Page images
PDF
EPUB

meagre, we contemplate it with greater interest and satisfaction; inasmuch as, for the first time, we feel we are treading upon the solid ground of historic narrative.

According to the great father of history, Scylax sailed from Caspatyrus, near the source of the Indus, down the river; and then, turning westward, after an absence of two or three years, arrived in Egypt. The expedition of conquest followed; and that Darius achieved his end is evident from the words of the historian; who, however, while stating the result, gives no details of the conqueror's progress. It does not appear that the territory thus acquired extended far beyond the basin of the Indus; yet, small as it may have been, it was one of the most important of the Persian satrapies; inasmuch as, by reason of its wonderful resources, Darius was able to extract from it a far heavier tribute than that which passed into the Persian treasury from any other portion of his dominions.

It is uncertain how long the territory, known by the ancients as India, remained under the dominion of the Persians; but, in the year 330 B.C., Alexander the Great overran and subdued the Persian empire, led his armies southwards with a view to the conquest of India, which country he affected to consider a dependency of Persia. With some difficulty he crossed the Himalayas; and, being joined by Taxiles an Indian chieftain, advanced to the Hydaspes. Here he was met by Porus, who manfully disputed his passage of the river. The bravery of his soldiers, however, was no match for the skill of Alexander. The stream was crossed, Porus was defeated and taken prisoner, and the victor pressed forward unopposed to the Hyphasis (Sutlej). This stream was the limit of his progress; for, alarmed at the desert character of the country beyond, the troops mutinied and refused to advance. Alexander, grievously disappointed, resolved on leading his forces back to Babylon; but, impelled either by curiosity, or by a genuine desire to augment his geographical knowledge, he determined to explore the Indus. Hence he dispatched Nearchus, his naval commander, for that purpose. The researches of Nearchus,

[ocr errors]

unsatisfactory as they were, redeemed this expedition of Alexander's from the epithet of fruitless; for they added considerably to the geographical knowledge of the times; and, by means of them, we have been made acquainted with the interesting fact that the condition of Hindu society in these early days was precisely the same as when intercourse with the west first began.

The history of the country after the retreat of Alexander is obscure, perplexing, and of little interest. The records, very scanty in themselves, and untrustworthy in the highest degree, affect to give a copious and detailed chronicle of a number of dynasties which severally ruled in divers parts of the peninsula. The successor of Alexander in his eastern dominions, Seleucus, appears to have retained hold upon the country; indeed, Plutarch and Pliny assert that the area of India owning his sway was greater than that ruled by his great predecessor. His ambassador to the Indian prince's capital, Megasthenes, gives a report of his observations in the country; but his accounts are so largely mingled with fable that they are of little value.

a

A blank, therefore, occurs in the history of the country between the period of this embassy and the reign of Antiochus the Great. We know, however, but little of this monarch's connection with India; and it is probable that the dominions shortly after passed out of Syrian hands. The kingdom of Bactria, having thrown off the yoke of the Greeks seventy years after the death of the Macedonian conqueror, kept up an intercourse with India; but it appears to have been of a commercial kind. The Scythian hordes who overran Bactria in the year 126 B.C. took possession of the greater part of the northwestern provinces of the peninsula. They retained possession till 56 B.C., when they were driven out by Vieramaditya. After the break-up of the Macedonian empire we hear of no European attempt at domination here. The only object of western nations henceforth was to obtain a share of the benefits accruing from commercial intercourse with so rich a country. We therefore pass on to the era of Mohammedan conquest,

CHAPTER V.

THE MOHAMMEDAN CONQUEST.

First Mohammedan Invasion of India-Sultan Mahmoud's Campaigns-The Ghuznevy Dynasty Established-The Gaurian Dynasty-The Patan Sovereigns-The Slave-kings-The Khilghees-TheToghlucks-The Moguls-Tamerlane-Baber -Hoomayoon-Akbar-Shah Jehangier-Sir Thomas Roe Ambassador at the Delhi Court-Shah Jehan-Aurungzebe -State of the Empire under him-Shah Allum-Nizam-ulMulk Nadir Shah's Invasion - Collapse of the Mogul Empire.

