and reached Taxila (now Hasan Abdul) some twenty miles north-west of Rawalpindi. Taxila was the capital of a kingdom between the Indus and the Jhelum, a wealthy, cultured city with a mixed population. Alexander was received with gifts and advanced against Porus, another king, ruling between the Jhelum and the Chenab. At this time, the Panjab was divided among a number of States, much as Rajputana is to-day. The army of King Porus was well-appointed, and represents the struggle for existence of the period. It comprised 30,000 infantry, 4000 cavalry, 300 chariots and 200 war elephants. Alexander prevailed after a stiff battle, and fought his way to the Beas River. His soldiers, impressed by the tall stature and military prowess of the men of the Panjab, refused to penetrate farther, and Alexander was compelled to retreat by way of the Jhelum and the Indus, across South Beluchistan, back to Persia. He died at Babylon in 323 B.C.

His invasion furnished opportunity for the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty, which had been for a long time reigning in Magadha, a city already mentioned in connection with the Jains and Buddhists. A young adventurer, Chandragupta Maurya, aided by a clever Brahman, Chanakya, seized Pataliputra (Patna), the capital of Magadha, in 322 B.C., drove out the Macedonian garrisons from the Panjab, and compelled Seleukos, Alexander's successor in Asia, to cede Afghanistan. Chandragupta reigned with " ruthless severity" from 322 to 298 B.C. over all North India from Herat to Patna, the Narbada being his southern boundary. Dr. V. Smith emphasizes the appalling wickedness of the statecraft taught by Chanakya and the espionage and corruption which tainted the administration.

Alexander had broken the fighting strength of the Panjab kingdoms which rendered possible this rapid extension of the Magadha State under what is known as the Maurya Dynasty. Chandragupta was succeeded by his son, Bindusara (298-273 B.C.), and he by his son, the famous Asoka (273-242 B.C.). The army was large, composed of some 700,000 infantry, with 8000 chariots and 9000 elephants, clad in mail, representing the modern Tank." The Maurya kings emulated the Persian monarchs and lived in much splendour. Gladiatorial combats and animal fights were the cruel amusements, as indeed they long continued. Dancing girls occupied as prominent a place then as now, though we recollect the noble answer given not long ago by the Mysore Government to the temple priests, that uncleanness could form

66

no part of acceptable worship. The administration was well organized, though the bulk of the expenditure was upon the army and the palace.

Much of the information of the Maurya period is derived from Megasthenes, the ambassador from Seleukos Nikator at the Court of Chandragupta and his successors. With Asoka began numerous inscriptions on rock and pillar composed by himself. Asoka's empire by this time included the greater part of India, from the Hindu Kush to near Mysore. So far the precept enunciated by Chanakya for the guidance of a king, "In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness," had not been followed. Now came a sudden change. For some three centuries, Buddhism had been making its way, and the Maurya kings came under its influence. In Asoka it became a living force. Remorse entered his mind for having attacked the Kalingas, a small State on the Bay of Bengal, "because the conquest of a country previously unconquered involves the slaughter, death and carrying away captive of the people" (261 B.C.). Asoka felt similar sympathy for the despised Hill Tribes. He desired that all "animate beings should have security, self-control, peace of mind and joyousness.' His officers were enjoined to avoid harshness towards any and to show sympathy with all.

Asoka propagated his beliefs with energy. He had a vision of internationalism. He sent his messengers to the Far West, including Syria and Egypt. His brother and sister brought about the conversion of Ceylon. Buddhism spread to Burmah, Siam, Japan, Tibet, and during the first century after Christ became an active force in China. Mohammed compelled men to accept his creed by the sword. Asoka conquered by meekness. The strength of Mohammedanism lay in the truth that there is one God, its weakness is that it requires no change of heart and has no place for love. The power of Buddhism is that it approached the Kingdom of God. It insisted on speaking the truth, on reverence to parents and teachers, sympathetic treat ment of inferiors, respect for the religious opinions of others, regard for animal life. Such were the stone-cut edicts of Asoka. We do not find the like again till we get to Akbar.

The Maurya Empire scarcely lasted fifty years after the death of Asoka, and a reaction against Buddhism followed. For some centuries Hindustan lapsed into conflicts between petty kings till once more a strong ruler arose in a second Chandragupta and his son, Samudragupta, who between A.D. 320 and 375

re-established Pataliputra as the capital of an empire, ranging north of the Narbada from the Satlej to the Hugli. Kabul and North-West India were lost. The Gupta period lasted some 350 years, but its golden age was confined to one and a-half centuries.

As India owes to Greek sources most of her knowledge of the Maurya dynasty (326-185 B.C.), so it is from Chinese travellers that she has interesting records of the Gupta dynasty (A.D. 320480). These Chinese came to study Buddhism in the land of its birth, and found large towns and prosperous peoples, charitable institutions, including hospitals and rest houses for travellers. There was still a strong Buddhist influence, but caste was strict.

