I.

The late Sir George Lewis once observed to me that in his opinion, it was

labour lost to endeavour to make anything of the Hindus. They were a race

doomed to subjection whenever they came into collision with peoples more

vigorous than themselves. They possessed, in short, none of the elements

which are requisite for self-government. Any opinion of that philosophic

observer is entitled to grave consideration, and undoubtedly there is much

in the history of the past that tends to justify the above desponding

conclusion. The Persians, the Greeks, the Parthians, the Huns, the Arabs,

the Ghaznivides, the Afghans, the Moguls, the Persians a second time, and

the British have successfully entered India and made themselves masters of

the greater part of it. But Sir George had never been called upon to make

any particular study of Indian history, nor indeed was it open to him

during the earlier period of his life, which was devoted exclusively to

study, to acquire the knowledge of India which later erudition and

research have brought to light. It is possible that a closer attention to

what has occurred in the past may enable us to regard the future in a more

favourable aspect. It will, I think, be found, after such a study, that

more intrinsic vitality and greater recuperative power exist amongst the

Hindu race than they have been generally accredited with. Unfortunately

the ancient and copious literature of the Hindus presents extremely little

of historic value. The tendency of the Indian mind to dreamy speculations

on the unseen and the unknown, to metaphysics, and to poetry, has led to a

thorough disregard of the valuable offices of history. Accordingly, we

find in their great epic poems, which date back, according to the best

orientalists, at least seven centuries before Christ, the few historical

facts which are mentioned so enveloped in legends, so encumbered with the

grossest exaggerations, that it requires assiduous scholarship to extract

a scintilla of truth from their relations.

Our distinguished countrymen, Sir William Jones and Mr. Colebrooke, led

the way in applying the resources of European learning to the elucidation

of the Sanscrit texts. And the happy identification, by the former, of the

celebrated Chandragupta of the Hindus with the monarch of Pataliputra,

Sandracottus, at whose court Megasthenes resided for seven years in the

third century before Christ, laid the first firm foundation for authentic

Indian history. Since that period the researches of oriental scholars

following up the lines laid down by their illustrious predecessors; the

rock inscriptions which have been collected from various parts of India,

the coins, extending over many ages, of different native dynasties--all

these compared together enable a student even as sceptical as Sir George

Lewis to form a more favourable idea of the Hindus in their political

capacity than he was disposed to take.

Early European inquirers into Hindu antiquity, with the natural prejudice

in favour of their studies in a hitherto unknown tongue, were disposed to

lend far too credulous an ear to the gross exaggerations and reckless

inaccuracies of the "Mahabharat" and kindred works. James Mill on the

other hand, who was a Positivist before Auguste Comte had begun to write,

rejected with scorn all the allusions to the past in these ancient writers

as entirely fabulous. Careful scholarship, however, working on the

materials of the past which every day's discoveries are increasing,

demonstrates that much true history is to be gathered from the works of

the Sanscrit writers.

The celebrated granite rock of Girnar[1] in the peninsula of Guzerat

presents in itself an authentic record of three distinct dynasties

separated from one another by centuries. And we owe to what may be justly

called the genius of James Prinsep the decipherment of those inscriptions

of Asoka which have brought to the knowledge of Europe a Hindu monarch of

the third century before our era, who, whilst he has been equalled by few

in the extent of his dominions, may claim superiority over nearly every

king that ever lived, from his tender-hearted regard for the interests of

his people, and from the wide principles of toleration which he

inculcated.

Horace Wilson, who may be safely cited as the most calm and judicious

oriental scholar of our times, asserts that there is nothing to shock

probability in supposing that the Hindu dynasties, of whom we trace

vestiges, were spread through twelve centuries anterior to the war of the

Mahabharat.[2] This leads us back to dates about 2600 years B.C. We have,

therefore, the astounding period of over four thousand years during which

to glean facts relating to the Hindu race and their capacity for

government, such as may form foundation for conclusions as to the future.

The characteristics which have most impressed themselves on my mind after

such study of Indian records as I have been able to bestow are, first, the

very early appearance of solicitude for the interest and welfare of the

people, as exhibited by Hindu rulers, such as has rarely or never been

exhibited in the early histories of other nations; secondly, the

successful efforts of the Hindu race to re-establish themselves in power

on the least appearance of decay in the successive foreign dynasties which

have held rule among them. It is only with the latter phenomenon that I

propose now to deal, and a rapid retrospect may be permitted.

