A Word from Antiquity

John Platt’s Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi and English identifies Piracha as the Hindi variant of the Sanskrit adjective Prachya, meaning “eastern, a person living in the east, the eastern country, the country which lies south or east of the river Sarasvati.”[1] Dr. H.C. Ray Chaudhri, Professor of Ancient History and Culture, Calcutta University, writes in An Advanced History of India: “In ancient Sanskrit literature, there was a five fold division of India – in the centre of the Indo-Gangetic plain was the Madhyadesa (The Middle Country), to the North of Madhyadesa lay Uttrapatha (North-West India), to its West Aparanta or Pratichya (Western India) and to its East Purva Desa or Prachya, the Prasii of Alexander’s historians.”[2] He reiterates later in the same book that “the Prachya were doubtless the Prasii of Greek literature i.e. the people of Magadha and neighbouring provinces.”[3] The Cambridge History of India confirms this statement by clarifying that the Prasii of Greek historians are the Prachya of Sanskrit literature and also mentions some more Greek and Latin transcriptions of this word.[4]

Professor J.W.M’Crindle, late Principal of Government College Patna and Fellow of The Calcutta University, in his famous book, The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great published in 1892, writes that the Sanskrit word Prachya “denoted the inhabitants of the east country, that is, the country which lay to the east of river Sarasvati, now the Sarsooty, which flows in a south-western direction form the mountains bounding the north-east part of the Province of Delhi, till it looses itself in the sands of the great desert. The Magadhas, it would seem had before Alexander’s advent to India, extended their power as far as this river….”[5] He also gives a number of Greek transcripts of the word Prachya used by Greek historians. According to him, they were called Prasioi by Arrian, Prassii by Pliny, Praisai by Plutarch, Bresioi by Diodors, Pharrasii by Curtius, Praeside by Justin, and Prasiake by Ptolemy. Every Greek historian who has written about the Macedonian Invasion of the Indus valley in the fourth century BC has praised the military and economic power of the Prachya of Magadha.

The word Prachya, much like the word Punjabi, denotes a person living in an area, irrespective of his tribal affinity. A Punjabi can be a Rajput, a Jat, a Gujjar, a Lodhi, a Mughal or an Arab. Similarly, a Prachya was a person who belonged to the country east of the river Sarasvati irrespective of his tribal affiliation – whether Puru, Yadu, Nanda or Gupta. Prachya was not the name of a tribe, but an adjective used for all the tribes living in Magadha and surrounding areas. Except for Magadha, no other area has been described as Prachya in Sanskrit, Pali or Hindi literature.

Prachya rose to prominence before the advent of Christianity and Islam and after the destruction of the Persian Empire by the Greeks. This word is not found in any Arabic or Persian dictionary. It has no Arabic or Persian nexus. Ancient, medieval and modern authorities on Indian antiquity have, invariably, regarded Prachya as an Indo-Aryan people of ancient Magadha – the modern districts of Patna and Gaya in Bihar. According to Platt, the word Piracha is the Hindi version of Prachya. British administrators charged with the responsibility of compiling the census reports while describing the Punjab tribes have collected the hearsay narrated by the Prachyas who were oblivious of their ancient origin. The subsequent generations have confused these imaginative stories with history. This study is aimed at clearing this confusion to determine the true meaning and historical significance of the term Prachya.

Table of Contents
Chapter 2
Magadha

Buddhist books mention sixteen kingdoms in Northern India in sixth century BC. By the close of that century, however, the following four of these countries had annexed their weaker neighbours and emerged as contenders for supremacy in the Ganges Valley:

1. Avanti (Ujjain)
2. Kosala (Lucknow)
3. Magadha (South Bihar)
4. Vatsa and Chedi (The Union of Allahbad and Cawnpur)

Out of these, Magadha gradually rose to be the paramount power and triumphed over its rivals during the fifth and fourth centuries BC.[6]

Magadha is first mentioned, under this name, in the Athervaveda. Its rulers claimed descent from Vasu Chaediya, the Puru conqueror of Magadha.[7] Vasu was in the tenth generation from Manu, the first king of the Vedic Age. One of his descendents had defeated Krishna of the Mahabharta fame and forced him to migrate to Davarka on the west coast. The ruling elite of Magadha, thus, traced their pedigree to Manu through his son Puru, and constituted Chanderbansi Branch of the Vedic Rajputs.

Magadhan monarchy provides a long list of its rulers from 600 BC to 1200 AD, an unbroken record of organised government for eighteen centuries. A passage in Aitareya Brahmana reads: “In this eastern quarter (prachyam desi) whatever kings there are of the eastern peoples, they are anointed for imperial rule (samrajya). ‘Oh emperor, they style him’, when anointed.[8] Elphinstone tells us that Sahadeva the King of Magadha, at the time of the war of Mahabharata, headed a number of chiefs and tribes of Bengal and Bihar.[9] Cambridge History of India supports this view in these words: “The beginning of this suzerainty appears already in the Buddhist books, and the dynasty ruling in Pataliputra, which city was founded by Udayin, grandson of Buddha’s contemporary Ajatashatru, is recognised in Brahman literature as representative of Indian sovereignty.”[10] When Bakhtiar Khilji conquered Magadha in 1202 AD it had been the most famous kingdom of India. It had before its fall, established two great empires – the Mauriyan Empire in fourth and third centuries BC, and the Gupta Empire in fourth and fifth centuries AD.[11] For a glimpse of the achievements of the Prachya of ancient Magadha, the reader can study Annexure ‘A’ before proceeding further.

The credit for Magadhan rise to power goes to King Bimbisara who is considered to be the founder of the imperial power of Magadha. His son, Ajatashatru (491‑450 BC), extended his empire with great ability and foresight. The successors of Ajatashatru were nonentities and power changed hands within the ruling families of Magadha till it was finally seized by the most unscrupulous of the lot – the House of Nandas. The founder of this family was, according to Brahman accounts, a military genius, who rose from a humble position, won the favours of the queen, assassinated the king and captured the throne. Brahman writers have called him Mahapadma Nanda. Mahapadma, in Sanskrit, means ‘one with the greatest army’. He has also been described as the sole monarch. He annexed a number of smaller kingdoms during his reign. His successors were vigorous rulers and, under the Nandas, Magadha became a mighty empire extending from the Bay of Bengal in the east to the Sutlej River in the west.[12]

Table of Contents
Chapter 3
Ancient Punjab

If we compare the military strength of Magadha with the major war‑like states in the Punjab during the fourth Century BC, we find that the Purus of Jhelum had only 4,000 cavalry, 30,000 infantry, 300 chariots, and 200 elephants; Jhang, in the Rachna Doab, had 40,000 infantry, and 3,000 cavalry; the rulers of Bahawalpur‑Multan area had 90,000 foot, 10,000 horses and 900 chariots; lower Chenab tribes had 60,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 500 chariots.[13]

Whereas the armed might of the Punjab was thus divided, the Prachya of Magadha had consolidated the resources of the Gangetic Valley under one powerful king, and, as we shall see later, created history. This was one of the reasons why Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to Magadha, during the reign of Chandragupta, considered the Prasii (The Prachya) of Magadha the most distinguished nation of ancient India.[14]

The total strength of the Armed Forces of the Punjab, as compared to Magadha, on the eve of Alexander’s invasion, was:[15]

ARMS	PUNJAB	MAGADHA
Infantry	220,000	200,000
Cavalry	23,000	20,000
Chariots	1,700	2,000
Elephants	200	3,000

Let us pause for a moment and think of the consequences if the ruler of Taxila, instead of helping Alexander to cross the Indus unopposed, had joined forces with the Purus and the other Rajputs of the Indus Valley, under the dauntless leadership of the invincible king of the Purus of Jhelum, and faced the Macedonians on the Indus. The Greeks had already destroyed the Persian Empire; there was hardly anything to stop Punjab from changing the course of history. According to an antiquarian of renown:[16]

“It was early in the year 326 BC that Alexander, fresh from the conquest of the fierce tribes of northern Afghanistan, led his army into the plains of India by a bridge of boats, with which he had spanned the Indus below its junction with the river Kabul. He remained in the country not more than twenty months all told, yet in that brief space he reduced the Punjab as far as the Sutlej, and the whole of the spacious valley of the lower Indus, downwards to the ocean itself….”

“The rapidity with which he achieved his actual conquests in the country appears all the more surprising when we take into account that at every stage of his advance he encountered a most determined resistance. The people were not only of a most martial temperament, but were at the same time inured to arms; and had they but been united and led by such a capable commander as Poros, the Macedonian Army was doomed to utter destruction. Alexander, with all his matchless strategy, could not have averted such a catastrophe; for what is the record of his Indian campaigns? We find that the toughest of all his battles was that which he fought on the banks of the Hydaspes (Jhelum) against Poros; that he had hot work in overcoming the resistance of the Kathaians before the walls of Sangala; that he was wounded near to death in his assault upon the Mallian stronghold…. It may hence be safely inferred that if Alexander had found Punjab united in arms to withstand his aggression, the star of his good fortune would have culminated with his passage of the Indus.”

Despite their tragic disunity and the frequency of inter-tribal conflicts of the people of Punjab, Greek historians are full of praise for their fighting qualities. In the words of General Chesney “The Greeks were loud in the praises of the Indians; never in all their eight years of constant warfare had they met with such skilled and gallant soldiers, who, moreover, surpassed in stature and bearing all the other races of Asia… the Indian village community flourished even at that distant period, and in the brave and manly race which fought so stoutly under Porus twenty two centuries ago we may recognize all the fine qualities of the Punjabi agrarian people of the present day….”[17] M’Crindle commenting on this battle observes: “…the courage and skill with which the Indian king contended against the greatest soldier of antiquity, if not of all time, are worthy of the highest admiration, and present a striking contrast to the incompetent generalship and pusillanimity of Darius.”[18]

Table of Contents
Chapter 4
The Macedonians

By the time Alexander had reached the Beyas River, he had conquered all the tribes of the upper Indus Valley. News of Prachya riches had whetted his ambitions, but the strength of their armed forces and the morale of the Macedonian Army were weighing on his mind. Plutarch records the situation thus, “The battle with Poros depressed the spirit of the Macedonians, and made them very reluctant to advance further into India.[19] Arrian tells us in his Anabsis: “… the Macedonians had begun to lose heart when they saw the king raising up, without end, toils upon toils, and dangers upon dangers. The army, therefore, began to hold conferences at which the more moderate men bewailed their condition, while others positively asserted that they will follow no farther, though Alexander himself lead the way. When this came to Alexander’s knowledge, he assembled the officers in command of brigades to address them before the disorder and despondency could completely demoralise his soldiers.” Both Arrian and Curtius have reported this address in detail. Arrian directly reports from Ptolemy who was present when Alexander delivered his address and has recorded it in his memoirs. Relevant extracts from him follow:

“On seeing that you 0’Macedonians and allies! no longer follow me into dangers with your wonted alacrity, I have summoned you to this assembly that I may persuade you to go further, or be persuaded by you to turn back …. Are you afraid there are barbarians who may yet successfully resist you, although of those you have already met some have willingly submitted, others have been captured in flight, while others have left us their deserted country to be distributed either to our allies or to those who have voluntarily submitted to us.”

