THE ASHOKAN PILLARS ARE REALLY PILLARS MADE BY ALEXANDER !!!!!!!!!

[ravi]

AN ALTAR OF ALEXANDER NOW STANDING AT DELHI

by Ranajit Pal (An expanded version of this paper appears in Scholia,
vol. 15.)

Apart from legends, today the fame of a historical figure is also
determined by his archaeological relics. Alexander fell an easy prey
to unwary critics mainly due to two factors; his image was tarnished
by a vilification campaign launched by the Generals, [i] who probably
poisoned him, and secondly there appears to be very little
archeological evidence of his historic voyage [ii]. Sir Mortimer
Wheeler wrote with a touch of sorrow,

And yet it is astonishing how very little actual trace we have of his
passing... his material presence has eluded us. It is as though a
disembodied idea had come and gone as a mighty spiritual force with
little immediate tangibility.

However, it has to be remembered that the survival of relics is often
a matter of chance. To the layman the accounts of Arrian, Plutarch and
others may appear insignificant in contrast to the lustre of the Taj
Mahal or the splendour of the relics of Tutenkhamon but the historian
must tread more cautiously. Natural disasters like earthquakes and
floods, wilful destruction by political or religious reactionaries and
at times plain misjudgment of historians may add up to diminish a
legitimate hero. Lastly one must also take into account the effects of
misappropriation. Had it not been for the ballasting of more than
hundred miles of the Lahore-Multan railway with bricks from the
monuments of Harappa, the task of reconstructing the glories of the
Indus civilisation would have been far easier. This has other
dimensions as well; Alexander was keenly aware of the importance of
monuments and erected colossal stone altars to record for posterity
his presence in northwest India yet nothing survives. In contrast one
is confronted with the spectacular emergence of the


An Asokan pillar with a lion-capital

pillars of Asoka a little more than fifty years later. If one notes
that that Asoka was an Indo-Greek whose native province was also the
northwest [iii], it becomes natural to suspect a link between the
sudden appearance of his Pillar edicts and the disappearance of
Alexander's altars.

Who Erected Pillars In India Before Asoka?

The find-spot of a relic is of great importance in the reconstruction
of history but one of the many problems in Indian history is that
pillars were frequently re-written and re-erected at different
locations. Unfortunately the effect of this misuse by later rulers has
often been overlooked by gullible historians. Even though the weight
of some of the Asokan pillars is about thirty tons, it is not safe to
assume that these were erected in their present locations. In the
fourteenth century Sultan Feroz Shah was so impressed by the Asokan
pillars that he had two of them shifted to Delhi, one from Meerut and
another from Topra in Ambala district, about 90 miles northwest of
Delhi. F. J. Monahan[iv] wrote,

The fact that ten of the pillars bear inscriptions of Ashoka is proof
they were erected not later than his reign; it does not prove that
none of them was erected earlier.

The fame of Samudragupta as one of the greatest conquerors of India
rests on his famous Allahabad inscription which was rewritten on an
old Asokan pillar. Kulke and Rothermund[v] suggest that it was
transported from Kausambi. In the Mudrarakshasa Chandragupta is called
Piadamsana. From this H.C. Raychaudhuri concluded that

... it is not always safe to ascribe all epigraphs that make mention
of Priyadarsana, irrespective of their contents, to Ashoka the Great.

Although Asoka was the first to use pillars and other monuments for
the propagation of Dhamma, the intriguing fact that emerges from his
edicts is that pillars similar to those bearing his edicts had been in
existence in India before his time; in the seventh of his Pillar
Edicts, after recording that he has erected 'pillars of the Sacred
Law' (Dhamma-thambani), Asoka writes,

The Devanampiya speaks thus: this inscription of Dhamma is to be
engraved wherever there are stone pillars or stone slabs, that it may
last long.

The crucial question that arises now is who erected these pre-Asokan
pillars?

