Alexander vs Porus: Beyond the fog of war

 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

 Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the legendary Russian commander, said the Macedonians had suffered a catastrophic defeat in India. In the final part of this analysis, fact and fiction are separated.

Alexander meets Porus. Source: wikipedia.org

After defeating Persia in the year 334 BCE, Alexander of Macedon was irresistibly drawn towards the great Indian landmass. However, the Persians warned him the country was no easy target; that several famous conquerors had fallen at the gates of India.

The Persians told him how their greatest king, Cyrus, who had conquered much of the civilised world, had been killed in a battle with Indian soldiers exactly two centuries before Alexander.
And in an earlier antiquity, the Assyrian queen Semiramis, who had crossed the Indus with 400,000 highly trained troops, escaped with just 20 troops, the rest being slaughtered by the Indians.

Marshal Zhukov on Alexander’s failed India invasion

In his book, Foreign Influence on Ancient India, Krishna Chandra Sagar says 150 years before Alexander, Indian archers and cavalry formed a significant component of the Persian army and played a key role in subduing Thebes in central Greece.

Alexander, however, knew no fear. More than anything else, he wanted to invade India. It would prove to be a strategic blunder.

Zhukov’s take

“Following Alexander’s failure to gain a position in India and the defeat of his successor Seleucus Nikator, relationships between the Indians and the Greeks and the Romans later, was mainly through trade and diplomacy. Also the Greeks and other ancient peoples did not see themselves as in any way superior, only different.”

This statement by Russia’s Marshal Gregory Zhukov on the Macedonian invasion of India in 326 BCE is significant because unlike the prejudiced colonial and Western historians, the Greeks and later Romans viewed Indians differently. For instance, Arrian writes in Alexander Anabasis that the Indians were the noblest among all Asians.

In fact, Arrian and other Greeks say the Indians were relentless in their attacks on the invaders. They say if the people of Punjab and Sindh were fierce, then in the eastern part of India “the men were superior in stature and courage”.

All this is glossed over by Western historians, in whose view the one victory over king Porus amounted to the “conquest of India”. But the Greeks made no such claim.

Battle of Hydaspes – Hardest ever

Greek contemporary writers describe the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) as the hardest fought of all Alexander’s battles. Frank Lee Holt, a professor of ancient history at the University of Houston, writes in his book, Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions: “The only reference in Arrian's history to a victory celebration by Alexander's army was after the battle with Porus.”

Alexander’s army did not indulge in celebrations after the Battle of Gaugamela where they defeated 200,000 Persians. No wild festivities were announced after the Battle of Issus where they defeated a mixed force of Persian cavalry and Greek mercenaries.

The fact they celebrated after the Battle of Hydaspes suggests they considered themselves extremely lucky to survive after the clash with the Hindu army, with its elephant corps.

If Porus lost, why reward him?

According to the Greeks, Alexander was apparently so impressed by Porus he gave back his kingdom plus the territories of king Ambhi of Taxila who had fought alongside the Macedonians.
This is counterintuitive. Ambhi had become Alexander’s ally on the condition he would be given Porus’ kingdom. So why reward the enemy, whose army had just mauled the Macedonians?

Charles Le Brun Alexander and Porus (1673). Source: wikipedia.org

 
The only possible answer is at the Battle of Hydaspes, the Macedonians realised they were dealing with an enemy of uncommon valour. Sensing defeat they called for a truce, which Porus accepted. The Indian king struck a bargain – in return for Ambhi’s territories, which would secure his frontiers, Porus would assist the Macedonians in leaving India safely.

Alexander’s post-Hydaspes charitable behaviour, as per Greek accounts, is uncharacteristic and unlikely. For, in battles before and after, he massacred everyone in the cities he subdued.

Why pay off a vassal?

Before the battle, Alexander gave king Ambhi 1000 talents (25,000 kilos) of gold for fighting alongside the Macedonians. The only explanation is Ambhi was driving a hard bargain. He knew the rattled Macedonian army was seeking to quickly exit India. He thought he could use the Macedonians to remove his rival Porus. However, Porus’ decision to offer Alexander combat checkmated those plans.

Tired of fighting: Lame excuse

Greek sources say Alexander retreated from India because his soldiers were weary, homesick and close to mutiny. Imagine if German soldiers had told Hitler they were tired of fighting? They would have been summarily shot. In Alexander’s time, the punishment was crucifixion.

The Macedonian army had a system of rotation where large batches of veteran soldiers were released to return home (with sufficient gold and slaves). In their place, fresh troops eager poured in from Europe.

If they were weary of constant warring, it is inexplicable why these soldiers chose to fight their way through obstinately hostile Indian territories. The homesick soldiers would have preferred the garrisoned northwestern route they took while coming in. Why would a brilliant commander subject himself and his troops to further violence when all they wanted was a peaceful passage home?

