UMAJI NAIK

Leader, courageous man and patriot

Ramoshis are a predatory tribe that migrated from Telangana and settled down in Maharashtra during the Maratha period. Maratha rulers utilized their services in an effective manner. Important duties like night patrolling were entrusted to them. In the new British Raj, they were not ready to reconcile.

Umaji Naik was their leader, he had set up small principalities, small Vatandars. He gave harsh treatment to British officials and to the people who were loyal to them. Bhar and Kolhapur rulers were also supporting him. Some influential brahmins gave him necessary guidance.

In 1828, he demanded Watan rights from the British officials, if not, he threatened them that ‘thousand rebellions will arise’. Special police force were raised in Ahmednagar to check Umaji Naik. In 1829, he got 129 Bighan land and thus a trust came into force.

In 1830, there were fresh troubles. Mackintosh led on behalf of British (10^th December 1830). Umaji naik was captured. The British took the help of his sisters who were promised four villages, employing such treacherous means he was captured and hanged. He gave up his life for the country.

He was not a decoit or a plunderer. He kept Shivaji as his ideal. Bombay Gazetteer described him as ‘Second Shivaji’. He is a hero of several anecdotes in Maharashtra and is a legendary figure. Several literary marks of films are made on his Robinhood style of life.

EXAMINE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PRAYAG ASSEMBLY OF HARSHAVARDHAN'S TIME

Prayag was an important town where Harsha used to hold his quinquennial assemblies. It was one of the great nerve centers of Hinduism. The assemblies at Prayag, where he distributed all his wealth among the Buddhists, the Brahmans and the poor people, after performing religious rites of Buddhism and Hinduism, stand unparalleled in the history of the world.

After the conclusion of the special assembly at Kanauj, Harsha invited Hiuen Tsang to attend his sixth quinquennial assembly of distribution of alms (Mahamokshaparishad) and religious festivities at Prayag at the sacred confluence of the Ganges and the Yamuna in 643 A.D. Harsha had held five such assemblies earlier. On such occasions, he distributed among the poor and religious all the accumulated wealth. The assembly of 643 A.D. was attended by Dhruvasena II of Valabhi, Baskaravarman of Assam and several other subordinate kings and a huge crowd of 500,000, belonging to different religions. The assembly was opened with an impressive procession and the proceedings lasted for seventy-five days in the vast sandy plain between the rivers.

The proceedings at the Prayag assembly curiously manifested the eclectic blend of mind. On the first day the image of Buddha was set up in one of the temporary shrines built upon the sands and was worshipped with costly offerings and lavish distributions. On the second day the image of Adityadeva (Sun) was worshipped and on the third day the idol of Siva was adored. On the fourth day, generous gifts were distributed to ten thousand select Buddhist monks. Each received one hundred gold coins, a pearl, a cotton garment, besides food, drink, flowers and perfumes. During the next twenty days the Brahmins received royal gifts. Jains and members of other sects were similarly given gifts for the next ten days. They were followed by mendicants for equal number of days. It took a month to distribute alms to the poor, destitute and orphans. This generous and lavish distribution exhausted Harsha’s accumulated wealth for the last five years. Finally, Harsha even gave up his personal belongings. At the end of the assembly, Harsha offered worship to the Buddha of the ten regions. Shortly after the end of this spectacular Prayag assembly Hiuen Tsang took leave of Harsha and returned to China with 657 volumes of rare manuscripts.  

EXAMINE THE EFFECTS OF ALEXANDERS INVASION

EFFECTS OF ALEXANDERS INVASION (REF: B. N. LUNIA)

Alexander’s invasion did not create any impression on the minds of the Indians as it was confined to the western part of India. His expedition at best remained a mere raid on frontier provinces. Though he annexed Gandhara and the Indus Valley to the Macedonian Empire, they soon became independent and all traces of the short-lived Greek rule disappeared from India within two years of Alexander’s death. There is, therefore, little wonder if Indians ignored Alexander’s expedition. He came like a hurricane, stayed in India for nineteen months and departed from India leaving the heart of the country untouched.

For Indians he was a mere invader who disturbed the peace of a part of the country for some time and went away, eclipsing Chengiz Khan and Timur in committing atrocities and shedding considerable blood. Viewed from the broader stand-point, Alexander’s invasion, therefore, could have no importance. It was a mere raid that did not attract even the attention of the Indian writers.

