Incorrect Interpretation of Dr. Parpola's Speech

Recently an article appeared in the Deccan Herald which suggests that the Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola has demolished the Aryan-Dravidian divide as a myth. Dr. Parpola, for those you don’t know, has been studying the Indus scripts since 1960, and holds that the language is proto-Dravidian. Recently, the President of India awarded the first Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi Classical Tamil Award to the Dr. Parpola. In his speech Dr. Parpola said

Tamil goes back to Proto-Dravidian, which in my opinion can be identified as the language of the thousands of short texts in the Indus script, written in 2600-1700 BCE. There are, of course, different opinions, but many critical scholars agree that even the Rigveda, collected in the Indus Valley about 1000 BCE, has at least half a dozen Dravidian loanwords. [Acceptance speech of Asko Parpola at World Classical Tamil Conference]

Now if such a person, who argues that the language of the Indus was an early form of Tamil, suggests that the Aryan-Dravidian divide is a myth, then there is something to it. This is what Deccan Herald says

However, the rich religious/cultural heritage in South Asia till now has been preserved both by the speakers of Dravidian languages (predominantly in South India) and the people of North India, Prof. Parpola emphasised, to demolish the myth of a clear Aryan-Dravidian divide. Dr Parpola’s work left the top DMK leadership seated in front, nonplussed, kindling them to rethink the Aryan-Dravidian divide issue. [Jolt to Aryan-Dravidian divide theory]

The problem is this: the Aryan-Dravidian divide is not based what happened after the Aryans arrived, but before. It is based on identifying who were the natives and who were the outsiders and according to Dr. Parpola, the Aryans migrated into India. In fact he believes that there were two waves of migration: two Indo-Aryan groups — the Dasas and Panis — arrived around 2100 B.C.E from the steppes via Central Asia bringing horses with them, but they were not the composers of the Rig Veda. The Vedic composers came a couple of centuries later.

Then: 

Most of the Early Dravidian speakers of North and Central India switched over to the dominant Indo-Aryan languages in Post-Harappan times. Speakers of Aryan languages have indistinguishably merged with speakers of Dravidian and Munda languages millennia ago, creating a composite Indian society containing elements inherited from every source. [Parpola and the Indus script]

Thus what Dr. Parpola said at the World Classical Tamil Conference is not different from his decades old position. Unless Dr. Parpola states that he believes in the Indigenous Aryanism — that the Sanskrit speakers were natives of India and not migrants — he is still supporting the Aryan-Dravidian divide.

Harappan Coastal Towns

The city of Dholavira (see map), an important site of the Harappan civilization, is located in a small island in the Rann of Kutch. Discovered in 1966, it was excavated two decades later. It was not a small town; extending over 47 hectares, it ranks among the top five Harappan sites. Now new discoveries from this area are changing our understanding of the Harappan sites which were hundreds of kilometers away from the well known sites of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, but were coastal towns.
For example a huge tank like structure was discovered at Lothal, which is about 50 km east of Dholavira. Located near Bhogavo, a tributary of Sabarmati river, Lothal is a small site (7 hectares) which followed the Harappan tradition of wide streets and fortification. The “tank” structure is 217m long and 36m wide and its walls were made of millions of baked bricks.  When stone anchors and marine shells were found in this tank, archaeologists identified it as a tidal dockyard. During high tide, boats could sail up the Bhogavo and dock here. The warehouse was nearby and there was a spillway for overflowing waters.
Then as with almost anything related to the Harappan civilization, this identification is controversial. Some argue that it was just a reservoir and nothing more. Then shouldn’t a reservoir have slanted steps like in Dholavira or Mohenjo-daro? If it were a reservoir, would the Harappans empty waste water into it?[1Recently Dennys Frenez of the University of Bologna found some hints that wide canal connected the basin with the sea which supports the theory that the tank was indeed a port[3].
To understand what goods went out from Lothal we need to visit Kanmer.  Located close to Dholavira, it had a population of less than 500 people during the peak of the Harappan civilization. The people of this fortified city were involved in bead making — from carnelian, lapis and agate — and exporting. One of the difficult tasks for the bead makers was drilling the small hole for the string which was done using drill bits made of hardened synthetic  stone. Also found in Kanmer were clay seals with a central hole (see pic). According to the dig director Toshiki Osada, they might be pendants used as a kind of passport in trade. 
References:

  1. Michel Danino, Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati (Penguin Books India, 2010).
  2. D.P Agrawal et al., Redefining the Harappan hinterland, Antiquity, 084, no. 323 (March 2010). 
  3. Andrew Lawler, The Coastal Indus Looks West,  Science, May 28, 2010. (via Ranjith P)

The sign board at Dholavira

While various techniques are being applied to decipher the Indus script, there is an even more fundamental debate on if the Indus people were literate or not. The average length of a seal is five symbols; the longest single-sided inscription has seventeen signs.

One probable use of Indus seals was in economic activity; the seals found in Lothal had impressions of a coarse cloth on their reverse and sometimes several seals were used to mark the goods. Thus the seals meant something to the sender and receiver though we are not quite sure what. But did those seals have meaning only to the trading community? The sign board at Dholavira says no.

This signboard — accidently discovered and painstakingly excavated — is large. The board is 3m long and each of the ten signs is “35 cm to 37 cm tall and 25 cm to 27 cm broad.” The width of the board to the specific length was intentional: it fit the northern gate of the citadel. The signs were made of baked gypsum so that it could be seen from the distance.

Since this board was placed in a public place, big enough to be seen by people in the middle and lower town, it is sure that it had some meaning. According to R. S. Bisht, who discovered the board in 1991, “The inscription could stand for the name of the city, the king or the ruling family,”

He also adds

Bisht opined that the Harappans were a literate people. The commanding height at which the 10-sign board had been erected showed that it was meant to be read by all people.

Besides, seals with Indus signs were found everywhere in the city – in the citadel, middle town, lower town, annexe, and so on. It meant a large majority of the people knew how to read and write. The Indus script had been found on pottery as well. Even children wrote on potsherds.

Bisht said: “The argument that literacy was confined to a few people is not correct. You find inscriptions on pottery, bangles and even copper tools. This is not graffiti, which is child’s play. The finest things were available even to the lowest sections of society. The same seals, beads and pottery were found everywhere in the castle, bailey, the middle town and the lower town of the settlement at Dholavira, as if the entire population had wealth. [Inscriptions on stone and wood]

See Also: Stone inscription with Indus signs

The Gandharans in Thermopylae and Plataea

In August or September of 480 BCE, the 38 year old Xerxes, the Zoroastrian king of the Achaemenid Empire, set off to wage a war against the Greeks.There were two famous battles, The Battle of Thermopylae — immortalized by movies like 300 and novels like Gates of Fire — and The Battle of Plataea where the Greeks took revenge. Less known is the fact that people from the Indian subcontinent participated in both the battles.

Cyrus (576 – 530 BCE) expanded the Achaemenid Empire from Egypt to the Indus. The region called Paropamisadae (Hindu-Kush, Kabul, Bagram) was under Achaemenid control since the time of Darius I (522 – 486 BCE). The Persians called this region India. Darius built a palace in Susa in Elam and according to a text he got sisoo-timber and ivory from Gandhara. Also the ivory came from India. 

The 20th satrapy was India and it paid the largest tribute — 360 talents of gold dust — even more than Babylon. The primary source regarding Indians of this era is Herodotus; according to Herodotus, the Indians spoke many languages and some of them were nomads. Also some Indians were cannibals, had black semen and had gold-digging ants. So the “first” historian’s statements have to be taken with a pinch of sodium chloride. This 20th satrapy was located at the junction of a road network connecting Central Asia, West Asia and Kashmir. While invaders, art, and languages came into India via this route, Indian soldiers also went West as mercenaries.