Asoka's 13th Edict Echoes Nebuchadrezzar's Inscription

The thirteenth edict of Asoka occupies a special place for the
poignancy of its diction. The humane tone of remorse and the account
of the subsequent change of heart of the Emperor after victory in the
bloody battle of Kalinga sounds very authentic and moving. One cannot
but contrast it with the imperial and swaggering style of Darius'
edicts. But as pointed out by Bhattacharya [vi] the reasons for which
he fought the battle in the eighth year of his reign are not clear.
Kalinga was most probably not modern Orissa [vii] as none of the
Orissa edicts mention the war in which one hundred thousand men were
killed and fifty thousand taken away as captives. From archaeological
data regarding urbanism in the third century BC it can be said that
deporting fifty thousand people (to Patna?) would have been an
impossible task. Even if one considers a different geographical
location, war on such a scale can safely be ruled out as there is no
indication from other sources. There can be little doubt regarding
victory in a war and the remorse and change of heart of the emperor
but the propagandist element in the edict cannot be missed. Asoka is
clearly emulating Nebuchadrezzar who also narrated his victory in his
eighth year in which many thousands were killed and many more
deported. In fact, as we know from the stories of the Old Testament
Nebuchadrezzar was one of the greatest heroes whose fame had reached
the farthest corners of the ancient world. D. J. Wiseman writes
[viii],

His royal inscriptions are marked by the absence of war-like stances
and, despite their reuse of paleo-Babylonian traditional epithets,
they emphasise 'moral' qualities.

The similarity with Asoka's tone cannot be missed. The great king of
Babylon was an easterner and it is likely that he was from Seistan
[ix] which was also a primary area for Asoka or Diodotus-I.

Gomata Of Seistan Was The True Gotama

It is impossible to study a historical figure without first
ascertaining his locale and his era. The Rumminidei edict is unique as
it alone lends some credence to the theory that Gotama was an
easterner but here also one cannot escape from the possibility that it
was brought in from a different location[x]. Even though he was unable
to pinpoint Jones' blunder, the eminent archaeologist A. Ghosh wrote
in clear terms,

... the existence of kiln-burnt brick houses distinguished the town
from the village.. . An application of this criterion would deny a
civic status even to those places which were renowned cities at the
time of the Buddha. [xi]

Very few Indologists were prepared to accept the consequences of the
fact that the bricks from Lumbini date only from the third century BC
[xii]. Vincent Smith [xiii] notes many curious aspects of the
Rumminidei inscription; not only that it is not inscribed by Asoka, it
does not even claim to have been incised by a royal command.
Presumably it was both drafted and engraved by a local authority. A
similar inscription found at Kapileswara in Orissa, on the basis of
which Chakradhar Mahapatra [xiv] claims that the real home of the
Buddha is Orissa, is of a later date.

The nothingness of the archeological finds at Lumbini and elsewhere
can only be explained by noting that Gotama was not an easterner -
Gomata of the Behistun inscriptions was the true Gotama. [xv] The
Avesta speaks of clashes between Zoroaster and Buddha which shows that
Gotama was from the northwest. One of the greatest failures of
Assyriology was to gloss over the fact that Bagapa of Babylon was
Gomata who was the same as Gotama Buddha whose title was Bhagava
[xvi]. As early as 1915 Dr. Spooner wrote [xvii] that both Gotama and
Chandragupta were from Persia. Although Piprahwa was called
Kapilavastu in the Kanishka era, B. N. Mukherjee's enthusiasm [xviii]
about its identification as Gotama's birth-place is entirely
misplaced; no Buddhist artefacts datable to 6th century BC has been
found here. Debala Mitra, who carried out excavations at Lumbini,
writes,

In spite of the record of the activities of Ashoka at Kushinagara,
nothing that is definitely earlier than the Kushan period, has been
found in the excavations [xix].

Most of the problems disappear once Kuh-e-Khwaja is recognised as the
true Kapilavastu. This is where Sir Aurel Stein discovered a Buddhist
shrine in the early years of the last century [xx]. Both Herzfeld and
Ghirshman described the frescoes of Kuh-e-Khwaja as the earliest known
examples of Gandhara art which clearly shows its links with Buddhism.

