Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Speech of Chandragupt Maurya - Understanding India

Speech of Chandragupta Maurya from TV series Chanakya


अरट्ट के कुलमुख्यों और वाहिक प्रदेश के विभिन्न गणराज्यों से आये गणमुख्यों का मैं स्वागत करता हूँ. आज वाहिक प्रदेश के अधिकांश जनपद यवनों की दासता से मुक्त हो गए हैं, और शीघ्रही अन्य जनपद भी मुक्त होंगे. अरट्ट जनपद ने अपने प्रशासन का उत्तरदायित्व मेरे कंधो पर डाला हैं, जिसे मैं सहर्ष स्वीकार करता हूँ.

परन्तु वास्तव में जनपदों को शासकों की अपेक्षा एक प्रणाली की आवश्यकता हैं. एक ऐसी प्रणाली जो जनपदीय मानसिकता की संकीर्ण राजनीती से ऊपर उठकर संपूर्ण राष्ट्र को एक परिवार, एक जनपद के रूप में देखेगी, क्योंकि जनपद राष्ट्र का उसी प्रकार अविभाज्य अंग होता हैं. तो विभिन्न जनपद अपने अस्तित्व के लिया संघर्षरत क्यों हैं आपस में? क्या अपने परिवार की किसी पीड़ित सदस्य को देखकर आप पीड़ित नहीं होते? क्या अपने परिवार की किसी अभावग्रस्त सदस्य के अभाव को पूर्ण करने का प्रयत्न नहीं करते? अपने परिवार के किसी सदस्य के सुख-दुःख में आप तठस्थ कैसे रह सकते हैं?

समाज के लिए व्यक्ति का त्याग हमारी परंपरा हैं. किसलिए शिव ने विषपान किया था? किसलिए महर्षि दधिची ने अपनी अस्थियों का दान दिया था? तो आज समाज के लिए व्यक्ति और राष्ट्र के लिए समाज त्याग करने के लिए तत्पर क्यों नहीं हैं? क्यों एक समाज को ये आभास होता हैं की वह दुसरे समाज का विनाश करके ही विकसित और पल्लवित हो सकता हैं? क्यों एक जनपद को भ्रम हैं की दुसरे जनपद का उत्कर्ष उसकी प्रगति में बाधक हैं? क्यों एक व्यक्ति को ये आभास होता है की जीवन के लिया वह दुसरे व्यक्ति से संघर्षरत हैं? क्या बीज पर्ण से संघर्षरत हैं? क्या जड़ें उसपर खड़े वृक्ष से संघर्षरत हैं? तो हम सब संघर्षरत क्यों हैं आपस में? क्या तुम्हे नहीं लगता की पर्ण, जड़, तना, शाखा सब में बीज का रूप विद्यमान हैं? पर फिर भी बीज दिखाई नहीं देता. हमारी राष्ट्रीयता भी इसी प्रकार दिखाई नहीं देती. किन्तु वह प्रत्येक भारतीय में विद्यमान हैं. यदि तुम बीज को खोजोगे तो तुम्हे अपने भीतर की राष्ट्रीयता का आभास होगा. और यदि राष्ट्रीयता का वह बीज हम सब में विद्यमान हैं, तो मैं तुमसे भिन्न कैसे हुआ?

तो क्या आवश्यकता की हमें यवनों से लड़ने की जबकि हम सब जानते हैं की इस पृथ्वी पर रहनेका अधिकार जितना हमें हैं, उतना उन्हें भी हैं. पर फिर भी हमने यवनों के शासन को अस्वीकार कर दिया. क्यों? हमने यवनों का शासन अस्वीकार किया क्योंकि हमें स्वतन्त्रता प्रिय हैं. पर क्या अर्थ हैं इस स्वतंत्रता का? क्या स्वतन्त्रता का अर्थ मात्र किसी शासन या व्यक्ति से मुक्ति हैं? क्या व्यक्ति की स्वतन्त्रता का अर्थ स्वेछा हैं? क्या व्यक्ति को समाज के बंधन स्वीकार नहीं करने पड़ते? क्या समाज को राष्ट्र के बंधन स्वीकार नहीं करने पड़ते? तो व्यक्ति को समाज और समाज को राष्ट्र के बंधन स्वीकार करने के पश्चात् भी क्यों ऐसा लगता हैं की वह स्वतंत्र हैं? क्या हैं वह "स्व" का बोध जो व्यक्ति, समाज और राष्ट्र में सामान्य हैं? क्या हैं वह तंत्र जिससे बंधने की पश्चात भी व्यक्ति, समाज और राष्ट्र को स्वतन्त्रता का बोध होता हैं? किसने निर्माण किया हैं वह तंत्र जिसे आप सभी स्वेछा से स्वीकार करते हैं? क्या देती हैं वह स्वतन्त्रता जिसके लिए व्यक्ति स्वयं का उत्सर्ग करने के लिए तत्पर हो जाता हैं? क्या हैं वह तंत्र जिसे हम स्व-तंत्र कहते हैं? क्यों हम स्वातंत्र्य में जीना चाहते हैं और यवनों के पारतंत्र्य में नहीं? इस "स्व" और "पर" में क्या अंतर हैं? क्यों हम यवनों के उस तंत्र को स्वीकार नहीं कर पायें?

