Internal Assignment No.

B.A
Paper Code: B.A –HI-001

Paper Title: HISTORY OF INDIA FROM EARLIEST TIMES UP TO 1200 A.D

STUDENT NAME………………………………….
ROLL NO…………………………………………..

ANS 1

Annexation of Kalinga

With the victory of Asoka in the Kalinga war, Kalinga was annexed to
Magadhan empire and it constituted its fifth province. The other four
provinces of the empire were Prachya, Uttarapatha, Avanti and
Dakshinapatha having their capitals at Magadha, Takshasila, Ujjaini and
Suvarnagiri respectively. Tosali was the capital of Kalinga and the centre of
political activities for the Mauryan administration in Kalinga. Two separate
Kalinga edicts of Asoka found at Dhauli and Jaugarh enumerate the pattern
of Mauryan administration for the province of kalinga.

Change from Chandasoka to Dharmasoka

The horror of the Kalinga war changed the mind of Asoka. In Rock Edict
XIII, Asoka expresses-“In conquering indeed an unconquered country
(Kalinga), the slaying, death, deporting that occur there are considered
extremely painful and serious by the Devanampiya” This war brought about
a great transformation in the heart of Asoka. He was changed from
Chandasoka to Dharmasoka with a vow to conquer mankind by conquering
the heart of the people and not-to win over them by war.

Acceptance of Buddhism after Kalinga war

The Kalinga War had brought deep feeling or remorse in the mind of Asoka.
It drew himself close towards Buddhism. After Kalinga War, he was
converted to Buddhism by Upagupta, a Buddhist monk or Nigrodha, the
seven year old son of Asoka’s elder brother Sumana whom he had killed or
Mogaliputtatissa, the president of the Third Buddhist Council. Whatever the
fact might be, Asoka accepted Buddhism after the Kalinga war.

Spread of Buddhism in India and outside countries

The transformation of Asoka helped in the spread of Buddhism. Buddhism,

which was confined to the middle of the Gangetic Valley in Pre-Asokan
period, suddenly became an all-India religion within a decade of his
conversion. Not only in India, Buddhism also spread to different parts of
the world. He sent Mahendra and Sanghamitra, his son and daughter
respectively to Ceylon, Sana and Uttara to Suvarnabhumi (Burma) and
further, he maintained friendly relation with Kings of Greece, Syria, Egypt,
Macedonia and Cryne by sending missions of peace. Thus, Asoka, being
converted to Buddhism after the Kalinga War, was instrumental for the
spread of Buddhism from Greece to Burma and from the Himalayas to the
Ceylon.

Paternal attitude towards his subjects

Asoka adopted a paternalistic attitude towards his subjects after the

Kalinga War. In separate Kalinga Edicts (Dhauli and Jaugad) Asoka
expresses himself as such . “All men are my children and just as I desire
for my children that they should obtain welfare and happiness both in this
world and the next, the same I do desire for all men…” This attitude made
him a completely benevolent ruler.

ASHOKA
Ashoka was one of the famous rulers of the Mauryan dynasty, under whom the dynasty
expanded to its largest magnitude. The structure of Government that was set up by
Chandragupta Maurya in order to manage the administration of such a vast Empire was
maintained by His son, Bindusara. During Ashoka, expanse of the Mauryan Territory was
extended because of his military expedition. To manage the administrative functions of a
vast territory, Ashoka introduced several administrative reforms. With the help of such
reforms he continued to maintain a centralised administration and at the same time capably
managed the provincial administration thereby ensuring social harmony.

The structure of the Mauryan Government was a centralised one. Ashoka was at the helm of
his administration with his brother Tishya as the deputy. The crown prince and the other
kumaras in the sphere of provincial administration also assisted Ashoka. He appointed a
group of trusted ministers who always helped him in the matters of administrative policies.
Historians have opined that consultation prevailed with the ministers during Ashoka's reign
before adopting any administrative policies and during emergencies. From the Rock Edicts III
and VI it is evident that Ashoka continued his grandfather's practice of consulting the inner
ministers or "mantrins" for general and emergency matters. Thus the structure of the
central Government during Ashoka, remained more or less unchanged. The only difference
was that he had introduced a higher level of philanthropic spirit in his government and
administrative policies compared to his mighty grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya.