Echo Of Alexander's Directives In The Rumminidei Edict

The identification of Kapilavastu is of great relevance in t he
history of Alexander. Historians have not pondered over the fact that
Alexander spent nearly two months with the Ariaspians of the Kuh-e-
Khwaja area in Seistan. This was when he was hotly pursuing Bessos,
his hated enemy [xxi]. His naming of this area as Alexandria
Prophthasia clearly shows that Stein's discovery was linked to the
birth-place of Gotama. It is significant that the Greek historians
also referred to the traditional sanctity of the district. It was said
that the Ariaspians enjoyed special privileges as they had given
succour to the starving army of Cyrus the great. This is surely not
the full story as the holiness of Seistan is well recorded in the
Iranian tradition, in particular, the Shahnama. The Indian texts throw
more significant light on the history of Ariaspians or Hariasvas who
are described as a lost tribe [xxii]. From the Mahabharata we learn
that King Hariasva never ate flesh in his life [xxiii]. It is likely
that the sage Asvaghosa (Calanus) whose name is given as Sphines or
Aspines belonged to the clan of the Ariaspians. Alexander noted that
their system of justice was very much like that of the Greeks [xxiv].
Impressed by their way of life and civic administration, Alexander
extended their boundaries and conferred nominal freedom. Though not
explicitly stated, waiving part of the taxes payable to the state must
have been an element of his decree. It is important to note that
Alexander's conflicts with his officers started after his stay in
Seistan. The Philotas affair, the slaying of Cleitus and the
Callisthenes tragedy are all linked with the Alexander's fascination
for Gotama and Ariaspians.

The Lion Of Chaeronea And Asoka's Lions

Wheeler was amazed by the double-lion capitals at Persepolis but could
not recognise that these could have been erected by Alexander. When
the Sarnath pillar was first discovered it created a flutter of
sensation on an international scale. Sir John Marshall wrote [xxv],

The Sarnath capital, on the other hand, though by no means a
masterpiece, is the product of the most developed art of which the
world was cognisant in the third century B.C.

But what puzzled scholars like Foucher was that if it assumed that
Asoka was a native of Bihar as R. Thapar and other Indologists
imagine, his fascination for the lion symbol remains an enigma. The
lion is an intrusive element in Indian art. On the other hand the lion
symbol was much favoured in Mycenae. It was also a symbol of great
importance for the Macedonians.

Philip's lion statue at Chaeronea

When Phillip wanted to commemorate the great Macedonian victory at
Chaeronea, he setup the famous lion statue. It is thus very likely
that his illustrious son had also erected lion capitals in India; it
is well known that he always carried a small golden lion. However, it
can be argued that Asoka borrowed the lion symbol from
Nebuchadrezzar's Babylon - lions guarded the famous E-Sagila - or from
the Sumerians who also had a preference for the lion symbol; Gudea's
double lion mace-head is well known [xxvi]. As Cumont noted, the lion
was a symbol of ancient Lydia. Four lions also guarded the Meghazil
tomb near Amrit, but the fact that Asoka was an Indo-Greek closely
related to Seleucus' line makes it more likely that his lions were
Greek-inspired. However, though truth is indestructible it is often
stranger than fiction - the historians job has been made nearly
impossible by Asoka who had no qualms about overwriting on the much-
sought-after pillars of Alexander.

Alexander's Altar That Once Stood Near Hyphasis

The Englishman Thomas Coryat who came to Delhi in 1616 was one of the
first westerners to notice the Asokan pillars after the middle ages.
Coryat was greatly impressed by the superbly polished forty feet high
monolithic column and presumed that it must have been erected by
Alexander the Great 'in token of his victorie' over Porus. In Coryat's
time the script of the inscriptions in the pillar was undeciphered but
today, thanks to Prinsep, we know that it contains an inscription of
Asoka; yet there is more to it than meets the eye. From Asoka's own
inscription it is almost certain that some of his pillars were not
erected by him.

After the mutiny at Hyphasis Alexander gave up his plans to march
further east and to commemorate his presence in India erected twelve
massive altars of dressed stone as a thanksgiving to the deities who
had blessed his success. Arrian wrote,

He then divided the army into brigades, which he ordered to prepare
twelve altars to equal in height the highest military towers, and to
exceed them in point of breadth, to serve as thank offerings to the
gods who had led him so far as a conqueror, and also as a memorial of
his own labours. When the altars had been constructed, he offered
sacrifice upon them with the customary rites, and celebrated a
gymnastic and equestrian contest.

Surprisingly, although most of the writers place the altars on the
right bank of the river, Pliny placed them on the left or the eastern
bank. He wrote (vi, 21),

The Hyphasis was the limit of the marches of Alexander, who, however,
crossed it, and dedicated altars on the further bank.