“For my part, I think that to a man of spirit there is no other aim and end of his labours except the labours themselves, provided they be such as lead him to the performance of glorious deeds …. But, persevere O’ Macedonians and Allies! Glory crowns the deeds of those who expose themselves to toils and dangers. Life signalised by deeds of valour, is delightful and so is death, if we leave behind us an immortal name ……….our labours are in common; I, equally with you, share in the dangers and the rewards become the public property. For the land is yours, and you are its satraps; and among you the greater part of its treasures has already been distributed. And when all Asia is subdued then, by heaven, I will not merely satisfy, but exceed every man’s hopes and wishes….”[20]

There was a long silence after Alexander had finished his eloquent address. No one dare oppose this peerless king of Macedonia, yet none wanted to follow him any farther. The hazards of facing Prachya army five times larger than the army of Poros, positioned across a bigger obstacle, in a very humid climate and an unfriendly terrain, looked an impossible task to his officers and men. According to historian Quintus Curtius Rufus: “the officers, however paralysed with terror, kept their eyes steadfastly fixed on the ground and remained silent. Then there arose, no one knew how, first a sighing and then a sobbing, until, little by little, the grief began to vent itself more freely in streaming tears, so that even the king, whose anger had been turned into pity, could not himself refrain from tears, anxious though he was to suppress them.”[21] But, his appeal failed to persuade his officers and men to risk an attack on the Prachya Army. It is distressing to note that Brahman historians are silent about the whole affair because Magadha played host to Mahavira and Buddha who launched dissident movements opposing Brahman apartheid and the manipulation of Vedas for Brahman glorification.

According to Plutarch: “Alexander at first in vexation and rage withdrew to his tent, and shutting himself up lay there feeling no gratitude towards those who had thwarted his purpose of crossing the Ganges; regarding a retreat as tantamount to a confession of defeat. But being swayed by the persuasions of his friends, and the entreaties of his soldiers who stood weeping and lamenting at the door of his tent, he at last relented, and prepared to retreat. He first, however, contrived many unfair devices to exalt his fame among the natives, as, for instance, causing arms for men and stalls and bridles for horses to be made much beyond the usual size, and these he left scattered about. He also erected altars for the gods which the kings of the Praisiai (Prachya) even to the present day hold in veneration, crossing the river to offer sacrifices upon them in the Hellenic fashion.”[22]

At last, completely disillusioned, Alexander decided to return to Greece after committing the country west of Beyas to Poros. The Prachya are known to have defeated the Greek Army of Seleucus later under Chandragupta, so it seems that Alexander was correctly advised by his commanders to abandon his advance beyond Beyas after he had already been badly mauled by the Purus of Jehlum. It is a tragedy of Indian History that the Brahmans avoided to tell the truth whenever it went in favour of a Kashatriya who was opposed to Brahman supremacy in the Indo-Aryan class structure.

Table of Contents
Chapter 5
The Mauriyas

After Alexander’s death in June 323 BC, his generals went to war against each other to usurp his dominions. This provided an excellent opportunity for Poros to reassert himself in the Punjab. As he was preparing to recapture it, Eudemos, the Greek Governor, got him murdered treacherously. Greek invasion had brought untold suffering to the Indus Valley. Punjab was incensed by the murder of Poros. His valiant tribe, the Purus, immediately rose in revolt. All the neighbouring tribes joined them to put an end to Greek tyranny. During this turmoil a young refugee from Magadha, by the name of Chanderagupta distinguished himself as a general and assumed command of the tribal forces. After defeating the Greeks, he marched on to Magadha. The Prachya, who were already fed up with the tyranny and oppression of the Nandas, joined Chandragupta whose contacts in the Maghdan army turned the tables in his favour. The Nandas fell like a house of cards. The fall of the Nandas provided the young rebel a large army and a fabulous treasury to carve out a great empire for himself.[23]

Chandragupta was one of the greatest generals of ancient history. It was because of him that Greek writers were so impressed by the achievements of the Prachya of the fourth century BC. According to Buddhist records, he was a prince of the Mauriyas, a Kashatriya clan, ruling the republic of Pipphalivana in the Himalayas. The fact that they were the recipients of a share of Buddha’s ashes on the Mahatma’s death indicates that, like the rulers of Swat, Mauriya rulers had also supported the cause of Buddhism in the lifetime of the Mahatma. Their republic was famous for the abundance of peacocks (Maur) in the surrounding hills and the tribe was, therefore, known as Mauriyas of Pipphalivana.Chandragupta was an officer in the Magadhan army when he lost faith in the Nandas and escaped to Taxila which was then well known for its schools of learning, its scholars and its flourishing trade and commerce. Here he met a Brahman scholar known as Chankiya Kautalia, who was running a school at Pataliputra but had to escape to his native Taxila to avoid the wrath of the Nandas because of his open criticism of their government.[24]The two dissidents then joined hands to plan the overthrow of the Nandas whenever there was an opportunity.

Coming to Taxila was a great education for the young prince. He met Alexander, the greatest military genius of his time. He watched him crossing the Indus and the Jehlum. These rivers are major obstacles for military operations even today. He observed Greek night marches, and witnessed outflanking manoeuvres of their cavalry. He learnt about rivalries of the Punjab tribes, intrigues in Gandhara, the bravery of their men, the excellence of their Sanskrit grammar and the beauty of their women. He met sophists of Taxila as well as men of letters in the Greek camp, in the company of Chanakya. In due course, he used this knowledge to defeat the Greeks, capture Magadha, liberate Gandhara, annex Afghanistan south of the Hindukush and confine Greek rule to Bactria as a buffer against hungry hordes from central Asia. Chandragupta embraced Jainism towards the end of his reign. Jainism is opposed to caste system, Brahman supremacy, animal sacrifices, and other similar rituals. Consequently, resentful Brahman writers turned against him and tarnished his image after his death. They were also hostile to him because he had married a Greek princess, the daughter of Seleucus, the King of Syria, against the laws of Brahmanism, and encouraged his officers to marry amongst them. So, the only way the Brahmans could avenge themselves was to downgrade his caste and his pedigree in their writings after the fall of the Mauriyas. Truth was hidden under the debris of Brahman disinformation for centuries. It came to light only when Buddhist records of Ceylon were made public by the modern historians. Now the Buddhist view about his early life is generally accepted. An Advanced History of India, published in 1958 with the latest Brahman view, sums up the story of Chandragupta in the following words:

“According to one tradition the designation is derived from Mura, the mother or grandmother of Chandragupta, who was the wife of a Nanda king. Mediaeval epigraphs, on the other hand, represent the Mauriyas as Kshatriyas of the solar race. Buddhist writers of an early date also knew them as members of the Kshatriya caste and referred to them as the ruling clan of the little republic of Pipphalivana, probably lying between Rummindei in the Nepalese Tarai and Kasai in the Gorakhpur district, in the days of Buddha. The cognomen Vrishala used for Chandragupta in the Sanskrit play called the Mudrarakshasa does not invariably mean a man of Sudra extraction. It is also used of Kshatriyas and others who deviated from rules enjoined in Brahman scriptures. That Chandragupta did deviate from Brahman orthodoxy is proved by his matrimonial alliance with Seleucus and the predilection shown for Jainism in his later years.”[25]

Elphinstone identified Chandragupta with Sandracoptus of the Greek historians on the authority of the famous antiquarian Sir William Jones (1746-1794). “… the situation of his kingdom, as described by Megasthenes, who was ambassador at his court, the name of his people, Prasii with the Greeks, corresponding to Prachya, the term applied by Hindu geographers to the tract in which Magadha is situated, and of his capital, which the Greeks call Palibothra while the Hindus call that of Chandragupta Pataliputra.”[26] Chandragupta brought the Prachya from Magadha to Gandhara, and the Kabul Valley about 304 BC, when Seleucus surrendered this area to him. He wanted his own people to take over the government from the Greeks as quickly as possible. The Mauriyas were a small Himalayan tribe and needed experienced administrators from Magadha to run their vast empire. This was a unique opportunity for the Prachya to exercise their administrative talent. The boundaries settled with Seleucus gave Chandragupta the whole of Afghanistan south of the Hindukush. These areas were placed under his viceroy at Taxila, and Seleucus was allowed to retain Bactria as part of the Syrian Empire. Prachya military contingents were moved to the Kabul valley and beyond to man important outposts of the Empire. This was the time when the Prachya contingent first arrived in the valleys of Kabul and Panjsher to occupy an area which was both strategically and commercially important for the Mauriyan Empire.

Buddhism was basically a reform movement launched by a kashatriya prince against Brahman exploitation of the Vedic religion which was originally a simple pantheism in a patriarchal society. According to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, we can discover the glimpses of the Omnipotent Creator, the Ultimate Reality in the hymns of Rigveda.[27] It was during the Later Vedic Period, (1000-600 BC), in the Ganges Valley, that Brahmans introduced new rituals to extract exorbitant fees from their followers for the redemption of their souls from the consequences of their misdeeds. The Brahmans demanded hundreds of heads of cattle, gold and silver to please the gods for the protection of the ruler and his subjects. These ritual sacrifices were a drain on the resources of the commoners as well as the aristocracy. Both Mahavira and the Buddha were princes of royal blood. When the ruler of Swat embraced Buddhism, at the hands of the Buddha during a visit to Magadha, his subjects followed enthusiastically due to the social equality introduced by him. The evidence of their religious devotion can even be seen today after centuries of destruction by the ravages of time. Protests against Brahman corruption were older than Mahavira or Buddha. Jains claim 23 religious revolts before Mahavira.[28]

When Buddha’s teaching, that human beings must be judged by their conduct and not by the incidence of their birth, was adopted as a state policy by Ashoka, he sent out missionaries from Magadha to spread Buddhist teachings amongst neighbouring countries. Ashoka sent his eldest son Kunala to Gandhara, accompanied by members of leading Kashatriya families, to ensure effective dissemination of the new doctrine amongst the rulers. He also founded Buddhism at Khotan in Chinese Turkistan. Ashoka’s second son Mahindra and his daughter Sanghumitra were sent to Sri Lanka.[29]

Ashoka came to power in 273 BC at the age of 21. His reign is well documented in Buddhist, Jain, and Brahman literature. Buddhist accounts preserved in Pali are called the Ceylon tradition, those in Sanskrit, are known as the Nepalese tradition. However, the best records of his reign are provided by his rock and pillar inscriptions engraved under his own direct command. Ashoka, to start with, followed the aggressive policies of his predecessors, and in the thirteenth year of his reign annexed Kalinga (modern Orissa) after a ferocious battle. According to Rock Edict XIII “one hundred and fifty thousand persons were carried away as captives, one hundred thousand were slain”, and “many times that number” [30] died as a result of the war. The conquest of Orissa changed the fate of the Mauriyan Empire. Ashoka was deeply shocked by the ferocious killings and gradually drifted towards Buddhism. His statecraft became subservient to the teachings of Buddha when he adopted a policy of complete non-violence. This was the beginning of the tragedies which eventually destroyed the empire after his death.