Ashoka, however did not deviate from the policy of centralisation of his forefathers. Though
he granted some autonomy to the Samghas like Brijji, Kambojas and Panchalas, he never let
them loose to raise a revolt against the vast Mauryan Empire. Some historians describe
Ashoka as a protector of laws and not the propagator of laws, but the Ashokan edicts do not
justify this claim. Though he followed the policy of non-violence and benevolence as the
king, he amended the criminal laws, whenever he felt it necessary. That is why he also
introduced the legal reforms like Danda Samahara and Vyavahara Samahara. Ashoka was
the sovereign head of the Mauryan Empire in every inch, as the Arthashastra instructed him
to be.
The traditional Mauryan concept of kingship was however softened by the administrative
policies adopted by Ashoka because of his paternalist concept. In the Kalinga Edict, Ashoka
declared, "All men are my Children". In another Rock edict, Ashoka declared that he was
indebted to his subjects and he considered it to be his holy duty to serve the people.
Therefore he appointed Pativedakas or reporters, who would report to the king about the
general and public affairs for the king to take necessary steps.

ANS2

This is tough to address because of its complexity. I think that there are two
specific aspects of the Indian political condition that need to be
addressed. There is the international dimension, which is going fairly well for
India right now. There is a very strong alignment with the West on many
different issues. The potential thorniness in relations that existed with the
Bush Administration is not as present right now with the Obama
Administration. India- U.S. Ties are at one of their strongest points, as
evidenced by Secretary of State Clinton's comments this week in India. The
recent U.S. dissatisfaction with Pakistan, highlighted by the Bin Laden killing,
has also helped to solidify ties with India. Outsourcing debates have subsided
to a certain extent, and there is a strong economic presence that India holds in
the world with its presence in world economic discussions as having
relevancy. India is a nation that can offer its input on world issues, such as its
recent condemnation of the Oslo terrorist attacks, and actually have a sense
of purpose and relevancy in doing so. From a foreign point of view, India is
experiencing a moment of great international political prestige.

Domestically, things are at a different point. The last three months have seen
a very disturbing uptick in corruption scandals for the major political
parties. The reigning Congress party has had its hand full with calls from
social activist Anna Hazare demanding for change. The Baba Ramdev
hunger strike and police entrance/ seizure caused another row because of
how it was perceived, given his stand against government corruption. In the
last two weeks, the "2 G scam" involving Textiles Minister Maran and his
eventual departure gave the administration another black eye, leading to a
cabinet reshuffle that tried to cleanse some of the recent stench. Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh has taken to weekly press conferences, in the
attempt to help spread a more positive public relations image. The first of
these did not go well, as he referred to the India Media as "judge, jury, and
executioner." The opposition party is not faring too well either on the
corruption front. This weekend's breaking news about the land scam charge
against the Karnataka state Chief Minister has caused the BJP party to divide
on whether or not he should be dismissed. As the charges of corruption in
this matter become more divulged with land dealings, secret trust funds, and
using public land for private profit, faith in government seems to be
decreasing. It seems that other parties struggle with the corruption charge, as
well, immersed in "votes for cash scams" as well as politicians being marched
into police headquarters for questioning on corruption charges at an
alarmingly frequent timetable. It is here where there is a different state of
affairs in Indian domestic political affairs.

Harshavardhana
With the commencement of the 7th century, Harshavardhana (606-647 A.D.) ascended the
throne of Thaneshwar and Kannauj on the death of his brother, Rajyavardhana. By 612
Harshavardhana consolidated his kingdom in northern India.
In 620 A.D. Harshavardhana invaded the Chalukya kingdom in the Deccan, which was then
ruled by Pulakesin II. But the Chalukya resistance proved tough for Harshavardhana and he
was defeated. Harshavardhana is well known for his religious toleration, able administration
and diplomatic relations. He maintained diplomatic relations with China and sent envoys,
who exchanged ideas of the Chinese rulers and developed their knowledge about each other.