Clearly, the Macedonians were in a mess and not thinking straight. Not the sign of a victorious army.

Need for glory

David J. Lonsdale, a lecturer in Strategic Studies at the University of Hull, writes: “Alexander’s invasion of India and Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 both appear reckless and unnecessary from a strategic perspective. Therefore, perhaps they can both be explained by the sheer naked ambition of the two commanders.”

Alexander’s tragedy was he was in a Catch-22 situation. The Macedonians and Greeks welcomed the wealth from the conquered lands, but the man who ensured this flow was persona non grata.
In Greek eyes a Macedonian was hardly an equal. The Greeks hated Alexander for sacking their cities and enslaving their people. In his own country, he was an outsider for being half-Albanian, from his mother’s side. The common people suspected him of murdering his father.

So in order to retain the loyalty of his troops, Alexander had to wage constant war while also taking great personal risks in battle. For, he could not be seen as weak, let alone beaten.

A few years before the Indian campaign, a large part of the Macedonian army was massacred by the Scythians (Hindu Shakas, the Buddha’s clansmen) at Polytimetus, present day Tajikistan. Alexander warned his surviving troops not to discuss the massacre with other soldiers.

Strabo, the Greek historian wrote: “Generally speaking, the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.”

 http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/06/03/alexander_vs_porus_beyond_the_fog_of_war_25749.html

Marshal Zhukov on Alexander’s failed India invasion

Rakesh Krishnan Simha 

Alexander’s invasion of India is regarded as a huge Western victory against the disorganised East. But according to Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the largely Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia.  

Handing victory in India to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad. Source: wikipedia.org

In 326 BCE a formidable European army invaded India. Led by Alexander of Macedon it comprised battle hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persians allies. The total number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000.
 
Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander’s forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman accounts say the Indians were bested by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians.
 
Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India’s northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete.
 
In reality much of the country was not even known to the Greeks. So handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.
 

Statue of Alexander in Istanbul Archaeology Museum. Source: wikipedia.org

Zhukov’s view of Alexander




 In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.
 
So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.
 
No easy victories
 
Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi, known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana, stopped his advance. Although small by Indian standards they did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine.
 
The Assakenoi offered stubborn resistance from their mountain strongholds of Massaga, Bazira and Ora. The bloody fighting at Massaga was a prelude to what awaited Alexander in India. On the first day after bitter fighting the Macedonians and Greeks were forced to retreat with heavy losses. Alexander himself was seriously wounded in the ankle. On the fourth day the king of Massaga was killed but the city refused to surrender. The command of the army went to his old mother, which brought the entire women of the area into the fighting.
 
Realising that his plans to storm India were going down at its very gates, Alexander called for a truce. The Assakenoi agreed; the old queen was too trusting. That night when the citizens of Massaga had gone off to sleep after their celebrations, Alexander’s troops entered the city and massacred the entire citizenry. A similar slaughter then followed at Ora.
 
However, the fierce resistance put up by the Indian defenders had reduced the strength – and perhaps the confidence – of the until then all-conquering Macedonian army.
 
Faceoff at the river
 
In his entire conquering career Alexander’s hardest encounter was the Battle of Hydaspes, in which he faced king Porus of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. Porus is described in Greek accounts as standing seven feet tall.
 
In May 326 BCE, the European and Paurava armies faced each other across the banks of the Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle. The 34,000 Macedonian infantry and 7000 Greek cavalry were bolstered by the Indian king Ambhi, who was Porus’s rival. Ambhi was the ruler of the neighbouring kingdom of Taxila and had offered to help Alexander on condition he would be given Porus’s kingdom.

Alexander meets Porus. Source: wikipedia.org

Facing this tumultuous force led by the genius of Alexander was the Paurava army of 20,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry and 200 war elephants. Being a comparatively small kingdom by Indian standards, Paurava couldn’t have maintained such a large standing army, so it’s likely many of its defenders were hastily armed civilians. Also, the Greeks habitually exaggerated enemy strength.
According to Greek sources, for several days the armies eyeballed each other across the river. The Greek-Macedonian force after having lost several thousand soldiers fighting the Indian mountain cities, were terrified at the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had heard about the havoc Indian war elephants created among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the elephants also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry.
 
Another terrible weapon in the Indians' armoury was the two-meter bow. As tall as a man it could launch massive arrows able to transfix more than one enemy soldier.
 