Then, judging his generalship from the events in India, Alexander does not appear to be an outstanding figure and distinguished military genius. All that he achieved in India was a hard fought victory over Porus – a king of a petty state in Punjab, and that too, with the help of an Indian king, Ambhi, a bitter enemy of Porus and one who had betrayed the nation by unhinging the doors of India to a foreigner. In fact, it was a victory of a great general over a petty chief in a distant corner of India. His defeat did not affect the rest of India, much less was it a triumph of the West over the East.

But it seems that if the Indians have underestimated the importance of Alexander’s expedition, the Greeks have equally exaggerated it. The Greek writers like Arrian Curtius, etc., have exaggerated the significance of the event by devoting page after page to its description. They have taken pains to describe his campaigns and conquests in minutest details. To them Alexander was one of the greatest conquerors of the world.

However, it is wrong for the Indians to ignore Alexander’s invasion completely. It had direct and immediate result on the course of Indian History.

1. By seriously crippling the number of small warring kingdoms and tribes that abounded in the Punjab and Sind, Alexander paved the way for Chandragupta to give to the north-west India a political unity and make it a strong integral portion of the empire of Magadha. Thus, if Mahapadmananda was the predecessor of Chandragupta Maurya in the east, Alexander was the fore-runner of that Empire in the West.

2. Though the Punjab and Sind began to enjoy the blessings of a unified rule as the direct and immediate result of Alexander’s invasion, the Indians ignored the superiority of the Greek art of warfare. The Indian rulers and their military captains seem to have paid no heed to the Greek mode of warfare. They stuck to their traditional methods of fighting and continued for centuries to place their chief reliance on their elephant brigades.

3. But there is one historical gain in the date of Alexander’s invasion i.e., 326 B. C. The clearly dated records of Alexander’s Indian campaign left by his companions helped to build Indian chronology for subsequent political events on a definite basis. The date of Alexander’s invasion, in fact, forms the sheet anchor of Indian chronology.

In addition to this, the invasion brought in India a number of Greeks of eminence, who wrote the accounts of that time, and they have become important source of early Indian history. The original works of these Greek writers are lost, but quotations taken from them by latter writers are available today and it is from these fragments that we get a detailed picture of the political, social and religious conditions of India at that time.

4. Some historians think that Alexander’s campaign resulted in the opening up of new lines of communication and new routes for trade and maritime enterprise, which brought India and the West into closer contact with each other, facilitating cultural exchange between them.

Strabo points out that the Oxus (Amu Daria) joined a link in an important chain along which the Indian goods were carried to the European countries by way of the Caspian and the Black Sea. Patroclus, an admiral in the service of Antiochus I, the successor of Seleucus Nikator, also remarked that the route was a popular one in the third century B.C. Evidence of a brisk trade with India is also furnished by the coins of Greek models minted in Babylon and found in large numbers in the frontier province of India.

5. in addition to the above effects, the following distinct cultural effects of Alexander’s campaign must also be noted. The Greek kingdoms in Syria, Bactria and other parts of Asia which had been established on the disruption of Alexander’s Empire, produced, in the course of time, close cultural contact between India and Europe. It was this contact with these Indo Greek or Indo Bactrian kings that was responsible for the improvement of the Indian coinage. The coins of the Indo Greek rulers which were discovered in Taxila replace the older Indian Punch marked and ill shaped ones and the subsequent coins of India were cast on well shaped Greek models.

Another result of the contact, it is said, is that the system of Indian astronomy is largely influenced by the Hellenic system.

Again, during the reign of the great emperor Kanishka, Bactria formed a part of his empire. He invited, it is said, many Greeco-Bactrian sculptors to Gandhara for making images of the Buddha and Boddhisattvas. They blended the Greek and the Indian Art in image making. This led to the growth of a new type of sculpture, known as the Gandhara School of Art. It is another distant and distinct effect of Alexander’s campaign.

As regards to the Greeks, they learned a good deal of sciences, arts, philosophy, mathematics and medicine from India during the period of this contact. Indian philosophy greatly influenced Greek thought and culture. A host of Indians went to Greece and Asia minor and there the ideas of the East might have percolated. It has been also suggested that after the formation of the Greek kingdom in the northwest of India, Indian philosophy affected even Christianity.

WHAT LED TO THE DOWNFALL OF THE MAURYAN EMPIRE? WAS ASHOKA RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?

The causes for the downfall of the Mauryan Empire (Mauryan Empire broke up 50 years after the death of Ashoka 232 B.C.)