क्योंकि हमारी उस तंत्र में आस्था हैं जिसका निर्माण हमारे तत्वचिन्तकों और मनीषियों ने किया हैं. क्योंकि हमारी उन जीवनमूल्यों में आस्था हैं जिनका निर्माण हमारे स्वजनों ने किया और समष्टि के कल्याण की वह थाती विरासत में हमारे हाथों में आती गयी जिनका निर्वाह हमारी पूर्व-पीढियों ने किया. शाश्वत सत्य और ज्ञान के प्रकाश में जीवन के जिन मूल्यों का निर्माण हमारे ऋषियों ने किया वह हमारा स्वतंत्र हैं. उन्ही श्रेष्ठ जीवनमूल्यों के प्रकाश में हम हमारे सामाजिक व्यवस्था की प्रणाली निश्चित करते आये हैं. हमारे व्यक्तिगत, सामाजिक एवं राष्ट्रीय जीवन का आधार हमारे अपने पूर्वजों का तंत्र ही हो सकता हैं. इसीलिए हम स्वतन्त्रता के आग्रही हैं.

परन्तु क्या वह प्रणाली, क्या वह पद्धति, क्या वह स्वतन्त्रता मालव और क्षुद्रक के लिए भिन्न हैं? क्या केकय और पांचाल के लिए भिन्न हैं? क्या श्रेष्ठ मूल्यों की उपासना भिन्न-भिन्न जनपदों के लिए भिन्न-भिन्न हो सकती हैं? जिन मूल्यों की निर्मिती हमारे पूर्वजों ने की हो वह भिन्न-भिन्न जनपदों के लिए भिन्न-भिन्न कैसे हो सकती हैं? परन्तु हम उस बीज को नहीं देख पा रहे हैं जो वृक्ष के सभी अंगों में विद्यमान हैं. हम संस्कृति के उस प्रवाह को नहीं देख पा रहे हैं जो प्रत्येक जनपद के जीवनधारा में अनुप्राणित हो रही हैं. जनपद उसी विशाल वृक्ष को शाखाएँ हैं, परन्तु हमारा बीज एक ही हैं. हम अपनी जड़ों को नहीं देख पा रहे हैं और बाहरी भिन्नता को देख अपने अन्तरंग की एकात्मता को नकार रहे हैं. अनेकता में एकता को नहीं देख पा रहे हैं. या, उसे जानभूझ कर नकार रहे हैं क्योंकि उसमे राजनीतिक स्वार्थ निहित हैं.

मैं जानता हूँ की कुछ जनपदों की राजनीतिक व्यवस्था में भिन्नता हैं. मगर राजनीतिक व्यवस्था संस्कृति नहीं हैं. राजनीतिक व्यवस्था संस्कृति की पूरक हो सकती हैं, संस्कृति का पर्याय नहीं. संस्कृति का प्रवाह व्यक्ति, समाज और राष्ट्र को समुत्कर्ष का मार्ग प्रर्दशित करता हैं, तो राजनीति का दायित्व भी व्यक्ति, समाज और राष्ट्र का उत्कर्ष ही हैं. तो क्यों व्यक्ति व्यवस्था के नाम पर संघर्ष करता हैं? संभवतः इसलिए की वह व्यक्ति और समाज में समस्त हो नहीं देख पाता. अथवा इसलिए की उसका व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थ उसे संघर्ष करने के लिए प्रेरित कर रहा हैं. और इसी व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थ और एकात्मता के भाव के अभाव के कारण हमें यवनों के समक्ष अपना स्वाभिमान समर्पित करने के लिए विवश कर दिया था.

यवनों ने भिन्न-भिन्न जनपदों के आस्था के भेद को नहीं देखा था. आक्रान्ताओं ने सभी के साथ एक जैसा व्यवहार किया था. दुर्भाग्य ही था की सभी जनपदों ने मिलकर यवनों का सम्मिलित रूप से प्रतिकार नहीं किया. क्यों?? क्योंकि हममे राष्ट्रीय चरित्र का अभाव था. यदि सभी जनपदों ने राष्ट्र के रूप में संगठित होकर यवनों का प्रतिकार किया होता तो क्या यवनों के लिए इस धरा पर विजय पाना संभव था? यदि सिन्धु की रक्षा का दायित्व सभी जनपदों के लिया होता तो क्या यवनों को सिन्धु को पार कर पाना संभव था? पर कठ, मद्रक, क्षुद्रक और मालव गणराज्यों को ये विश्वास नहीं हो रहा था की उनके प्रदेशों की सीमाओं का द्वार भी तक्षशिला हैं.