In 184 BC, Pushyamitra, the Brahman Commander-in-Chief of the last Mauriyan King, assassinated him and launched the Brahman counter offensive against Buddhism with inhuman ferocity. He figures as the greatest persecutor of Buddhists in their history. During his visit to Sialkot he tried to exterminate the Buddhist community by offering a reward of a hundered pieces of gold for the head of every monk.[31] The Prachya had to face unbridled Brahman oppression during this period. They migrated in large numbers to the Kabul valley and beyond as refugees from Brahman tyranny. The Greeks did not believe in Brahmanism and welcomed Prachya talent as well as wealth. Prachya hatred for Brahmanism dates from this period.

Muslims, who have passed through the genocide launched by the followers of Brahmanism after the liquidation of the British Empire in August 1947 can well imagine what befell the non-violent Buddhists at the hands of the fanatic Brahman. The tyranny in Kashmir after the occupation of the valley by the Indian Army is a reminder of what was going on in Gandhara and Punjab till the Bactrian Greeks came and rescued the Buddhist population from Brahman oppression.

Table of Contents
Chapter 6
Bactrian Greeks

Ashoka’s policy of total abstention from war proved fatal to the interests of the Mauriyan Empire. Chandragupta had raised and maintained a well-trained standing army of 600,000 foot, 30,000 horse, and 9,000 war-elephants, in addition to a formidable number of chariots, the transport corps, and an impressive fleet. According to Greek records the Mauriyan army was particularly strong in its cavalry and its elephant corps.[32] The battles of the Mauriyan armies encompassed the Indus valley, the Gangetic plain, Bengal and southern Afghanistan. Because of Ashoka’s preoccupation with non-violence and piety, the Brahmans gradually assumed control of the army. His weak successors allowed it to decay in luxury and the mighty Mauriyas collapsed in one generation after the death of Ashoka – much like the mighty Mughals who later came to grief in one generation after the demise of Aurangzeb. Both were weakened by internal religious strife – Brahmans versus the Buddhists in one case and Brahmans versus the Muslims in the other – coupled with corruption of the army, the decadence of the clergy and the raids of the hungry hoards from central and western Asia. The Indo-Pakistan equation needs to be analysed in this background.

The Greek rulers of Bactria conquered the Indus Valley within fifty years of the death of Ashoka. Euthydemus and his son Demetrious, captured Herat, Kabul, Kandhar, and western Punjab. Milinda, the celebrated ruler of Sialkot who embraced Buddhism, was a descendent of Demetrious. Greeks call him Menander. According to Plutarch, he was deified and “his ashes, like those of a Buddhist saint, were divided among several Buddhist churches for preservation.”[33] Prachya regained their affluence during the Greek period for their religious enthusiasm as well as their intermarriages with the Greeks when the latter converted to Buddhism. Bactrian Greeks ruled over the Punjab from 190 BC to 50 BC. They ruled over Kabul, the Punjab and Gandhara longer and more intimately than did the British from 1857 AD to 1947 AD. Although Alexander’s Invasion of the Indus Valley was presented as a unique landmark of Indian antiquity by the British historians, it was the rule of the Bactrian Greeks which has had a more lasting cultural as well as ethnic effect on the people of the Indus Valley and surrounding areas. This was because of their conversion to Buddhism and consequent intermarriages with the local communities in Bactria, Gandhara, Swat, Kashmir, Sialkot and the upper Indus Valley.

Table of Contents
Chapter 7
The Kushans

The Greeks were followed by the Scythians, the Parthians, and the Sakas in a turbulent period which ended in 25 AD when the Kushan King, Kadphises, succeeded in establishing the Kushan Empire. His grandson Kanishka, the greatest of the Kushan Kings, embraced Buddhism and shifted his capital to Peshawar. Kanishka is said to have ruled from 100 AD to 145 AD. He built a wooden stupa in Peshawar, estimated to be 400 feet high and a monastery which existed until the 11^th century AD. According to Alberuni, it was called Kanika-Chatiya.[34] Kanishka’s empire extended from Bokhara to Sindh and from Persia to Benares. It included Kashmir as well as Yarkand, Kashghar and Khotan in Sinkiang. Buddhism became the royal religion in these areas. The Kushans combined three different cultures in their coins – Greek, Persian and Indian. This was also true of the cultural milieu of this period. The Prachya had lost their military prowess by then and had taken to mercantile activities in which they enjoyed royal support because of their enthusiastic response to the Mahayana School of Buddhism.

Bactrian Greeks had encouraged trade with western Asia. The Sakas, Parthians and Kushans, in their turn brought Central Asia into the orbit of Gandhara. The Prachya used this opportunity to great advantage and became an affluent Buddhist community. They had lost cultural contact with Magadha after their adoption of Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana school of Buddhism grew out of the association of the Buddhists with the Greeks, the Sakas, the Parthians and the Kushans in Gandhara. According to Dr. Romila Thapar, ‘Conversion to Hinduism’ was technically difficult because of the interconnection of caste and Hinduism. A large non-Hindu group could be gradually assimilated through its becoming a sub-caste, but the conversion of a single individual would create the problem of providing him an appropriate caste, because caste depended on birth. It was, therefore, easier for the Greeks, Kushans, and Sakas to become Buddhists, as many did. As Buddhism at that time was in ascendance, its prestige made the adjustment of the newly converted much easier.[35] Marriages between the Prachya, the Greeks and the Kushans were common. The Kushans were Turks. The Prachya thus have three sets of genes – Indo-Aryan, Greek and Kushan. By abolishing caste restrictions and facilitating intertribal and cross-cultural marriages, Buddhism paved the way for a multiracial society. The green, blue and brown eyes of some of the Prachya carry the genes of those inter-racial marriages. This breakdown of the closed society of Brahmanism, in due course, paved the way for mass conversions to Islam in the areas now called Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

The Greeks were used to image worship. They made some of the most beautiful images of Buddha which attracted immediate public adoration. The Kushans gave a boost to this image worship and Kanishka changed the language of the Buddhist cannon from Pali to Sanskrit, thus severing the Church of Gandhara from the Church of Magadha. Under Kanishka, Gandhara had become like Magadha in the times of Ashoka. It became a famous centre of Buddhist learning, full of residential churches and convents to promote Buddhism. In the huge stupa and monastery, which he built at Peshawar, Kanishka placed the relics of Buddha in a beautiful casket. The ruins of this stupa were excavated in 1908, the casket was recovered and the relics were shifted to a Buddhist shrine in Burma.[36]

As Sanskrit replaced Pali, the language of the common man in which Buddha had taught the laity, priests became the custodians of religion. A powerful clergy emerged, in due course, to support the Kushan monarchy. Once the images of Buddha became common, the images of other holy men followed gracefully. Kushan revival of trade with China, Central Asia, and Egypt, created the sort of affluence and luxury which was reminiscent of prosperity witnessed during the reign of Ashoka. Prachya made a substantial contribution to building Buddhist monuments.

Having laid their arms to rest, the Prachya, religious by instinct and adventurous by nature, went all out during the Kushan period to spread Mahayana teachings at home and abroad. Their fortunes soared with their faith and they contributed generously to the building of new monasteries and stupas. Gandhara was now the centre of their faith as well as their trade. They travelled widely, married freely, and scattered themselves unwisely in a world where territorial integrity is vital for the survival of a community as an effective social entity.

The Chinese pilgrim Fa-hian visited Gandhara in fourth century AD. He has recorded in his travels that 700 priests were looking after the Peshawar monastery and the stupa. Kanishka had been dead for over a century and a half by then, but the institutions he established were still flourishing because of the affluent Buddhist community that sustained them. During his visit to Swat, Peshawar and Taxila, Fa-hien was highly impressed by the religious devotion of the Buddhists who constituted a majority in these territories. He describes Swat as a ‘flourishing centre of Buddhist worship’ where ‘the law of Buddha was universally followed.’ He records that Uttarasena was the ruler of Swat when Buddha died in 484 BC and was given a part of the Mahatma’s ashes according to his will. Mungali (now Mingora) was the capital of Swat at that time. At Peshawar, he saw the tower built by Kanishka. In the Panjsher Valley, he met the Kashatriya ruler of the Mahayana School and saw an 18 feet high silver figure of the Buddha. This valley had a hundred Buddhist convents where 6,000 priests lived. In contrast, there were only ten Brahman temples. Buddhism, according to him, was on its last legs in Magadha, Kapilvastu, Kusinagra, Kanauj, Pataliputra and mid-India, but it was flourishing in Bengal and Gandhara. He returned to Nankin after an absence of fourteen years, and devoted his life to the spreading of Buddha’s teachings.[37]

But for the dedicated research of Sir William Jones (1746-1794) and his enthusiastic successors on Buddhist and Greek sources of ancient Indian history, modern readers would have never known that the Prachya armies of Magadha had liberated the Punjab, Gandhara and Southern Afghanistan from the Greeks.[38] At the height of their power, they sponsored Buddhism – the third largest religion in the world after Christianity and Islam in the 21^st century AD.

Table of Contents
Chapter 8
The Origin of the Prachya

Contemporary theories about the origin of the Prachya revolve round the following concepts:

1. An Aryan Origin.
2. A Persian Descent.
3. An Arab Ancestry.

We shall examine each of these concepts within its historical perspective, linguistic context and ethnic parameters.

1. An Aryan Origin?

According to Dr. Romila Thapar,[39] Aryan is a linguistic term indicating a speech group of Indo-European Origin. From the region of the Caspain Sea and southern Russian steppes, these nomads spread out to Greece, Asia Minor, Iran and India in search of pastures. Their Indian descendents were called Indo-Aryans. The Indo-Aryans had remained for some time in northern Afghanistan and northern Iranian plateau. By about 1500 BC, they migrated into the Indus Valley through the passes in the Hindukush as a nomadic horde. Their archaeological remains are not adequate to reconstruct a picture of their early life. We have, therefore, to consult their language, literature, and theology to learn about their social life, customs and religion.

Four books of knowledge, known as Vedas, govern Indo-Aryan life. Rigveda is the oldest of these books, followed by Samaveda, Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda. Each Veda has its own prose commentary, called Brahmana, to explain its teachings. Rigveda, it is said, was compiled in the area between the Oxus and the Sarasvati by 1000 BC. It is considered to be the oldest book of hymns in Sanskrit literature. A critical review of Rigveda carried out in Sialkot just after its completion is still in use as the Skala Recension. Skala was the Sanskrit name of Sialkot of antiquity. The other three Vedas and Brahmanas were written in the later Vedic Period between 1000 and 600 BC. In this study, we have referred to the Vedas and the Brahmanas to determine the antiquity of the Prachya.

