Book: Ancient India
Author: Romila Thapar
For: Class VI
Page 40 - 41
Hunting was another common occupation, with elephants, buffaloes, antelopes and boars being the objects of thehunt. Bulls and oxen were used for ploughing. The cow held pride of place among the animals because peoplewere dependent on the produce of the cow. In fact, for special guests beef was served as a mark of honour(although in later centuries brahmans were forbidden to eat beef). A man’s life was valued as equal to thatof a hundred cows. If a man killed another man, he had to give a hundred cows to the family of the dead man asa punishment.
Advertisement
Book: Modern India
Authors: Arjun Dev and Indira Arjun Dev
For: Class VIII
Page 21
Punjab
North of Delhi, the territories of Lahore and Multan were ruled by the Mughal governor. However, as a resultof Nadir Shah’s and later, Ahmed Shah Abdali’s invasions, their power was destroyed and the Sikhs began toemerge as the supreme political power in the area.
Another power that arose in this period in the region around Delhi, Agra and Mathura was that of the Jats.They founded their State at Bharatpur wherefrom they conducted plundering raids in the regions around andparticipated in the court intrigues at Delhi.
Book: Ancient India
Author: R.S. Sharma,
For Class XI
(a) page 7
A band of scholars took upon themselves not only the mission to reform Indian society but also to reconstructancient Indian history in such a manner as to make case for social reforms and, more importantly, forself-government. In doing so most historians were guided by the nationalist ideas of Hindu revivalism, butthere was no dearth of scholars who adopted a rationalist and objective approach. To the second categorybelongs Rajendra Lal Mitra (1822 - 1891), who published some Vedic texts and wrote a book entitledIndo-Aryans. A great lover of ancient heritage, he took a rational view of ancient society and produced aforceful tract to show that in ancient times people took beef. Others tried to prove that in spite of itspeculiarities the caste system was not basically different from the class system based on division of labourfound in pre-industrial and ancient societies of Europe.
(b) page 20-21
Archaeological evidence should be considered far more important than long family trees given in Puranas.The Puranic tradition could be used to date Rama of Ayodhya around 2000 B.C., but diggings and extensiveexplorations in Ayodhya do not show any settlement around that date. Similarly, although Krishna plays animportant part in the Mahabharata, the earliest inscriptions and sculptural pieces found in Mathura between200 B.C. and A.D. 300 do not attest his presence. Because of such difficulties the ideas of an epic age basedon the Ramayana and Mahabharata has to be discarded, although in the past it formed a chapter in most surveybooks on ancient India. Of course several stages of social evolution in both the Ramayana and Mahabharata canbe detected. This is so because the epics do not belong to a single phase of social evolution; they haveundergone several editions, as has been shown earlier in the present chapter.
(c) page 45
The people living in the chalcolithic age in south-eastern Rajasthan, western Madhya Pradesh, westernMaharashtra and elsewhere domesticated animals and practised agriculture. They kept cows, sheep, goats, pigsand buffaloes, and hunted deer. Remains of the camel have also been found. But generally they were notacquainted with the horse. Some animal remains are identified as belonging either to the horse or donkey orwild ass. People certainly ate beef, but they did not take pork on any considerable scale. What is remarkableis that these people produced wheat and rice. In addition to these staple crops, they also cultivated bajra.They produced several pulses such as the lentil (masur), black gram, green gram , and grass pea. Almost allthese foodgrains have been found at Navdatoli situated on the bank of the Narmada in Maharashtra. Perhaps atno other place in India so many cereals have been discovered as a result of digging. The people of Navdatolialso produced ber and linseed. Cotton was produced in the black cotton soil of the Deccan, and ragi, bajra andseveral millets were cultivated in the lower Deccan. In eastern India, fish hooks have been found in Bihar andwest Bengal, where we also find rice. This suggests that the chalcolithic people in the eastern regions livedon fish and rice, which is still a popular diet in that part of the country. Most settlements in the Banasvalley in Rajasthan are small but Ahar and Gilund spread over an area of nearly four hectares.
(d) page 90
The agricultural economy based on the iron ploughshare required the use of bullocks, and it could not flourishwithout animal husbandry. But the Vedic practice of killing cattle indiscriminately in sacrifices stood in theway of the progress of new agriculture. The cattle wealth slowly decimated because the cows and bullockswere killed in numerous Vedic sacrifices. The tribal people living on the southern and eastern fringes of Magadha also killed cattle for food. But ifthe new agrarian economy had to be stable, this killing had to be stopped.
(e) page 91-92
According to the Jainas, the origin of Jainism goes back to very ancient times. They believe in twenty-fourtirthankaras or great teachers or leaders of their religion. The first tirthankara is believed to beRishabhadev who was born in Ayodhya. He is said to have laid the foundations for orderly human society. Thelast, tewenty-fourth, tirthankara, was Vardhamana Mahavira who was a contemporary of Gautama Buddha. Accordingto the Jaina tradition, most of the early tirthankaras were born in the middle Ganga basin and attainednirvana in Bihar. The twenty-third tirthankara was Parshvanath who was born in Varanasi. He gave up royal lifeand became an ascetic. Many teachings of Jainism are attributed to him. According to Jaina tradition, he livedtwo hundred years before Mahavira. Mahavir is said to be the twenty-fourth.