जहाँ तक हमारी संस्कृति का विस्तार हैं, वहां तक हमारी सीमाए हैं. हिमालय से समुद्र पर्यंत ये संपूर्ण भूमि हमारी अपनी भूमि हैं, हमारा अपना राष्ट्र हैं. और इस राष्ट्र की रक्षा हम नहीं करेंगे तो इस राष्ट्र की रक्षा कौन करेगा. यदि हमने अबभी संगठित होकर राष्ट्र के रूप में अपना परिचय नहीं दिया तो आक्रान्ताओं का पुनरागमन हो सकता हैं और इतिहास की पुनरावृत्ति. यदि हम अबभी संगठित नहीं हुए तो आक्रान्ताओं का मार्ग प्रशस्त हैं. आवश्यकता हैं हमें एक छत्र के नीचे एकत्र होने की. ताकि ये राष्ट्र सुदृढ़ और सक्षम हो, शक्तिशाली हो, गौरवशाली हो, और हम अमृत के अमर्त्य पुत्र कह सकें की प्रशस्त पुण्य-पंथ हैं, बढे चलो बढे चलो..

Translation -

"I welcome the elders of Aratta Kingdom (not to be confused with Armenian province) and representatives of various city-states and kingdoms from Bactria and Northwest frontier Province of India (Vaahik = Baalhika = Balkh = modern day Afghanistan). Most of the kingdoms and states of this region are now liberated from Greek occupation. Those remaining shall be liberated soon. Aratta kingdom has appointed me as their administrative head, an honour which I cordially accept.

However, the provinces and states need a system, rather than a ruler; a system which rises above the parochial and narrow-minded outlook of provincial form of polity and views this entire Rashtra as one system, one family because that is exactly how a province and a state is indespensibly related to Rashtra. Why are then different provinces and states in continual state of conflict with each other? Won't your heart move in pain when you see your kin in pain? Won't your reach out to help some under-privilaged member of your family? How can you stay neutral in good and bad times of your family members?

Individual sacrificing for the greater good of the society has been our tradition? Why else did Shiv consumed the poison? Why else did sage Dadhichi donate his skeleton? Why is society not ready to sacrifice some of their personal interests and pursuits for the greater good of the community? And why isn't society ready to let gor few of their interests for the greater good of Rashtra? Why does a society believe ardently that its upheavel is possible only by the deterioration of some other community? Why provinces think that the progress achieved by some other province is detrimental to its own rise? Why does in individual display such narrow understanding about inevitibility of violent conflict with other individual for his own survival?

Does a seed display any such conflict with the leaves? Are the roots conflicting with stem and entire tree standing above? Why are we in state of conflict with each other? Don't you think that leaves, roots, stem, branches, flowers, fruits, everything in a tree is the essence of seed through which it originated? Yet, we cannot see the seed when we look that the tree. Our Rashtriyata is something similar to the invisible, yet all-pervasive seed. It exists in the hearts, minds and genes of every Indian. If you delve inside and look for the hidden seed, you will feel the presence of that inherent sense of Rashtriyatva simmering within you. And if this seed of Bhaaratiyavta (Indian-ness) is simmering within every individual of this land, then how am I any different from you in essence?

What was the need then, for us, to fight off the invading Greek-Macedonian Army when we know and perfectly understand that they too have as much right to live on this earth as we do. In spite of this knowledge, we rejected the Greek rule. Why? Because we love freedom. We love independence. We love Self-rule (Swa-Tantra = Self-system). But what does this self-rule and freedom mean?

Does freedom merely means liberation from the political supremacy of certain individual? Does an independent and free individual mean one who can do whatever he feels like doing? Does an individual not need to accept the rules, prohibitions, bondages and responsibilities of society? Does society not need to accept the rules, bondages and responsibilities of Rashtra? Why then an individual bound by society and society bound by Rashtra, feel the freedom and independence? What is the understanding of "Self" which runs common in individual, society and Rashtra? What is that system which gives individual, society and Rashtra a feeling of freedom in spite of the bondage?

Who created that system which we all accept to get bound by willingly? What does this "freedom give that individual sacrifice their lives for its attainment? What is that system, that rule that we refer to as "Self-Rule"? Why do we preferred to live in this "Self-Rule" and rejected the "Foreign-Rule" of the invaders? What is the difference between this "Self" and "Foreign/Non-self"? Why did we not accept that System of invading greeks?

Because, we uphold that system which was created by our thinkers, philosophers and wise-men. Because we have faith in those values of life which were discovered and expounded by our ancestors. That system which was designed for benefitting individual and society was handed over to us as heritage by our fore-fathers. That set of values and world-views which were expounded by our sages in the light of eternal truth and knowledge, is our Self-System and Self-Rule. We have been ascertaining our socio-economic-political system in the light of those values. The value-system expounded and modified by our ancesters can alone be the bed-rock of our personal, social and Rashtriya life. Hence we vouch for Freedom and Self-rule.

