Chapter IV: , VII (116)

"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.

They drove before them the Sultan of Khwarizm (now Khiva), and
occupied Afghanistan. The fugitive, whose adventures are among
the most romantic episodes of Eastern history, attempted to
settle himself in the Panjab; but he was driven out by Altimsh
and Kabacha in 1223. Two years later Altimsh moved on the
Khiljis in the Eastern Provinces, occupied Gaur, their
capital; and proceeding from thence made further conquests
south and north at the expense of the Hindus. In 1228 he
turned against Kabacha, the mighty Satrap of Sindh, who was
routed in battle near Bakkhar, where he committed suicide or
was accidentally drowned. In 1232-3 the Sultan reduced Gwalior
(in spite of a stout resistance on the part of the Hindus
under Milak Deo), slaying 700 prisoners at the door of his
tent. In 1234 he took the province of Malwa; where he
demolished the great temples of Bhilsa and Ujain. In the
following year this puissant warrior of the Crescent succumbed
to the common conqueror, dying a natural death at Dehli, after
a glorious reign of twenty-six (lunar) years. … His eldest
son, who had conducted the war against the Khiljis, had died
before him, and the Empire was assumed by a younger son,
Rukn-ud-din Firoz. … [In 1241] Lahore was taken by the
Mughols with terrific carnage. Troubles ensued; Dehli was
besieged by the army that had been raised for its defence
against the Mughols; in May 1242 the city was taken by storm
and the new Sultan was slain. His successor, Ala-uddin I., was
a grandson of Altimsh, incompetent and apathetic as young men
in his position have usually been. The land was partitioned
among Turkish satraps, and overrun by the Mughols, who
penetrated as far as Gaur in Bengal. Another horde, led by
Mangu, grandson of Changiz, and father of the celebrated
Kiblai Khan, ravaged the Western Punjab. The Sultan marched
against them and met with a partial success. This turned into
evil courses the little intellect that he had, a plot was
organised for his destruction. Ala-ud-din was slain, and his
uncle Nasir-ud-din was placed upon the vacant throne in June
1246. Nasir's reign was long, and, so far as his personal
exploits went, would have been uneventful. But the risings of
the Hindus and the incursions of the Mughols kept the Empire
in perpetual turmoil." Nasir was succeeded in 1286-7 by his
grandson, Kai Kobad. "This unfortunate young man was destined
to prove the futility of human wisdom. Educated by his stern
and serious grandfather, his lips had never touched those of a
girl or a goblet. His sudden elevation turned his head. He
gave himself up to debauchery, caused his cousin Khusru to be
murdered, and was himself ultimately killed in his palace at
Kilokhari, while lying sick of the palsy. With his death
(1290) came to an end the Mameluke Empire of Hindustan."

_H. G. Keene,
Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
book 1, chapters 1-2._

ALSO IN:
_J. T. Wheeler,
History of India,
volume 4, part 1, chapter 2._

_A. Dow,
History of Hindustan
(from the Persian of Ferishta),
volume 1._

INDIA: A. D. 1290-1398.
From the Afghans to the Moghuls.