In 490 BCE, Darius I tried to subdue Greece in the Battle of Marathon, but was routed. Following Darius’ death in 486 BCE, his son Xerxes decided to take revenge. The line of defence was the pass of Thermopylae. Sparta sent only a token elite force under the leadership of one of its two kings – Leonidas. Their allies too stayed back, citing various reasons. It was like the scene in India when Alexander arrived around 200 years later.

According to Herodotus, 1,700,000 Persian troops and 1200 warships arrived for the war against the Greek Coalition of the Willing. The Indians wore clothes made of cotton and carried reed bows and arrows of reed with iron heads. They were under the command of Pharnazathres who was the son of Artabates. There were Indian cavalrymen as well as those who rode horses and chariots pulled by horses and asses. 

Following the famous Spartan defeat at Thermopylae, there were naval battles at Artemisium and Salamis which was followed by the decisive Battle of Plataea. In this battle, the Spartans were not alone: Athens, Corinth, and Megara joined the alliance of states. Herodotus mentions that around 110,000 Persian troops from various countries were deployed near the Asopus River. There is a brief mention of where the Indians stood relative to the other troops and nothing more.

In this battle fought near Thebes, the Persian infantry was defeated and expelled from the Greece. The leading Persian commander Mardonius was killed. We mostly read the Western interpretation of these wars. For these historians, the Battle of Thermopylae, where 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans were killed, represents patriotism while the Battle of Plataea shows how a defeated force can come together and rout a superpower. Unfortunately we don’t have any Indian accounts of these battles.

References:

  1. Paul Cartledge, Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World (Vintage, 2007). 
  2. Robert B. Strassler,The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories Reprint. (Anchor, 2009). 

Stone inscription with Indus signs


(Indus Signs from a earlier find in Dholavira)

An inscription on stone, with three big Indus signs and possibly a fourth, has been found on the Harappan site of Dholavira in Gujarat.
The discovery is significant because this is the first time that the Indus script has been found engraved on a natural stone in the Indus Valley. The Indus script has so far been found on seals made of steatite, terracotta tablets, ceramics and so on. Dholavira also enjoys the distinction of yielding a spectacularly large Indus script with 10 big signs on wood. This inscription was three-metre long. [Stone inscription with Indus signs found in Gujarat]

Dholavira, located on the island of Khadir in the Rann of Kutch, is among the top five Harappan cities in terms of size. Previously an inscription with ten large size signs of Indus script was found here. This sign board was hung on a wooden plank in front of a large stadium.
It is usually mentioned that if the Indus script indeed did represent something, it must have been for the elite. The sign board at Dholavira refuted that claim. It has also been mentioned quite often that the Harappans never wrote anything on stone. This discovery refutes that claim too.
This new find — the stone with three or four inscriptions — is not really a new find. It was discovered in 1999 and was even mentioned in the 2007 ASI report. Finally in 2010, someone decided to take a look which makes you wonder how many such Indus script pieces must be lying in the basement of various Government institutions.

Faking Noah's Ark

A major breaking news few days back was the “discovery” of “Noah’s Ark.” Yes, that Noah’s Ark. It was discovered by Turkish and Chinese Evangelicals on top of Mount Ararat in Turkey. For years many explorers, who literally believe in the Bible, have searched for it in Turkey and it was even featured on PBS.
Finally the lucky ones were the Noah’s Ark Ministries from Hong Kong and their partner The Media Evangelism.

The team said it had recovered wooden specimens from a structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey that carbon dating proved was 4800 years old, around the same time the ark is said to have been afloat.
“It’s not 100 per cent that it is Noah’s Ark but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it,” said Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker and member of the 15-strong team from Noah’s Ark Ministries International.
The structure had several compartments, some with wooden beams, which were believed to house animals, he said. [Noah’s Ark ‘found’ in Turkey]

An artifact from a story, recycled from a Sumerian epic, discovered by a group of people who want to “advance the Kingdom of God.”; What could go wrong? Especially when the same group runs a theme park by the same name.
It is bad when one of your team members think that a group of local Kurdish men hauled the wood from the Black Sea area to Mt. Ararat to stage a hoax. It is a disaster when members of Creation Institute want to stay away from you. So it is not surprising when scholars dismiss the story, here and here and here and here. And now the Turkish authorities are investigating
Adam Rutherford at The Guardian writes about these artificial relics.

