Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Did Alexander defeat Porus?

Controversial though this post may seem,

there are certain facts which can not be dismissed,

that run contrary to the prevalent opinion that

Alexander defeated Porus (King Puru).

Alexander in his bid to conquer the entire world came to India

and defeated the Indian ruler Porus,

so says our history text books.

But it is not so.

This is coming to be known

as we go deeper into the issue of what happened then.

Megasthanes who came to India after the so-called invasion by Alexander

has recorded that this country (India) was one

which was never invaded by any and

which never invaded any.

If Alexander’s victory had been true,

why did this historian from Greece write like this?

It had also been recorded in the famous medieval epic,

Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi that

Alexander was defeated by Porus and

they became friends.

The territories conquered earlier by Alexander were left to Porus.

Why should Alexander,

known for his conquering ambitions leave them to Porus

if not defeated by him?

“Alexander himself was a myth which was promoted

by the British some 150 years ago. All our ancestors had no idea of Alexander

or his invasion of India.

Alexander myth was necessary for the British

to justify the colonial domination” – says Mr. GP. Srinivasan

Prof Rao has taken up this issue and revealed

how this story of Alexander’s invasion of India

has no basis in contemporary writings of his times

and also from Indian works.

Looking from the available records in Jyothish books too,

it is seen that no battle scuffles had taken place

in the period between 4th to 1 st century BC.

An important source of astrology of the Yavanas (Greeks) is

Varahamihira’s Pancha Siddhanthika.

This Siddhanthika was based on Romaka Sidhantha

and Paulisa Sishantha

(among the 5 siddhanthas of this book by Varahamihira)

which have been written by a Roman and a Greek respectively.

The Yavanas had been frequent visitors to India

in the 400 years before the Christian era,

and there had been exchange of views in astrology and astronomy

between Indian rishis and the yavanas.

Such exchange can not have happened in an oppressed atmosphere of invasion.

The Indian authors of astrology had talked

about the yavanas, their roots and their contribution in good length.

But there is no mention of any invasion.

Meena Raja’s “Vriddha yavana Jataka”

is an important book dealing with the astrology of the yavanas.

This was written in the 4th century BC in the opinion of David Pingree,

based on the details in the book.

There are others too like, Varahamihira, Bhattotpala and Kalyana varma

who have written about Yavanas and their contributions.

From their writings it appears that

there had been a free movement of scholars between Greece and India.

No where is a mention of one country on a military expedition on the other.

It has been observed by scholars that Alexander did not reach India proper

though he thought that he had reached India.

The river he was said to have reached was not the Indus, but the Nile (Nil)

as he was said to have sighted crocodiles in that river.

More details in the following links containing the research findings of Prof Rao.




Kalidasan said...

Dear mam,

Have a look at this website. Had a different opinion on alexander.



Dr Jayasree Saranathan said...

Dear Mr Kalidasan,

Thanks for bringing up this issue here. This gives me a chance to say certain things which I happened to know after writing the above blog.

First of all let me say that the article in the link you have given is bull-shit. How these mindless Indians are restricting the period of Skanda to a very very recent times as that of 4th century BC! Instead if the writer had linked Skanda to Scandinavia, I would have been happy, for, Scandinavia and its environs have an ancient history of pre-christianised people who were known as Sami and saivu! Look at these names, they sound Vedic! Their religious works remind us of Shiva linga worship and Vedism!

Digging into it further, you would come to know that region (Scandinavia) could have been the ancestral region of Devyani, wife of Skanda. Skanda belonged to Then- Madurai (southern Madurai) of first sangam period. It was close to Australia (now submerged northern borders of Australia). The Velan veriyaattam that we find in sangam texts have remnants in Australian aborigines. Skanda from this region married Indra's daughter after he saved Indra's son from Soora Padman who had his location in Lanka. Sura samharam happened 10,000 years ago in ThiruChendur after which Skanda married Devyani of Indra loka.