"In 1290 the last Sultan of the Afghan slave dynasty was
assassinated, and a Sultan ascended the throne at Delhi under
the name of Jelal-ud-din. He was an old man of seventy, and
made no mark in history; but he had a nephew, named
Ala-ud-din, who became a man of renown," and who presently
acquired the throne by murdering his uncle. "When Ala-ud-din
was established on the throne at Delhi he sent an army to
conquer Guzerat." This conquest was followed by that of
Rajputana. "Meanwhile the Moghuls [Mongols] were very
troublesome. In the previous reign the uncle of Ala-ud-din had
enlisted 3,000, and settled them near Delhi; but they were
turbulent, refractory, and mixed up with every rebellion.
Ala-ud-din ordered them to be disbanded, and then they tried
to murder him. Ala-ud-din then ordered a general massacre.
Thousands are said to have been put to death, and their wives
and children were sold into slavery. Ala-ud-din was the first
Muhammadan sovereign who conquered Hindu Rajas in the Dekhan
and Peninsula. … Ala-ud-din sent his general Malik Kafur to
invade these southern countries, ransack temples, and carry
off treasure and tribute. The story is a dreary narrative of
raid and rapine. … Ala-ud-din died in 1316. His death was
followed by a Hindu revolt; indeed Hindu influences must have
been at work at Delhi for many years previously. Ala-ud-din
had married a Hindu queen; his son had married her daughter.
Malik Kafur was a Hindu converted to Islam. The leader of the
revolt at Delhi in 1316 was another Hindu convert to Islam.
The proceedings of the latter rebel, however, were of a mixed
character. He was proclaimed Sultan under a Muhammadan name,
and slaughtered every male of the royal house. Meanwhile his
Hindu followers set up idols in the mosques, and seated
themselves on Korans.
{1707}
The rebels held possession of Delhi for five months. At the
end of that time the city was captured by the Turkish governor
of the Punjab, named Tughlak. The conqueror then ascended the
throne of Delhi, and founded the dynasty of Tughlak Sultans.
The Tughlak Sultans would not live at Delhi; they probably
regarded it as a Hindu volcano. They held their court at
Tughlakabad, a strong fortress about an hour's drive from old
Delhi. The transfer of the capital from Delhi to Tughlakabad
is a standpoint in history. It shows that a time had come when
the Turk began to fear the Hindu. The conqueror of Delhi died
in 1325. He was succeeded by a son who has left his mark in
history. Muhammad Tughlak was a Sultan of grand ideas, but
blind to all experiences, and deaf to all counsels. He sent
his armies into the south to restore the Muhammadan supremacy
which had been shaken by the Hindu revolt. Meanwhile the
Moghuls invaded the Punjab, and Muhammad Tughlak bribed them
to go away with gold and jewels. Thus the imperial treasury
was emptied of all the wealth which had been accumulated by
Ala-ud-din. The new Sultan tried to improve his finances, but
only ruined the country by his exactions. … Then followed
rebellions and revolutions. Bengal revolted, and became a
separate kingdom under an independent Sultan. The Rajas of the
Dekhan and Peninsula withheld their tribute. The Muhammadan
army of the Dekhan broke out into mutiny, and set up a Sultan
of their own. Muhammad Tughlak saw that all men turned against
him. He died in 1350, after a reign of twenty-five years. The
history of Delhi fades away after the death of Muhammad
Tughlak. A Sultan reigned from 1350 to 1388, named Firuz Shah.
He is said to have submitted to the dismemberment of the
empire, and done his best to promote the welfare of the
subjects left to him; but it is also said that he destroyed
temples and idols, and burnt a Brahman alive for perverting
Muhammadan women. In 1398-99, ten years after the death of
Firuz Shah, Timur Shah invaded the Punjab and Hindustan [see
TIMOUR]. The horrors of the Tartar invasion are indescribable;
they teach nothing to the world, and the tale of atrocities
may well be dropped into oblivion. It will suffice to say that
Timur came and plundered, and then went away. He left officers
to rule in his name, or to collect tribute in his name. In
1450 they were put aside by Afghans;—turbulent Muhammadan
fanatics whose presence must have been hateful to the Hindus.
At last, in 1525, a descendant of Timur, named the Baber,
invaded India, and conquered the Punjab and Hindustan."

_J. T. Wheeler,
Short History of India,
part 2, chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_M. Elphinstone,
History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
book 6. chapters 2-3._

INDIA: A. D. 1398-1399.
Timour's invasion of the Punjab.

See TIMOUR.

[Image: Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century, and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire.]

INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
The Saiyid and the Lodi dynasties.
The founding of the Moghul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

"The invasion of Taimur … dealt a fatal blow to an authority
already crumbling. The chief authority lingered indeed for
twelve years in the hands of the then representative, Sultan
Mahmud. It then passed for a time into the hands of a family
which did not claim the royal title. This family, known in
history as the Saiyid dynasty, ruled nominally in Northern
India for about 33 years, but the rule had no coherence, and a
powerful Afghan of the Lodi family took the opportunity to
endeavour to concentrate power in his own hands. The
Muhammadan rule in India had indeed become by this time the
rule of several disjointed chiefs over several disjointed
provinces, subject in point of fact to no common head. Thus,
in 1450, Delhi, with a small territory around it, was held by
the representative of the Saiyid family. Within fourteen miles
of the capital, Ahmad Khan ruled independently in Mewat.
Sambhal, or the province now known as Rohilkhand, extending to
the very walls of Delhi, was occupied by Darya Khan Lodi. …
Lahore, Dipalpur, and Sirhind, as far south as Panipat, by
Behlul Lodi. Multan, Jaunpur, Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat, each
had its separate king. Over most of these districts, and as
far eastward as the country immediately to the north of
Western Bihar, Behlul Lodi, known as Sultan Behlul, succeeded
on the disappearance of the Saiyids in asserting his sole
authority, 1450-88. His son and successor, Sultan Sikandar
Lodi, subdued Behar, invaded Bengal, which, however, he
subsequently agreed to yield to Allah-u-din, its sovereign,
and not to invade it again; and overran a great portion of
Central India. On his death, in 1518, he had concentrated
under his own rule the territories now known as the Punjab;
the North-western Provinces, including Jaunpur; a great part
of Central India; and Western Bihar. But, in point of fact,
the concentration was little more than nominal." The death of
Sikandar Lodi was followed by a civil war which resulted in
calling in the Tartar or Mongol conqueror, Babar, a descendant
of Timour, who, beginning in 1494 with a small dominion (which
he presently lost) in Ferghana, or Khokland, Central Asia, had
made himself master of a great part of Afghanistan (1504),
establishing his capital at Kabul. Babar had crossed the
Indian border in 1505, but his first serious invasion was in
1519, followed, according to some historians, by a second
invasion the same year; the third was in 1520; the fourth
occurred after an interval of two or three years. On his fifth
expedition he made the conquest complete, winning a great
battle at Panipat, 53 miles to the north-west of Delhi, on the
24th of April, 1526. Ibrahim Lodi, son and successor of
Sikandar Lodi, was killed in the battle, and Delhi and Agra
were immediately occupied. "Henceforth the title of King of
Kabul was to be subjected to the higher title of Emperor of
Hindustan." Babar was in one sense the founder of the Mughal
(synonymous with Mongol) dynasty—the dynasty of the Great
Moguls, as his successors were formerly known. He died in
1530, sovereign of northern India, and of some provinces in
the center of the peninsula: But "he bequeathed to his son,
Humayun, … a congeries of territories uncemented by any bond
of union or of common interest, except that which had been
concentrated in his life. In a word, when he died, the Mughal
dynasty, like the Muhammadan dynasties which had preceded it,
had shot down no roots into the soil of Hindustan."