There is something almost dramatic in the way in which the Mauryan Empire declined and disappeared after the death of Ashoka. The decline was complete within half a century after the death of Ashoka. The reasons given by historians for such a rapid decline are as conflicting as they are confusing. Some of the very obvious and other controversial causes for the decline of the Mauryan empire are described as follows:

1. The partition of the Mauryan Empire – An immediate cause for the decline was the partition of the Mauryan Empire into two halves. ‘Had the partition not taken place, the Greek invasions of the north-west could have been held back for a while. The partition of the empire disrupted the various services as well’.

2. Weak later Mauryan rulers – The succession of weak Mauryan rulers after Ashoka completely disrupted the Mauryan Administration. The weakness of these rulers can be imagined from the fact that as many as six rulers could rule only 52 years over the Eastern part of the Empire and finally the last Mauryan King was assassinated by his own commander-in-chief Pusyamitra Sunga. These weak late Mauryan rulers could also not continue the traditional policies of the Mauryas.

3. Ashokas responsibility for the decline – Many scholars have accused Ashoka as being directly responsible for the decline of the Mauryan Empire. H. C. Raychaudhari maintains that Ashoka’s pacifist policies were responsible for undermining the strength of the empire. He says, ‘From the time of Bimbisara to Kalinga War the History of India the story of the expansion of Magadh form a tiny state in South Bihar to a gigantic empire extending from the foot of the Hindukush to the borders of the Tamil country. After the Kalinga war ensued a period of stagnation at the end of which the process is reversed. The Empire gradually dwindled down in extent till it sank to the position from which Bimbisara and his successors had raised it’. However, Raychaudhuri’s view does not seem to be tenable because Ashoka did not turn complete pacifist after the Kaling War in view of the fact that he neither demobilized the Mauryan army nor abolished capital punishment. Ashoka only gave up the imperialist policy and preached non violence after the Kalinga War. Such practical Pacifism could not have been responsible for the decline of the Mauryan Empire.

Harprasad Shastri holds the view that the decline of the Mauryan Empire was the result of the Brahmanical revolt on account of ban on animal sacrifices and undermining the prestige of the Brahmanas by ‘exposing them as false gods’. But Shastri’s views are merely hypothetical because first, Brahminism itself stresses nonviolence and secondly, Ashoka only banned the unnecessary slaughter of certain animals on certain auspicious days. Then again Ashoka’s frequent requests in his edicts for due respect to Brahmanas and Sramanas hardly points to his being anti Brahmanical in outlook.

4. Pressure on Mauryan Economy – D. D. Kosambi has expressed the opinion that there was considerable pressure on Mauryan economy under the later Mauryas. This view is based on the increase of taxes of taxes and debasement of later Mauryan punch marked coins. But contrary to the above, the foreign accounts and the material remains of the period give a picture of an expanding economy.

5. Highly centralized administration – Prof. Romila Thapar is of the view ‘The machinery of the Mauryan administrative system was so centralized the an able ruler could use it both to his own advantage and that of his people. To the same degree it could become harmful to both under a weak ruler who would lose its central control and allow forces of decay to disintegrate and wreck it. The weakening of the central control under the later Mauryas led automatically to a weakening of the administration. The division of the Mauryan empire after the death of Ashoka must have given further blow to the centralized Mauryan administration under the weak later-Mauryan rulers, leading to the decline and disintegration of the Mauryan Empire.

Other factors of importance contributing to the decline of the Mauryan empire have been described as Brahmanical revolt against the pro Buddhist policies of Ashoka and his successors, oppressive provincial governments and people’s revolt against Mauryan oppression, lack of representative institutions and national unity in Mauryan India. But except for the first two causes – Ashokas weak successors and division of the Mauryan Empire after Ashoka’s death – the other causes described above have weaknesses in their argument and therefore, cannot be called as positively responsible for the decline of the Mauryan Empire.

CONTRIBUTION OF THE PALLAVAS IN THE FIELD OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE

 Discuss the contribution of the Pallavas in the field of art and architecture.

The history of architecture and sculpture in South India begins with the Pallava temples which introduce a new technique called the Dravidian style. In addition to the temples in Kanchi and other places, ‘some of the rock-cut temples known as the seven pagodas or rathas of Mamallapurama are built in this style which may justly be called the Pallava style of art’. In fact, Pallava contribution to Indian culture is unique. Undoubtedly their edifices are among the noblest monuments in South India. From an early date they created an architecture of their own which was to be the basis of all the styles of the South. The cave and structural temples and other architectural remains of the Pallavas form an important chapter in Hindu art. The Pallava architecture has two phases:

1. Rockcut architecture from 610-690; it includes mandapas or rathas (monolithic temples)

2. Structural from 690-900; it includes temples.

 

A mandapa is an open pavilion, a hall with cells in the back wall. It is excavated in a rock. A ratha is a monolithic shrine. Many of the architectural productions of the Pallavas have a figure of a lion on the prominent place. This heraldic beast was made to serve as a symbol of the Pallava Simhavishnu or lion (simha) ancestry.