It is difficult to fix the exact dates of birth and death of Vardhamana Mahavira and Gautama Buddha. Accordingto one tradition, Vardhamana Mahavira was born in 540 B.C. in a village called Kundagrama near Vaishali, whichis identical with Basarh in the district of Vaishali, in north Bihar. His father Siddhartha was the head of afamous kshatriya clan called Jnatrika and the ruler of his own area. Mahavira's mother was name Trishala,sister of the Lichchhavi chief Chetaka, whose daughter was wedded to Bimbisara. Thus Mahavira's family wasconnected with the royal family of Magadha.
In the beginning, Mahavira led the life of a householder, but in the search for truth he abandoned the worldat the age of 30 and became an ascetic. He would not stay for more than a day in a village and for more thanfive days in a town. During next twelve years he meditated, practised austerities of various kinds and enduredmany hardships. In the thirteenth year, when he had reached the age of 42, he attained Kaivalya (Juan).Through Kaivalya he conquered misery and happiness. Because of this conquest he is known as Mahavira or thegreat hero or jina, i.e. the conqueror, and his followers are known as Jainas. He propagated his religion for30 years, and his mission took him to Koshala, Magadha, Mithila, Champa, etc. He passed away at the age of 72in 468 B.C. at a place called Pavapuri near modern Rajgir. According to another tradition, he was born in 599B.C. and passed away in 527 B.C.
(f) page 137 – 138
Causes of the Fall of the Maurya Empire
The Magadhan empire, which had been reared by successive wars culminating in the conquest of Kalinga, began todisintegrate after the exit of Ashoka in 232 B.C. Several causes seem to have brought about the decline andfall of the Maurya empire.
Brahmanical Reaction
The brahmanical reaction began as a result of the policy of Ashoka. There is no doubt that Ashoka adopted atolerant policy and asked the people to respect even the brahmanas. But he prohibited killing of animals andbirds, and derided superfluous rituals performed by women. This naturally affected the income of the brahmanas.The anti-sacrifice attitude of Buddhism and of Ashoka naturally brought loss to the brahmanas, who lived onthe gifts made to them in various kinds of sacrifices. Hence in spite of the tolerant policy of Ashoka, thebrahmanas developed some kind of antipathy to him. Obviously they were not satisfied with his tolerant policy.They really wanted a policy that would favour them and uphold the existing interests and privileges. Some ofthe new kingdoms that arose on the ruins of the Maurya empire, were ruled by the brahmanas. The Shungas andthe Kanvas, who ruled in Madhya Pradesh and further east on the remnants of the Maurya empire, were brahmanas.Similarly the Satavahanas, who founded a lasting kingdom in the western Deccan and Andhra, claimed to bebrahmanas. These brahmana dynasties perfomed Vedic sacrifices, which were neglected by Ashoka.
(g) page 240 – 241
The Varna System
Religion influenced the formation of social classes in India in a peculiar way. In other ancient societies theduties and functions of social classes were fixed by law which was largely enforced by the state. But in Indiavarna laws enjoyed the sanction of both the state and religion. The functions of priests, warriors, peasantsand labourers were defined in law and supposed to have been laid down by divine agencies. Those who departedfrom their functions and were found guilty of offences were subjected to secular punishments. They had also toperform rituals and penances, all differing according to the varna. Each varna was given not only a social butalso a ritualistic recognition.In course of time varnas or social classes and jatis or castes were madehereditary by law and religion. All this was done to ensure that vaishyas produce and pay taxes and shudrasserve as labourers so that brahmanas act as priests and kshatriyas as rulers. Based on the division of labourand specialisation of occupations, the peculiar institution of the caste system certainly helped the growth ofsociety and economy at the initial stage. The varna system contributed to the development of the state. Theproducig and labouring classes were disarmed, and gradually each caste was pitted against the other in such amanner that the oppressed ones could not combine against the privileged classes.
The need of carrying out their respective functions was so strongly ingrained in the minds of the variousclasses that ordinarily they would never think of deviating from their dharma. The Bhagavadgita taught thatpeople should lay down their lives in defense of their own dharma rather than adopt the dharma of others,which would prove dangerous. The lower orders worked hard in the firm belief that they would deserve a betterlife in the next world or birth. This belief lessened the intensity and frequency of tensions and conflictsbetween those who actually produced and those who lived off these producers as princes, priests, officials,soldiers and big merchants. Hence the necessity for exercising coercion against the lower orders was not sostrong in ancient India. What was done by slaves and other producing sections in Greece and Rome under thethreat of whip was done by the vaishyas and shudras out of conviction formed through brahmanicalindoctrination and the varna system.