_G. B. Malleson,
Akbar,
chapters 4-5._

{1708}

Humayun succeeded Babar in India, "but had to make over Kabul
and the Western Punjab to his brother and rival, Kamran.
Humayun was thus left to govern the new conquest of India, and
at the same time was deprived of the country from which his
father had drawn his support. The descendants of the early
Afghan invaders, long settled in India, hated the new
Muhammadan hordes of Babar even more than they hated the
Hindus. After ten years of fighting, Humayun was driven out of
India by these Afghans under Sher Shah, the Governor of
Bengal. While flying through the desert of Sind to Persia, his
famous son Akbar was born in the petty fort of Umarkot (1542).
Sher Shah set up as emperor, but was killed while storming the
rock fortress of Kalinjar (1545). His son succeeded. But,
under Sher Shah's grandson, the third of the Afghan house, the
Provinces revolted, including Malwa, the Punjab, and Bengal.
Humayun returned to India, and Akbar, then only in his
thirteenth year, defeated the Afghan army after a desperate
battle at Panipat (1556). India now passed finally from the
Afghans to the Mughals. Sher Shah's line disappears; and
Humayun, having recovered his Kabul dominions, reigned again
for a few months at Delhi, but died in 1556. … Akbar the
Great, the real founder of the Mughal Empire as it existed for
two centuries, succeeded his father at the age of fourteen.
… His reign lasted for almost fifty years, from 1556 to
1605, and was therefore contemporary with that of our own
Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). His father, Humayun, left but a
small kingdom in India, scarcely extending beyond the
Districts around Agra and Delhi. … The reign of Akbar was a
reign of pacification. … He found India split into petty
kingdoms, and seething with discordant elements; on his death,
in 1605, he bequeathed it an empire. The earlier invasions by
Turks, Afghans, and Mughals, had left a powerful Muhammadan
population in India under their own Chiefs. Akbar reduced
these Musalman States to Provinces of the Delhi Empire. Many
of the Hindu kings and Rajput nations had also regained their
independence: Akbar brought them into political dependence
upon his authority. This double task he effected partly by
force of arms, but in part also by alliances. He enlisted the
Rajput princes by marriage and by a sympathetic policy in the
support of his throne. He then employed them in high posts,
and played off his Hindu generals and Hindu ministers against
the Mughal party in Upper India, and against the Afghan
faction in Bengal. … His efforts to establish the Mughal
Empire in Southern India were less successful. … Akbar
subjugated Khandesh, and with this somewhat precarious
annexation his conquests in the Deccan ceased. … Akbar not
only subdued all India to the north of the Vindhya mountains,
he also organized it into an empire. He partitioned it into
Provinces, over each of which he placed a governor, or
viceroy, with full civil and military control."

_W. W. Hunter,
Brief History of the Indian People,
chapter 10._

"I wish briefly and fairly to state what the Emperor Akbar did
for the improvement of the country and the people of
Hindostan. He improved the system of land-assessment, or
rather he improved upon the improvements instituted by Shir
Shah. He adapted an uniform and improved system of
land-measurement, and computed the average value of the land,
by dividing it into three classes, according to the
productiveness of each. This computation being made, one-third
of the average produce was fixed as the amount of tax to be
paid to the state. But as this was ordinarily to be paid in
money, it was necessary to ascertain the value of the produce,
and this was done upon an average of the nineteen preceding
years, according to local circumstances; and if the estimate
was conceived to be too high, the tax-payer was privileged to
pay the assessment in kind. … The regulations for the
collection of the revenue enforced by Akbar were well
calculated to prevent fraud and oppression, and, on the whole,
they worked well for the benefit of the people; but it has
been said of them, and with truth, that 'they contained no
principle of progressive improvement, and held out no hopes to
the rural population, by opening paths by which it might
spread into other occupations, or rise by individual exertions
within its own.' The judicial regulations of Akbar were
liberal and humane. Justice, on the whole, was fairly
administered. All unnecessary severity—all cruel personal
punishments, as torture and mutilation, were prohibited,
except in peculiar cases, and capital punishments were
considerably restricted. The police appears to have been well
organised. … He prohibited … trials by ordeal … ; he
suppressed the barbarous custom of condemning to slavery
prisoners taken in war; and he authoritatively forbade the
burning of Hindoo widows, except with their own free and
uninfluenced consent. … That something of the historical
lustre which surrounds the name of the Emperor Akbar was
derived rather from the personal character of the man than
from the great things that he accomplished, is, I think, not
to be denied. His actual performances, when they come to be
computed, fall short of his reputation. But his merits are to
be judged not so much by the standard of what he did, as of
what he did with the opportunities allowed to him, and under
the circumstances by which he was surrounded. Akbar built up
the Mogul Empire, and had little leisure allowed him to
perfect its internal economy."

_J. W. Kaye,
The Administration of the East India Company,
part 1, chapter 2._

ALSO IN: 3
_W. Erskine,
History of India under Baber and Humayun._

_A. Dow,
History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,
volume 2._

_J. T. Wheeler,
History of India,
volume 4, chapter 4._

INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.
Portuguese trade and settlements.

