the descendants of Abraham and Jacob,
the invaders mingled with the heathen and learned their ways.
The older inhabitants were barbarous, multilingual, indolent;
worshippers less of many gods than of many devils. The fusion
that ensued was not happy; though the origin and growth of the
caste system prevented complete union, it facilitated some of
its evils; the character of the Aryan settlers became
disastrously affected; the want of commercial communication by
land and sea tended to perpetuate stagnation. This was the
state of things upon which the rising tide from Central Asia
began to flow with resistless pertinacity after the
Mongolo-Turkish power became established on the Oxus and the
Helmand. It was not to be wondered at if the Arabs made no
wide or lasting Indian conquests in the early ages of the
Musulman era. At a time when they were engaged with the
Christian Empires of the East and the West, when they were
spreading the power of the crescent from the borders of
Khorásán to the Pillars of Hercules, the warriors of Islam had
perhaps but little temptation to undertake further adventure.
Certain it is that beyond the confines of Makran and a part of
Sindh (occupied less than a hundred years after the
Hijra)—the Arab conquests did not spread in India. It was
Nasir-ud-Din Sabuktigin—certainly a Merv captive and
popularly believed a scion of the Sassanian dynasty that once
ruled Persia—by whom the first Muslim invasion of Hindustan
was made in durable fashion. His master, Alptigin, having fled
from the oppression of the Samani dynasty of Bukhara in 962 A.
D., had founded a principality at Ghazni. Sabuktigin acquired
his favour, and was able, soon after his death, to acquire the
succession in 977 A. D. He established his power in the
Punjab; and his armies are said to have penetrated as far as
Benares. On his death, 997 A. D., his son, the celebrated
Sultan Mahmud, succeeded to the Empire extending from Balkh to
Lahore, if not to Hansi [see TURKS: A. D. 999-1183]. During a
reign of over thirty years he invaded Hindustan twelve times,
inflicting terrible carnage on the Hindus, desecrating their
idols, and demoralising their temples. Mathura, Kanauj,
Somnath; to such distant and divergent points did his
enterprises reach. Mahmud died 1030 A. D., and was buried at
Ghazni, where his monument is still to be seen. For about one
hundred years the dynasty continued to rule in the Punjab and
Afghanistan, more and more troubled by the neighbouring tribe
of Ghor, who in 1187 A. D. took Lahore and put an end to the
Ghaznavide dynasty. A prince of the Ghorians—variously known,
but whose name may be taken as Muhammad Bin Sam—was placed in
a sort of almost independent viceroyalty at Ghazni. In 1191 A.
D. he led an army against Sirhind, south of the Sutlaj river.
Rai Pithaura, or Pirthi Rai, a chief of the Chauhans (who had
lately possessed themselves of Dehli), marched against the
invaders and defeated them in a battle where Bin Sam had a
narrow escape from being slain. But the sturdy mountaineers
would not be denied. Next year they returned" and defeated
Pithaura. "The towns of Mirat and Dehli fell upon his defeat;
and their fall was followed a year later by that of Kanauj and
Benares. The Viceroy's brother dying at this juncture, he
repaired to his own country to establish his succession. He
was killed in an expedition, 1206 A. D., and the affairs of
Hindustan devolved upon his favourite Mameluke, Kutb-ud-din
Aibak. … When Muhammad bin Sam had gone away, to rule and
ultimately to perish by violence in his native highlands, his
acquisitions in Hindustan came under the sway of Kutb-ud-din
Aibak, a Mameluke, or Turkish slave, who had for a long time
been his faithful follower. One of the Viceroy's first
undertakings was to level to the ground the palaces and
temples of the Hindus at Dehli, and to build, with the
materials obtained by their destruction, a great Mosque for
the worship of Allah. … From 1192 to 1206, the year of Bin
Sam's death, Kutb-ud-din Aibak ruled as Viceroy.
{1706}
But it is recorded that the next Emperor—feeling the
difficulty, perhaps, of exercising any sort of rule over so
remote a dependency—sent Aibak a patent as 'Sultan,'
accompanied by a canopy of state, a throne and a diadem.
Becoming Sultan of Hindustan, the distinguished and fortunate
Mameluke founded what is known as 'the Slave dynasty.' …
Aibak died at Lahore, in 1210, from an accident at a game now
known as 'polo.' He was contemporaneous with the great Mughul
leader Changiz Khan, by whom, however, he was not molested.
The chief event of his reign is to be found in his successful
campaigns in Behar and Northern Bengal. … The Musulman power
was not universally and firmly established in the Eastern
Provinces till the reign of Balban (circ. 1282). At the death
of Aibak the Empire was divided into four great portions. The
Khiljis represented the power of Islam in Bihar and Bengal;
the North-West Punjab was under a viceroy named Ilduz, a
Turkman slave; the valley of the Indus was ruled by another of
these Mamelukes, named Kabacha; while an attempt was made at
Dehli to proclaim an incompetent lad, son of the deceased, as
Sultan. But the Master of the Horse, a third Mameluke named
Altimsh, was close at hand, and, hurrying up at the invitation
of influential persons there, speedily put down the movement.
… Altimsh, having deposed his feeble brother-in-law, became
Suzerain of the Empire. His satraps were not disposed to
obedience; and bloody wars broke out, into the details of
which we need not enter. It will be sufficient to note that
Ilduz was defeated and slain A. D. 1215. Two years later
Kabacha came up from Sindh, and seems [to] have enlisted some
of the Mughul hordes in his armies. These formidable
barbarians, of whom more anon, were now in force in Khorasan,
under Changiz in person, assisted by two of his sons.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.