But are those set of core values different for different city-states and provinces? Is that set, that system different for Malav (Multan), Kshudrak (northern Sindh)? Is it different for Kekay (northern Punjab), Panchal (Souther Punjab, Haryana and western UP) and rest of India? Is that set of core values and world-views be different for different cities and provinces?

However, we are not able to see the seed which is present within everybody of us. We are not able to see the river of Sanskriti which is flowing through the hearts and minds of every individual and province, thus gloriously manifesting itself, if only we care to witness. Provinces and individuals are the branches and leaves of same giant tree which is manifesting the essence of the one seed in this grand and diverse image. We are unable to see our roots and negating the inherent unity present in us solely based on apparent external differences. We are not able to see the unity in diversity of our Rashtra; or we are willingly neglecting it to assuage our personal and political vested interests.

I understand and agree the existence of major differences between political frame-work and local cultures of different provinces. However, political system is not Sanskriti. Politics and local traditions are complementary to the inherent Sanskriti, but can never supplant the Sanskriti totally and present themselves as an option to Sanskriti.The current of Sanskriti goads individual, society and Rashtra on the path of enlightenment and progress, and this is the aim of polity as well. Why are then we conflicting with each other in the name of system? Perhaps because that individual is not able to see his reflection in society and Rashtra. Or perhaps because of his vested selfish interests. This very lack of integration has resulted in our capitualting our freedom, our honour and dignity in front of invaders.

It should be noted that the invaders did not distinguish between us based on our subtle differences in political frameworks and local traditions and culture. They identified all of us as Indians and treated everybody of us who came in their way with equal brutality and suppression. It was the misfortune of ths land that all the kingdoms and states did not put forth an united front against invading macedonian army. Had we done so, would it be possible for them to invade India and cross Sindhu River? But Kath, Malav, Kshudrak, Madrak, Kekay were unable to grasp this common-sense that Taxila is door to thier kingdoms as well.

The boundaries of our Rashtra lie as far as the expanse of our Sanskriti. This entire land from Himalayas to Indian ocean is our own Rashtra, is the seat of our own Sanskriti. It is nobody's but our duty to protect the sovereignty of this land. If we do not unite now, invasions will be recurring and the history will be repititive. What is required primarily is to unite politically under one umbrella, thus facilitating the rise and revival of this glorious Rashtra."

-------------------

Comments
This speech was shown in Doordarshan television serial "Chanakya" broadcasted in early 1990's which was the bio-epic of one of the greatest thinkers, politician and statesman ever produced by India, Vishnugupt Chanakya. Chandragupta Maurya, the first emperor of Maurya dynasty was his desciple in Taxila University from 340 BC to 325 BC. Chanakya and Chandragupt Maurya were instrumental in overthrowing the Macedonian occupation of North-west Frontier province of India after the conquest of Alexander(comprising modern Afghanistan as well) and then supplanting the unjust emperor Dhanananda of Nanda Dynasty of Magadh (modern day Bihar) and India.

Although there is no historic evidence that this speech were actually the words of Chandragupt, the actions of Chandragupt and Chanakya after the consolidation of Magadh were on similar lines. They were the first dynasty in Late period of ancient Indian history which thought of and succeded in politically unifying entire Indian subcontinent for 150 years. This is said to be the first golden age of India in late period of ancient history.

Tremendous thought process is involved on the behalf of Dr. Chandraprakash Dwivedi who wrote, directed, produced and acted in this epic TV serial as title role of Chanakya. This TV series has emerged as a classic, the credit goes to this marvelously knowledgeable individual. I have feebly tried to translate this awesome speech for the readers of my blog. Pardon me for any insufficiencies. The importance of this speech is that it explains the subtle fact that the Sanskriti based unity has been prevalent in India since ancient times and this unity has manifested itself time and again thoughout the annals of history. Those who negate the existence of this unity and hold that India came into existence after British occupation, this speech is one of the firm answers given to their rebuttal.

I quote my statement again which I made few posts ago - India is not merely a nation-state. It is an eternally existent and coherent phenomenon, an idea, which values the set of Dharma-based meme-complex as its core Sanskriti. This speech was extremely instrumental in increasing my understanding of this complex phenomenon called India.

For Non-Indian readers of blog - The terms "Sanskriti" and "Rashtra" vaguely translate to Civilization and Nation. But these two words do not convey everything which is conveyed by Sanskriti and Rashtra and the essence is lost in translation. If France and Germany are nations, then Europe is something similar to Rashtra. India is a Rashtra on vaguely similar lines, although not accurately. In spite of all the linguistic and cultural differences, all the nation-states of Europe in essence are part of same Rashtra and follow same Sanskriti which is set of values at the core of any civilization.

Friday, August 07, 2009

नीड़ का निर्माण फिर फिर - Need ka Nirman fir fir

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

नीड़ का निर्माण फिर फिर, नेह का आह्वान फिर फिर

यह उठी आंधी की नभ में छा गया सहसा अँधेरा
धुलिधुसर बादलों ने धरती को इस भाँती घेरा
रात सा दिन हो गया फिर रात आई और काली
लग रहा था अब न होगा इस निशा का फिर सवेरा
रात के उत्पात-भय से भीत जन जन भीत कण कण
किन्तु प्राची से उषा की मोहिनी मुस्कान फिर फिर
नीड़ का निर्माण फिर फिर .....