In May, 1498, Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese navigator, reached
Calicut, on the southwest (Malabar) coast, being the first
European to traverse the ocean route to India, around the Cape
of Good Hope (see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498). He met with a
hostile reception from the natives of Malabar; but the next
voyager from Portugal, Alvarez Cabral, "who came out the
following year, was very favourably received, being allowed to
establish a factory on the mainland and to appoint a 'factor'
(or consul, as we say now) to represent Portugal there. This
factor seems to have had some difficulties with the natives,
chiefly owing to his own high-handed actions, which resulted
in the murder of himself and the destruction of the factory.
Alvarez Cabral therefore sailed up to Cochin, and was received
with great friendliness by the chiefs of that part of the
country, who allowed him again to set up agencies at Cochin
and at Cananore. But the vengeance of the ruler of Malabar
pursued them; and the Portuguese, together with their native
allies, had to fight desperately for their safety.
{1709}
They were almost exhausted with the struggle when in 1504
large reinforcements were sent from Portugal, bombarded
Calicut, the capital of Malabar, and established the name and
fame of the Portuguese as an important power in India
generally. A regular maritime trade with India was now firmly
set on foot, but the Portuguese had to struggle hard to
maintain it. The Mohammedans of India called in the aid of
Egypt against them, and even the republic of Venice joined
these enemies, in hopes of crushing this new rival to their
ancient trade. In 1508 a powerful expedition was sent out from
Egypt against the newcomers, a tremendous battle took place,
and the Portuguese were defeated. But by a desperate effort
Almeida, the Portuguese viceroy, collected all his forces for
a final blow, and succeeded in winning a magnificent naval
victory which once and for all firmly established the
Portuguese power in India. Two years afterwards Almeida's
rival and successor, Alfonso de Albuquerque, gained possession
of Goa (1510), and this city became the centre of their Indian
dominion, which now included Ceylon and the Maldive Islands,
together with the Malacca and Malabar coasts. In 1511 the city
of Malacca was captured, and the city of Ormuz in 1515. The
next few years were spent in consolidating their sovereignty
in these regions, till in 1542 the Portuguese colonists
practically regulated all the Asiatic coast trade with Europe,
from the Persian Gulf … to Japan. … For nearly sixty years
after this date the king of Portugal, or his viceroy, was
virtually the supreme ruler—in commercial matters at any
rate—of the southern coast of Asia. The Portuguese were at
the climax of their power in the east. The way in which
Portuguese trade was carried on is an interesting example of
the spirit of monopoly which has, invariably at first and very
often afterwards, inspired the policy of all European powers
in their efforts of colonisation. The eastern trade was of
course kept in the hands of Portuguese traders only, as far as
direct commerce between Portugal and India was concerned; but
even Portuguese traders were shut out from intermediate
commerce between India and other eastern countries, i. e.,
China, Japan, Malacca, Mozambique, and Ormuz. This traffic was
reserved as a monopoly to the crown; and it was only as a
great favour, or in reward for some particular service, that
the king allowed private individuals to engage in it. The
merchant fleet of Portugal generally set sail from Lisbon,
bound to Goa, once a year about February or March. … This
voyage generally took about eighteen months, and, owing to the
imperfect state of navigation at that time, and the lack of
accurate charts of this new route, was frequently attended by
the loss of several ships. Immense profits were, however, made
by the traders. On arriving back at Lisbon the Portuguese
merchants, as a rule, did not themselves engage in any trade
with other European countries in the goods they had brought
back, but left the distribution of them in the hands of Dutch,
English, and Hansa sailors who met them at Lisbon. … The
colonial empire of Portugal, so rapidly and brilliantly
acquired, came to a disastrous close. It lasted altogether
hardly a century. The avarice and oppressions of its viceroys
and merchants, the spirit of monopoly which pervaded their
whole policy, and the neglect both of the discipline and
defences necessary to keep newly-acquired foreign possessions,
hastened its ruin. By 1580 the Portuguese power in the east
had seriously declined, and in that year the crown of Portugal
was united to that of Spain in the person of Philip II. The
Spaniards neglected their eastern possessions altogether, and
engaged in wars with the Dutch which had the effect, not only
of wasting a great portion of their own and the Portuguese
fleet, but of positively driving the Dutch into those very
eastern seas which the Portuguese had once so jealously kept
to themselves. Only Goa and Diu and a few other small stations
remained out of all their magnificent dominion."