The twon of Mahavallipuram or Mamallapuram, 32 miles south of Madras, founded by the great Pallava King Narasimhavarman (625-645) on the sea-beach, has many cave-temples or mandapas decorated with fine reliefs. The mandapas are 10 in number and are found on the hill. They are remarkable not for their size but for the exceptional character of their design and execution. The pillars, the façade and the sculpture combined with the architecture are the salient features of these mandapas. The pillar is made to rest on the sedent animal’s head and it has fluted and banded shaft, refined necking, the elegant curves, and lotus form with wide abacus. The relief work and architectural features are designed and executed in admirable way.

The monolithic temples called rathas, known as, ‘seven pagodas’ are another type of remarkable rock cut architecture at Mamallapuram. They are named after the five Pandava brothers and Draupadi, each carved out from a single massive granite stone upon the seashore. They are complete with all the details of an ordinary temple and stand today as undying testimony to the super quality of Pallava art. These rathas are of no great size, the largest measuring only 42 feet long, the widest 35 feet and the tallest 40 feet high. They number eight in all with the exception of Draupadi’s ratha which is the smallest, simplest and most finished, others are derived from the Buddhist structure of a Vihara or a monastery and Chaitya Hall or temple. The Dharmaraja ratha is the largest. The Bhima ratha with its three upper stories is the finest and most interesting of the group. The Ganesh ratha has architectural form known in later Dravidian architecture as Gopuram – the gateway. The significant point to note here is that ‘these rathas formed the originals from which all the vimanas in South India were copied and continued to be copied nearly unchanged to a very late period’ (Gokhale). These monolithic shrines or rathas were of Saivism as in their proximity are images carved in rock, of a lion, an elephant and a bull, symbolizing respectively Durga, Indra and Shiva. Probably each ratha was a shrine consecrated to one of the manifestations of Shiva.

These mandapas and rathas are adorned with marvellous figure sculpture. The Pallava sculpture here reveals a finer feeling for form, experience craftsmanship, a noteable sense of restraint and a refined simplicity. Among the sculptures, one large composition on rock has obtained great celebrity. It is cut down from one standing soldi rock 98 feet long and 43 feet wide. The scene represented is usually described as the penance of Arjun, but now it is held by art critics and scholars that it represents the Descent of the Ganges. Towards the end of the 7^th century the art of excavated ratha or mandapa was given up and the second phase of the Pallava art, the art of structural edifices, was taken up and it occupied the whole of the 8^th century. Splendid temples were constructed; their lofty towers were built tier upon tier, diminishing in size towards a summit, typifying all the wealth, munificence and grandeur of the Pallavas. The most wonderful example of the Pallava structural art is the famous Kailasa temple at Kanchi. There the shrine with its sikhara or pyramidal tower and flat roofed mandapam is surrounded by a series of cells, resembling rathas. The temple of Vaikuntha Perumal at Canjeevaram is another marvelous example of the art. Here the Pallava style of architecture is seen in its most mature form. It is larger and more spacious that the afore-stated Kailash temple. Here the principle parts, the cloisters, portico and sanctuary, instead of being separate buildings, are amalgamated into one architectural whole. This has produced a unity of conception and considerable architectural merit. To sum up, the Pallava art evolved splendid huge temples of stone. Sometimes the upper part was made of bricks. Above the main shrine pyramidal tower was constructed.

The style of Pallava architecture not only set the standard in the South but also largely influenced the architecture of the Indian colonies in the Far East. The Pallava art was transmitted beyond the seas to the countries of south east Asia like Indonesia ‘where its effulgence, reflected in the vast monuments of those civilizations, shone with even greater splendor than in the country of its origin’ (Percy Brown). The schools of sculpture which developed out of the Pallava art in Java and Cambodia displayed the high artistic character and the superb quality of the Pallava plastic art. The Khmer sculptures at Angkor Thom and Angkor Vat and the bas-reliefs on the stupa temple of Borobudur owe some of their characteristics to the rock cut monoliths of Mamallapuram. The characteristic Pallava or Dravidian type of shikara is met with the temples of Java, Cambodia and Annam. But there are important differences between them and the South Indian temples. The pillars that form an important adjunct to the latter are altogether absent in the former. Credit goes to the Pallavas for having kept burning brightly the torch, which kindled by the Buddhist in the early centuries of the Christian era at Amaravati, was bequeathed to these Simha Vishnu ‘lion’ kings, Pallvas. Later on its flame glowed with renewed brilliance in the hands of the Chola and subsequent rulers of Southern India.  