It seems to me that the physical aspects of Christianity are so much less interesting than the intellectual. Did Jesus exist? No one knows. And while I understand the import of his actual existence and more significantly his gory death, what’s far more fascinating is that billions of people believe in him. Did Noah’s ark exist? No. But there are diluvian myths in many cultures and religion, and that’s interesting. The problem with relics is that they are fundamentally silly, and that limits discourse to the absurd. [A pain in the ark]

In Pragati – Takshashila: The lighthouse of a civilization

(Ancient Buddhist Monastery at Jaulian, Takshashila)

Between 576 – 530 BCE, the Achaemenid emperor Cyrus established an empire which extended from Egypt to the Indus — the largest empire the world had seen so far. His successor Darius incorporated Gandhara with Takshashila as its capital, on the Eastern border, as a satrapy. Over the next millennia Takshashila was invaded many times and it became a cosmopolitan town from where great scholarship, new styles of art form, and future emperors would emerge. It was a historic meeting place of the East and the West.
The University Town
Takshashila was primarily a center for learning; an inscribed ladle from the Achaemenid period indicates that this place was a retreat for monks and scholars.  We don’t know exactly from when Takshashila was a university town. What we know is that it is mentioned as a place of learning in the pre-Buddhist Jataka tales. In fact Takshashila was a well known place even before Buddha’s period. According to Ramayana, the city was founded by Bharata who named it after his son Taksha. As per Mahabharata, Janamejaya held his court in Takshashila and it was here that Vaisampayana first narrated the story of the conflict between the Pandavas and Kauravas. The Vayu Purana mentions that Takshashila in Gandhara district is well known for the consecration of Taksha, the serpent prince.
During Buddha’s time it was a well known place of Hindu and Buddhist learning along the Uttarapatha or Northern Route. Students — Brahmin youth, princes, sons of rich merchants — trekked from the cities of the Gangetic plain to complete their advanced education: Jotipala, the son of a Brahmin priest in the court of the King of Benares returned after graduating in archery and military science and was appointed the commander-in-chief. Jivika, Bimbisara’s physician who cured Buddha, learned medicine in Takshashila. Prasenajit, the king of Kosala, who too was associated with Buddha was educated in Takshashila.
It was in this city that Panini produced one of the greatest achievement in grammar and Chanakya composed the treatise on statecraft. Students, who were admitted at the age of 16, learned the Vedas and arts (archery, hunting, elephant lore, political economy). There were schools for Law, Medicine and Military Science educating future emperors like Chandragupta Maurya.
There was no single Takshashila University in the modern sense. Each teacher formed his own institution, teaching as many students as he liked and teaching subjects he liked without conforming to any centralized syllabus. If a teacher had a large number of students, he assigned one of his advanced students to teach them. Teachers did not deny education if the student was poor; those students had to do manual work in the household. Paying students like princes were lodged in the teacher’s house and were taught during the day; non-paying ones, at night.
Trade & Art
Greek historians accompanying Alexander described the place as “wealthy, prosperous and well governed”. According to Strabo, Takshashila was a large city governed by good laws. The country was heavily populated and extremely fertile. Apollonius of Tyana who visited Takshashila in 46 CE observed that the people wore cotton and had sandals made of papyrus with a leather cap. The layout of the streets and houses reminded him of Athens.
Takshashila was also strategically located; it was the junction of a road network connecting Central Asia, West Asia and Kashmir. The “Royal Highway” connecting Takshashila to Pataliputra was precursor to the Grand Trunk Road. Horses, gold, luxury textiles, precious stones – all passed through Takshashila from the Gangetic plains to the Achaemenid world.  The Aramaic script came into India through this path and influenced the Kharoshthi script which was used for trade and administration. According to John Marshall, Kharoshthi was derived at Takshashila.
