About political situation of india?

[Para upari saena]

Hi Guys!
Does anybody got his own say about the political situation of India while Alexander's conquest?
I'm wondering what kind of "administration" India run with, for i'm interested in framing the figure of Poros inside political-social background of his own country.Thanks and cheers!Zei kai vassilevi!!!

[nick]

Hi Franx -The problem is that nothing like "India" existed in the minds of the Indians themselves. To view India as a geographic or cultural unity, is a Western invention. That started with the Greeks who where the inventors of the "India concept", denoting in a very broad sense the lands east of the Persian empire (outside the known world) stretching towards the ocean. Mind you, the former Dutch colony Indonesia was called "Dutch India" in the colonial days. Marco Polo figured that East Africa was part of India. That seems to show you how undefined "India" as a geographic term always has been.So, in Alexander's days there was nothing like "India" as a coherent political, cultural, lingu+»stic or geographical unity. Poros ruled a relatively modest kingdom, probably called Paurava, in the north-west, which has to be situated in the surroundings of modern Lahore - the Punjab - comprising parts of modern day Pakistan and maybe some territory in what we now call the country of India. Further to the east, larger kingdoms lurked - some of them waiting to excercise their power over large parts of the subtontinent. But even in the days of the muslim Great Mogols, the south of India was still 'independent', outside something you could call the Mogol nation state. Can we say it was British domination that - at last - merged India into a coherent (cultural) zone? And even then: the British contributed as much to unify India as to split it into today's separate nations.Regards -
Nick

[marcus]

I think what you say is probably right, Nick.It is interesting that, although the British considered the whole of the subcontinent to be 'India', certain areas, such as the Punjab and Kashmir were only considered to be part of India because of their geographical location (ie. on the India side of Moslem Afghanistan). Even then, for a long time the British didn't control the whole country and were quite content with what they had. The annexation of Sind was unpopular on many fronts, and the British administration was totally against annexation of the Punjab until literally forced to take it after the two Sikh wars of 1845 and 1848. But straight after that, of course, the area was well and truly part of 'India', for the best part of a century.All the bestMarcus

[Dr. Pal]

Dear Nick,Apart from India there is another name that has more or less the same connotation - Bhrata. If you study the Mesopotamian records there are references to some Esatern states like Markhashe, Elam and Dilmun, Magan, and Melukhkha. Most of the scholars agree that Melukhkha is a name of the Indus cities but I have written that Magan was also part of ancient Bharata as was Dilmun. Manu who is the earliest Indian Law-giver ruled all the there states. Oman was also within the orbit of this India. Interestingly Dilmun, Magan and melukhkha were always mentioned together. Melukhkha and magan also stood for parts of Egypt but this was because there were many Indians here. If you read the Amarna archives you would realise that this was a Indic settlement. Magadha, Megiddo Mogadishu all speak of and ancient past that has not been properly appreciated due to Jone's mistake which made all the people think that Magadha was in Patna area. This was only true in a later period.Regards,Dr. Pal.

[ruthaki]

A few years ago I did some research at the British School library in Athens, regarding India at Alexander's time. It was quite fascinating. But as I was mainly getting details for the mahouts in my novel I didn't copy down too many details other than that. There should be books available. (If I find the titles of the ones I used for reference I'll post them here.)