_H. de B. Gibbins,
History of Commerce in Europe,
book 3, chapter 1 (sections 94-97)._

ALSO IN:
_E. McMurdo,
History of Portugal,
volume 3, books 2-5._

_Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque
(Hakluyt Society Publications)._

_E. Grey,
Introduction to Travels of Pietro della Valle
(Hakluyt Society Publications)._

_H. M. Stephens,
Albuquerque._

INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
Beginnings of English trade.
The chartering of the English East India Company.
Its early footholds in Hindostan.
The founding of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta.
The three Presidencies.

"For some time it appears to have been thought by other
European Powers, that the discovery of the passage round
Africa by the Portuguese gave them some exclusive claim to its
navigation. But after the year 1580 the conquest of Portugal
by Spain, and the example of the Dutch who had already formed
establishments not only in India but the Spice Islands,
aroused the commercial enterprise of England. In 1599 an
Association was formed for the Trade to the East Indies; a sum
was raised by subscription, amounting to £68,000; and a
petition was presented to the Crown for a Royal Charter. Queen
Elizabeth wavered during some time, apprehending fresh
entanglements with Spain. At length, in December 1600, the
boon was granted; the 'Adventurers' (for so were they termed
at that time) were constituted a body corporate, under the
title of 'the Governor and Company of Merchants of London
trading into the East Indies.' By their Charter they obtained
the right of purchasing lands without limitation, and the
monopoly of their trade during fifteen years, under the
direction of a Governor, and twenty-four other persons in
Committee, to be elected annually. … In 1609, the Charter of
the new Company was not only renewed but rendered
perpetual,—with a saving clause, however, that should any
national detriment be at any time found to ensue, these
exclusive privileges should, after three years' notice, cease
and expire. It does not seem, however, that the trade of the
new Company was extensive. Their first voyage consisted of
four ships and one pinnace, having on board £28,742 in
bullion, and £6,860 in goods, such as cloth, lead, tin,
cutlery, and glass. Many other of their voyages were of
smaller amount; thus, in 1612, when they united into a Joint
Stock Company, they sent out only one ship, with £1,250 in
bullion and £650 in goods. But their clear profits on their
capital were immense; scarcely ever, it is stated, below 100
per cent. During the Civil Wars the Company shared in the
decline of every other branch of trade and industry.
{1710}
But soon after the accession of Charles II. they obtained a
new Charter, which not only confirmed their ancient privileges
but vested in them authority, through their agents in India,
to make peace and war with any prince or people, not being
Christians, and to seize within their limits, and send home as
prisoners, any Englishmen found without a licence. It may well
be supposed that in the hands of any exclusive Company this
last privilege was not likely to lie dormant. … The period
of the Revolution was not so favourable to the Company as that
of the Restoration. A rival Company arose, professing for its
object greater freedom of trade with the East Indies, and
supported by a majority in the House of Commons. It is said
that the competition of these two Companies with the private
traders and with one another had well nigh ruined both. … An
Union between these Companies, essential, as it seemed, to
their expected profits, was delayed by their angry feelings
till 1702. Even then, by the Indenture which passed the Great
Seal, several points were left unsettled between them, and
separate transactions were allowed to their agents in India
for the stocks already sent out. Thus the ensuing years were
fraught with continued jarrings and contentions. … After the
grant of the first Charter by Queen Elizabeth, and the growth
of the Company's trade in India, their two main factories were
fixed at Surat and Bantam. Surat was then the principal
sea-port of the Mogul Empire, where the Mahometan pilgrims
were wont to assemble for their voyages towards Mecca. Bantam,
from its position in the island of Java, commanded the best
part of the Spice trade. But at Surat the Company's servants
were harassed by the hostility of the Portuguese, as at
Bantam, by the hostility of the Dutch. To such heights did
these differences rise that in 1622 the English assisted the
Persians in the recovery of Ormuz from the Portuguese, and
that in 1623 the Dutch committed the outrage termed the
'Massacre of Amboyna,'—putting to death, after a trial, and