क्रुद्ध नभ के वज्रदंतो में उषा है मुस्कुराती
घोर-गर्जनमय गगन ने कंठ में खग-पंक्ति गाती
एक चिडिया चोंच में तिनका लिए जो जा रही हैं
वह सहज में ही पवन उनचास को नीचा दिखाती
नाश के भय से कभी दबता नहीं निर्माण का सुख
प्रलय की निस्तब्धता में सृष्टि का नवगान फिर फिर
नीड़ का निर्माण फिर फिर....

कवी - हरिवंशराय बच्चन

One of my favorite poems cherishing eternal optimism and a spirit of never-say-die... Awesome and extremely rhythmic composition.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Economy of India under Mughal Empire

Creative Commons License

The Deccan conquest of Auranzeb can be considered as one of the longest and largest conquest in the history of mankind. About one and half million men and almost equal number of beasts toiling away far from their homes for 27 years just for the political ambition of one emperor, seems to be too huge to be true. Yet, truth is stranger than fiction and for 27 years, Mughal army ravaged Deccan and emerged defeated in the end. Their prime aim, which was to subdue Marathas, proved to be futile. Marathas were already conquering central India, when Mughals were busy conquering Deccan. Within eight years of Aurangzeb's death, Marathas entered Delhi as part of allied forces and within 30 years of his death, they had conquered Delhi on their own and ruling almost everything from Punjab to Tamil-Nadu and Sindh to Bengal. However, Maratha consolidation did not last long enough for rejuvenation of India. The strength which was sapped during the tenuous deccan conquest of Aurangzeb was never regained till date. The long-lasting geopolitical effects of this pyrrhic victory of Mughals are experienced even today as impediments in way of India's rise.

The ratio of Combatant to non-combatant was 1:3 in army in the camp of Aurangjeb in 1689. One army was deployed under Zulfikar Khan. One in Gujarat. One under Aurangjeb himself. One in Karnataka to finish off the remnants of Adilshahi and other army in Andhra Pradesh to finish the remnants of kutubshahi. In all, at least 5 armies like this (may be not as strong as this) were deployed in Deccan. If we assume other armies to be half the size of army you just described, that makes about 1.3 million people in total were deployed.

How was the logistics of such huge army managed? Deccan is not productive in terms of food grains as compared to northern plains of Ganga and Punjab. There is a limit for plundering as plundering of food grains can happen at the most once in one season. And every year, the yield of plunder will go on decreasing because farmers won't or can't cultivate their land in subsequent years.

Aurangjeb transport all the food supplies from North India for most of the years. The traders involved in these transactions must have made enormous profits in this adventure of Deccan. Furthermore, the fodder for animals, their replacements, diseases. Mughals in particular were very protective about their central asian horses. I have read that Babur used to send his wounded horses to Afghanistan because he believed the air in central asia was superior to poisonous air of India which was unhealthy for horses. Enormous project when seen from management point of view.

And Aurangjeb could fund this venture for 27 years at a stretch?? Just imagine the size of Indian economy to sustain such a campaign for so long. If USA stays in Afghanistan or Iraq for 27 years at a stretch with their full might, I wonder how fucked up their economy will be? Perhaps worst than Somalia.

Dr. John Fansis Jameli Kareri ( Italian person) who in 1689, was with Aurangjeb after Sambhaji exicution and witnessed mughal chhavani at village Galgali. Hence can be considered as eye witness for the strength of mughal army/aurangjeb's chhavani during the exicution of Sambhaji. He says :

At chhavani Badshah army has 60,000 horsemens and 1,00,000 infantry with 50000 camels, 3000 elephants. Also has other peoples including servents, businessmens, artist totalling 5 lakhs of mans. There are total 250 markets in chhavani and chhavani itself covering area about 30 (Sq ?) miles. To transport chhavani material 100-125 elephants and 400 bullock carts were required.

Other than above, mughal army which was spreded over rest of the area, may not (or shall i say must not) have covered in above.) for e.g. Zulphikarkhan alongwith his 30-40000 infantry was busy with raigad and then jinji fort. ( 1690-92)

Indian economy in 17th and 18th century

The total GDP of world in 1700 was about $370 Billion. The GDP of Mughal Empire in 1690s was $ 91 Billion dollars. And this was decline of Indian Economy. Due to Aurangjeb's Deccan invasion, Economy of India climbed down to number two position to be tied with that of China. China eventually overtook India by 1829. Till 1680, India most probably was the biggest economy in the world, based on actual production as well as Purchasing power parity.

Ref - Paths to the future for science and technology in China, India and the United States - J. Thomas Ratchford; William A. Blanpieda; Technology in Society Volume 30, Issues 3-4, August-November 2008, Pages 211-233.