Alexander's altar was initially at Topra near Chandigarh

Pliny's information suggests a reappraisal of the age-old riddle of
Alexander's altars. Precisely how far east had Alexander and his men
come? This has been a matter of inconclusive debate; Sir E.H. Banbury
held that the point where Alexander erected the twelve altars cannot
be regarded as determined within even approximate limits but the
Indian evidence now sheds new light on the problem. Masson placed the
altars on the united stream of the Hyphasis and Sutlez[xxvii].
McCrindle also wrote that the Sutlez marked the limit of Alexander's
march eastward[xxviii] and this is precisely the locality from which
Feroze Shah transported a colossal pillar to Delhi. R. Thapar ignores
Alexander's momentous voyage[xxix] and writes that though at present
there is no archaeological evidence, Topra was probably an important
stopping place on the road from Pataliputra to the northwest. This
clearly skirts the central issue. It is impossible to think that
anyone other than Alexander could have erected such a grand pre-Asokan
pillar in this locality. There can be little doubt that the Delhi-
Topra pillar [xxx] which now bears Asoka's seventh edict is in fact
one of the missing altars of Alexander the Great [xxxi].

Who Was Asoka ?

Asoka emerges as the first figure of Indian history about whose era
and persona we are fairly well informed. His Edicts speak of a love
and sympathy for men and other beings which has very few parallels in
world history, [xxxii] yet some very important aspects of his life are
still unknown [xxxiii]. Asoka is not known to be represented in any
coin or statue. From his study of Buddhist art, Alfred Foucher, one of
the greatest commentators on Indian art, raised many questions that
apparently had no precise answer. Foucher was surprised to find that
the symbols of Buddhism like the lion, the lotus etc. had no
antecedents in the art of Eastern India where one must expect them.
This is linked to the fact that no original Buddhist texts have been
unearthed from modern India. G. Tucci pointed out that even the Stupa
is of west Asian origin. Similar views were held by A. Coomaraswamy.
"Mahalake hi vijitam" ('Vast is my empire'), proclaimed Ashoka. How
extensive really was his dominion in the West? It is impossible to
recognize the real Asoka without answering this question. Foucher was
not aware of the blunder of Jones or the fact that Kuh-e-Khwaja in
Seistan was Kapilavastu[xxxiv], yet solely from his profound study of
art history he came to the very significant conclusion that the
Mauryan empire must have extended in the north-west to the Hindu-Kush,
and to the west as far as Aria and Seistan.

Foucher's remark, in a sense, opens a Pandora's box. If Seistan and
Bactria were within the Maurya empire it is not unnatural to expect
that the Indo-Greek rulers of Bactria and Seistan were somehow related
to the Mauryas. From the fact that Seleucus' daughter became a member
of the Mauryan royal family, it can be easily argued that Asoka could
have been an Indo-Greek[xxxv]. Asoka's name Asoka Vardhana links him
with Parthian Kings like Vardanes, Satibarzanes etc.. R. Thapar
suggests that Antiochus could have been his half-brother. It turns out
that Asoka's history matches that of Diodotus-I almost line by line.

Devanampiya And Devadatta

R. Thapar writes that the classical writers did not refer to Asoka
[xxxvi]. This is clearly absurd ; they must have used a different
name, not Asoka or Piyadassi. A careful study shows that Devanampiya,
the most common name of Asoka in the Edicts is in fact the same as
Devadatta[xxxvii] or Diodotus. The interpretation of Devanampiya as
`beloved of the Gods' is superficial. Asoka states that his ancestors
were Devanampiyas, which shows that it is a patronymic, not a title -
even Chandragupta was a Devanampiya or Diodotus (of Erythrae). 'Nam'
in Persian and 'Nomos' in Greek means 'law' another Persian word for
which is 'Dat'. Thus Devanam is the same as Devadat. Piya or Priya may
have had the sense of a redeemer as in the case of the name of Priam
of Troy. Many Parthian Kings assumed the titles Priapatius and Assak.
As can be seen from the Shahnama, the Avesta and Xerexes'
inscriptions, `Deva' initially meant a clan, not god. Ignorance of
this has led to senseless translations of Asoka's Edicts as `Gods
mingled with men'. Only oblique scholarship has obscured that the name
Devadatta occurring in the second line of Asoka's famous Taxila pillar
inscription refers to Asoka himself. The line "l dmy dty `l
" [xxxviii] which Marshall and Andreas translated as `for Romedatta',
refers to Devadatta.