Indians strike
 
The battle was savagely fought. As the volleys of heavy arrows from the long Indian bows scythed into the enemy’s formations, the first wave of war elephants waded into the Macedonian phalanx that was bristling with 17-feet long sarissas. Some of the animals got impaled in the process. Then a second wave of these mighty beasts rushed into the gap created by the first, either trampling the Macedonian soldiers or grabbing them by their trunks and presenting them up for the mounted Indian soldiers to cut or spear them. It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders. As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap.
In the first charge, by the Indians, Porus’s brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount. This was a big deal. In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king's body, let alone slay his mount. Yet in this battle Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon, they also killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.
 
According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Indian king’s spear. But Porus dithered for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king.
 
Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer, says there seems to have been nothing wrong with Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks, when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Porus’s army “rallied and kept resisting the Macedonians with unsurpassable bravery”.

 Macedonians: Shaken, not stirred

Although the Greeks claim victory, the fanatical resistance put up by the Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the nerves of Alexander's army to the core. They refused to move further east. Nothing Alexander could say or do would spur his men to continue eastward. The army was close to mutiny.

Says Plutarch: “The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000 horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander's design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes of enemies.”
 
The Greek historian says after the battle with the Pauravas, the badly bruised and rattled Macedonians panicked when they received information further from Punjab lay places “where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage”.
 
Indeed, on the other side of the Ganges was the mighty kingdom of Magadh, ruled by the wily Nandas, who commanded one of the most powerful and largest standing armies in the world. According to Plutarch, the courage of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”. Undoubtedly, Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse.
 
Hundreds of kilometres from the Indian heartland, Alexander ordered a retreat to great jubilation among his soldiers.
 
Partisans counterattack
 
The celebrations were premature. On its way south towards the sea, Alexander's army was constantly harried by Indian partisans, republics and kingdoms.
 
In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the Indian attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack on foot. In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.
 
Says Military History magazine: “Although there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath cut like a knife.”
 
Alexander never recovered and died in Babylon (modern Iraq) at the age of 33.

 http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383.html

Cow dung acts as detox for arsenic sludge, say Bangladeshi scientists

Dhaka, July 24 : Bangladeshi scientists have found in cow dung an efficient agent to treat the toxic sludge that is generated by the removal of naturally-occurring arsenic in groundwater.

"Microorganisms present in cow dung volatilise arsenic in the sludge," says Mohammad Azizur Rahman, research scientist at the geosciences centre of the Georg-August Universität Gottingen, Germany, and author of a study on arsenic removal using cow dung, published last month (May) in the Journal of Hydrology.

Rahman says disposal of arsenic sludge in cow dung beds could be a management option for Bangladesh, a country that suffers from widespread arsenic contamination of its drinking water sources.

Cow dung, constantly being produced by cattle in the rural areas of Bangladesh, retains nutrients that attract organisms capable of gassifying arsenic through methylation — a biochemical process of adding methyl groups.

According to a survey carried out in 2010 by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF, about 20 million people still drink water contaminated with arsenic that can cause chronic poisoning, skin lesions, respiratory and cardiovascular disease and cancers.

In the 2009—2010 fiscal year, 62 out of 64 districts in the country were found affected by arsenic contaminated water, with 271 out of 481 sub-districts classified as highly affected.

A number of household and community-based arsenic removal systems are in operation in the affected areas and these generate a significant amount of arsenic sludge capable of endangering the environment, if not properly disposed off.

Rahman considers the use of cow dung for arsenic removal cost-effective as "cow dung beds are common and readily available in the villages" where groundwater extracted from shallow aquifers is the most important source of drinking water.

Ashraf Ali, professor of civil engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology and co-author of the study, cautions that the use of cow dung to treat arsenic sludge is yet to be tested in the field. "We must recognise that the study was conducted in the laboratory under controlled conditions," he has said.

"Field trials are required to better understand optimum conditions — such as temperature, moisture, nutrients — for microbial transformation of arsenic," says Mohammad Ashiqur Rahman, assistant professor, department of environmental science and management at the North South University, Dhaka.

Ashiqur Rahman suggests field trials followed by a gradual scaling up of the cow dung method of arsenic sludge treatment.

  

http://en.newsbharati.com//Encyc/2013/7/24/Cow-dung-acts-as-detox-for-arsenic-sludge-say-Bangladeshi-scientists.aspx?NB=&lang=14&m1=&m2=&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=

Indian Navy to launch indigenous aircraft carrier August 12

 New Delhi, August 1 : The navy will launch its first indigenous aircraft carrier August 12 at Kochi to make India only the fifth country in the world with the capability to build such vessels.

Talking to mediapersons here, the Indian Navy vice chief, Vice Admiral R.K. Dhowan, said that the 40,000 tonne indigenous aircraft carrrier (IAC) was one of its most prestigious warship projects and was unprecedented in terms of size and complexity.

The aircraft carrier has been designed by Indian Navy's design organisation and is being built by Cochin Shipyard Limited.