I wonder how big might Indian economy have been in 1500's. Stable Mughal rule in North; Stable Bahmani rule in centre and prosperous Vijaynagar empire in South. In 1700's, when Indian economy began its gradual decline, the market share of India was about 25%. Its a pity that there not many figures available about Vijaynagar. At least I don't know about it. If anybody has any information, please contribute. The economy of Portugal rose and fell with rise and fall of Vijaynagar Empire.

Thing to remember is this figure is after 20 years of fucked up Deccan occupation. In 1670, the economy might have been at zenith. It was the basis of Indian economy in 1650's that Aurangjeb might could sustain this war for 27 years. If after 20 years of mess, what was left was $90 billion, what might have been the figure when he actually decided to start?

Lets assume that GDP in 1670 was about $300-350 Billion (including the GDP's of Mughals, Adilshahi, Kutubshahi, Marathas, Ahoms and Southern Rayas). Assuming that given the extent of Mughal empire, they comprised about 70% of total Indian economy, that makes it about $200-250 Billion. Of course, almost 80% of total GDP of Mughals was used by the Elite. So, its not the case that common man was happy in Mughal rule.

The figures of revenue of Mughal empire are as follows in 1690 and 1700 AD, when Mughal empire was at its height of political expanse-

YEAR........: 31-35th year of corronation
AREA...... : BENGAL
SOURCE..: ZAVABIT-E-ALAMGIRI
FIGURE....: 524636240 DAM = Rs 13,115,906 = Rs 13.1 million

YEAR........: 41th year of corronation
AREA...... : BENGAL
SOURCE..: KHULASAT UL SIYAK
FIGURE....: 172841000 DAM = Rs 4,321.025 = Rs 4.3 million

Loss = Rs 8,794,991 = Rs 8.7 Million
% loss = 67%

YEAR........: 31-35th year of corronation
AREA...... : ORISSA
SOURCE..: ZAVABIT-E-ALAMGIRI
FIGURE....: not given

YEAR........: 41th year of corronation
AREA...... : ORISSA
SOURCE..: KHULASAT UL SIYAK
FIGURE....: 172841000 DAM = Rs. 4,321,025 = Rs 4.3 million

Assuming 67% loss for Orissa as well, the income of Orissa in 1690 comes up to be - 13.1 million rupees

YEAR........: 31-35th year of corronation
AREA...... : BIHAR
SOURCE..: DASTUR-UL-AMAL-E-ALAMGIRI
FIGURE....: 545300935 DAM
SOURCE..: ZAVABIT-E-ALAMGIRI
FIGURE...: 427181000 = Rs 10,679,525 = Rs 10.6 million

YEAR........: 41th year of corronation
AREA...... : BIHAR
SOURCE..: KHULASAT UL SIYAK
FIGURE....: 394344532 DAM = Rs 9,858,613 = Rs 9.8 million

Loss incurred - Rs 820,912
% Loss - 7%

YEAR........: 31-35th year of corronation
AREA...... : AWADH
SOURCE..: ZAVABIT-E-ALAMGIRI
FIGURE....: 321317119 DAM = Rs 8,032,928 = Rs 8 million

YEAR........: 41th year of corronation
AREA...... : AWADH
SOURCE..: KHULASAT UL SIYAK
FIGURE....: 479579619 DAM = Rs 11,989,490 = Rs 11.9 million

Total Profit - Rs 3,956,562 = Rs 3.9 million
% profit - 49%

YEAR........: 31-35th year of corronation
AREA...... : ALAHABAD
SOURCE..: ZAVABIT-E-ALAMGIRI
FIGURE....: 456543278 DAM = Rs 11,413.581 = Rs 11.4 million

YEAR........: 41th year of corronation
AREA...... : ALAHABAD
SOURCE..: KHULASAT UL SIYAK
FIGURE....: 422336622 DAM = Rs 10,558,415 = Rs 10.5 Million

Loss - Rs 855,166
% Loss - 7%

YEAR........: 31-35th year of corronation
AREA...... : DELHI
SOURCE..: ZAVABIT-E-ALAMGIRI
FIGURE....: 1222950137 DAM = Rs 30,573,753 = Rs 30.57 million

YEAR........: 41th year of corronation
AREA...... : DELHI
SOURCE..: KHULASAT UL SIYAK
FIGURE....: 1221950117 DAM = Rs 30,548,752 = Rs 30.54 Million

Loss - Rs 25,001
% Loss - 0.008%

YEAR........: 31-35th year of corronation
AREA...... : AGRA
SOURCE..: ZAVABIT-E-ALAMGIRI
FIGURE....: 1141700157 DAM = Rs 28,542,503 = Rs 28.5 Lakh

YEAR........: 41th year of corronation
AREA...... : AGRA
SOURCE..: KHULASAT UL SIYAK
FIGURE....: not given = Rs 28,542,503 = Rs 28.5 million

Total revenue in 1690 AD - Rs 115,474,102 = Rs 115 Million (of Given territories)
Total Revenue in 1700 AD = Rs 100,139,823 = Rs 100 Million (of Given Territories)
Decline = Rs 15,334,279 = Rs 15 Million
% Decline = 13% in 10 years in given provinces. These figueres are not for rest of India, where mughal army was unleashing hell.