The earliest mention of the word Prachya is found in Aitareya Brahmana, the prose commentary on Rigveda, where Prachya has been defined as the name of the eastern country in a five-fold division of Vedic India.[40] Satapatha Brahmana, the prose commentary on Yajurveda, is the second source confirming the Aryan origin of the Prachya. It informs its readers, while discussing certain sacrificial rituals, that the Prachya address Agni, the god of fire, as ‘Sarva.’[41] Two sacred books of the Indo-Aryans thus define Prachya as the eastern country of Vedic India. According to Panini and later grammarians, Sanskrit had been divided into two distinct literary forms in the later Vedic age – Udicya (northern) and Pracya (eastern).[42] This explains the text of Satapatha Brahmana when it refers to ‘Sarva’ representing Agni in the eastern dialect. Two important books of ancient Indo-Aryans thus identify Prachya as the eastern country – the country east of the river Sarasvati. The Brahmana period is the most important period in the history of the Prachya because it was during this period that Indo-Aryans completed their conquest of the Gangetic Valley and the Prachya gradually rose to power. Writing on this period Dr. Romila Thapar records “Classical Sanskrit became gradually and increasingly the language of the Brahmans and the learned few, or had a restricted use on certain occasions such as the issuing of proclamations and official documents or during Vedic ceremonies. In the towns and the Villages, however, a popular form of Sanskrit was spoken which was called Prakrit. It had local variations; the Chief Western Variety was called Shauraseni, and the eastern variety was called Magadhi.”[43] Pali was literary Prakrit based on Sanskrit and used in the east. Buddha (563 BC – 483 BC), wishing to reach a wider audience, taught in Magadhi. He was a prince of Sakyas, a Himalayan republic, who had rejected Brahmanism and was preaching a religion completely opposed to Vedic teachings, the caste-system, animal sacrifices, and Brahman rituals. As he was preaching in Magadhi, the language of The Prachya, Magadha became the heartland of Buddhism and Prachya became the vanguard of this dissident movement. According to Dr. Joshi, the Brahmans of the Vedic tradition ‘abused and reviled’ the Buddha as an atheist (nastika), a demon (asura) and as an outcaste (Shudra).[44] From 500 BC to this day, Brahmans have had the same attitude towards any deviation from orthodox Brahmanism. The religious antagonism against Christianity and Islam springs from the same psyche. The word Prachya, historically, represents the tip of the iceberg of intense hostility towards any system of thought opposed to Brahman apartheid. This antipathy is mutual and the Prachya hate nothing more than the idea of any connection with Brahmanism. Prachya is not a Hindu designation, but a Sanskrit word for the eastern country which had supported the arch enemies of Brahmanism – Mahavira and Buddha.

The strongest evidence in support of the Prachya claim to an Aryan origin is, therefore, the word Prachya itself. Prachya is a linguistic as well as a geographic identity. It is a Sanskrit word, and Sanskrit was the language of the Indo-Aryan elite of antiquity. It was a geographic term used for the country east of the river Saresvati in Sanskrit literature. Sarasvati has been defined as a river which rises in the mountains bounding the north-east part of the Province of Delhi and flowing in a south-eastern direction gets lost in the sands of the Rajisthan desert.[45] It was the ‘Naditama’ (foremost of the rivers) in the Later Vedic and Epic literature. The word Prachya is, thus, area specific and cannot be used for the Aryans of Iran and Afghanistan.

Prachya is not an isolated word and forms part of a family of well-known words like Prachin (eastern, ancient); Prachinate (antiquity); Prachin Adhikar (prescriptive right); Prachi (an eastern female); Purva (being before or in front, previous, antecedent, east, eastern, easterly), Purvardha (the first half, front or upper part, eastern part); Purva-disa, Purva-dis, Purva–dik, Prachya, (the eastern region, eastern quarter, the eastern part of India), Purva-desi (a native of the eastern part of India), Purva-samundra, the eastern sea; Purva-Ja (former, elder, born in the east or the eastern country).[46] Historically, the people of Magadha and surrounding provinces were described as Prachya in Sanskrit, Greek and Buddhist chronicles.

Prachya contribution to the development of Sanskrit language and literature can be assessed from the fact that Panini of Taxila and the later grammarians divide Sanskrit into two main dialects – Udicya (northern, Taxila and Kashmir) and Praciya (eastern, Magadha and surrounding countries).[47]

Traditionally, the Prachya kept their accounts in Hindi script, Takra, till the closing years of the nineteenth century. Increase in literacy and the rise of the Urdu-Hindi conflict in the twentieth century lead to the greater use of Urdu in rural Punjab and Gandhara. Takra was, consequently, eliminated gradually from Prachya accounts. Hindi script is used neither by the Arabs nor the Persians. It is purely an Indo-Aryan medium of written expression in Northern India.

The Prachya, generally, prefix their names with the word ‘Mian’. Mian in Sanskrit means a gentleman, and implies a civilized person who leads a gentle and scrupulous life. It is not found in any Arabic or Persian dictionary. Mian was the title of hill rajputs in the Himalayan states.[48] Both Sakias and Mauriyas were Himalayan hill tribes. Gautama was a prince of the Sakias and the Mauriyas were descendents of the royal house of Piphallivana in the Himalayan region north of Bihar. As Buddhism became ascendant in Northern India, this title became widespread amongst the ruling elite in preference to titles implying temporal power. Ashoka’s emphasis on the cultivation of piety provided it a great impetus.

From ancient times till the early part of the nineteenth century, the Rajputs of the Punjab Himalayas were called Mian. Mian Mansingh, for example, was a distinguished general of the Mughal Army. In the 1830s in the Kangra Valley, to be entitled Mian, a rajput had to observe the following code of conduct: ONE, never to plough his land himself; TWO, never accept a marriage proposal for his daughter from an inferior, nor marry below his rank; THREE, never accept money in exchange for the betrothal of his daughter; FOUR: keep his female house-hold in strict seclusion.[49] The Prachya relish these Indo-Aryan traditions and the title is still widely used by the affluent members of their fraternity.

The word Aryan is not synonymous with the word Hindu. Strange as it may seem, Hindu is not a Sanskrit word. The river Indus is called Sindhu in the Rigveda. It was transcribed as Hindu in Avesta. When the Persians conquered the Indus valley in 515 BC, they used the name for the river as well as the people of the Indus valley. In due course, it was used for the people of the subcontinent as a whole by the Arabs and other conquerors. India was not fully Brahmanised at any stage in its history. Millions of Indians did not believe in the Vedas till the advent of Buddhism. When Buddha appeared on the scene, the tide turned in his favour and orthodox Brahmanism was confined to Madhya-desha (the middle country, or the upper part of the Gangetic Valley). All the Indians have never been Hindu nor have all the Hindus been of Aryan origin. The black majority of pre-Aryan origin was forced into the lowest stratum of society as untouchables (Shudra). Hinduism is not a purely Aryan religion either. Dr. L. M. Joshi poses a very important question in the History of Punjab (Vol-I). “How did the Indo-Aryans who came as immigrants in small numbers, and with poor cultural equipment, succeed in conquering and Brahmanising nearly the whole of India?” he asks. “One answer,” according to him “is that the Aryans were conquered by the culture of the vanquished. There is an enormous mass of evidence which records not only the process of assimilation, homologisation and Brahmanization of non-Brahmanical and non-Aryan races, cultures, languages, cult objects, and religious ideas, but also a long-drawn or rather constant conflict between the invaders and the invaded.”[50]In reality, even today Hinduism is not the largest Indo-Aryan religion. Buddhism, as it developed in Magadha and later Gandhara, is the third largest religion in the world, after Christianity and Islam, with an international following. Prachya are Indo-Aryan, but not Hindu. They were the earliest and the most devoted converts to Islam in South Asia because of their trading interests in Arabia, Iran and Afganistan.

Platts’ dictionary has transcribed Prachya in English as Pracya using ‘c’ for ‘ch’. Encyclopaedia Britanica uses Pracya, the Cambridge History of India uses Prasii while the Greek transcriptions given by Professor M’Crindle vary from Praisioi to Prasiake. In An Advanced History of India, Dr. Ray Chaudhry, disregarding this plethora of transcriptions simply uses the Roman script for the original Sanskrit word and keeps the original name in tact. Since the Prachya mostly speak modern Indo-Aryan dialects like Punjabi, Landha and Hindko in the Indus valley, this study has followed the example of Dr. Ray Chaudhry for the convenience of the reader and used the original Sanskrit word Prachya.

2. A Persian Descent?

The latest hypothesis about a Persian descent has been based on the following sources:

1. Ptolemy’s account of certain ancient tribes of the Central Hindukush (The Parsioi and the Parseyetai).
2. Professor Georg Morgenstierne’s report on the Aryan dialects spoken on both sides of the Iran-Afghan frontier.

Proceeding chronologically, we shall examine Ptolemy’s account first and then analyse the Morgenstierne report.

A. Ptolemy’s Parsioi and Parseyetai

In 327 BC, at the end of spring, Alexander, after his conquest of Northern Afghanistan, crossed the central Hindukush through the Ghorband Pass. It had taken him ten days to cross the Hindukush and reach Alexandria under the Caucasus, the city he had founded two years earlier. General Cunningham has identified this place with Hopian, an ancient city in ruins near Charikar in the Kohidaman valley. The Hindukush forms a broad belt of mountainous country which separates the river systems of the Oxus and the Indus. It was the political boundary between Bactria (Northern Afghanistan) and Paropnisadai (the Kabul valley and the country north of the Kabul River). The routes leading from Bactria over its passes converged at a point near Charikar. From Kabul, ancient routes led into Aria (Herat) in the west, Arachosia (Kandhar) in the southwest, and through Gandhara (Peshawar-Taxila) in the southeast into the Indus valley. Alexander settled here his aged, wounded and disabled veterans along with the Persians who had been settled by Cyrus earlier in and around Charikar. The population of the Persians in Charikar and surrounding valleys can be judged from the fact that Alexander, while on his way to Bactria, had appointed a loyal Persian as a satrap in this area. Upon his return from Bactria, he was disappointed with the performance of this gentleman, and he replaced him with another Persian satrap instead of a Greek to retain the loyalties of the Persians.

The central Hindukush was named Paropamisos by the natives. Ptolemy called it Paropanisos in Greek. Before the invasion, these mountains were not known to Alexander or his generals. They considered them a continuation of the Caucasus and vaguely conceived them to be the loftiest and the remotest in the east. Ptolemy named the tribes living on the eastern slopes of the Paropanisos (Central Hindukush) individually as the Bolitai, Aristophyloi, Parsioi, Parseyetai and Ambautai. Collectively, he called these tribes the Paropanisadai.[51]

The hypothesis based on this account of the tribes of Hindukush maintains that:

“…the Parsioi and Parseyetai tribesmen who dwelled in the Ariana, Khurasan eastern or Kabulistan, and spoke an ancient Iranian dialect, identical to Persian, came to be called Prachgan by their Indian conquerors since they inhabited eastern as opposed to western or Iranian Khurasan.”[52]

If we pursue this proposition to its logical conclusion and identify the Indians who conquered these tribes after the death of Alexander and named them Prachya, we may be able to discover the exact origin of the Prachya. According to Dr. Ahmad Hassan Dani, Director of the Centre for the Study of the Civilizations of Central Asia, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, a historian and archaeologist of international repute:

“By about 311 BC, when Seleucus Nikator won for himself a secure position as the ruler of Babylon, and felt safe to devote himself to consolidate his authority in the distant provinces, he turned to the east. In 304 BC, he crossed the Indus, but again Chandragupta was helped by the tribes and Seleucus had to enter into an ignominious treaty with the Mauriya ruler. In lieu of 500 elephants, he ceded to Chandragupta several satrapies. A treaty of friendship was signed and sealed by marriage…Thus Chandragupta ruled supreme from Bengal to Herat and from the Hindukush to Meysore.”[53]

Dr. Rahula Walpole, an eminent antiquarian of Colombo University, whose work has been described as “A veritable mine of authentic information gathered from all the available sources and treated with scientific precision,” has independently arrived at the same conclusion as Dr. Dani. He writes:

“Chandragupta, the grandfather of Ashoka, had in about 304 BC, wrested from Seleucus, one of Alexander’s generals, the four satrapies of Aria (Herat), Arachosia (Kandhar), Gedrosia (Baluchistan) and the Paropanisadai (Kabul).”[54]

According to Justin, ‘Seleucus Nicator waged many wars in the east after the partition of Alexander’s empire among his generals. He first took Babylon and then, with his forces augmented by victory, subjugated the Bactrians. He then passed over into India, which after Alexander’s death, as if the yoke of servitude had been shaken off from its neck, had put his prefects to death.