Dhowan said the US, Russia, Britain and France have capacity to design and build aircraft carriers of 40,000 tonnes and heavier.

The ship will be launched by Elizabeth Antony, wife of Defence Minister A. K. Antony.

The minister will be the chief guest at the function.

The aircraft carrier would have two take-off runways and a landing strip with three arrester wires capable of operating a STOBAR (short take off but arrested delivery) aircraft mix including the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft, the MiG-29K combat jets and a range of helicopters.

"The carrier will be equipped with a long range surface-to-air missiles (LR SAM) system with multi-function radar and close-in weapons system (CIWS)," Dhowan said.

After its launch, the carrier will be redocked at Cochin Shipyard for erecting the superstructure and and installing its equipment and for the remaining underwater work.

Dhowan said major outfitting work will be completed by 2016, after which extensive sea trials will be conducted.

The carrier is expected to be delivered to the navy in 2018, he added.

The production of the IAC commenced in 2006. It is being built using high-strength steel developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation and Steel Authority of India Limited.

 http://en.newsbharati.com//Encyc/2013/8/1/Indian-Navy-to-launch-indigenous-aircraft-carrier-August-12.aspx

Mystery of Sarsavati River

Missing of a prominent river from the map is not a mystery; it is quite natural and is attributable to environmental changes. Judged in the broader perspective of geological evolution; disappearance of rivers, shifting of their courses, capture of one river by another, slow drying up of river beds, are all normal responses to tectonism, earthquakes, climatic changes and other natural events. Some recent examples are; Oxus river in central Asia has disappeared, Jordan river no more flows through Jordan as it dries up before entering Jordan, Jhelum changed its course in 1552-55 AD and Beas changed its course during 1996 flash floods. However, upto the middle of 20th century, in the absence of any credible scientific research reports, history of India was being written on the basis of linguistic theories and guesswork and our historians just presumed that Sarasvati river was only mythical, a mere imagination. However, methods based on linguistics and politics are progressively giving way to methods based on science and technology e.g. satellite imagery, archaeology, geology, geophysics, glaceology and oceanography etc. and the role of ecology in the rise and fall of civilizations/ creation and disappearance of rivers is being increasingly accepted and appreciated.

The results of scientific research carried out during last 40 years have proved, fairly beyond doubt, that Sarasvati River was not a myth but a reality and that it was a mighty river which originated from the Himalayas and met the Arabian Sea in the Runn of Kuchchh after flowing through Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan & Gujarat states of India and Bahawalpur & Sind districts of Pakistan. These scientific evidences gathered include: -

1. Study of global climatic changes – Ecological dynamics model, which gives ecological reasons for origin, development and decay of Sarasvati river. 

2. Pictures taken by LANDSAT(USA), Indian Remote Sensing Satellites [IRS-1C], French SPOT Satellites and Radar imagery from European Remote Sensing Satellites (ERS ½), which provide evidence about the flow, migration and decay of Sarasvati River.  

3. References in most ancient Sanskrit manuscripts indicating different phases of development, migration and disappearance of Sarasvati River, which corroborate the satellite imagery.

4. Geological and hydrological evidences gathered by the geologists – listing the palaeochannels reflecting different stages of migration and decay of Sarasvati river.

5. Research reports from geophysicists, geomorphologists, climatologists, oceanographers and glaciologists etc.

6. Archaeological reports including marine archaeology reports.

7. Research carried out by the Rajasthan State Groundwater Board for assessing groundwater potential in Rajasthan through Hydrological drilling and dating.

1. Ecological Dynamics Model : The scientists have explained the origin, development, decay and disappearance of Sarasvati river through ecological dynamics model. The last ice age ended around 10000 BC; with the rising temperatures releasing waters from the ice caps. Such melting of glaciers resulted in the discharge of enormous quantities of water into the Indian subcontinent which flowed in the form of numerous rivers and streams which included Sarasvati, Drishtavati and Sutlej. Such phenomenon is abundantly recorded in Vedic hymns; e.g. – “you Indra ! have set free the rivers arrested by Ahi, i.e., sepantive glaciers” [Rigveda – 4:17:1]. Further names of 10 such rivers are recorded sequentially from east to west, namely Ganga, Yamuna, Sarasvati, Sutlej (Sutudri), Ravi (Purushni), Chenab (Asikni), Manivardavan, Jhelum (Vitasta), Sohana (Sushama) and Vyas (Arjikya) [Rig Veda (10:75:5)].