The Chinese traveller, Hiuen Tsang, who visited India during his reign, has given a vivid
description of the social, economic and religious conditions, under the rule of Harsha spoke
highly of the king. Harsha's death, once again, left India without any central paramount
power.

The Chalukyas of Badami

The Chalukyas were a great power in southern India between 6th and 8th century A.D.
Pulakesin I, the first great ruler of this dynasty ascended the throne in 540 A.D. and having
made many splendid victories, established a mighty empire. His sons Kirtivarman and
Mangalesa further extended the kingdom by waging many successful wars against the
neighbours including the Mauryans of the Konkans.
Pulakesin II, the son of Kirtivarman, was one of the greatest ruler of the Chalukya dynasty.
He ruled for almost 34 years. In this long reign, he consolidated his authority in Maharashtra
and conquered large parts of the Deccan. His greatest achievement was his victory in the
defensive war against Harshavardhana.

However, Pulakesin was defeated and killed by the Pallav king Narasimhavarman in 642 A.D.
His son Vikramaditya, who was also as great a ruler as his father, succeeded him. He
renewed the struggle against his southern enemies. He recovered the former glory of the
Chalukyas to a great extent. Even his great grandson, Vikramaditya II was also a great
warrior. In 753 A.D., Vikramaditya and his son were overthrown by a chief named
Dantidurga who laid the foundation of the next great empire of Karnataka and Maharashtra
called Rashtrakutas.

The Pallavas of Kanchi

In the last quarter of the 6th century A.D. the Pallava king Sinhavishnu rose to power and
conquered the area between the rivers Krishna and Cauveri. His son and successor
Mahendravarman was a versatile genius, who unfortunately lost the northern parts of his
dominion to the Chalukya king, Pulekesin II. But his son, Narsinhavarman I, crushed the
power of Chalukyas. The Pallava power reached its glorious heights during the reign of
Narsinhavarman II, who is well known for his architectural achievements. He built many
temples, and art and literature flourished in his times. Dandin, the great Sanskrit scholar,
lived in his court. However, after his death, the Pallava Empire began to decline and in course
of time they were reduced to a mere local tribal power. Ultimately, the Cholas defeated the
Pallava king Aparajita and took over their kingdom towards the close of the 9th century A.D.
The ancient history of India has seen the rise and downfall of several dynasties, which have
left their legacies still resounding in the golden book of Indian history. With the end of the
9th century A.D., the medieval history of India started with the rise of empires such as the
Palas, the Senas, the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas, and so on.

Internal Assignment No. 2

B.A
Paper Code: B.A –HI-001

Paper Title: HISTORY OF INDIA FROM EARLIEST TIMES UP TO 1200 A.D

STUDENT NAME………………………………….

ROLL NO…………………………………………..