Sandrocottus (Chandragupta) was the leader who achieved their freedom. Sandrocottus having thus won the throne was reigning over India when Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleucus having made a treaty with him and otherwise settled his affairs in the east, returned home to prosecute the war with Antigonus.’[55](Historiae Philippace, Book XV Chapter IV).

These eminent historians confirm that the Indians who conquered the Parsioi and the Parseyetai were the people of Magadha, under the leadership of Chandragupta Mauriya. They knew better than any historian that the word Prachya was used specifically for the people of Magadha and could not be given to the people of Eastern Khurasan living in the Central Hindukush. In fact, the Prachya who settled in the Kabul Valley and beyond had come to this area from Magadha after it was conquered by Chandragupta Mauriya in 304 BC.

Khurasan was called Parthia by the Greeks.[56] As the Prachya rose to power in Magadha, the Parthians rose to power in Parthia in third century BC. They revolted against the Seleucid monarchy and established an independent Parthian kingdom covering the modern provinces of Khurasan and Astarabad. They took possession of Taxila in second century BC, after the fall of the Mauryian Empire, and are adequately represented in the archaeological finds of this ancient citadel of power. They ruled over Parthia for 500 years and gradually took over the whole of Persia.[57] One of their kings, Mithridates I (174-136 BC), opened the way for their penetration into India after his capture of Taxila. They were called Pahlavas in India. The Parthians, however, had to suspend their operations in India when the Sakas attacked Parthia.[58] Ptolemy’s Parsioi and Parseyetai were the smaller tribes of Parthian origin. Ptolemy had not heard the name Prachya by then. He learnt about the Prachya a year later when he reached Beyas and transcribed their name into Greek as Prasiake. Ptolemy knew the Prachya as a powerful kingdom of Magadha far away from the Hindukush. He never confused them with the tribes of the Kabul valley. Historically, neither the tribes of Parthia (Khurasan), settled by Cyrus in Central Hindukush, were of Indian origin nor the Prachya who conquered them were of Persian descent. Prachya had a glorious role in Indian antiquity and need to be proud of their origin as much as the Parthians (Pahlavas) of Persia. Both have played a prominent role in ancient history in their respective countries.

B. The Morgenstierne Report

Professor George Morgenstierne arrived in Afghanistan in 1924, from the Norwegian Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, for a linguistic research with a letter of introduction by the King of Norway to King Amanullah Khan of Afghanistan. His report is known as the “Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan.” Professor Morgenstierne does not mention any other member by name, at any stage in the report. Prima facia it seems to be only one man’s report. Since it was widely circulated by the Institute to linguists in Britain, France, and Iran it has acquired a degree of international recognition. An extract from the report, pertaining to the Prachya is, therefore, enclosed as Annexure ‘B’. The reader should examine it independently before reading the following analysis of the Professor’s views about the Prachya.

i) The Timing of the Report

The twenties of the last century were years of great turmoil in Afghanistan. The treaty of Rawalpindi, signed in August 1919 at the end of the third Afghan War, had allowed the Afghans the freedom to conduct their foreign affairs. Amir Habibullah Khan, father of the Afghan King had been assassinated in February 1919. The Afghans suspected a British hand behind this tragedy. In 1922, it was discovered in Turkey that a man named Mustafa Saghir was involved in a plot to assassinate Ataturk Mustafa Kamal.[59] This man confessed his involvement in the murder of Amir Habibullah Khan during the investigations carried out in Turkey. When it became public that His Majesty King George of England, Emperor of India and Defender of the faith, had requested the Government of Turkey for Saghir’s pardon, the Afghans were intensely enraged.[60] The history of modern Afghanistan, unfortunately, has been an epic of Afghan suffering because of foreign intrigue, exploitation and aggression.

The British were using every ruse to instigate revolts against Amanullah. The Russians were keen to exploit this situation. It was under these conditions that the Professor came for a linguistic research in Afghanistan right in the middle of all the trouble. In his own words “It was only natural that many people in Afghanistan should regard a linguistic investigator with mistrust, and suspect him of having other than purely scholarly aims. An old Pathan put it bluntly when he said, ‘I was the son of Kamnari Sahib (Sir Louis Cavagnari, renowned for his role in the Anglo–Afghan war of 1879), who had sent me to collect information about the languages and customs of the border tribes, while he himself waited with an army on the frontier.’” The old Pathan, who had seen British intelligence at work for more than half a century by then, had read the situation with admirable precision. Before the first Afghan war, a number of European explorers had visited Afghanistan as tourists, teachers, and traders to spy for the Raj. They had lived with the people, wore their clothes, ate their food and learnt their language. They used to discuss history, geography, climate, politics, etc. to gain information for the British war effort. The Afghans suspected the professor of similar aims and it was obvious that no educated Afghan was willing to give him any accurate information about the strategic areas of the Panjsher valley or the people living around the passes opening into the Kabul valley across the Hindukush. The only exception would be some destitute, partisan turn–coats whom he could buy with the funds placed at his disposal. For the record, Amanullah was eventually dethroned in 1929.

ii) Research Methodology

Morgenstierne tells us that he had been sent to Afghanistan “to study twelve Aryan dialects on both sides of the Indo-Iranian linguistic frontier.” He stayed in the area for only seven months. According to him, “many of these languages were imperfectly known, and some were absolutely unknown.” He had been sent to find out whether these languages were completely Indian in origin, partly Indian, or wholly or partly Iranian? He admits that: “our knowledge of the Iranian languages in question was very limited.” To accomplish this formidable task in seven months, he was accommodated in the superbly situated Haram Sarai of Abdur Rehman in the Bagh-e-Babur outside Kabul. He stayed there comfortably till the end of October and “except for some short excursions for the purpose of linguistic studies” did not visit the valleys where these ‘little known’ or ‘completely unknown’ dialects were actually spoken. As he confides, “the rebellion in Afghanistan made it impossible for me to reside in more outlying parts of the country…..” He summarises his research methodology, in the following words: “in a country like Afghanistan where even the general outlines of the linguistic situation were to a great extent unknown, it was probably more profitable to stay in Kabul, like a spider in the centre of the web getting a superficial view of the different languages spoken in the country, than to bury oneself in a mountain valley, concentrating on a more thorough study of one single dialect.” We thus have a ‘spider’s superficial view from the centre of the web’ to contend with in this report. The Professor relies, entirely, on the evidence of uneducated witnesses from neighbouring tribes who spoke a different language. He accepted their opinions in preference to the opinions of Sir George Grierson, the editor of the Linguistic Survey of India and Elphinstone, a distinguished historian well known for his classic, the Kingdom of Kabul, published by the Oxford University Press in 1815 – that is more than a hundred years before the professor came to the country. Both these highly reputable authors maintain that the Prachya are an Indian people.

For his research on “Prachi,” the Professor’s first contact was a tribesman from Satha, a village near Gulbahar in the Panjsher Valley, who spoke Pashai and had only heard of ‘Prachi’ being spoken in the neighbourhood. He told the learned professor that “in this language ‘Mayon Xareman’ means ‘I eat bread’, and ‘an tereman’ means ‘I drink water’. This information, according to the professor, “made it clear to me that I was on the track of an unknown Iranian language.” In Afghan Persian ‘I eat bread’ is translated as ‘Ma nan mi Khuram’ and ‘I drink water’ is ‘Ma aub mi khurram’. The two sentences quoted by the Satta–Pashai do not follow the fundamental requirements of Persian grammar nor resemble the Persian words for ‘water’ (aub) and ‘eating or drinking’ (khurdan). His next contact was Mohammad Ghani, ‘a shepherd of considerable stupidity,” as he calls him. It is on the evidence of such witnesses that he labels an ancient Persian dialect as Prachi oblivious of the fact that Prachi is a Sanskrit word and Sanskrit is an Indian not an Iranian language. He completely disregards Sir George Grierson’s note which explains ‘Prachi’ as “Eastern, denoting a language of eastern India” and Elphinstone’s opinion describing “the Puranchehs” as another class of Indians. Both Grierson and Elphinstone are quoted as authorities on Indian antiquity, yet Morgenstierne disregards their opinions and uses the statements of a few uneducated tribesmen to plant a Sanskrit name on an unknown Iranian dialect.

The Professor has made a highly unreasonable assumption that “Paranc” (eastern) might easily mean “Pratyanc” (western), even if the word is not used in this sense in Sanskrit (Annexure A, note on Prachi refers). Then, he suggests several options which are even more absurd. He writes that the Pashai or any other mountain tribe could have given the name ‘Prachi’ to an Iranian neighbour, ignoring the fact that Sanskrit had never been a language of uneducated tribes of the Central Hindukush. It is, on the other hand, the refined language of the Brahman elite, not a language used by the Pashais, the Waziris, or various other tribes of the Hidukush. He made these baseless assumptions without consulting some Brahman priests in Kabul or Peshawar. He could easily learn about the status of Sanskrit in Indo-Aryan literature from the Brahmans in these two cities. Morgenstierne requests his readers to take a “lenient view of the errors, inexactitudes, and the lacunae” in his materials. It is for the reader to judge whether suggesting ‘east’ can also mean ‘west’ is an error, an in-exactitude, a lacuna, or simply ignorance. How much credibility can be placed on such a baseless report is for the reader to decide. If the unknown dialect under discussion is an Iranian dialect, it should have had an Iranian name.

One cannot accept the statement of a peasant, a shepherd or a recruit when scholars like M’Crindle refer to classical Greek writers, the chroniclers of Cylone quote sacred Buddhist literature, and Dr. Ray Chaudhry proceeds on the authority of ancient Sanskrit literature to identify Prachya as the people of Magadha and surrounding provinces. It will be sheer disregard for history if one allows a “spider’s view from the centre of the web” to prevail upon classics based on years of dedicated research.

That the Prachya have kept their surname alive for twenty-five centuries is a matter of pride for them. They do not require any genealogies other than their own to investigate and commemorate. If one takes up any book on Indian history, one finds that Magadha was a great name in ancient India. It established the first and the last indigenous empire that ruled over the whole of the subcontinent.