Out of these ten rivers, seven are still flowing and located in the same sequence but 3 have dried up and their relicts can be seen in the form of palaeochannels. These rivers brought prosperity to north-western India, giving rise to most advanced ‘Vedic’ civilization. Sarasvati was then the mightiest river, having several tributaries, flowing from the mountain to the sea. Over the following several thousand years, the accumulated supply of water from the Himalayan Glaciers came to be depleted. Further due to tectonic movements and earthquakes Sarasvati got disconnected from its source. Thus, it became a non-perennial river and then dried up between 3000 to 2000 BC.

Thus, it was due to ecological reasons that Sarasvati river originated, became a mighty river on account of swelling water volumes and then slowly disappeared/dried up, leaving its traces in paleochannels of Ghaggar, Hakra and Nara.

Satellites Imagery : 

 

There is an overwhelming evidence from remote earth sensing pictures taken by LANDSAT (USA), IRS-IC (India), SPOT (France), ERS-½ (Europe) that prior to 3000 BC a mighty river, described as Sarasvati in the Vedas, flowed from the Himalayas through the present Ghaggar Hakra bed in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Bahawalpur (in Pakistan) and then through the Nara bed in Sind (Pakistan); making delta in the Runn of Kuchchh before flowing into the Arabian Sea. More than 7000 years back it was the mightiest river, having Yamuna & Sutlej as its tributaries and was flowing along the Aravalli Hills. Due to northward movement of the plate of Indian subcontinent, tectonic upheaval of the Aravallis, basement structural high of Delhi-Hardwar ridge, Sarasvati river kept on migrating towards west and northwest. Its two tributaries, Yamuna and Sutlej, migrated in opposite directions – Yamuna moved eastward to join the Ganges later-on and Sutlej moved westward and was flowing as an independent river upto the sea for hundreds of years and thereafter joined Beas, a tributary of Sind River. Studies of LANDSAT imagery have revealed that there were seven main stages of this migration of river Sarasvati. Bakliwal and Grover have described these seven stages in their book “Signature and Migration of Sarasvati River in the Desert”. In the first stage it was flowing along the foothills of Aravalli, in the 3rd stage through Bikaner and Ramdevera meeting Luni near Tilwara. In the 5th stage Sarasvati passed through Jaisalmer Runns and Gad Road to reach the Rann of Kachchh and in the seventh stage it flowed through the present dry bed of Ghaggar, through Hakra and then flowed through Nara to meet Rann of Kachchh. The differences and discrepancies in study reports of archaeologists/geologists are because they have been studying the dry channels of Sarasvati river in different stages of its north-westerly migration.

Yashpal et al studied the LANDSAT imagery of palaeochannels (Refer – “Remote sensing of the Lost Sarasvati River (1980)” and deciphered these as under :-

[Present river system and the major palaeochannels as deciphered from LANDSAT imagery (after YashPal et at-1980)]– pg 123 of Memoir 42 of GSI, Bangalore.

The study led to the description of present drainage system and palaeochannels of Sarasvati and its tributaries and it supported the following conclusions :-

(i) The Sutlej once flowed into the present Ghaggar (Sarasvati) river bed and was probably joined by the Yamuna.

(ii) The Sutlej has a sharp westward right-angled bend near Ropar suggestive of its diversion due to change in the river course.

(iii) There is a sudden widening of narrow Ghaggar valley at Shatrana (25 Km south of Patiala) indicative of a major river joining Ghaggar bed here.

(iv) Another channel which corresponds to the Drishadvati (present Chautang) joins Sarasvati (Ghaggar) near Suratgarh.

(v) That the Yamuna probably flowed into the ancient Sarasvati before joining Ganga through Chambal.

(vi) Physiographically, there is depression westward (elevation less than 230 m msl) and a corresponding uplift eastward (elevation more than 250 m msl) of the old Sutlej bed, which might have forced its westward migration.

(vii) Near Anupgarh Sarasvati bifurcates and both channels come to an abrupt end at Marot and Beriwala (in Bahawalpur Distt of Pakistan) from where Sarasvati is likely to have extended through the Hakra/Nara bed to the present Runn of Kachchh.

As per Ghosh, Kar & Husain, LANDSAT imagery has revealed hitherto unknown abandoned courses of the former Sarasvati River in Jaisalmer District of Rajasthan (“The lost courses of Sarasvati river in the great Indian Desert”). Based on study of remotely sensed data of IRS-IC Ramasamy & Verma have concluded that there are plenty of paleo-channels with well sprung-up tentacles throughout the Thar Desert which reveal the traces of mighty Sarasvati river which once ruled the desert (Remote Sensing & River Migrations in Western India). The river kept on shrinking in size due to change of course by the tributaries and finally due to some major tectonic upheavals in the Himalayas, the glacier connection of the river got severed converting Sarasvati into a non-perennial river dependant on monsoon rains. Sarasvati’s march to oblivion commenced around 3000 BC; bereft of water, the Sarasvati remained here and there as disconnected pools/lakes e.g. Didwara and Sambhar etc and ultimately got reduced to dry channel beds e.g. Ghaggar and Hakra. Thus, the satellite imagery corroborates the findings of ecological dynamic model.