ANS 1

The aim is about what you hope to do, your overall intention in the project. It signals what
and/or where you aspire to be by the end. It’s what you want to know. It is the point of doing
the research. An aim is therefore generally broad. It is ambitious, but not beyond possibility.
The convention is that an aim is usually written using an infinitive verb – that is, it’s a to +
action. So aims often start something like.. My aim in this project is … to map, to develop, to
design, to track, to generate, to theorise, to build … Sometimes in the humanities and social
sciences we have aims which attempt to acknowledge the inevitable partiality of what we do,
so we aim ‘to investigate, to understand, and to explore… ‘ But lots of project reviewers and
supervisors prefer to see something less tentative than this – they want something much less
ambivalent, something more like to synthesise, to catalogue, to challenge, to critically
interrogate ….
(2) The objectives, and there are usually more than one, are the specific steps you will take
to achieve your aim. This is where you make the project tangible by saying how you are going
to go about it.
Objectives are often expressed through active sentences. So, objectives often start something
like In order to achieve this aim, I will… collect, construct, produce, test, trial, measure,
document, pilot, deconstruct, analyse… Objectives are often presented as a (1) (2) (3)
formatted list – this makes visible the sequence of big steps in the project. The list of
objectives spells out what you actually and really will do to get to the point of it all.
You have to make the objectives relatively precise. Having a bunch of vague statements isn’t
very helpful – so ‘I will investigate’ or ‘I will explore’ for example aren’t particularly useful
ways to think about the research objectives. How will you know when an investigation has
ended? How will you draw boundaries around an exploration? In thinking about the answer
to these questions, you are likely to come up with the actual objectives.
Objectives have to be practical, do-able and achievable. Research reviewers generally
look to see if the time and money available for the research will genuinely allow the
researcher to achieve their objectives. They also look to see if the objectives are possible,
actually research-able.
Because the objectives also act as project milestones, it’s helpful to express them as things
that are able to be completed – so for example scoping an archive of materials will have an
end point which may then lead on to a next stage/objective. Even if objectives are to occur
simultaneously, rather than one after the other, it is important to be clear about what the end
point of each step/objective will be, and how it will help achieve the aim.

Historians have differed in their opinions on the aims and motives of Mahmood GhaznaVi’s
invasion of India but it is agreed that these invasions began after he had received the title
from the Caliph (Khalifa) of Baghdad. The following aims and motives have been referred to
by different scholars, which motivated Mahmood to invade India incessantly:

1. Historians like Professor Habib, Dr. Muhammad Nazim and Dr. S. N. Zafar are of the view
that the fundamental motive of Mahmood’s invasion on India was to plunder her wealth.
Mahmood was not a fanatic and he did not pay attention to the advice of the ulemas. He did
not attack the Hindu temples to satisfy his religious zeal but to extract money. The Muslim
rulers of Central Asia were also not spared by him. Professor E. B. Havell writes about him
that he could have plundered Baghdad, the same way as he looted the cities of India,
provided he expected to get wealth from there. His court historian Utbi has also tried to cover
his religious zeal with a Iransparcnt cover of greed for gold, whereas historians like V. A.
Smith, Dr. Ishwari Prasad and Professor S. R. Sharma are of the opinion that he wanted to
propagate Islam in India.

2. From economic point of view the empire of Mahmood was ill straits in comparison to the
Indian empire. He was badly in need of money for the proper maintenance of administration,
and peace. Money was also much needed for the safety and durability of the empire. He had
knowledge about the great wealth of India and the riches stored in Indian temples. He
wanted to occupy it.

3. Besides the safety and the proper up-keep of the administration, money was needed for
the expansion of the empire. For this he had to wage wars against the Turks and the plunder
of India was a good means of acquiring money.

4. Mahmood used to recruit people of martial race in his army and the plunder of India was
an incentive for them; therefore, they used to join the army of Mahmood and fought for him.
Thus greed for gold tempted Mahmood and his soldiers to make an invasion on India.

5. Some historians do not agree with the above mentioned view. They stress the fact that
expansion of Islam was the root cause of this conflict. The court historian Utbi writes that his
attacks on India were motivated by the feeling of Jihad for he wanted to convert Darul Herb
(Hindu Territory) into Darul Islam (Muslim Territory). Hence he broke up the idols and
destroyed the temples. He had already promised the Khalifa that he would do so every year
at the time of getting the role of honour and title from him. The Muslim historians affirm that
he did not expand Islam but he enhanced its glory. Dr. Nazim has accepted him as a
preacher of Islam. In his opinion the victory of Mahmood over Somnath was a wonderful
achievement of Islam against the infidels or the idol worshippers and he was praised as ‘The
Saviour of Religion’ in the Muslim world.

6. But the modern Muslim historians do not agree that Mahmood wss motivated by religious
zeal. Dr. Ishwari Prasad writes that Mahmood wanted to plunder the unlimited wealth of
India and after completion of his aim, h: went back to Ghazni. S. M. Jafar opines that
Mahmood was not a fanatic; he was a conqueror only.