Thus Skanda was the son in law of Indra of Deva territory which was in the Northern hemisphere. I have been writing in my Tamil and English blogs how the extreme North was the Deva territory. Uttar kuru (near lake Baikal) is one location of Deva territory. Russia (rishi varsha)of those days housed Deva and Apsaras people. In my opinion Scandinavia got the name from Skanda.

The natives of this place were Kvena people. This reminds me of Vena of Manu's lineage. I am gathering info on Vena and his son Prithu. It was after Prithu, earth came to be called as Prithvi. He introduced cultivation for the first time. My observation is that the Nordic people (Fins and Saivu and Sami people of the Arctic circle) were connected to Vena and left India for that land when Vena fell out from the favour of the rishis. His descendants could have been the Kvena people of Scandinavia.

You would be surprised to know that the very word Scandinavia was derived from Scany / Scania / Skaoan menaing damage, hurting, danger etc. Pliny the Elder has recorded so 2000 yrs ago! From this word 'Scathing' in English came. Scathing attack is what Skanda is very well known for. This shows Skanda connection to this region and his connection came through the marriage with a woman of this region. From Skanda, Sami and Saivu (Shiva) worship must have entered Scandinavia. Saivu people's religious works have resemblance to Linga worship.

There is a Paripadal verse that says that since because Skanda married Devyani, the woman of Deva territory, he decided that the people of his own land must not feel let out and therefore married Valli of his own region. This kind of description is logical. I am still in the process of collecting more info on this. So far I have collected info to connect Skanda with Baal deity of Europe also. Much before celts entered Europe from the descendants of Druhyus, Skana cult had spread in Europe, due to his marriage to Devyani, as per research. I would write them all in my Tamil blogs.

By all this I wish to state that connecting Skanda to Alexander is not correct but there is substance to believe that Scandinavia is connected to Skanda.


Dr Jayasree Saranathan said...

Now coming to Alexander, this name must have been a corrupted form of Alaksandu who ruled "Wilusa" of Anatolia around 1280 BC!!! Please go through this wiki page on Alaksandu


All the names are Sanskrit- Tamil based. I have already written on how Anatolia is connected to Druhyus of Yayati times. Alaka in this name is like Alaka nanda. Alaka means curved. Sandu is Chandra - moon. So Alaka sandu means Curved Moon or crescent moon.

He signed a treaty with Muwatalli - again a name that sounds Tamil! Muwatalli's father was Mursili - again a corrupt Tamil name. Alaksandu was the successor of Kukkunni - again sounds Tamil and Sanskrit! Muwatalli's grand father was Suppiluliuma! Easy to dissect this name to derive Tamil meaning! Even his place Wilusa has 'vil' (bow) in its name. Infact Greek authors think that that the name Alaksandu became Alexander! Browse the net for Alaksandu, many Russians and north European people have this name even today!

One of the three Gods in whose name the treaty was drawn by Alaksandu was Apollo - the Moon - which is what sandu or sandru or chandru also means! So the name Alexander itself goes back 1000 yrs before him to Sanskrit or Indian origins from people who left India (Bharat of those days).

References for Sami:-


For Kven:-

There are other links on research on them which I would be writing in the Tamil series.

Anonymous said...

Tragedy of indians is that the history is written by marxists, who are anti hindus and anti indian. Instead of calling muslims as turk/mughal/kazak stock, they called them as benevolent rulers. But they don't spare a moment where a brahman teacher had to ask the thumb, and said that since eklavya belonged to low class, hence this action, without even understanding the rules of that Epoch of time. Same applies here, without even historical corroboration, alexander defeated porus. Where is the proof? The movie alexander , which released in 2004, had shown that Porus or Purshottam ( He was a BRAHMAN) had literally or nearly killed alexander, who was badly injured, and he died due to malaria. But as usual, indians accept gleefully written by mlechhas, may be because indians also think that white skin is superior