The imports were all not one way: During the time of Xerxes, the successor of Darius, Indian soldiers served in the Achaemenid forces and some of them fought in the Battle of Thermopylae against King Leonidas of Sparta. The Indian soldiers also participated in the Battle of Plataea, a year later, in which the Greek city states defeated the Persians. Through these contacts, historians like Herodotus got exotic ideas of India.
Takshashila, an important place in the east-west trade,  was also the melting pot of various cultures — Hindu, Buddhist, Persian, Greek. The interaction between Greek and Buddhist cultures influenced Buddhist art and it was here that Buddha was represented in human form for the first time by artists who were not restricted by the strict Buddhist rules in India. This Gandharan style, which combined Greco-Roman style from Alexandria, Hellenistic and Indian styles, influenced not just the Indians, but also the Central Asians and the South East Asians. The rock inscriptions of Asoka were influenced by the rock edicts of Darius in Gandhara. This melting pot culture affected the education with Greek dramas and philosophy being taught along with Indian texts.
The Invaders
Following the rule of Artaxerxes II (404 – 359 BCE), the Achaemenid rule declined and local chiefs became independent. After a period of quiescence for three decades, the trade routes brought a new invader and Takshashila surrendered without a fight. In early 327 BCE, half of Alexander’s army marched through the Khyber Pass and reached the shores of Indus. After subduing the hill tribes, Alexander and rest of the army joined them in 326 BCE at Ohind at the border of Takshashila.
After a 30 day rest, Alexander crossed the Indus into “the country of Indians” and on the other side he was met by an army in battle formation. This was highly unexpected. The king of Takshashila, Ambhi or Oomphis, had sent word that he would not oppose Alexander and would fight on his side. When it looked as if Ambhi had reneged on his promise, Alexander ordered his army to get ready.
Ambhi rode up alone towards the Greeks and he was met by Alexander who too rode up alone. Realizing that what came from Alexander’s mouth was all Greek, interpreters were summoned. Ambhi explained that he had come to put both his army and the kingdom at Alexander’s disposal. He also gifted elephants, large sheep and 3000 bulls to Alexander prompting the Greek to ask Ambhi if he as into husbandry. While Ambhi surrendered meekly, his neighbor Porus gave Alexander a good fight and lost. But Porus was praised; This battle, Battle of the Hydaspes, was immortalized by Western painters like André Castaigne ,Charles Le Brun and artists in Russia. It also made Ambhi a traitor, for aligning with a foreigner.
Alexander left in 325 BCE and the Greek power declined. Takshashila then became part of the Mauryan empire, under the leadership of Chandragupta Maurya, who apparently was present in Takshashila during Alexander’s invasion. We hear of Takshashila later when Chandragupta Maurya’s grandson Asoka arrived to quell a rebellion which did successfully without creating resentment among people. In 232 BCE, after Asoka’s death, Takshashila became independent; new coins were issued by a non-Mauryan authority. It fell under the Bactrian Greek influence till 50 BCE, Parthian and Saka influence till 60 CE and Kushans till the end of the second century. The Kushan emeror Kanishka had a regional capital in Takshashila.
When the Chinese pilgrim Sung-Yun visited Takshashila in 520 CE, it was already under the Huns who had been ruling for two generations. Sung-Yun noted that the Huns did not believe in the law of Buddha and were cruel and vindictive. According to him, the people of Takshashila were Brahmins who respected the law of Buddha. When Fa Hian visited in the fifth century there were numerous monasteries and stupas. When Xuanzang visited in the 7th century, Takshashila’s monasteries had become ruins and the royal family had become extinct. With the loss of royal patronage and with the ascendency of Saivite and Vaishnavite traditions, Buddhism disappeared from Takshashila.
Soon the city also declined. The political and administrative support perished. The population migrated and the city, after a millennium, became a set of rural settlements. But the memory of the old city did not die; When Alberuni visited in the eleventh century CE, he identified the new name Marikala with the old name Takshashila.
Notes:

  1. This article appeared in the May 2010 edition of Pragati
  2. Images from Wikipedia

References:

  1. Abraham Eraly, Gem in the Lotus: The Seeding of Indian Civilisation, 2005.
  2. A. Dani, Historic City of Taxila (Bernan Press(PA), 1986).
  3. Radhakumud Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and his times, 3rd ed. (Motilal Banarsidass, 1960).
  4. John Keay, India: A History (Grove Press, 2001).
  5. Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, 1st ed. (Prentice Hall, 2009).

Rigging Elections in 472 BCE

Sudan’s President Omar al Bashir was declared the winner of the recent elections — elections in which there were widespread allegations of fraud. One of the videos which surfaced on the Internet appeared to show election officials stuffing ballot boxes. In 472 BCE, there was no YouTube, but we have evidence of possible vote rigging in Athens.

A cache of almost 200 ostraka has been found down a well in Athens, each with the name “Themistocles” written on them (in a limited number of hands; they’re pictured at the top of this post). It’s a clear hint that the system was manipulable. “Get your Themistocles ostrakon here” someone must have been shouting — or, given the illiteracy of much of the Athenian people, “Get your Cimon ostrakon here” — and you actually got a Themistocles ostrakon, without realising it.[WBLG: A three-cornered election: the ancient Athenian solution]

Looking for Punt

Some time in the 15th century BCE, the female Pharoah Hatshepsut sent ships to a place called Punt. But we don’t know where that place is, even now.

So elusive is the answer that, since the mid-19th century, a procession of scholars have, like erudite dart-throwers, stippled the map of the Red Sea area with their often strongly argued proposals for where Punt lay. (Refer to map at right throughout this article.) Syria. Sinai. Southern Arabia. Eastern Sudan. Northern Ethiopia. Somalia. Kenya. Each was Punt, insists this or that Egyptologist. New papers continue to appear regularly that try to put this question to bed once and for all. So far, all have failed.[NOVA | Building Pharaoh’s Ship | Where Is Punt? | PBS]

To resolve this issue, scientists are turning to two people who may know the answer: two mummified baboons in the British Museum

The team is conducting oxygen isotope tests on the preserved hairs of the baboons. Oxygen isotopes act as a ‘signal’ that can tell scientists where an animal is from.
To aid in narrowing down the location of Punt the team is also performing oxygen isotope tests on samples of modern day baboons from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, Uganda and Mozambique. If the oxygen isotope signatures of these baboons match their ancient counterparts the team will know where Punt was.[Mummified Baboons in British Museum May Reveal Location of the Land of Punt | Heritage Key]

Update (April 26): The Baboons have spoken. They say Punt was the land between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Takshashila: 2 Kings & a King Maker