Advertisement
Book: Medieval India
Author: Satish Chandra
For: Class XI
Page 237 – 238
The Sikhs
Although there had been some clashes between the Sikh Guru and the Mughals under Shah Jahan, there was noclash between the Sikhs and Aurangzeb till 1675. In fact, conscious of the growing importance of the Sikhs,Aurangzeb had tried to engage the Guru, and a son of Guru Har Kishan remained at the Court. After hissuccession as Guru in 1664, Guru Tegh Bahadur journeyed to Bihar, and served with Raja Ram Singh of Amber inAssam. However, in 1675, Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested with five of his followers, brought to Delhi andexecuted. The official explanation for this as given in some later Persian sources is that after his returnfrom Assam, the Guru, in association with one Hafiz Adam, a follower of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, had resorted toplunder and rapine, laying waste the whole province of the Punjab. According to Sikh tradition, the executionwas due to the intrigues of some members of his family who disputed his succession, and by others who hadjoined them. But we are also told that Aurangzeb was annoyed because the Guru had converted a few Muslims toSikhism. There is also the tradition that the Guru was punished because he had raised a protest against thereligious persecution of the Hindus in Kashmir by the local governor. However, the persecution of Hindus isnot mentioned in any of the histories of Kashmir, including the one written by Narayan Kaul in 1710. SaifKhan, the Mughal governor of Kashmir, is famous as a builder of bridges. He was a humane and broad-mindedperson who had appointed a Hindu to advise him in administrative matters. His successor after 1671, IftekharKhan, was anti-Shia but there are no references to his persecuting the Hindus.
It is not easy to shift the truth from these conflicting accounts. Sikhism had spread to many Jats and Artisans including some from the low castes who were attracted by its simple, egalitarian approach and the prestige of the Guru. Thus, the Guru, while being a religious leader, had also begun to be a rallying point for all those fighting against injustice and oppression. The action of Aurangzeb in breaking even some templesof old standing must have been a new cause of discontent and disaffection to which the Guru gave expression
While Aurangzeb was out of Delhi at the time of the Guru’s execution, acting against rebel Afghans, theGuru’s execution could not have been taken without his knowledge or approval. For Aurangzeb, the executionof the Guru was only a law and order question, for the Sikhs the Guru gave up his life in defence of cherishedprinciples.
Whatever the reasons, Aurangzeb’s action was unjustified from any point of view and betrayed a narrowapproach. The execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur forced the Sikhs to go back to the Punjab hills. It also led tothe Sikh movement gradually turning into a military brotherhood. A major contribution in this sphere was madeby Guru Govind Singh. He showed considerable organisational ability and founded the military brotherhood orthe Khalsa in 1699. Before this, Guru Govind Singh had made his headquarters at Makhowal or Anandpur in thefoothills of the Punjab. At first, the local Hindu hill rajas had tried to use the Guru and his followers inthere internecine quarrels. But soon the Guru became too powerful and a series of clashes took place betweenthe hill rajas and the Guru, who generally triumphed. The organisation of the Khalsa further strengthened thehands of the Guru in this conflict. However, an open breach between Guru and the hill rajas took place only in1704, when the combined forces of a number of hill rajas attacked the Guru at Anandpur. The rajas had again toretreat and they pressed the Mughal government to intervene against the Guru on their behalf.
The struggle which followed was thus not a religious struggle. It was partly an offshoot of local rivalriesamong the Hindu hill rajas and the Sikhs and partly on outcome of the Sikh movement as it had developed.Aurangzeb was concerned with the growing power of the Guru and had asked the Mughal faujdar earlier "toadmonish the Guru". He now wrote to the governor of Lahore and the faujdar of Sirhind, Wazir Khan, to aidthe hill rajas in their conflict with Guru Govind Singh. The Mughals forces assaulted Anandpur but the Sikhsfought bravely and beat off all assaults. The Mughals and their allies now invested the fort closely. Whenstarvation began inside the fort, the Guru was forced to open the gate apparently on a promise of safe conductby Wazir Khan. But when the forces of the Guru were crossing a swollen stream, Wazir Khan’s forces suddenlyattacked. Two of the Guru’s sons were captured, and on their refusal to embrace Islam, were beheaded atSirhind. The Guru lost two of his remaining sons in another battle. After this, the Guru retired to Talwandiand was generally not disturbed.
It is doubtful whether the dastardly action of Wazir Khan against the sons of the Guru was carried out at theinstance of Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb, it seems, was not keen to destroy the Guru and wrote to the governor ofLahore " to conciliate the Guru". When the Guru wrote to Aurangzeb in the Deccan, apprising him of theevents, Aurangzeb invited him to meet him. Towards the end of 1706, the Guru set out for the Deccan and was onthe way when Aurangzeb died. According to some, he had hoped to persuade Aurangzeb to restore Ananadpur tohim.