Furthermore, revenue of given provinces in 1700 was Rs 100 million. If we assume another Rs 75-80 million as total revenue of rest of provinces of India which were war-torn, the total revenue of Mughal empire in 1700 might have been around Rs 180 million.

For sake of simplicity, lets assume Rs 200 million. According to paper cited earlier, GDP of Mughal empire in 1700 was $ 90 billion = Rs 200 million.

Rs. 1 = $500

From Wiki article - Annual revenue reported by the Emperor Aurangzeb's exchequer exceeded £100 million in 1700 (twice that of Europe then). Thus, India emerged as the world's largest economy, followed by Manchu China and Western Europe.

The total treasury of Aurangjeb, according to this source was 100 million Pounds.

1 pound sterling = Rs 2 (in 1700AD)

two decades before 1700; mughal economy of given provinces = 115 million rupees.
Rest of india, excluding these provinces which were quite stable and economical productive before Aurangjeb chose to invade Deccan = Rs 150 million more (at least)

Total = Rs 265 million. for simplicity, Rs 300 million.
( Source for info : Moghal kalin Mahasul Paddhati)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reason of all this data-mining to see the effect of Aurangzeb and his religious fanaticism and zealot character had on socio-politics, economics and geostrategical standing of India and world in years to come.

a. He squandered off india's wealth and military power over futile effort. Before his Deccan conquest, India was undoubtedly largest economy of world.. The setback of his Deccan conquest resulted in weakening of central authority of India in India and Central Asia and following things happened.

b. Marathas and later British took over India. Marathas lacked the vision of British, hence could not last long. British facilitated the outflow of money from India to Europe, thus facilitating their industrial revolution. India's GDP and trade decreased drastically in Aurangzeb's reign and steadily after his death.

c. Afghanistan grew weak and the influence of India over Central Asia declined. Russia and Britain started the competition for control over Central asia, which was previously under Indian influence. This is known as "the Great Game" and is still continuing today in Afghanistan. Aurangzeb's policies had this far reaching effect.

d. Military power and technological advances stopped as India slipped into period of instability.

e. The social cohesiveness declined owing to Aurangzeb's religious fanaticism.

f. Along with Sirhindi, Aurangzeb stalled the process of integration of Muslims in Indian society. Dara Shikoh was on the way of finding the golden way of Indianization of Islam. Aurangzeb irreversibly stalled that process.. This alienated Muslims from Hindus as their quest of separate identity was fuelled by Aurangzeb's fanaticism. Without Aurangzeb, there would never have been Paritition of India, demolition of countless temples, massacre of thousands in name of religion and hence persistent sense of mistrust between Indics and Muslims.



** Special Thanks to Mr. Kiran Kharde, who provided the data of Mughal revenues.

Friday, July 31, 2009

The Addiction of Power and Treachery...

Creative Commons License

This chain of thoughts started while participating in an online discussion on Indian history on topic pertaining to Prithviraja Chauhan and Jayachandra of Kannauj. I am presenting the gist of that chain here..

The Story of Prithviraj and Jaychandra

The invasion of Muhammad Ghuri on India in 1192 AD and defeat of Prithviraja Chauhan in second battle of Tarain resulted in fall of Delhi and Islamic occupation of Delhi and North India for next 5 centuries. This particular incidence has become a legend in Indian folklore and given the propensity of Hindus of remembering their defeats more vividly than their victories, the melodrama of this incidence has increased million-fold.

Prithviraja Chauhan was a Rajput ruler of Delhi and Jayachandra was ruler of Kannauj. Jayachandra was ally of Prithviraja's kingdom since the days of his father. Jayachandra had a beautiful daughter called "Sanyukta". Beautiful woman with rather beautiful name... Sanyukta means a lady with all the desirable characteristics (Physical, mental and spiritual). Anyways, Sanyukta (in some places, she is referred to as Sanyogita) was beautiful lady and loved Prithviraja. The king too was young and unmarried and loved the princess. Her father, Jayachandra, intended to marry his daughter to some other kings of India. However, Sanyukta eloped with Prithviraja and married him. Jayachandra felt insulted by this dishonour and swore revenge against Prithviraja. He invited Muslim king of Ghurid empire in northern Afghanistan to invade Delhi. Prithviraja defeated Ghori in first battle of Tarain and pardoned him. Ghori defeated Prithviraja in second battle of Tarain and beheaded him and established the first Islamic dynasty in India. Since this incidence the name of Jayachandra is eternally associated with treason.