The Kandahar Edict clearly shows Asoka as the master of Arachosia,
whereas the coins indicate that Diodotus was the sovereign of this
region. The problem can be resolved only by assuming that Asoka was
the same as Diodotus-I. Asoka died exactly when Diodotus died; Asoka's
Edicts stopped appearing in 245 BC[xxxix] the year of Diodotus' death.
According to Wheeler, the first Edicts were inscribed 'in and after
257BC'. A.K. Narain and others maintain that Diodotus proclaimed
himself as king by about 256 BC. The great Indologist F. W. Thomas
noted that in his Edicts Asoka did not mention Diodotus Theos who
should have been his neighbour[xl]. It is difficult to imagine that
the man whose religious overtures won the heart of nearly the entire
civilized world failed to impress upon his god-like neighbour. Asoka
does not mention Iran also in his Edicts; the nearest foreign king
that he mentions being Antiochus. This may indicate that the Syrian
King stationed at Seleucia near Babylon was indeed his neighbour.
Asoka does not refer to Devadatta because he was Devadatta himself.

Hellenistic Influence On Mauryan Art

The Indo-Greek identity of Asoka throws a flood of light on the
history of Mauryan art. Here one must pay tribute to scholars like Sir
John Marshall, Alfred Foucher and Niharranjan Ray who were not aware
that Asoka was Diodotus-I yet made no mistake in recognising the
Hellenistic content of Mauryan art. Marshall realised that the lion
capitals of Asoka represent a new era in Indian art that has no
precursors. Their fixed expression, authentic spirit, canon-based form
and stylisation all betray a strong Hellenistic inspiration.
Niharranjan Ray echoes a similar sentiment[xli]. Ray doubted that the
impetus could be from Achaemenid Persia and traced it to Hellenistic
art. The history of the Topra pillar leaves no doubt about how this
stimulus was transmitted. The failure to recognize that Chandragupta
was in fact Sasigupta who was once a satrap of Alexander has been at
the root of many problems in the interpretation of Gandhara art and
Mauryan art. However, though Marshall and Ray came very close to the
truth, they failed to see Alexander's hand behind the lions of Asoka.

Nebuchadrezzar And Brotherhood Of Man

Although there is considerable Achaemenian influence[xlii] in Asoka's
writing and art it is not difficult to see that his true hero was
Nebuchadrezzar whose history is linked with Jainism- Buddhism. As
already indicated, Asoka's 13th Edict echoes the campaign of the
Babylonian king in his 8th year. Nebuchadrezzar was widely seen as a
universal liberator, not a national hero. He was a captor of the Jews
yet Jewish Prophets like Jeremiah hailed him as a saviour. Like Asoka,
NebuChadrezzar also changed his religion, gave up animal food, was a
great temple builder and propagator of religion based on
righteousness, (Dhamma) not priestly cults.

Gotama was also strongly influenced by Nebuchadrezzar. The Emperor's
horror of the withering tree as told by Daniel in the Old Testament
reminds one Gotama's horror of withering, decay and death which played
a central role in his renunciation. The same impulse can be seen
behind the quest for immortality of Gilgamesh. The great king of
Babylon was an easterner and it is likely that the dream is in some
way related to the defoliation of the Seistan area which was once a
granary of Iran. A strong sentiment against defoliation is also
discernible in Buddhist literature and art.

The true significance of Alexander's fascination for Nebuchadrezzar
has largely remained unappreciated. Critics who have scoffed at
Alexander's call for Brotherhood of Man are not aware that
Nebuchadrezzar also wanted to establish a Brotherhood of Man based on
righteousness as contrasted to the hegemony of a holy priesthood.
Woolley suggested that he introduced a religious reformation that
involved congregational worship as contrasted to the priestly rituals.
Only Tarn suspected that there may be some religious background to the
fact that the Brahmans (the priestly party) were always the strong
opponents of Alexander. He was, like Alexander, one of the greatest
conquerors of history yet he became a great builder of temples, gave
up all animal food and chose to live like a hermit in the forest and
courted death by refusing food. This has been senselessly interpreted
as madness by some writers unfamiliar with eastern religions. Many
Greeks, not only Alexander, saw Nebuchadrezzar as a saviour.
Antimenides, brother of the poet Alcaeus fought on behalf of
Nebuchadrezzar. Apart from Greek military superiority this is why
Alexander was so heartily welcomed in Babylon[xliii].

Alexander And Asoka

The corpus of Asoka's inscriptions is extensive but one is mystified
by some things he did not say. Curiously he never names his father or
his illustrious grandfather[xliv]. He also maintains a measured
silence on Alexander. He opens the famous seventh edict with the
sentence,

In the past, kings searched for means whereby people's interest in
Dhamma would increase, but the people did not respond accordingly with
a greater devotion to Dhamma.