We learn from European records that Cyrus made conquests in India in the

sixth century B.C., and the famous inscription of his successor Darius

includes Sind and the modern Afghanistan amongst his possessions. But when

Alexander entered India two centuries later he found no trace of Persian

sway, but powerful Indian princes. Taxiles, Abisares, and the celebrated

Porus ruled over large kingdoms in the Panjab. The latter monarch, whose

family name Paura is recorded in the Mahabharat, is described by the Greek

writers to have ruled over 300 cities, and he brought into the field

against Alexander more than 2,000 elephants, 400 chariots, 4,000 cavalry,

and 50,000 foot. Against this force Alexander was only able to bring

16,000 foot and 5,000 horse; but the bulk of the troops were Macedonians,

and the leader was the greatest general whom the world has seen. We have

full particulars of the celebrated battle which ensued, and which ended in

the complete discomfiture of Porus. The conduct of this Indian king,

however, in the battle extorted the admiration of the Greek historians. He

received nine wounds during the engagement, and was the last to leave the

field, affording, as Arrian remarks, a noble contrast to Darius the

Second, who was the first to fly amongst his host in his similar conflict

with the Greeks. Alexander, as in the Macedonian conquests generally,

left satraps in possession of his Indian acquisitions. But a very few

years ensued before we find a native of India had raised up a mighty

kingdom, and all trace of Greek rule in the Punjab disappears.

Chandragupta, or Sandracottus, is said by a Greek writer to have seen

Alexander in person on the Hydaspes. Justin relates that it was he who

raised the standard of independence before his fellow-countrymen, and

successfully drove out Alexander's satraps. He founded the Maurya dynasty,

and the vast extent of the kingdom ruled over by his grandson Asoka is

testified by the edicts which the latter caused to be engraved in various

parts of his dominions. They also record the remarkable fact of his close

alliance with the Greek rulers of Syria, Egypt, Macedon, Cyrene and

Epirus. We next find that one of the Greek princes who had established an

independent dynasty in Bactria, Euthydemus, invaded India, and made

several conquests, but he also was met in the field and overcome by

Galoka, son of Asoka, who for some time added Cashmir to his possessions.

The Bactrian dynasty was put an end to by Mithridates, 140 B.C., and

consequently the Greeks were driven eastwards, and they planted themselves

in various parts of India. We find clear traces of them in Guzerat, where

the town of Junaghur (Javanaghur) still records the name of the Greeks who

founded the city. The coins and inscriptions of the Sinha rulers of

Guzerat furnish us with some particulars as to the Greek holdings at this

period, and they seem to have extended from the Jumna on the east to

Guzerat and Kutch on the west. The Macedonians seem here, as elsewhere, to

have placed natives at the head of their district administrations, and the

Sinha rulers call themselves Satraps and Maha Rajahs, and use Greek

legends on their coins, but evidently they soon acquired complete

independence. Simultaneously or nearly so with these Indo-Greek

principalities, we find invasions of India by the race commonly called

Scythians, but more accurately Jutchi, Sacae, and White Huns. These also

formed independent kingdoms. But again native leaders of enterprise arose

who put an end to foreign dominion. Vikramadit, who founded an era 57

B.C., and whose exploits have made a deep impression upon the native mind,

is thought to be one of the Hindu leaders who succeeded in expelling a

foreign dynasty. And it would appear that towards the middle of the third

century after Christ all foreign dominion had disappeared from the soil of

India, except perhaps some small settlements of Jutchi, on the banks of

the Indus; and except the temporary conquest of Sind by the Arabs in the

seventh century, from which they were soon expelled by the Sumea

Rajputs[3]. Thus, during a period of 600 years, we have encountered a

series of invasions and conquests of portions of India by foreign rulers,

but all successively driven out by the energy of native leaders. Thereupon

followed the establishment of native dynasties all over India. It was

chiefly during the 700 years that now ensued, up to the invasion of India

by Mahmud of Ghazni, that the great works of Sanscrit literature in

poetry, grammar, algebra, and astronomy, appeared. During this period also

the Rajputs, who have been well called the Normans of the East, seem to

have found their way to nearly every throne in India. Their acquisition of

power has never been fully traced, and probably the materials are wanting

for any full or accurate account of it; but the subject is well worthy the

attention of an Indian student.

The Mahomedan conquests which, with the fanaticism and savage intolerance

introduced by them, commenced A.D. 1001, seem to have exercised most

depressing effects on the Hindu mind. But here again we meet with the same

phenomenon. So soon as the Mussulman rule becomes enfeebled, a native

chief rises up who is enabled to rally his countrymen around him and form

a dynasty. Sivaji in 1660-80 established an independency which his

successors, as mayors of the palace, enlarged into a kingdom, out of which

arose the native powers of Sindia, of the Gaekwar, and of the Bhonslas of

Berar. Exactly the same occurrence has been witnessed in the present

century by the success of Ranjit Sing in forming an independent

principality in the Panjab. This remarkable man, who was absolutely

illiterate, by his own energy of character raised himself from the head of

a small Sikh clan to the head of a kingdom with a revenue of two and a

half millions sterling.[4] We may be sure that, if the British had not

been in force, natives of soldierly qualities like Jung Bahadar of Nepal,

or Tantia Topi of the mutinies, would have carved out in the present day

kingdoms for themselves in other parts of India.