Literary Evidence :

These different stages in the northwest migration of River Sarasvati do get broadly reflected in the hymns of Vedas and other ancient manuscripts – the early stages agree with the description in Rigveda, Middle stages with the hymns of Yayurveda/Atharvaveda whereas the last stages coincide with the description in Mahabharata.

In Rig Veda, Sarasvati is described as the mightiest river – “Seven sistered, sprung from three-fold sources” [6:61:12]. Again it is described as “Saptathi Sindhumata” i.e., mother of seven rivers strongly flowing and swelling in volumes (7:36:6). Prayers are offered to ten rivers including Sarasvati, the names are mentioned sequentially– “O Ganga, Yamuna, Sarasvati, Sutlej, Ravi, Chenab, Marudvrudha, Jhelam, Sohana and Vyas and other rivers listen to our eulogy (10:75:5)”.

In later part of Rig Veda, Sarasvati, Sarayu and Sindhu are worshipped as three mighty rivers [10:64:9].

Therefore, it does not appeal to reason that only one out of seven rivers, one out of ten rivers or one out of three rivers would be imaginary and mythical whereas others were and are a reality. It is true that the descriptions of Sarasvati river in vedic literature are intervined with mythological events but so are the descriptions of Ganges. Therefore, instead of denying the existence of Sarasvati river, we should separate the poetic imagination from hard facts.

In Yayurveda, it is said that five equally celebrated rivers merged with the mighty Sarasvati. The same Sarasvati got divided into five glorified flows in the country. Five tributaries were Drishadvati, Satudri (Sutlej), Chandrabhaga (chenab), Vipasa (Vyas) and Iravati (Ravi). The five distributaries are named in Skanda Purana as Harini, Vjrini, Hyunk, Kapila and Sarasvati. Thus, whereas Sarasvati had 7 tributaries, including Yamuna, during Rigveda era, it was left with only 5 tributaries (minus Yamuna) by the time Yayurveda was compiled.

Mahabharata gives a clear geographical account of Sarasvati becoming a non-perennial river vanishing and re-appearing in the deserts [3:80:118 & 9:36:1], surviving in the form of a number of lanes e.g. Brahmasar, jyotisar, Kaleswar (in Haryana), Katasar, Pandusar & Ravisar (in Rajasthan). Kurukshetra is described as located in the south of Sarasvati and north of Drishadvati [Mbh. 3:81:115]

Thus, pictures taken by Remote Earth Sensing Satellites Corroborate the references to location and course of Sarasvati River in ancient Vedic literature.

Geological and Hydrological Evidences :

Climatic changes and geotectonic movements have led to migration and abandonment of several rivers and drainage systems. Geological, hydrological and archaeological evidences support the satellite imagery of paleochannels which correspond with the course of ancient Sarasvati river. Glaciological record indicates that more than 12000-10000 years back there were glaciers all around in Himalayas which began to melt due to the warming of climate. The melting of glaciers released the pent up waters that flowed into mighty river channels, which included Sarasvati and its tributaries like Drishadvati, Sutlej and Yamuna.

 According to geological and glaciological evidences, a stream of Sarasvati was supposed to have originated in Bandapunch massif. Even today Sarasvati flows from the South of Mana pass which meets river Alakananda, 3 Km away in the south of Mana village. Descending through Adibadri, Bhavanipur & Balchapur in the foothills to the plains, the river took roughly a southwesterly course, passing through the plains of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and finally debouched into the Arabian Sea at Great Rann of Kuchchh. Research reports prepared by geologists have concluded that at one time it had at least 3 tributaries, Shatadru originating from Mt Kailas, Drishadvati from Shiwalik Hills and the old Yamuna. They flowed together along a channel, presently known as Ghaggar in Punjab, Hakra and Nara. Research reports by geologists have revealed that the drainage systems/ paleochannels of this area came into existence more than 8000 years back as is indicated by the age of waters trapped beneath the desert in Jaisalmer of west Rajasthan.

As per Valdiya and Sridhar, ancient India had four main drainage systems, namely – Indus, Shatadru, Sarasvati and Drishadvati. All these rivers originated in the Himalaya foothills and after traversing the vast expanse their mouths came quite close to one another as is suggested by the paleo-delta complex showing three deltaic river mouths in the Great Runn of Kachchh :-

 This reconstruction of rivers, based on geological surveys, corroborates the LANDSAT imagery showing that at one stage Sutlej flowed independently from the mountain to the sea after getting disconnected from Sarasvati river.