Who are these kings? The most probable answer is Alexander and
Nebuchadrezzar . Plutarch writes that in his days the altar's of
Alexander were held in much veneration by the Prasiians, whose kings,
he says, were in the habit of crossing the Ganges every year to offer
sacrifices in the Grecian manner [xlv] upon them. It can be seen from
the Mudrarakshasa that even though he played a part in his poisoning,
Sasigupta had great respect for Alexander who was once his master.
From whatever little we know of Bindusara he probably had the same
attitude. This could also have been true of Asoka [xlvi]. His
proscription of samajas or revelling parties may be due to his horror
of Alexander's poisoning in such a party.

Like Cambyses, Alexander got a very bad press. If his hands were
stained by the blood of Cleitus, Asoka was the ruthless terminator of
99 brothers in his youth. This may be echoed by the 'Brother's war' of
the classical historians. Susima, Asoka's elder brother who was killed
by him before accession to the throne, may be a close relative of
Susina (Abd Susin) whose coins have been found from Persepolis. Only
Tarn recognised the links between Alexander and Asoka, [xlvii]

For when all is said, we come back at the end to his personality; not
the soldier or the statesman, but the man. Whatever Asia did or did
not get from him she felt him as she scarcely felt any other; she knew
that one of the greatest of the earth had passed. Though his direct
influence vanished from India within a generation, and her literature
does not know him, he affected Indian history for centuries; for
Chandragupta saw him and deduced the possibility of realising in
actual fact the conception, handed down from Vedic times, of a
comprehensive monarchy in India; hence Alexander indirectly created
Asoka's empire and enabled the spread of Buddhism.

Had he been alive, Tarn would have been delighted to learn that it is
mainly due to Jones' blunder that Alexander's true legacy remains
hidden; his direct influence did not vanish from India within a
generation, it only assumed a highly embellished Asokan garb. It is
very likely that excavations near the Topra area would yield relics of
Alexander which are of crucial importance in world history.

NOTES

[i] The very existence of the junta depended on a falsification and
defamation campaign which was extensive and thoroughgoing. That
Ptolemy ha d to defend Alexander only shows the extent of such a
campaign. Needless to say Sasigupta could justify his role only by
blackening Alexander. Some Athenian Greeks swayed by Demosthenes'
fiery rhetoric spared no effort to belittle Alexander.

[ii] Jones' false discovery of Palibothra at Patna shifted the focus
to the east and misled such erudite scholars as Rostovtzeff and Tarn
into believing that Alexander is not mentioned in Indian literature
and had little influence on Indian civilisation. For an elaboration of
the consequences of Jones' mislocation of Palibothra at Patna in lieu
of Kahnuj in Gedrosia see 'Sasigupta and the Poisoning of Alexander',
to be published.

[iii] See Pal, R., 'Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander', Minerva
Press, New Delhi, 2002.

[iv] Like Vincent Smith, Monahan was a distinguished British historian
who was a member of the Indian Civil Service, 'The Early History of
Bengal', 1925, p.227.

[v] Kulke, H., and Rothermund, D., 'A History of India', Rupa, 1991,
p. 86.



[vi] 'A Dictionary of Indian History', University of Calcutta, 1972, p.
70.

[vii] Three Kalingas are mentioned in the Inscriptions. This is
natural in view of the fact that early Magadha was in the north-west.
The present writer has suggested that there were two Bengals, the
earlier one being in the Gulf area. See Pal, R., 'Non-Jonesian
Indology and Alexander', Minerva Press, New Delhi, to be published.

[viii] "Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon", British Academy, 1985, p. 98.

[ix] There is a lot of controversy about the correct form of the name
which is probably NebuChandressar. The Chandresvaras were an ancient
tribe of India. See B.C. Law.

[x] Although some of the points made by Monahan can now be seen to be
untrue, his statement is still relevant, "The monoliths in question
are believed to have been quarried in the neighbourhood of Chunar in
the district of Mirzapur. Quarries yielding the same kind of sandstone
are worked there to this day, and no other place is known where the
huge blocks required for the purpose could have been obtained. When it
is considered that the weight of each of the monoliths is estimated at
about 50 tons, it will be apparent that their transport to and
erection at such distant sites as Topra near Umballa, Sanchi in
Bhopal, and the Nepalese Terai, were no mean engineering feats". 'The
Early History of Bengal", Varanasi, 1975 (reprint), p.225.

