A Textbook Entry on Alexander in Punjab
A Class 10 textbook committee in Amritsar has to write a 150-word entry on Alexander's campaign in Punjab. It has two extracts. Extract A, from a Greek account written centuries later, says Alexander crossed the Hydaspes in 326 BCE, defeated Porus, founded two cities, and turned back at the Beas after his army refused to go further. Extract B, from a modern local history pamphlet, says 'Alexander reached the edge of Punjab and was stopped by the bravery of Punjabi warriors.' One student concludes, 'So Alexander conquered all of Punjab.' Another says, 'Indian sources do not name him, so the whole story is false.' The committee has space for one map and three sentences. It must avoid both overclaiming and dismissing evidence. The committee has one week to finalise the entry.
1. Which conclusion is better supported, and how should the 150-word entry be worded? Include one sentence on Porus and one on the Beas.
Read the worked answer
Neither student is fully right. The better-supported claim is that Alexander advanced into Punjab, defeated Porus at the Hydaspes in 326 BCE, and reached the Beas, where his army refused to continue. He did not conquer 'all of Punjab': local groups such as the Mallians resisted, and he was wounded; his satraps did not keep lasting control. A defensible entry could read: 'In 326 BCE Alexander crossed the Hydaspes and defeated Porus, reinstating him as a subordinate ruler. His army refused to cross the Beas, and the campaign ended. Greek accounts are our main source; no contemporary Indian text names him.' This uses the Greek evidence without turning it into total conquest, and it flags the source problem.
2. How should the committee treat the silence of Indian literary sources? Give two reasons why silence is not proof of absence.
Read the worked answer
Silence is not proof of absence for two reasons. First, Indian literary genres of the period were not chronicles of foreign kings: Puranic, Buddhist and Jain texts recorded dynasties, teachings and places, not every invasion. Second, contemporary Indian inscriptions and manuscripts are scarce, and oral memory of a defeated local ruler may not survive. Also, the Greek accounts were written centuries later and are favourable to Alexander, so they need corroboration. The committee should say 'Indian sources do not name him' rather than 'Indians did not notice him'.
3. Name two kinds of evidence, apart from texts, that could test the claim, and explain what each could show.
Read the worked answer
Two kinds of evidence: coins and archaeology. Greek or local coinage in the region can show contact, payment or occupation, though absence is not decisive. Archaeology-destruction layers, fortifications, or Greek-style artefacts at Taxila and along the Jhelum-can test a battle or garrison claim. Inscriptions would be stronger still. Each can support presence or impact, but none by itself proves the scale of conquest. The committee should present these as evidence to be weighed, not as a simple yes or no.