During the fifth century A.D. the Hindu reaction was in progress. Buddhism would make no terms with Brahmanism. The two were entirely opposed. Buddhism enjoined sharing the joys and sorrows of others, cultivating love, thoroughly democratic. Brahmanism cared for none of these things. Isolation, pride, supremacy, distinguished the Brahman, thoroughly aristocratic, and in return for deference any conduct was good enough for Hindus. The glory of Asoka's kingdom was due to Buddhism. The Brahmans hated its light and stifled its life. During the Gupta period, Buddhist ideals still moderated rulers and Buddhist monasteries popularized education. The Brahmans kept education to themselves. Finally, the Brahmans crushed Buddhism out of India. The little that remained was stamped out by the Mohammedans. With the triumph of Brahmanism, the opportunity to work towards a national India was lost, and in the seventh century A.D. India again broke into fragments, and disappeared in darkness and corruption till the Mohammedans took command.

It is well to recollect that during the centuries under review, within Brahmanism, certain conceptions of salvation took shape in the teaching of what is known as " Bhakti," which produced the Bhagavadgita, or Song of the Lord, and is exhibited in personal devotion to Rama and Krishna. Kalidasa, the Sanskrit poet, lived in the Gupta age. His celebrated play, Sakuntala, was lately produced in London.

The immediate cause of the disruption of the Gupta Empire was the inroad of the Huns into the Panjab about A.D. 500, as not long previously other bands under Attila had overrun Germany and France. General disorder followed. The seventh

century is interesting on account of the appearance of the Rajput clans, and their settlement in Rajputana, a people that have exercised immense influence, and to a considerable degree have been able to resist being Brahmanized. Tod describes the Rajputs as Scythians from Central Asia, whence came also the sturdy cultivators, Jats, Gujars, Ahirs and others, now embedded in the caste system.

We need not linger to investigate the ever-changing kingdoms which struggled with each other south of the Narbada. The strife was varied by occasional invasions from Hindustan and by perennial wars of the Deccan kings with the Dravidian kings further south. Buddhism declined, and the Brahmans steadily penetrated Southern India, and there secured their most unquestioned supremacy at the cost of the most cruel degradation of many millions of the depressed classes. The Lingayet sect, strong in the Kanarese country, broke away in the twelfth century. The Lingayets worship Siva, but reject the Vedas, Brahmans, Transmigration, child-marriage and perpetual widowhood. They have been compelled to revert to caste.

In the dust raised by falling dynasties and the conquests from which new ones emerged, we must not lose sight of occasionally prolonged intervals of settled and good government, such as produced the great irrigation anicuts across the Kaveri and other rivers during the Chola dynasty, which dated from A.D. 907 and lasted about four centuries. The huge temples of Tanjore date from the eleventh century. Imposing temples had been built long before that. The most wonderful is at Ellora, sculptured out of the solid rock, from which it stands clear, as though it had been erected stone by stone (about A.D. 760).

Imagination may be left to weave out of a few shadowy indications a decorative tapestry to hang behind the period when some sort of history begins. We have seen that in India historical data commence in the sixth century B.C, with the appearance of Buddhism as the antagonist against cruel idolatry and human strife. We have seen that twice, some 300 years B.C. and again some 300 years A.D., under Hindu kings, more or less swayed by Buddhistic teaching, Hindustan seemed to be within sight of becoming a beneficent government over a united people, and that gradually Brahmanic idolatry reasserted its popular power, itself torn between the opposing tendencies of philosophic and licentious thought. During the sixteen

centuries, ending about A.D. 1000, of what is known as the Hindu period of Indian history, the Brahmans moulded public opinion and conduct, and became the dominating class throughout India, with the net result that Hindustan, the Deccan and the Far South, all alike, were left in a welter of bloodshed and a tangle of morals. Brahmans had a free hand to regenerate India or even bring it decent government, for they were the only universal influence. They utterly failed. Why? Because, in my judgment, they used their intellectual strength to despise other men to a degree unknown even in slavery, and to justify the worship of debasing idols.

Mohammedans.

Such a population, retrograde in civilization, degenerate in character, devouring one another, with wealth stored in centres by kings and priests, asked for trouble. Judgment came in terrible form. Raiding began from Afghanistan. Round about A.D. 1000, Mahmud of Ghazni plundered one rich temple after another, including Somnath, and annexed the Panjab. The warning was unheeded, and in A.D. 1175 Sultan Mohammed Ghori, advancing from Eastern Afghanistan, had no difficulty in overthrowing the huge Hindu host of confederate kings under the Chauhan Rajput Prithiraj, ruler of Ajmer and Delhi. This victory (A.D. 1192) sealed the doom of Hindustan. Armies reared on the caste system, which divides, were no match for the unified enthusiasm of the Moslems. Bengal fell an easy victim about A.D. 1200, and remained under the Mohammedan heel till the British brought deliverance after five and a-half centuries. The ferocity of the early invaders was merciless, slaughtering idolaters and destroying temples, in place of which mosques were everywhere substituted.

From this time till the middle of the fourteenth century the Sultans of Delhi reigned supreme. Only two need mention. Ala-ud-din in 1303 stormed the hill-fort of Chitor in Meywar, when the Rajput ladies and their female attendants saved themselves from the horrors of capture by entering a subterranean gallery, where they perished by fire, including the lovely Padmani. Tod says he went to the entrance only of the sacred cavern. He was probably informed, as I was by a later Maharana, that the place had already been ransacked by the victors.

This Ala-ud-din understood the taxation of profits. In his instructions for the treatment of Hindus, he recorded that he