3. An Arab Ancestry?

Prachya are generally devout Muslims today. An Arab connection is sacred to them. According to this theory, “they are the descendents of Hazrat Aziz Yemeni, a companion of the Holy Prophet, Muhammad (SAW). Hazrat Aziz used to act as “Farash” to the Holy Prophet. Farash in Arabic means “one who spreads a carpet, an attendant, a valet etc. etc.” Hazrat Aziz Yemeni’s descendents were known as “Farasha” after him. During the Arab conquest of Persia (640-644 AD), Abul Aas, the son of Hazrat Aziz Yemeni, was commanding the Yemeni contingent. After the conquest, he settled down in Persia and married a Persian Princess. The Persians transcribed his surname “Farasha” into “Paracha” according to the usage of their own language. His successors were, thereafter, known as “Paracha” in Persia and later in Afghanistan and the Indus Valley after the Arabs conquered these areas.”[61]

This is a fascinating theory which touches the hearts of devoted Muslims. Unfortunately, when it is analysed purely in the context of Persian language, one discovers a serious lacuna. The word Paracha (Hindko for the Sanskrit word Prachya) is not found in any dictionary of the Persian language. On the contrary, the word “Farasha” with its original spelling, pronunciation, and meaning, has become a part of the Persian language since the Arab conquest of Persia and appears in all standard Persian lexicons. The total acceptance of scores of Arabic words in Persian with their original form and meaning intact – for example, faragh (leisure), faraghat (respite), firaq (separation), far’d (individual), firar (flight), fat’h (victory), fira’sat (sagacity) etc. – shows that the dominance of Arabic over Persian was so complete and comprehensive that there was no reason to borrow a word from an Indian Prakrit to identify an Arab Commander of the victorious army.

Linguistic transcriptions have well defined rules. The most important rule is that the transcript must invariably transfer the original meaning of the word being transcribed into the new language. When Panchanada was transcribed into Punjab in Persian, it meant the same thing as Panchanada in Sanskrit, i.e. the land of the five tributaries of the river Indus. Similarly, when the Greeks transcribed Prachya into ‘Prasii’ or ‘Prasiake’, the meaning remained the same, i.e. the people of Magadha and surrounding provinces lying east of the river Sarasvati. This rule is grossly violated if we change ‘Farasha’ into Paracha, because the meaning of ‘Farasha’ is completely lost. If a Persian had made such a mistake, it would have been considered an unpardonable offence by any self-respecting Arab.

Let us examine this theory in its historical perspective. Brahmans did not allow their followers to travel abroad. They preached that they will be polluted if they went abroad. The Buddhists had no such inhibitions and in due course took the lead in Indian foreign trade. The traders of Persia and Yemen knew Prachya traders for centuries before the Arab conquest of Persia. Two Avestan texts confirm that Persia was aware of the separate identities of Eastern and Western India, i.e. Magadha and Gandhara. Yasht X, 104, reads “The long arms of Mithra seize upon those who deceive Mithra, even when in Eastern India he catches them, even in Western India he smites them down.”[62] Another Avestan text, Yasna LXII-29, says, “Even when in Eastern India he catches (his adversary), even when in Western India he smites him down.” Sanskrit was the elite language of both Gandhara and Magadha, and their trade relations with Persia and Yemen were flourishing. As we have already discussed Prachya were affluent traders of both Magadha and Gandhara in second century AD during the reign of Kanishka. Fahian confirms that in fourth century AD Gandhara was still an affluent Buddhist state.

Professor Phillip K. Hitti writes in his famous book, ‘The History of the Arabs’, that Sana in Yemen is over 7,000 feet above sea level, and one of the healthiest and most beautiful towns of the Peninsula. Its fertility, proximity to the sea, and its strategic location on the Indian trade route contributed to its early development. Sana was a centre of trade for pearls from the Persian Gulf, condiments, fabrics and swords from India, silk from China, and slaves, monkeys, ivory, gold and ostriches from Ethiopia.These commodities found their way to Western markets through Yemen.

Magdhan sword blades had become famous in Iran and the Middle East. Professor M’crindle mentions, two beautiful Magdhan swords being presented to an officer by the “King of Persia and his mother.”[63] He also mentions the import of these swords into Abysinian ports. The oldest reference to Yemen in Greek literature dates back to 288 BC. With such ancient trade ties between Greece, Yemen, Persia, Taxila and Magadha, there is no reason to believe that a commander from Yemen or Persia, in 644 AD, when Magadha and Gandhara were still flourishing, would be ignorant about the surname of the people of Magadha who were famous for the supply of high quality sword blades to their armies. Any General worth his title knows where to buy the best arms for his army. He cannot afford to be ignorant in such matters.

The Arabs were so proud of their language and culture that they called Persia ‘Ajam’ (dumb, speechless). For an Arab, therefore, to accept an Indian surname from a Persian would be an obvious insult. Arabs who had settled in Persia were called ‘Tajik’, which is the Persian form of ‘Tazik’ derived from the Arabic word ‘Tazi (of Arab origin) e.g Aspe Tazi (an Arabian horse). Hazrat Abul Aas could easily retain his surname ‘Farasha’, and his family could be called Farasha. There was no reason for the Persians to import a pre-Muslim Indian surname for an Arabic word, which had already come into common use in Persian after the Arab conquest. Be that as it may, the inescapable conclusion is that the words Prachya and Farasha belong to two different periods of history, centuries apart. They originated in two different linguistic groups – one Semitic and the other Aryan – and are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. History does not provide any evidence to support the theory of an Arab or a Persian origin of the Prachya.

Table of Contents
Chapter 9
The Indian Union

During the last twenty-five centuries, India has been united under one government for less than five hundred years in all: first, under Ashoka in the third century BC; then, under the Moghals about nineteen hundred years later, in the sixteenth century AD; and lastly, under the British for merely ninety years (1857-1947). Ashoka was a Buddhist, Moghals professed Islam, and the British were Christians. It is noteworthy that India has never been united under Brahman Apartheid since the beginning of history. This is not simply a coincidence.

If we look at a map of the subcontinent, we find that the Muslim majority areas of today, comprising Pakistan and Bangladesh, were the Buddhist majority areas in 400 AD. After a life and death struggle for survival with Brahmanism from 400 to 1200 AD, the Buddhists in these regions embraced Islam. Historians and anthropologists may find it of interest that Islam spread in the peripheral areas of the Turco–Afghan empires while leaving the heartland of Delhi and surrounding areas under imperial Brahman rule. It is beyond the scope of this paper to find out why the Islamic Revolution – after its success against apartheid in Arabia, north Africa, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Persia, Turkistan, Afghanistan, and the Indus Valley – lost its momentum on the banks of the Ganges and reappeared in East Bengal with a fresh zeal. But it is important to note that while the Muslim ruling elite basked in luxury, Delhi, Agra, Lukhnow, Bhopal, Allahabad, West Bengal and the whole of Deccan continued to suffer an inhuman apartheid. The utter indifference of the Muslim kings of Delhi to their duty as custodians of the Islamic Revolution can be assessed from the observations of a renowned Hindu historian, Dr. R.C. MaJumdar, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dacca, who wrote in 1962:

“How little Hindu religion and society were influenced by Islam during 600 years (1200 – 1800 AD) is indicated by their imperviousness to the fundamental characteristics of their Muslim counterparts. A deep-rooted belief in a number of gods and goddesses, and worship of their images; the caste system; restrictions of food and marriage; strict prohibition of the marriage of widows; horror of beef-eating etc. show how Islam failed to touch even the fringes of Hindu religion and society. In particular, it is strange that the wonderful social democracy of the Muslims made absolutely no impression on the Hindus and far from removing the barriers artificially planted between man and man, rather made them stronger and stronger.”

“Many of the social evils were crying for relief, but the Hindus were absolutely callous to them. The ‘Sati’ or burning of the widows along with their dead husbands, throwing children into the Ganges, horrible tortures self-inflicted during ‘Charak Puja’ and the pathetic tales of the woes of the ‘Colin Girls’ left the society unmoved. It seems that there was a paralysis of moral sensibilities and utter lack of human feelings among the Hindus or at least quite a large section of them. This was again due to the fact that faith and superstitious reverence for ‘Sastras’ or what came to be regarded as such, took the place of reason and free judgement and men had lost all sense of moral values apart from injunctions of religious creed.[64]

This was the state of Hinduism after 600 years of the rule of Muslim kings and emperors in the Gangetic plains and the Deccan. Had these monarchs been more sensitive to the plight of their subjects repressed by Brahman doctrine, the social history of India could have been quite different. The caste system of Brahmanism divides humanity into watertight compartments. Unity is not possible under such a divisive and oppressive doctrine. India has to make a choice between Brahman Apartheid and the Indian Union. No nation can follow the prejudices of 600 BC in 2100 AD. Humanity has travelled a very long and tortuous journey to gain individual freedom and equality before the law.

Historians and anthropologists must unveil the story of the rise and fall of Buddhism in India, for that alone will reveal the roots of the current problems of the Indian Union with its multitudes of ethnicities and religions. We need to re-examine in depth the history of the persecution of Buddhists during the Gupta period and thereafter to understand the implications of massive Brahman rearmament today. The Indus Valley has been enslaved several times before while in search of peace and prosperity. It needs to be extremely vigilant and historically aware to safeguard its sovereignty in this millennium. The fate of the Buddhists in India is an abject lesson in this context.

Table of Contents
Annex A: Samadar Extracts

GLORIES OF MAGADHA by J. N. SAMADAR (Second Edition)
KUNTALINE PRESS 61, BOWBAZAR, CALCUTTA 1927
(EXTRACTS)

First Paramount Sovereignty
At the time of the invasion of the Macedonian hero, here was a king whose very name and fame frightened the unconquerable soldiers of Alexander the great, while the people of the country were considered as the most distinguished in all India. The nucleus of the first empire in Northern India was formed by the Saisunakas here; and it was Magadha and Magadha alone which could claim sovereignty from Afghanistan across the Continent eastward to Bengal, and from the Himalayas to the Central Provinces, while the two great emperors of Northern India, Ashoka and Samudra Gupta, sent their victorious banners from Magadha – one to preach to the then civilised world his evangelic mission of Love and Dhamma, the other to conquer far-off lands and capitals. And long after, when people were forgetting the glories of Magadha, a king of Magadha, Dharmapala, again stretched his proud arms to conquer Northern India. From Magadha went out missionaries as evangelists of the highest repute, medical men for the treatment of human beings as well as lower animals, and for the establishment of hospitals; while it was at the capital of Magadha that vivisection was first experimented upon for the cure of incurable diseases.

Nalanda and Vikramasila
The two very old and widely celebrated residential universities of India, perhaps of the world, had their seats in Magadha; Nalanda belonging to the age of artistic culture and skill, boasting “of a gorgeous and luxurious style of architecture, of a deep philosophical knowledge”, of profound and learned discussions and of rapid progress along the paths of civilisation, and both showing a standard of culture and education which may be emulated by many modern universities. From both, teachers went forth to the north and to the east to inculcate knowledge, and to both flocked students from all parts of Asia to imbibe the highest teachings of Religion and Philosophy. It was here that the skill of the stonecutter attained perfection and he produced models, which as admitted by the learned author of the Early History of India, would be found to be beyond the craftsmanship of the twentieth century. The engineers and architects of the royal house of Magadha could design and construct spacious and lofty edifices, throw massive embankments, equipped with convenient sluices and other appliances of extraordinary engineering skill, handle enormous monoliths, and polish them in a way which is still unsurpassed, excavate commodious chambers with burnished interiors which, even to-day, would dazzle the eyes of all and build palaces which led people to believe that those must have been built only by superhuman beings and could not have been up reared by human hands. Not only in and around Magadha but even in distant lands, skilled artists from Magadha were engaged by kings, showing the acme of supremacy the artists had attained in this old land. The Magadhan measure was ordered to be used, by the great lawgiver, Manu. Magadha had a civilization and culture in its palmy days, equal, if not superior, to that which India attained, eighteen or nineteen hundred years later. This fact has been admitted by historians, and Magadha need not fear any comparison in point of historical interest with any part of India.