confession of guilt extorted by torture, Captain Towerson and
nine other Englishmen, on a charge of conspiracy. In the final
result, many years afterwards, the factories both at Bantam
and Surat were relinquished by the Company. Other and newer
settlements of theirs had, meanwhile, grown into
importance.—In 1640 the English obtained permission from a
Hindoo Prince in the Carnatic to purchase the ground adjoining
the Portuguese settlement of St. Thomé, on which they
proceeded to raise Fort St. George and the town of Madras. …
In a very few years Madras had become a thriving town.—About
twenty years afterwards, on the marriage of Charles II. to
Catherine of Braganza [1661], the town and island of Bombay
were ceded to the King of England as a part of the Infanta's
dowry. For some time the Portuguese Governor continued to
evade the grant, alleging that the patent of His Majesty was
not in accordance with the customs of Portugal; he was
compelled to yield; but the possession being found on trial to
cost more than it produced, it was given up by King Charles to
the East India Company, and became one of their principal
stations. Nor was Bengal neglected. Considering the beauty and
richness of that province, a proverb was already current among
the Europeans, that there are a hundred gates for entering and
not one for leaving it. The Dutch, the Portuguese, and the
English had established their factories at or near the town of
Hooghly on one of the branches—also called Hooghly—of the
Ganges. But during the reign of James II. the imprudence of
some of the Company's servants, and the seizure of a Mogul
junk, had highly incensed the native Powers. The English found
it necessary to leave Hooghly, and drop twenty-five miles down
the river, to the village of Chuttanuttee. Some petty
hostilities ensued, not only in Bengal but along the coasts of
India. … So much irritated was Aurungzebe at the reports of
these hostilities, that he issued orders for the total
expulsion of the Company's servants from his dominions, but he
was appeased by the humble apologies of the English traders,
and the earnest intercession of the Hindoo, to whom this
commerce was a source of profit. The English might even have
resumed their factory at Hooghly, but preferred their new
station at Chuttanuttee, and in 1698 obtained from the Mogul,
on payment of an annual rent, a grant of the land on which it
stood. Then, without delay, they began to construct for its
defence a citadel, named Fort William, under whose shelter
there grew by degrees from a mean village the great town of
Calcutta,—the capital of modern India. … At nearly the
same period another station,—Tegnapatam, a town on the coast
of Coromandel, to the south of Madras,—was obtained by
purchase. It was surnamed Fort St. David; was strengthened
with walls and bulwarks, and was made subordinate to Madras
for its government. Thus then before the accession of the
House of Hanover these three main stations,—Fort William,
Fort St. George, and Bombay,—had been erected into
Presidencies, or central posts of Government; not, however, as
at present, subject to one supreme authority, but each
independent of the rest. Each was governed by a President and
a Council of nine or twelve members, appointed by the Court of
Directors in England. Each was surrounded with fortifications,
and guarded by a small force, partly European and partly
native, in the service of the Company. The Europeans were
either recruits enlisted in England or strollers and deserters
from other services in India. Among these the descendants of
the old settlers, especially the Portuguese, were called
Topasses,—from the tope or hat which they wore instead of
turban. The natives, as yet ill-armed and ill-trained, were
known by the name of Sepoys,—a corruption from the Indian
word 'sipahi,' a soldier. But the territory of the English
scarcely extended out of sight of their towns."

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope);
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 39 (volume 4)._

ALSO IN:
_J. Mill,
History of British India,
book 1 (volume 1)._

_P. Anderson,
The English in Western India,
chapters 1-10._

_H. Stevens, editor.,
Dawn of British Trade to East Indies:
Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1599-1603._

_J. W. Kaye,
The Administration of the East India Company,
chapters 3-4._

INDIA: A. D. 1602-1620.
Rise of the Dutch East India Company.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

{1711}

INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.
Jahangir and Nur Mahal.
Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal.
Seizure of the throne by Aurungzebe.