 Map showing ancient drainage network (after Sridhar et al. this volume) (Ref Memoir 42 of GSI, Bangalore – Page No.165)

Celebrated geologist R.D.Oldham wrote about the lost river Sarasvati stating that the river got dried up due to the diversion of waters of Sutlej and the Yamuna [journal of Asiatic Society, Bengal, 1886 V55-322-343]. A little later in 1893, C F Oldham (Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1893 – V34. PP. 49-76) had also described Sarasvati river as flowing from the mountain to the sea. He also made references to the changing courses of river Sarasvati propounding the view that the vedic description of Sarasvati agrees with its ancient course (identified through paleochannels) whereas the description given in Mahabharata coincides with its later position. As per Oldham, Ghaggar is the other name for ancient Sarasvati and that 7 miles east of Sirsa is another old bed of Sarasvati and Sirsa gets its name from the ancient fortress of Sarsuti (Sarasvati). He goes on to say that when Sutlej changed its course to the westward, and abandoned the east arm of Hakra, the Sarasvati was left in the possession of the deserted channel, in the sands of which its waters were swallowed up. After intensive research and analysis, Oldham also came to the conclusion that Rann of Kuchchh was once an estuary.

NEARCHUS reconstructed the Water Network Map of Hakra Channel (Yamuna-Sarasvati-Sultej) in 1875 as under after conducting extensive geographical/geophysical surveys.

 [Reconstruction of water network in the region of the Hakra channel (Yamuna-Sarasvati-Sutlej)-1874 – pg. 101 of Memoir 42 of GSI,Bangalore.

Thus, even in 1874 when drainage and palaeochannels network was reconstructed on the basis of geological surveys, Sutlej and Drishadvati were shown as the tributaries of Sarasvati, whereas Ghaggar and Hakra were described as its dried up palaeochannels, corroborating the satellite imagery.

Archaeological Finds :

Archaeological excavations and research reports further corroborate the geological findings and satellite imagery. More than 1200 ancient settlements on Sarasvati river basin have been dug out giving clinching evidence of existence of a mighty river, which sustained maritime civilization and metal-based economy prior to 3000 BC (S.Kalyanaraman in journal of Geological Society of India No.42, 1`999 PP 25-33). It has been concluded that it was possible to travel on the Sarasvati river from the gulf of Khambat to Mathura via Lothal, Dholavira, Granweriwala, Kalibangan, Banawali, Paonta-Doon, Rakhigarhi and Indraprastha. Based on the evidence gathered through exacavations, the Arachaeologists have concluded that between 7000 BC to 2500 BC an advanced civilization, vedic in nature, was flourishing along Sarasvati and Indus rivers. When Sarasvati started drying up, Vedic Aryans moved towards west beyond Indus, east beyond Ganges & south beyond Godavari. It was the continuation of Sarasvati-Indus Civilization, which was given the name ‘Harappan’ probably because the first town excavated was Harappa. Archaeological Survey of India has dug out more than 2400 settlements at the ancient Indus-Sarasvati river basins but no ancient settlements have been found along the present day course of Yamuna or Sutlej.

As per V.S.Wakankar, who is known as ‘Bhisham Pitamah’ of Archaeology, extensive excavations carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India have revealed that :

(i) Harappan and Pre-Harappan Civilizations developed along ancient Sarasvati and therefore these may be more appropriately described as part of Sarasvati-Indus Civilizations.

(ii) Most of the Rishi Ashrams described in Ramayana and Mahabharata were lined along Sarasvati river.

(iii) Perforated pottery jars and fire altars (µÖ–֍ãÓ›) are found in most of the 1200 settlements excavated along Sarasvati river indicating that civilization which flourished was vedic.

(iv) Land was fertile and barley etc were cultivated in the Sarasvati region even 7000 years back and same style of cultivating the fields continues till date in areas like Rajasthan & Haryana. [Atharvaved (6:30:1)]

(v) It is unhistoric and unscientific to say that Vedic Aryans migrated from any other region to India. They belonged to India & compiled Vedas in settlements along Sarasvati River.

The same culture and civilization continues till date, as has been convincingly described by Dr. B.B.Lal, Director General (Retd.) of Archaeological Survey of India, in his book “The Sarasvati Flows on – the continuity of Indian Culture”.