Note: “This book was published three years after the publication of the Morgenstierne Report, and clearly confirms the Indo-Aryan origin of the Piracha.”

Table of Contents
Annex B: Morgenstierne Extracts

INSTITUTTET FOR SAMMENLIGNENDE KULTURFORSKNING
SERIE CI – ²
REPORT ON A LINGUISTIC MISSION TO AFGHANISTAN
By
GEORG MORGENSTIERNE
(EXTRACTS)

List of Abbreviations

AO.:	Acta Orientalia	Kal.:	Kalasha
BSL.:	Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique	Kashm.:Kh(ow).:	KashmiriKhowar
Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie	Kurd.:Lhd.:	KurdishLahnda
JA.:	Journal Asiatique	Minj.:	Minjani
JASB.:	Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal	Orm.Par.Pash.:Phl.:	OrmuriParachiPashaiPehlevi
LSI.:	Linguistic Survey of India	Pers.:	Persian
MSL.:	Memoiresd. I.Soe.de Ling.	Psht.:	Pashto
ZDMG.:	Zeitschrift der dentschen morgenlandischen Gesell-schaft	Sak.:Sang;.:Sar.:	SakianSanglichiSarikoli
ZII.:	Zeitschr. Fur Indologie und Iranistik	Shgh.:Skr.:	ShughniSanskrit
Ashk.:	Ashkun	Soghd.:	Sodhdian
Av.:	Avestan	Tir.:	Tirahi
Bal.:	Balochi	W.:	Wakhi
Bur.:	Burushaski	Waig.:	Waigeli
GB.:	Gawar Bati	Waz.:	Waziri
Ind.:	Indian	Yazg.:	Yazghulami
Ir.:	Iranian	Yd.:	Yidgha
Ishk.:	Ishkashmi	Zeb.:	Zebaki

Introduction

In 1924 I was enabled through the generous assistance of the Norwegian Institute for Comparative Research in human Culture to go on a linguistic mission to the northwestern frontier of India and Afghanistan.

The object was to study the Aryan dialects on both sides of the Indo-Iranian linguistic frontier. For thousands of years these two closely related groups of languages have been in close contact in the HinduKush and adjoining mountains; invasions and expansions have pushed the frontier-line, now towards the east, now towards the west, and the border languages have largely influenced each other, the result being very interesting deviations from the ordinary Indian and Iranian types.

The languages on the Indian side belong to the so-called Dard group, many of them very imperfectly known, and some absolutely unknown. It was a much discussed problem, whether they were completely Indian, or belonged to an intermediate group, or were to be classed as Iranian. Moreover, our knowledge of the Iranian languages in question was very limited. And further, with a view to the investigation of the Caucasian languages planned by the Institute, it was considered important that the Iranian scholar who was eventually to undertake the study of Ossetic should previously have made himself personally acquainted with Eastern Iranian languages connected with that form of speech.

Altogether the HinduKush region appeared to be a very promising field of investigation for the student of comparative philology, who could here hope to come across the last of the unknown Indo-European languages which are still spoken.

Very fortunately the investigations initiated by the Institute coincided with the beginning of a new era in Afghanistan. King Amanullah Khan wished to open his country to the influence of European civilization, and for the first time it had become possible for a scholar to pursue his investigations in the heart of Afghanistan.

His Majesty and his government supported my efforts most liberally, besides treating me personally with conspicuous hospitality, and any results which the mission may have yielded, are to a great extent due to the assistance of the Afghan authorities. It is my pleasant duty and privilege to express once more the Institute’s and my own sincere gratitude to His Majesty for the enlightened interest he graciously showed in the investigation of the linguistic treasures of his country.

My position in Afghanistan was also rendered considerably easier by the personal letter of introduction to the Amir from His Majesty the King of Norway, for which I also desire to express my gratitude.

I arrived in Peshawar in February 1924, and spent about six weeks there, practising Pashto with the excellent Munshi Qazi Ahmad Jan, and studying the dialects of the Afridis and other tribes.

At the beginning of April I proceeded to Kabul. Here the government kindly accommodated me in the superbly situated Harem Serai of Abdur Rehman in the Bagh-i-Babur outside the city, and I stayed in Kabul for about seven months, till the end of October, except for some short excursions for the purpose of linguistic studies.

The rebellion in Afghanistan made it impossible for me to reside in more outlying parts of the country, or to get permission to penetrate into the unknown and fascinating mountain fastnesses of Nuristan (Kafiristan). But in a country like Afghanistan, where even the general outlines of the linguistic situation were to a great extent unknown, it was probably more profitable to stay in Kabul, like a spider in the centre of the web, getting at least a superficial view of the different languages spoken in the country, than to bury oneself in a mountain valley, concentrating upon the more thorough study of one single dialect.

It may safely be predicted that within a short space of time several of the old languages of Eastern Afghanistan will have succumbed to the influence of Persian, which is constantly growing stronger through the centralization of the government and the spread of education. Partly they will be directly superseded by Persian, as in the case of Ormuri. Partly the dialects will decay internally through the overwhelming Persian influence. This seems to be the case with North-Western Pashai, and with Parachi. Even the Kafir languages, which till now have been isolated, have at length yielded to the levelling influence of Islam, and the younger generation use a good many Persian loan-words. Thus it is to be feared that much ancient Aryan linguistic material of great interest will be lost, unless it is soon rescued from oblivion.

For pioneer work Kabul was undoubtedly the best place to be found. People from the different tribes of Nuristan, Kohistan and Badakhshan come down there as traders or in search of work, and even the war was of some use, in as much as it led to the assembly of recruits in the Sherpur cantonment. It will be readily understood that the task was not always an easy one. Even at its best it is difficult and tedious work, though partially relieved by comical interludes, to extract linguistic information from such uneducated and easily wearied individuals. And in a case like this, where I considered it my duty to collect vocabularies and specimens from as many languages as possible within the short time at my disposal, I hope that a lenient view will be taken of the errors and in exactitudes, not to mention lacunae, which will be found in my materials.

It was only natural that many people in Afghanistan should regard a linguistic investigator with mistrust, and suspect him of having other than purely scholarly aims. An old Pathan put it naively and bluntly, when he said I was the son of “Kamnari Sahib” (Sir Louis Cavagnari, renowned in the Afghan-British war of 1879), who had sent me to collect information about the languages and customs of the border tribes, while he himself waited with an army on the frontier! But the assistance of the Afghan authorities helped me to a large extent to over-come these difficulties. I also met with, and shall always remember with feelings of gratitude and affection, several intelligent individuals from the hill-tribes, who trustfully and cheerfully did their best to give me the fullest information about their mother-tongue; and who seemed at least to have a dawning comprehension of the object of my mission: to trace, by means of the evidence of language, the history of tribes for thousands of years separated from, but nevertheless related to the “Firangis”. I must also mention that my Pathan servant from Peshawar, Yasin Khan, always showed the greatest energy in looking out for individuals who spoke strange languages.

At the desire of the Institute I returned via India, collected some information about Pashai dialects amongst the soldiers of the garrison in Jallalabad, and stayed for a short time in Peshawar to make use of the opportunities to get in touch with trans-border hill men there. In this work I was materially assisted by the authority of my kind host, Mr. B.C.A. Lawther, Superintendent of Police.

On the way down to Bombay I also had opportunities of meeting Pathan traders of different tribes, and of getting some scraps of information about southern Pashto dialects.

Before entering upon an account of the languages studied, and a discussion of some of the main problems connected with them, it may be of use to give a brief survey of the languages, spoken in Afghanistan.

Probably at least 4/5^th of the population of Afghanistan speak Iranian languages, chiefly Pashto and Persian, the remaining Iranian dialects being spoken only by numerically insignificant tribes. It is impossible to ascertain the actual numbers who speak the different languages; but there are probably about the same number of Pashto-speaking people, as of Persian-speaking Parsivans, Kizilbashis and Hazaras. Nor does the migration of the nomads permit us to lay down fixed lines of demarcation between the languages; but, generally speaking, the map in Linguistic Survey of India Vol. X is fairly incorrect as regards the extension of Pashto.

Balochi is spoken in the southern deserts, and, according to information received from German travellers, considerably to the north of the limit given on the map in LSI., Vol. X, e.g. for several stages along the Herat Kandahar road between Helmand and Khash Rud. In the north-east we find the Pamir dialects, viz. Minjani, Ishkashmi and Zebaki[1] Wakhi, Shughni and Roshani. Ormuri is spoken in the Logar valley, the Parachi in several villages in the Kohistan of Kabul. Possibly Kurdish is still in use among some immigrants west of Herat.

Of Indian languages we find Lahnda spoken by Hindus who for hundreds of years have been settled in Eastern Afghanistan as traders and bankers in the towns, and, at least in the Koh-I-Daman district, to a great extent as horticulturists. Apart from having adopted many Persian words, their dialect does not appear to present many striking peculiarities. In Kabul numerous recently immigrated Sikhs speak Panjabi.

The chief indigenous Indian language is Pashai. Higher up the Kunar river we find Gawar Bati. Possibly Kalash and Khowar are also spoken within Afghan territory. The four Kafir languages are Kati, Waigeli, Ashkun and Prasun; and Tirachi is spoken south-east of Jallalabad[2].

If Armenian traders in Herat have still preserved their native tongue, it is the only non-Aryan Indo-European language spoken in the country.

The chief non-Indo-European language is Turki, spoken in various dialects by Uzbeks, Sarts and Turkmens north of the HinduKush. The governor of Mazar-I-Sharif asserted that some nomadic tribes to the west of that city still speak Arabic. While the Mongol Hazaras have generally adopted a peculiar dialect of Persian, Mangolian is still spoken by Taimanis about Rud-i-Gas and Adraskand near Sabzawar (the villages of Mir Mana, Bedak, Hazi Kah, Karez Sultan, Pir Surkh, Gaza and Chashma Khuni were mentioned), and possibly also between Maimana and Herat (acc. To one of the secretaries of the Russian legation). The Mongolian language does not cross the Indian frontier as asserted in “Les Langues du Monde”, p.224. I do not know whether Brahui crosses the Afghan frontier near Kandahar[3], nor if any of the Caucasians deported by Nadir Shah to the region about Farrah still retain their native language.

At any rate the language map of Afghanistan presents an extremely variegated picture, at least twenty different languages being spoken within the Amir’s dominions. At the height of the Afghan empire, when it included Balochistan, Sindh, Kashmir etc., and when, in addition to several Indian languages, Brahui (Dravidian), Balti (Tibetan) and Burushaski (of unknown origin) were spoken within its borders Afghanistan was actually the linguistic centre of the Eurasian continent, and nearly all its chief families of languages were represented there.