(The glorious battle of Alexander, King of Macedon, and Porus, King of India. Russian lubok via Wikipedia)
In early 327 BCE, half of Alexander’s army marched through the Khyber Pass and reached the shores of Indus. After subduing the hill tribes, Alexander and rest of the army joined them in 326 BCE at Ohind at the border of Takshashila — a large and prosperous city between Indus and Jhelum. Alexander’s activities, mostly invasion, produced different reactions from three people — two kings (Ambhi & Porus) and a king maker (Chanakya).
After a 30 day rest, Alexander crossed the Indus into “the country of Indians” and on the other side he was met by an army in battle formation. This was highly unexpected. The king of Takshashila, Ambhi or Oomphis, had sent word that he would not oppose Alexander and would fight on his side. When it looked as if Ambhi had reneged on his promise, Alexander ordered his army to get ready.
Ambhi rode up alone towards the Greeks and he was met by Alexander who too rode up alone. Realizing that what came from Alexander’s mouth was all Greek, interpreters were summoned. Ambhi explained that he had come to put both his army and the kingdom at Alexander’s disposal. He also gifted elephants, large sheep and 3000 bulls to Alexander prompting the Greek to ask Ambhi if he as into husbandry. A satrap — Philip of Machatas — was appointed to govern.
Enjoying Ambhi’s hospitality, Alexander sent word to the neighboring kings to meet him and pay tribute. While few did, one king stayed away: Porus, who was not going to follow Ambhi’s foot steps. When Alexander’s envoy met Porus and asked him to meet the emperor and pay tribute, Porus replied that he would definitely come to meet the emperor, but with an army. Thus in the spring of 326 BCE the two armies met on the banks of Jhelum.
We only have the Greek account of the battle and hence the exaggeration has to be discounted. 20,000 infantry and 3000 cavalry of Porus was killed. All his chariots were destroyed, his generals were killed, so were two of his sons. According to the Greek historians — Diodorus, Arrian, Plutarch — the Greek losses were not so high. But still Porus was praised: “his courage matched his body vigor”, “he exhibited great talent in battle performing deeds not only of a general but also of a valiant soldier.” This battle, Battle of the Hydaspes, was immortalized by Western painters like André Castaigne ,Charles Le Brun and artists in Russia.
Finally the two met. In the meeting Alexander asked Porus how he wished to be treated and Porus replied, “As befits a king”. This reply under adverse conditions impressed Alexander and he returned Porus back to the throne and turned him into an ally.
So was Ambhi a traitor for aligning with a foreigner? In his book India: A History John Keay mentions that though Porus surrendered only after giving Alexander a good fight, calling Ambhi  who surrendered without a fight a traitor is  harsh judgement. An argument is that there was no concept of India as a nation and if a king like Ambhi took help from Alexander to be safe against attacks by Porus, can he be blamed?
That argument would have held, if not for the efforts of Chanakya, who saw the cultural unity among the various kingdoms. As a teacher in Takshashila, he saw students — brahmin youth, princes, sons of rich merchants — come from far away places along the uttarapatha to learn the Vedas, arts (archery, hunting, elephant lore, political economy) law, medicine, and military science. This tradition went back to Buddha’s time. Jotipala, the son of a Brahmin priest in the court of the King of Benares returned after graduating in archery and military science and was appointed the commander-in-chief. Jivika, Bimbisara’s physician who cured Buddha, learned medicine in Takshashila. Prasenajit, the king of Kosala, who too was associated with Buddha was educated in Takshashila.
Chanakya wanted to convert this cultural unity into political unity against the invader. For him, kingdoms of Ambhi and Porus, had to unite against the foreigner. He condemned foreign rule as exploitation; for the foreigner the conquered country was not his own, but a place to tax and extract wealth. He also realized that the reason Alexander was able to advance was because there was no united front: there was no leadership or pooling of resources. Alexander was able to exploit this division and was stopped only by a mutiny in his camp.
One of the first activities of Chanakya and his protegé Chandragupta was to organize resistance against the Greeks satrapies. We know this because of the writings of Justin, who was describing the return of Seleucus Nicator, an officer of Alexander  to India to expand the Greek kingdom.

Justin identified the leader of the rebellion as  Sandrocottus or Chandragupta Maurya.
There were six satrapies: three on the West of Indus and three on the East. Following Alexander’s departure, the satrapies he established started collapsing. At the same time, under the leadership of Chandragupta, a war was declared. The satraps Philip and Nicanor were assassinated and by 323 BCE, India was free of Greeks.
References:

  1. Abraham Eraly, Gem in the Lotus: The Seeding of Indian Civilisation, 2005.
  2. A. Dani, Historic City of Taxila (Bernan Press(PA), 1986).
  3. Radhakumud Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and his times, 3rd ed. (Motilal Banarsidass, 1960).
  4. John Keay, India: A History (Grove Press, 2001).