VISHNUBUVA BRAHMACHARI (1825-1871)

 Vishnubhuva Bramhachari travelled through the length and breadth of India preaching the superiority and infallibility of the Vedas. According to him, ‘Veda means knowledge. It is a part of God himself’. He believed that the Vedic religion leads man on to the moral and spiritual heights. According to him, the Vedic times were not only far advanced in spiritual insight, but in scientific and technical knowledge as well, including chemistry and physics. He said that in ancient times, people all over the world followed Vedic religion and received their religious instructions through the Sanskrit language. V. B. did not have a good opinion of other religions, as for Christianity, he held its teaching as ‘filth created by the hypocrisy of barbarians’. 

 

V.B. was very conservative in his attitude towards some aspects of Brahmanical Hinduism, such as Vedic ceremonies, vegetarianism, belief in rebirth and so on. For him, the great difference between Hindus on the one hand and the Jews, Christians and Muslims on the other, consisted in the belief of the latter religion that only human beings have the soul, not animals, their rejection of the idea of re-birth and their acceptance of a general judgment at the end of time. 

 

V. B. showed a remarkable sense of independence of mind in rejecting a number of traditional ideas and customs. In his view, caste should be determined by a person’s qualities, and not by his birth. He favored female education and upheld the right of girls to be consulted in the choice of their husbands, though he wanted them married before the age of 12. He also opposed the custom of Sati and favored widow remarriage. 

 

He was a prolific writer. Among V. B.s famous work was Vedokta Dharmaprakasha (the Principle of Hindu Religion), published in 1864. In a very interesting essay on ‘Beneficial Government’ (Marathi) he put forward ideas such as ‘One home and all citizens as one family’. He held the view that it is the duty of the king to ensure the happiness of all his subjects and it was the duty of the subjects to obey the kings laws. Further, since, according to him, all citizens belonged to one family, and all land and its produce should be held in common, every person should work for the community and in exchange the community must meet his needs. 

 

In social matters, he was in favor of civil marriages and favored divvorce. In his view, children should remain with their parents upto the age of 5 and then be handed over to the state. He wanted work to be assigned to each individual according to the person’s capacity, and grouped the end’s into 5 castes, corresponding to their professions. He wanted the state to take care of the old and employ them as heads of each work – department. This body could work as a kind of parliament. 

 

V. B. envisaged a moneyless economy and a society without charitable institutions. He was optimistic that the caste system would disappear and people would live in peace and happiness without enimity. In 1869, he got 10,000 copies of the essay printed and sent to prominent persons in India as well as to members of British Parliament, ministers, Queen Victorial and Prince Edward of England. 

 

It was indeed surprising that a semi-literate and conservative person like V. B. should put forward notions of ‘Utopian Socialism’. Perhaps, as Lederle has pointed out, he may have derived ideas from Vedanta Monoism and the writings of Jnaneshvara, the great thirteenth century commentator of the Bhagvadgita. To quote Leaderle, “In developing this philosophy of society (socialism) based on Vedantic Monoism V. B. thus remained true to a strong trend in the Indian traditions”. 

 

V. B. was a pioneer of the revivalist tendencies toward social and religious movement. He had full faith in the superiority of the Indian culture over the western civilization and therefore he preached that the Indians should look back to the Vedic times for inspiration and guidance. R. C. Majumdar describes him as ‘a utopian socialist who based his social ideas on Vedic religion and may be compared to the Christian socialists of Europe’. According to one writer, ‘he was socially equalitarian religiously Vedantic, politically socialist and mentally liberal and independent, morally bold and confident and humanitarian’. 

 

V. B. though an ardent Hindu, defiantly challenged Brahmin leadership of his time. In so doing he created ‘an undesirable split between the upper classes and the masses which ultimately led to some unfortunate developments in the public life of the Bombay province’. The Bombay journal Induprakash, in an obituary on 20th February 1871 wrote: “It is extremely difficult to find an outstanding man like V. B. He was an outstanding thinker and one who translated his precepts into action. He was courageous enough to say or do what he thought was necessary for the interests and good of the country. Therefore, in the death of this good man, not only Bombay but Maharashtra as a whole, has suffered a great loss’.