It was of course neither possible, nor the object of the mission to study all the tongues; and there was no opportunity or time to study all the Aryan languages. On the Iranian side I concentrated upon pashto, Parachi and Ormuri, and collected some information about Shughni and Afghan Persian. Among the Indian languages I secured a good deal of material about Pashai, Kati and Khowar; somwhat less about Waigeli and Ashkun, and very little about Prasun.

Parachi
Parachi (Paraci) is at present spoken in the Hindu Kush valley of Shutul, north-east of Charikar, in Ghujulan in Nijrau and in Pachaghan. There is a tradition that the people of Shutul came from Tagau some generations ago; but on the other hand it is also said, perhaps not without some foundation in fact, that Panjshir was formerly inhabited by Parachis. The farasi tribe is also mentioned as living in the vicinity of Parwan, which is quite near to Shutul, in the 16th century (Marquardt, Eransahr, p. 287). The tribe is mentioned by Babur (transl. Leyden and Erskine, ed. King, I, p.224 f.) as having a separate language, by Elphinstone (Caubul, I, p. 413) as “the Puraunchehs, another class of Hindkees:, and Masson (Travels in Baluchistan etc.) mentions “Paraunchi” as a language which is spoken by a few families in and near Panjshir.

Sir George Grierson (note to Babur 1. c.) explains the name as “Prachi”, “Eastern” denoting a language of Eastern India brought to Kabul through the Purbyas. Now that we know the Prachi language to be Ir., it seems better to derive it from Skr. Paraci.,f. Of paranc “averted, distant, outside of:, the gender being determined through one of the feminine words for language “paranc” might easily mean “western” just as “pratyanc”, even if the word is not found in this sense in Skr., and would be a very suitable name for the Pashais and other Indians to give to their nearest Iranian neighbours. It is also possible that the name may be connected wiht Psht. Para(n)ca “a mercer, draper, cloth-merchant”, Waziri paraca, paroca “a Hindu convert to Muhammedanism”, “name of a caste”, a word which may originally have denoted some pre-Pathan community.

In the Paghman district, some fifteen miles west of Kabul, there is a village called Parachi, which has possibly preserved the name of its former inhabitants. We shall consider below the linguistic evidence which points to a wider extension of Parachi in ancient times.

It has not been possible to ascertain the number of Parachi-speaking people. One informant asserted that only about one hundred persons used this language, another calculated that there was that number of Par. Houses in Shutul. A third man said that his tribe inhabited 400 houses in Shutul, and 600 in Nijrau and Tagua, and a man from Ghujulan supposed that there were one hundred Par. Families there.

I first heard of Par. Being still spoken from a Satha-Pashai, who said that in this language “I eat bread” was called nayon xareman, and “I drink water: au tere-man. This iformation made it clear that I was on the track of an unknown Ir. Language, and tereman was reminiscent of Orm. Trim. After some difficulties, including an attempt made by an old rogue to impose the north-western dialect of Pash. Upon me as Par., I succeeded in getting hold of Mahmad Ghani from Shutul, “a shepherd of considerable stupidity” (to quote Sir G. Griersons words about the Pra informant of the LSI).

In the autumn of 1924 I worked with Ghulam Maheuddin and the local poet Tabakkal Shah, who came to Kabul with the recruits collected from the Kohistan of Kabul. They were also from Shutul, and were both of them intelligent, and very keen on teaching me their mother-tongue. They could read and write Pers., and even tried to write down songs in Par. It was valuable to be able to compare my own phonetic notation of their narratives with the written texts. They said that one book written in Par., and containing legends about Ali, existed in Shutul. But it was impossible to get hold of this specimen of Par. Literature.

In Kabul I also worked for a few days with a man from Ghujulan in Darra-i-Ghosh in Nijrau, who spoke a somewhat different dialect, and for a short time in Peshawar with a Pachaghani. The dialectal difference is not great. In Shutul we find a, a, where the other dialect has a.

As Par is not previously known I shall preface the discussions of its linguistic position with a summery review of the chief phonetic features of the languages. A detailed phonetic review follows to show that the langaugate he is examining is of eastern Iranian origin. If so, it should have an eastern Iranian name. It is a misnomer to give it a Sanskrit name. Prachi only meant a Prachya female. Its meaning has not changed to this day. The Prakrit used by the Prachya was called Magadhi not Prachi.

Table of Contents
Bibliography

1. A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi and English by John T. Platts, (Reprint) Sange Meel Publications, Urdu Bazar, Lahore, 1983. (First Edition published in London in 1884).
2. The Invasion of India by Alexander The Great, As Described by Arrian, Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin, author J.W. M’Crindle MA, MRAS, FRSGS Published by Barnes and Noble Inc. New York, Methuen & Co. Ltd, London. First Published 1896. Reprint 1969, by Barnes & Noble Inc. (See Note Dd – page 365).
3. Cambridge History of India, Volume I (Ancient India) Edited by E. J. Rapson, MA, Professor of Sanskrit, the University of Cambridge (Second Indian reprint) 1962, Publishers S. Chand & Co. New Delhi, Chapter XVIII (See note 5 on page 421). Chapter XIII, pages 276 to 283.
4. An Advanced History of India by Dr. R. C. MaJumdar, Dr. H.C. Raychoudhry and Dr. Kalinker Datta, Macmillan & Co., New York, 1958, pages 5 and 55. Chapters VII and X.
5. The History of India by Honourable Elphinstone, 9^th Edition, Publishers John Murray, London, 1916.
6. The History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume I (The Vedic Age) pages 258 and 259. See also the map of Prachya. Editor Dr. R. C MaJumdar.
7. The Age of the Nandas and Mauriyas by N.A.H. Sastri, Motilal Benarsidas Publishers, Benares, 1951.
8. Glories of Magadha by J. N. Samadar, Kantline Press, 61 Bow Bazar, Calcutta, 1927.

Table of Contents
Endnotes
[1] Recruits from Zebak and Ishkashm denied the existence of any separate language in these places! Considering that Sir Aurel Stein collected Ishkashmi materials as late as in 1915, this shows the danger of relying on negative information.
[2] Also the Doms and Jatts are said to possess languages of their own.
[3] The man attached to Sykes “History of Persia”, Vol-II places Brainis south of Helmand within afghan territory.
[1] A Dictionary of Urdu Classical Hindi and English by John T. Platts, Crosby Lockwood and Son, London, 1911, page 235. Reprinted by Sange Meel Publications, Lahore in 1983.
[2]An advanced History of India by Dr. R.C. MaJumdar, Dr. H.C. Ray Choudhry and Dr. Kalinker Datta, Macmillan & CO, New York, 1958 Edition, Page 5.
[3]Ibid page 55.
[4]Cambridge History of India Vol. 1, page 421, footnote 5.
[5]The Invasion of India by Alexander, the Great, Author J.W. M’Crindle, Barnes & Noble, New York, page 365.
[6]Longmans’ History of India Longmans’ Green & Co., Bombay, 3rd Edition, 1947, Page 63.
[7]Cambridge History of India op cit page 276.
[8]The Age of the Nandas and Mauriyas by N.A.H. Sastri, Motilal Benarsidas Publishers, Benares, 1951 page 9.
[9]History of India by Hon. Elphinstone, 9th Edition, London, 1916. page 226.
[10]Cambridge History of India op cit page 422.
[11]Ibib page 276.
[12]Longmans’ History op cit page 66.
[13]Political, Legal and Military History of India, Editor H.S Bhatia Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi, Vol.1, page 83.
[14]Samadar op cit page 4 note 3.
[15]Political, Legal and Military History of India op cit page 84.
[16]M’Crindle op cit, pages 3 and 4.
[17]Ibib page 346.(Gen Chesney)
[18]Ibid page 346. (Grote)
[19]Ibid page 310.
[20]Ibid pages 121 to 125 (Extracts).
[21]Ibid page 227.
[22]Ibid pages 310 and 311.
[23]Ibid pages 404 to 407 (Extracts).
[24]Ibid pages 408 and 409.
[25]Advanced History of India op cit page 98.
[26]Hon. Elphinstone op cit page 152.
[27]Ummul Kitab by Maulana Abulkalam Azad (Tafsir Sura Alfatiha), Islami Academy, Urdu Bazar, Lahore, 1975 Ed, page 194.
[28]Cambridge History of India op cit pages 134 to 136.
[29]Ibid pages 450, 451.
[30]Longmans’ History op cit page 97.
[31]Cambridge History of India op cit page 467.
[32]Longmans’ History op cit page 88.
[33]Ibid page 124.
[34]Ibid page 134.
[35]History of India by Dr Romila Thappar, Vol. 1, Penguin Edition, page 121.
[36]Longmans’ History op cit page 137, note 1.
[37]Ibid pages 159 to 160.
[38]Cambridge History of India op cit page 423, note 1, line 4.
[39]Dr. Romila Thapar, op cit page 27.
[40]The History and Culture of the Indian people, Vol-I, The Vedic Age, Editor Dr. R.C. MaJumdar 1952 Edition, page 252.
[41]Ibid page 254.
[42]The New Encyclopaedia Britanica, 15th Ed, 1974 Vol 9, page 443.
[43]Dr. Romila Thapar op cit page 63.
[44]History of the Punjab, Vol 1, page 23.
[45]Platts Dictionary op cit page 654.
[46]Ibid page 235.
[47]The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, op cit page 443.
[48]Platts Dictionary op cit page 1103.
[49]A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, Volume III L-Z, Compiled by H.A. Rose, pages 87 and 99.
[50]History of the Punjab Vol I, op cit page 19.
[51]M’Crindle op cit pages 58 and 59.
[52]The Parachgan by Lt Col Ashraf Faiz, The Frontier Post Publications, Lahore 1994, page 20.
[53]A Short History of Pakistan General Editor Dr. I.H. Qureshi, Book One, By Dr. A.H Dani, M.A. Ph. D, (London), Published by The University of Karachi – 1992 Reprint, pages 101 and 102.
[54]History of Buddhism in Cylone by Dr. Rahula Walpole, Publishers M.D. Gunasena & Co Ltd. Colombo, 1958, page 3.
[55]M’Crindle op cit pages 327 and 328.
[56]A History of Persia by Sir Percy Sykes Publishers Macmillan & Co. Ltd. London 1951, page 305.
[57]Longmans’ History op cit page 127.
[58]Cambridge History op cit pages 201and 226.
[59]Afghanistan by Louis Dupree, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, page 435.
[60]Tazkira Paracha Qabeela (Urdu) by Haji Faiz Bakhash Parach, Al-Khair Publishers Faisalabad, 1985, page 77.
[61]Cambridge history of India, op cit, page 291
[62] History of the Arabs by Philip K. Hitti, Professor of Semitic Literature, Princeton University, 12th Reprint 1992, Publishers Macmillan Education Ltd. London, pages 48 and 49.
[63]M’Crindle op cit page 252.
[64]History of The Freedom Movement in India by Dr. R.C. MaJumdar, M.A. Ph D, Vol. 1, Published by Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay Calcutta, 1962, pages 40, 41 and 42 (Extracts).