According to Prof. Max Muller, “the loss of Sarasvati is later than the Vedic age, and that during vedic age, the waters of Sarasvati reached the sea.” There are great details, in our ancient books & manuscripts, of earthquakes, volcanic activities and tectonic movements which led to decay/disappearance of Sarasvati e.g. in Mahabharata it is stated to have disappeared in Vinasana (somewhere near Sirsa). Recently water has sprung out from underground in Kalayat (Kaithal in Haryana), which relates to ancient Sarasvati river as per the Geological Department of Kurukshetra University because scientific analysis of the water revealed presence of Zircon, christolite, termaline, sterolite & chloride etc which are found only in paleochannels of very old dried up rivers which originated from the Himalayas. [News item Dainik Jagran dated 03.02.2006]

Geophysical and Geomorphological Studies :

 

Geophysical and geomorphological studies carried out by wilhelmy, Bakliwal and A.K.Grover (Records of Geological Survey of India, 1988, V 116, PP 77-86) have revealed that migration of Sarasvati was caused by tectonic disturbances, shifts due to the rise in Hardwar-Delhi ridge zone, Luni-Sukri lineaments causing severe earthquakes and Kachchh fault facilitated by climatic variations. The stream piracy of Sutlej by Beas and of Yamuna by Ganges at later stage is responsible for the drying up of the Sarasvati. The groundwater, and geophysical data corroborates these findings. The presence of older alluvial plains with medium textured soils below the sands of Thar desert indicates activities of some mighty rivers in the past. The geophysical surveys in Ganganagar, Bikaner and Jaisalmer areas have revealed several zones of less saline under-ground water which is dated more than 5000 years old. (Refer reports of Rajasthan Ground Water Board). Instead of denying the existence of such water zones due to same kind of inferiority complex, research work should be intensified in order to identify sources of groundwater and possible locales for rainwater harvesting.

Histo-geographical studies carried out by M.L.Bhargava (The Geography of Rigvedic India) have revealed existence of Sarasvati (Ghaggar is the relict) and Drishtavati (Chautang is the relict) and that between the two was located Brahamavarta, the original home of Aryans. Sarasvati is supposed to have joined the sea near Prabhasa , i.e., Somnath. Based on the study of paleodrainage of northern India, Wilhelmy concluded that prior to Alexander’s invasion in 325 BC, there prevailed 2 independent river systems; one comprised the Hakra-Nara courses (i.e. Sarasvati) and the other, Indus progressively shifting to the west.

Drainage of northwestern India (after Wilhelmy,1969). (Ref.Memoir 42 of GSI, Bangalore-page no. 192)

Studies in Sea level fluctuations, climatology, Radio carbon and isotope dating of groundwater have corroborated that from 8000 BC to 4000 BC, there was abundant supply of water to the Sea. The climate started drying up from 3000 BC onwards and reached an arid phase around 2000 BC. Isotopic study of groundwater in Jaisalmer and Ganganagar districts of Rajasthan by Nair and Rao has concluded that shallow groundwater was 2000 to 6000 years old and deep seated groundwater was 6000 to 12000 years old confirming that these were paleowaters, apparently indicating that these were part of Sarasvati river which became non-perennial and slowly dried up around 5000-4000 BC. R.V.Athavale of National Geophysical Research Institute has culled out evidence of 12 earthquakes from archaeological and geomorphological records of excavated Harappan (Vedic) sites. He concluded that an earthquake around 3100 BC may have resulted in Sarasvati losing Yumuna (which shifted eastward). Again due to an earthquake in 2500 BC Sarasvati might have lost Sutlej which moved westward. In 2001, during earthquakes in Gujarat, cracks appeared in dry land of Katchchh and the water sprung out, which, as per the geologists and scientists, was more than 4000 years old and related to Sarasvati River.

Sarasvati in a sense is like modern India, having forgotten its heritage of Himalayan proportions, it has lost itself in a featureless desert! Nevertheless, it is still hidden and is capable of restoring the past glory. Scientific evidences based on satellite imagery, archaeological, geological, geophysical, glaciological, oceanographical research have proved that to consider Sarasvati as mythical is unhistoric and unscientific. In fact ancient wisdom and modern technology should now combine to trace step by step evolution of mighty river Sarasvati and to remind India, particularly Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab and Uttranchal areas, that the greatest and most ancient vedic civilization flourished in these areas more than 5000 years back when Vedas were written in the settlements along the course of Sarasvati river and its tributaries. Reverence for this glorious past is a necessary element of patriotism. Allowing propagation of a false view of one’s own cultural heritage is not tolerance but self-betrayal. The scientific evidences gathered indicate that our motherland, land belonging to India as well as to Pakistan was home to the oldest a well as the greatest civilization, which flourished alongwith the Sarasvati-Indus rivers. As custodians of this great tradition it is our duty to lead the efforts in working out more accurate view of our history. In the settlements along these rivers Vedas were composed, which are the source of invaluable & profound knowledge and which are common heritage of Hindus as well as of Muslims, of all the people who live on this land, because the history is that of the land, which has seen the rise and fall of several civilizations

 http://serveveda.org/?p=166#sthash.bCOhddB8.dpuf