Whether or not this story about Jayachandra inviting Ghori is true is debatable. This version is narrated in a ballad known as "Prithviraj Raso" composed by a bard called Chand Bardai. Although debated by historians for its accuracy, this version of the story is very popular amongst common men since its composition. Other historical evidences suggest to disprove this version of the story. The value of this narrative and its tremendous impact on social life of Indians, however makes it difficult to ignore. In spite of opposing historical evidences, Jayachandra continues to be invoked by layman upon any instance of treason, be it personal or national.

Categorisation of political treason

When speaking in historical context, treachery/betrayal/treason amounts to political backstabbing. Now, in his space and time, Jaichandra was simply following Chanakya's principle that enemy's enemy is one's friend. For some reason, however trivial it may be, after his daughter eloped with Prithviraja, Jayachandra was practically an enemy of Prithviraja.

Transcending the barriers of space-time, it is seen that this act of Jaichandra proved to be disastrous for entire Indic civilization. Jayachandra failed to understand Islam and the costs associated with inviting a dangerous foreign entity to settle trivial internal disputes.

However, in Jayachandra's defence, one can say that the concept of religion was alien to Bhaarat then. Jayachandra could have assumed that all this will remain strictly business and nothing personal and religious. However, it can be argued that, Mehmood of Gazni had invaded Bhaarat 180 years ago. Jayachandra should have remembered what Mahmood did with Somnath. And he should have remembered how his ancestors forged an alliance of 17 Rajput kings and massacred Masood Gazni and his army of 150,000 men in 1033 at Battle of Bahraich. As a king he should have remembered the history of his own kin.

This led to categorizing the interactions of small kings with respect to central dominant power of the region.

1. if small king asks for help of some dominant power to defeat another small king, it can't be called as treachery of King A towards King B. If the big power happens to be indigenous and/or considers itself as indigenous, then it is not at all a treachery. In fact, political unification helps the stabilization of civilization if the central power is just and considers itself indigenous.

2. Inviting a dominant foreign power to defeat another small king is treachery of King A towards entire nation/civilization.

3. Inviting a dominant foreign power to defeat indigenous dominant central power is a treachery towards central power and nation/civilization as well.

Jaichandra's behaviour falls in category 2. This is because, history is not just facts. The way ordinary people choose to remember their own past is also very important facet of history, which marxist historians choose to ignore.

In his space-time, Jayachandra was, according to him and circumstancial evidence, in category 1 and not a traitor. However, looking beyond space-time barrier, it seems that Jayachandra was myopic, foolish, and unintentionally treacherous towards Bhaarat and not towards Prithviraja.

The Power-Treason relation

Treachery in itself is not good or bad.. Good and bad are the consequences of the deed. Treachery by Pushyamitra Sunga against Brihadratha Maurya saved India from Menander. Treachery of Mir Jafar against Siraj ruined India. Furthermore, the words like treachery are extremely relative. One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter. So it becomes extremely dicey to be judgmental while viewing a larger picture of events without being hindered by space and time constraints.

In this process of free-thought, just remembered one quote from Movie - The Matrix reloaded.. The character of Oracle states,
" What do all men-of-power want? more power.... "
There is nothing wrong in wanting more power and those who have desire and strength and luck, they claim the power. Another thing about power is that, it has to be acquired and earned. The power cannot be bequeathed or inherited. Men-of-power understand this intricate relationship and are prepared to make sacrifices, to different degrees, while in the process of earning power. And the process of acquiring power invariably comprises of overthrowing the incumbent power by all possible means. Some times, this amounts to treachery if the supplanting king does not show the acumen of understanding the complex equilibrium of vested interests between polity and common people.

Afterall, if traitor is successful, he writes the history according to his world-view in which he was the liberator and his former master was oppressor or worthless. This same rule applies to individual politics in any corporate establishment and also to nations and nation-blocks competing with each other and withing themselves for more power.

Nothing is more addictive than power, not even drugs. Because a drug addict is viled by society and this public denigration pursuades him about his fallacy. A successful power-addict is widely praised by the society and actively encouraged to seek and desire more power. He does not have to justify his actions and deeds performed while acquiring the power; the society does it for him most of the times. Memetically, power-addiction is one of the successful traits scene in almost all higher animals and most prominently in humans. The survivability of this trait is exceptionally high, thus making it virtually impossible to be eradicated from human psyche.

The definition of power differs a lot from person to person and time. For some, control is power, for few others liberation is power. For some, fame, money is power. Whether or not he choice of power-usurption is branded as treachery or hailed as liberation by people depends immensely on timing of the execution and impact it has on environment. Without the support of rest of people (related or unrelated), the usurption of power cannot be legitimized and risks of being branded as treachery. Overall, it seems to be a complex equilibrium of vested interests. If somehow the equilibrium and subtleness of vested interests is understood, it can sometimes be shifted such that at least the immideiate surrounding recognizes the person as liberator and not as a traitor.

Long ago, I wrote an article on power and bliss. It began with two famous sayings which are widely quoted independently. I always quote them together...

"Ignorance is Bliss and Knowledge is Power"
And then comes the famous quotation from the movie The Matrix -
"The problem is Choice !!!"