In the year 1001, Mahmoud, the Mohammedan sultan of Ghuznee set out from his capital, entered India by way of the Punjaub, defeated the forces of the Hindus under the rajah of Lahore; and, making himself master of the Punjaub, placed it under tribute. He had no sooner turned his back upon his newly acquired dominion than his Hindu subjects revolted, and refused to pay the tribute he had imposed. At one time, indeed, it appeared as though it would have slipped from his grasp; for his Hindu opponents, conscious that they were struggling not less for their religion than for national liberty, fought with a determination which augured well for the success of their efforts. In the fight of Peshawar, however, (1009), the Hindus and their confederates the Goorkas, a tribe inhabiting the hills that bound the Punjaub towards the north-west, were defeated with great slaughter. After this victory Mahmoud was enabled to retire once more to Ghuznee. He carried with him an immense

spoil, and captives innumerable.

The transactions of Mahmoud with India may be regarded rather in the light of a series of successful inva

sions than the permanent acquisition of territory. Indeed, he appears rather in the light of a religious zealot than a warrior bent on conquest for conquest's own sake. Twelve different raids upon the country are recorded of Sultan Mahmoud, each of which was marked by the wholesale demolition of native temples, the ruthless desecration of most sacred things, and the confiscation of the treasures collected in the holy cities. Such a policy, while it has marred the character of an otherwise generous prince, was unfortunately destined to bring forth more bitter fruits than the military triumphs of the most arrogant of conquerors led on by mere ambition; inasmuch as it engendered such a hatred of the Mohammedan as the lapse of centuries has failed to eradicate.

Mahmoud died in the year 1028, leaving a dominion which stretched from Ispahan eastward to the Gangesan extensive territory; but, excepting the Indian portion of it, thinly peopled, and altogether, from the diversity of its elements, difficult to handle. He therefore left to his successors a troublesome heritage; and the Ghuznevy dynasty, as it is termed, which ended in 1186, with Sultan Kusru Mulik, presents a series of revolt, sedition, intrigue, assassination, and violence which is scarcely surpassed in the annals of any other people. The Hindus during this period made but one serious effort to rid themselves of their oppressors; but, being defeated by Sultan Modud before the walls of Lahore, the seat of government in this quarter, they were constrained to remain in quiet subjection to their Mohammedan conquerors.

The Ghuznevy dynasty was deposed by an Afghan named Mohammed Gaury, who invaded the Punjaub and took Lahore and Benares, and reduced Ajmere and the country south of the Jumna. Finally, having dethroned the unfortunate Kusru, he proclaimed himself sultan at Ghuznee. Mohammed Gaury did more to prepare for the establishment of Moslem dominion in India than any other of her conquerors.

In 1205, Mohammed Gaury fell by the daggers of

D

Goorka assassins.

The founder of the Gaurian dynasty,

he may be considered also the last sovereign of the race; for, although the succession was for a time continued in his family, all real authority in India ceased with his death, and his virtual successor was his viceroy.

In Kuttub-ud-Deen, therefore, a new dynasty, known as the Patan, may be said to have begun. The first ten sovereigns of the race are called the Delhian slave-kings, from the fact that the first, Kuttub, was originally a slave in the house of Mohammed Gaury. Altumish, the successor of Kuttub, had likewise been a slave. He proved to be a good and able prince; and he greatly extended the territory of his predecessors. While Kuttub and Altumish were the greatest of these slave-kings, the most remarkable was the Sultana Begum Ruzeea, as standing alone among Mohammedans as a reigning queen. The most exemplary was Nasir-ud-Deen, or Mohammed the Second; and the most worthless, Keikobad.

With Keikobad the slave dynasty of Delhi ceased. It was followed by that of the Khilghees, a race of warlike chieftians, who, settling in the mountains of the Punjaub, had, by their military genius, raised themselves into importance under the Gaurian sovereigns. Julal-udDeen was the first and best of the race, and Alla-ud-Deen the greatest, though the most wayward and overbearing. The genius of this able monarch was serviceable in checking the invasions of the Mongol Tartars, who, in the thirteenth century, under their great chieftain Zenghis Khan, had ravaged the continent from the Pacific to the Danube, and now appeared in great force upon the soil of India. Mubarick, a profligate of the cast of the Roman, Nero, was the last of the Khilghee race.

The short-lived dynasty of the Toghlucks followed (1321). It was founded by Ghazy Beg Toghluck, a good man and an able monarch. Under the Toghluck dynasty the Mohammedan dominion of India attained a high degree of splendour. It embraced all northern India, from the Suliman Mountains to the Hooghley, and from the Himalayas to the Vindhya Hills, with the excep

« PreviousContinue »