[xi] Ghosh, A., `The City in Early Historical India', Simla,1972, p70.

[xii] This is not an isolated phenomenon. Christmas Humphreys writes,
'The Lumbini Gardens where Gotama was born, lie in the difficult Nepal
Terai, and Kusinara where the Buddha passed away has little to
show ...". 'Buddhism', Penguin Books, 1990, p. 42. S.K. Saraswati
wrote about Rajagriha in Bihar, `The Buddhist remains, except for
stray and isolated images, are scanty..'. Even the identification of
the Sattapani cave, the site of the first Council, is not beyond
doubt'. Saraswati blamed this to religious bigotry, a precipice much
used by Indian scholars but disproved by the example of Babylon which
provided archaeological proof of textual history even after countless
acts of destruction. Saraswati, S.K., in "2500 years of Buddhism", ed.
Bapat, P.V.,1956, p. 279. Debala Mitra writes about Bodh-Gaya, 'The
earliest vestiges that are visible now are of the first century
BC...'. About Sarnath she writes, 'The earliest remains at Sarnath
date from the days of Ashoka, who erected a pillar....'.



[xiii] 'Asoka', Arihant Publishers, Jaipur, 1988 (reprint), p. 223.



[xiv] 'The Real Birthplace of Buddha', Cuttack, Grantha Mandir, 1977.

[xv] The location of Kapilavastu has been so hotly debated. "The
mystery of Kapilavastu will continue for many years to be the sport of
unverified conjecture", wrote Vincent Smith, a keen observer of the
Indian scene. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. ,p .

[xvi] A.L. Oppenheim saw the wide gaps in the studies on Mesopotamian
religion.

[xvii] J.R.A.S., 1915, p. 63-89, p. 405-455.

[xviii] "The identification of Kapilavastu, the capital of the Sakyas,
with Piprahwa in the Basti district of UP is nearly confirmed by the
discovery of thirty- one seals during the excavations at that place
which bear the inscriptions of the Kushana period referring to 'the
community of the monks of Kapilavastu (residing) in the Devaputra
vihara'. An inscription on the lid of a pot also mentions the same
monastery, which should have been in Kapilavastu, must have been
located in the area of the discoveries of the seals. In other words,
the city itself was in the Piprahwa area." P.H.A.I., O.U.P. '96, p.
577. Nalanda has been identified in an equally reckless manner.



[xix] Debala Mitra, 'Buddhist Monuments', \par 20 Geog. Jour., Aug
1916, p. 362. Though both Herzfeld and Ghirshman dated the temple to
the Parthian era, this was rejected by Tarn. Scholars are not aware
that what goes as Buddhist art today is in fact Hellenised Indian
Buddhist art that was patronised by Alexander and Asoka and dates only
from the 4th century BC. Only Stein could imagine what pre-Asokan or
pre-Alexandrite Buddhist art could look like.

[xx] Geog. Jour. (Aug. 1916) p. 362.

[xxi] Lane Fox notes the event but fails to read the significance of
the name Prophthasia. 'Alexander the Great', p. 282.

[xxii] 'Puranic Encyclopedia', by Vettam Mani, Motilal Banarasidas, p.
57.

[xxiii]Anusasana Parva, ch. 11, verse 67.

[xxiv] This cannot but remind one of the Lichchavis who had close
connections with Gotama.

[xxv] 'Cambridge History of Ancient India', ed. E.J. Rapson, p.562.

[xxvi] Pal, R., 'Gotama Buddha in West Asia', Annals of Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute, vol. 77.

[xxvii] In this context it has to be borne in mind that in ancient
times the two rivers united at a point forty miles below their present
junction.

[xxviii] McCrindle, J.W., "Invasion of India by Alexander the Great",
New Delhi, p. 120.

[xxix] "Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas", Oxford University
Press", 1961, p.230. For both Raychaudhuri and Thapar, Alexander does
not belong to Indian history proper.

[xxx] The precise location is Firozabad near Delhi.

[xxxi] Philostratos' statement that Apollonius of Tyana on his journey
into India in the second century A.D. found the altars still intact
and their inscriptions still legible probably indicates that they were
in places where Alexander had erected them. It is almost certain that
Apollonius could not read the inscriptions as they were not in Greek.

