Alexander's Conquest of India - Some alternative perspectives

Alexander the great has been widely acclaimed for his conquests throughout the world. Western historians who wanted to have their own hero deified him and greatly exaggerated some of his achievements, esp. his achievements in India have been inflated by some of the Western scholars and their Indian stalwarts based on dubious historical records maintained by Greeks and also derived from their fertile imagination based on their own sense of superiority. However some other accounts of contemporary history exists which gives a completely different account of Alexander’s conquests, esp. that in India.

After defeating Darius of Persia, Alexander set his eyes on India. Magnificent stories of India were prevalent at that time, of her vast treasures and golds and the strange behavior and customs of the people living beyond Indus, whom the Persians called as Hindus (people living beyond Indus or Sindhu). The stories of the gold attracted the Macedonian king. It would greatly help him in extending his power across the world. Besides, India was a prestige game. If he would conquer some parts of it, he would be able to demonstrate his greatness in front of everybody, by achieving a feat which nobody before him had dared to do. By a stroke of good luck he got in his team an Indian general, who readily seceded from the Persian ranks. His name was Sisikotus (Shashi Gupta). Sisikotus had possibly shared many information about Indian terrains and its kings with Alexander which helped him in his campaign. Dr J. C. Vidyalankar, a front-ranking Indologist of 20th c AD, unequivocally states one Sisikotus/Shashi Gupta was a king or chieftain from Trans-Hindukush territories possibly from Kamboja. 

However there were couple of fierce Kamboja tribes who did not yield any ground willingly and offered a fierce resistance. They were ashvayanas an d ashvakayanas of possibly Swat valley and other hilly areas. The fort of Massaga esp. offered the strongest battle. When the hill tribe chieftain was killed by the Greeks his mother took up the battle and many women joined her in fighting the invaders. Very few Western historians have covered this incident as this is one of the blackest moments in the conquest of Alexander. The supposedly great conqueror was wounded in the battle and resorted to treachery to massacre all inhabitants of Massaga. It included a garrison of seven thousand Indian mercenaries who had refused the help the Greeks against Indians.  They were all killed at night by a sudden and surprise attack ala Aswathama of Mahabharata and were butchered even though they offered a gallant resistance. Great conqueror indeed! The battle of Massaga probably sealed his fate and the day this massacre happened, the sun of his luck was set for ever.

More surprises were in store for him when he advanced further. Though many chieftains surrendered and accepted his superiority, Hasti of Pushpakalavati (Peshawar) offered a resistance for 30 days. Ultimately Hasti was overpowered but not before he gave sufficient time to Puru to prepare. Ambhi of Taxila was one black sheep who surrendered unconditionally, but that was because he had a perpetual rivalry with his neighbor, Parvateswara or Puru with whom he wanted to settle a score through the might of Alexander. So Puru or Parvateswar became a sworn enemy. The state of Abhisara (West Kashmir) assumed neutrality. The Battle of  Jhelum was the fiercest battle in the whole expedition and had laid bare the weaknesses of the Greeks. Initially Alexander crossed Jhelum at midnight from an accessible spot and met Puru’s son. In the battle that followed Puru’s son injured Alexander and killed his horse. The war elephants of Puru had esp. terrified the Greeks. Strategy met with strategy and both sides were skillful in fighting. Greek accounts however say that the initial two attacks of Indians were repelled by the Greek cavalry and the charge of the elephant brigade was arrested by the Greek phalanx which shot arrows to kill the mahouts and thus elephants were in a disarray causing mayhem among friends and foes alike, an account which seems very alike of a similar description in Mahabharata war and hence is possibly true. 

However Puru and his army held sway against a fierce Greek onslaught till Puru was severely wounded and was taken a prisoner. Alexander himself later praised him saying that he had never faced such a skillful and intelligent enemy as Puru in his numerous battles. The fighting style of Puru’s soldiers was described in detail by Arrian: "The foot soldiers carry a bow made of equal length with the man who bears it. This they rest upon the ground, and pressing against it with their left foot thus discharges the arrow, having drawn the string far backwards for the shaft they use is little short for three yards long, and there is nothing that can resist an Indian archer's shot, neither shield nor breast plate, nor any stronger defence if such there be." 