ANS 2
The real founder of the Muslim Empire in India was Muiz-ud-din
Muhammad bin Sam, popularly known as Shihabud Din Muhammad Ghori
or Muhammad of Ghur.

It. is true that Muhammad bin Qasim was the first Muslim invader of India
but he failed to carve out a Muslim empire in India on account of his
premature death.

Mahmud of Ghazni also failed to set up a Muslim empire in India and the
only permanent effect of his invasions was the annexation of the Punjab. It
was left to Muhammad Ghori to build up a Muslim empire in India on a
secure footing. In 1173 A.D.

Shihabuddin Muhammad ascended the throne at Ghazni. Proceeding

byway of the Gomal Pass, Muhammad bin Sam also known as Muhammad
Ghori conquered Multan and Uchch in 1175 A.D. In 1178 A.D. he tried to
penetrate into Gujarat but was defeated and completely routed by the
Chalukyan King Mularaj II near Mount Abu.

After that Muhammad Ghori attacked Punjab using Khyber Pass. By 1190
A.D. Muizuddin Muhammad conquered Peshawar, Lahore and Sialkot. By
1182 A.D. the whole of Sindh was captured. His conquest of Punjab and
further inroads into northern India led to inevitable contest between him
and the Rajput’s.

While Muhammad was over-running Multan and Uchch, Prithviraj III

known as Prithviraj Chauhan ascended the throne of Aimer at the age of 14.
He was very powerful and made several conquests. He invaded
Bundelkhand and defeated the Chandellas in the battle at Mahoba.

The conflict between Prithviraj and Muhammad Ghori started for the fort
of Tarabhinda (Bhatinda). The enemies met each other in the battlefield at
Tarain known as the First Battle of Tarain in 1191 A.D. Muhammad was
defeated in the battle and his forces were severely routed. Little attempt
was made by Prithviraj to oust the Ghurids from the Punjab.
This gave Muhammad Ghori time to re-group his forces and make another
bid for India the following year. He met Prithviraj for the second time in the
battle field of Tarain in 1192 A.D. Prithviraj was decisively defeated this
time.

Though the numerical strength of Prithviraj’s army was more, the superior
organization and skill of the Turkish cavalry decided the issue. Soon after
Prithviraj was captured and put to death. The second battle of Tarain paved
the way for the ascendancy of the Turks. From this point Rajput power
entered a phase of irreversible decay. Thus the area of Delhi and eastern
Rajasthan passed under the Turkish rule. Muhammad came back to India
in 1194 A.D. This time his target was the kingdom of Kannauj.

Jayachandra the ruler of Kannauj and Muhammad fought a battle at

Chandawar. Rajputs were defeated and Jaychandra was killed in the war.
Muhammad proceeded as far as Banaras and captured all the important
places of the kingdom of Kannauj. The battle of Chandawar laid the
foundation of Turkish rule in northern India.

1. The perpetual conflict of the Ghurids with the Seljukids and the Turkish
tribes across the Oxus impelled the Ghurids towards India.

2. The rising power of the Khwarizmi Empire severely limited the Central
Asian ambitions of the Ghurids. Khorasan, which was the bone of
contention between the two, after being conquered by the Khwarizmi Shah
left no option for the Ghurids but to look for expansion towards India.

3. The imperilistic ambitions of the Ghurids was one of the main cause for
their Indian invasion.

Consequences of Ghorian Invasions:

1. The Turkish conquest of India paved the way for the liquidation of the
multi-state system in India as the political ideal of the Turkish sultan was a
centralised political organization under the monarch.

2. The institution of iqtas served their purpose of breaking the feudal

traditions of the various areas and for linking up the various parts of the
empire to one centre.

3. The Turks also gave India a centralised administration by which trade

received a new impetus.

4. The intimate contact between India and the outer Asiatic world was
restored by the Ghorian conquest.