[xxxii] H. G. Wells described his reign as one of the brightest
interludes in the troubled history of mankind, 'A Short History of the
World', p. Wheeler wrote, 'This book is not a history, but in its last
chapter the impersonal disjecta of prehistory may fittingly be
assembled for a moment in the in the likeness of a man. Ashoka came to
the throne about 268 B.C. and died about 232 B.C. Spiritually and
materially his reign marks the first coherent expression of the Indian
mind, and, for centuries after his empire had crumbled, his work was
implicit in the though t and art of the subcontinent. It is not dead
today.' 'Early India and Pakistan', Thames and Hudson, 1968, p. 170.



[xxxiii] Apart from his Edicts, archaeology has unearthed very little
inscribed material and though some punch-marked coins have been
associated with him, this has been disputed. Palaces unearthed near
Patna have been said to be his, but in the absence of inscriptions
this is clearly unacceptable. Even Taxila, so often mentioned together
with his name in the texts, has proved disappointing.



[xxxiv] Pal, R., 'Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander, op. cit.



[xxxv] Wheeler wrote, 'It is just possible that Ashoka had Seleukid
blood in his veins; at least his reputed vice-royalty of Taxila in the
Punjab during the reign of his father could have introduced him to the
living memory of Alexander the Great, and, as king, he himself tells
us of proselytizing relations with the Western powers'. Wheeler came
very near the truth yet he narrowly missed the true face of Asoka.
'Early India and Pakistan', Thames and Hudson, 1968, p. 170.



[xxxvi] D.C. Sircar added that Asoka was unknown because there was no
foreign representative in his court. This is clearly absurd; the
emperor who claims to have sent emissaries no distant corners of the
globe cannot have been unknown to the western world.

[xxxvii] After his conversion to Buddhism Asoka had to change his name
Devadatta as it was a hated name among the Buddhists.

[xxxviii] B.N. Mukherjee works into the name proper and translates it
by the senseless phrase 'for the creation of law '. 'The Aramaic
Edicts of Asoka', Indian Museum, p. 26.

[xxxix] R. Thapar is unaware that the reason why Asoka's edicts
stopped appearing after 245 BC is that he died in that year. The year
of Asoka's death given by Thapar and others is 232 BC but this is
clearly a mistake. Diodotus' son, who was also a Diodotus, died in 232
BC.

[xl] 'Asoka', in Cambridge History of Ancient India, p. 453.

[xli] 'Compared with later figural sculptures in the round of Yakshas
and their female counterparts or the reliefs of Bharhut, Sanchi and
Bodhgaya, the art represented by these crowning lions belongs to an
altogether different world of conception and execution, of style and
technique, altogether much more complex, urban and civilised. They
have nothing archaic or primitive about them, and the presumption is
irresistible that the impetus and inspiration of this art must have
come from outside.' 'Age of the Nandas and Mauryas', Motilal
Banarasidas, 1967, p. 376.

[xlii] Many scholars felt that Asoka was influenced by Darius'
inscriptions though his spirit was nobler. The picture at Persepolis
of a lion devouring a bull may be Mauryan. Darius or Xerexes could
never show the bull, the pride of the Achaemenians, being devoured.
Darius always depicted scenes of lion-hunting. Asoka used some words
from Darius' Edicts. Barua held that the habitual script of Asoka's
scribes was not Brahmi but west Asian Kharoshti and that his artists
followed the style of Persepolis. Even the mason's marks were
Persepolitan.


[xliii] Alcaeus' lines may well have inspired Alexander and his men.

From the ends of the earth you are come,
With your sword hilts of ivory bound with gold ....
Fighting beside the Babylonians you accomplished a great
labour,
And delivered them from distress,
For you slew a warrior who wanted only a palm's breadth
of five royal cubits.


[xliv] This could be due to two reasons. As Taranatha wrote he may
have been a nephew of Bindusara, not a son. Another reason could be
his silent disapproval of Chandragupta's role in the murder of
Alexander.

[xlv] This could only be a reference to Buddhistic worship which
understandably had many similarities with Greek practices.

[xlvi] As a member of Chandragupta's family it is likely that Asoka
did not know the full truth about Alexander's poisoning by the
Generals and his grandfather or did he?

[xlvii] Tarn, 'Alexander', p.142

[ravi]

http://www.ranajitpal.com/askpilar.htm