Plutarch wrote that the bitter fighting of the Hydaspes made Alexander's men hesitant to continue on with the conquest of India, considering that they would potentially face far larger armies than those of Puru’s if they were to cross the Ganges River as the news came that the emperor of Magadha was waiting for the Greeks with his two hundred thousand strong infantry, an equally strong cavalry and a huge elephant division. Also there was the emperor of Gangaridoi  (Ganga Hriday? - possibly South Bengal and parts of Bihar on the bank of Ganga) which had very large number of war elephants and was virtually unconquerable.  Even Mahabharata mentions how the elephant divisions from Pragjyotisha, Magadha, Banga and Kalinga had wreaked havoc in Pandava camp, before they were exterminated by Bhima with his mace.

After the supposed defeat of Puru, there arose a mutiny in the ranks of the Greek soldiers and they did not want to proceed any further, fearful of further battles that awaited them. Some Western historians even go as far as suggesting that Chandragupta Maurya helped Alexander in his conquests and in return got his help in dethroning the Nanda dynasty, but there is no proof for this claim. Neither Greek nor Indian writings even remotely suggest such a possibility and it is difficult to understand why would Greeks who had deified Alexander would not mention it and instead would focus on how he returned from India. In fact Vishakhadutta's Mudrarakshasha very clearly highlights how Chandragupta achieved victory by the help of Chanakya. Buddhist texts like Milinda Panha corroborate the same. There is one Greek account however that Chandragupta supposedly met Alexander and discussed the possibility of an alliance. In all probability Alexander bungled by refusing him.

Lately there have been some arguments that how a cruel king like Alexander who had even killed his best friend, resorted to treachery to kill or subjugate, became so magnanimous and that too to the fiercest of his opponent Puru to return his kingdom? Some think that Greeks had very cleverly converted a defeat into victory and presented as such in their writings. Actually probably it was a stalemate with large losses on both sides and Puru agreed for a ceasefire after extracting his own territories and also that of Takshila. This seems probable given the fact that Greeks, however battle weary they were, had enough reinforcements to continue. If they had won a difficult battle, that too so easily a some Western Historians would like to believe, they might not have been so demotivated as to wanting to return. After all rich plunders awaited them if they moved further inward. This also leads us to believe that the Greek accounts of an outright victory may not be entirely true. 

It is nevertheless true that after crossing Jhelum Alexander’s army crossed Chenab and possibly Ravi but could not go beyond Beas. He had to retreat from that point and followed a different route while returning. Some chieftains  enroute submitted to him, others put up a gallant fight and he was severely wounded.  Later he died in Babylon. It is to be noted that none of the contemporary Indian writings including the Buddhist ones, mention about his “conquests”. Buddhism had by then spread far and wide, so Buddhist historians would not have missed such a significant event had it seemed to them so. Greatly exaggerated by Greeks, Alexander’s so called conquest was possibly restricted to winning over some hilly chieftains. He fled away before facing any real challenge on Indian soil and where he faced challenge his weakness was fully revealed. However undeniably he was a master strategist and also an able commander who led from the front. 

Of late some American historical fiction writers have tried to again glorify his conquests by throwing many different angles even by slighting the bravery of the Indians who fought against him. But they are merely what they are – historical fiction writers and apart from nuisance value with a usual belittling of India touch, they have nothing much to contribute. Eminent historians like Dr. R. C Mazumdar are of the opinion that Alexander’s so called conquests had left no impression or influence or legacy in India. However there may have been some cultural exchanges which probably enriched the Greeks more than they did to India, contrary to what European and American historians would want us to believe, esp. in philosophy and sciences. Influence of Greek art on Indian art is also exaggerated. Greek and Indian art maintain their own distinctiveness. While Greeks are more external focused, obsessed in reproducing the nature and natural beauty to the minutest detail, Indian art is more abstract and symbolic.

Puru, who was also possibly known as Purushottama (Hindu kings traditionally had multiple names) had possibly helped Chandragupta and became his ally was later murdered by a Greek general in 321 BC, but then Chandragupta drove the rest of the Greeks away from Indian subcontinent by 312 BC and subjugated Selukas, Alexander’s Satrap in Bactria. Interestingly Puru’s soldiers, according to Megasthenes, carried a banner of Herakles, believed to be that of Krishna and Balarama (Heraklis - Hari Krishna), and thereby some Indian scholars say that Parvateswara was actually a descendant of the Saurasenis, i.e Vrishnis or the Yadu clan of Sri Krishna.