Alexander-The Boy Who Turned Fear Toward the Sun

 Alexander-The Boy Who Turned Fear Toward the Sun

Alexander’s father was Philip.

The presence of Philip loomed large over these early years. He was a king of extraordinary force, a ruler who had taken Macedonia and sharpened it into a rising power. To be his son was to inherit more than a name. It was to live in the shadow of something unfinished. Philip had expanded, conquered, and built. But Alexander’s nature was already moving toward something more dangerous: not continuation, but excess. He did not merely wish to inherit; he wished to surpass.

That distinction, still barely visible in youth, would later shape the whole course of his life.

One of the clearest signs of this early nature appears in the famous story of Bucephalus. A horse was brought before the court, wild and untamed, resisting every rider who approached it. Men older, stronger, and more experienced failed to master it. The animal seemed impossible. Philip dismissed it. But the boy stepped forward.

He did not begin with force. He began with attention.

He watched what others had not paused to see. The horse was not ungovernable by nature; it was frightened, disturbed by its own shadow. So Alexander turned it toward the sun. In that simple act, fear lost its form, and the horse grew calm enough to be ridden.

The taming of Bucephalus is often remembered as a story of daring or skill. Symbolically, it suggests something deeper: perception before power. Alexander did not conquer the horse by domination; he mastered it by understanding. In that moment, a pattern revealed itself. He possessed not only courage, but insight — the ability to look beneath appearance and act upon what others missed.

This is one of the earliest signs of the force that would later make him extraordinary. He could see beyond the obvious. He could recognise that the world is not always what it first appears to be, and that those who perceive its hidden structure may shape it more effectively than those who rely on strength alone.

Yet even here, there is a quiet irony. A man who could see outward so clearly would later struggle more deeply with inward sight.

His education under Aristotle gave language and discipline to an already active mind. He was taught reason, ethics, politics, poetry, and the nature of existence itself. He read Homer and absorbed the figure of Achilles — the warrior who chose glory over safety, remembrance over obscurity. These were not merely stories to him. They were recognitions. He did not encounter them as distant legends; he felt their pull as something intimate and personal.

From early on, Alexander was surrounded not only by training but by myth. To be told that one is destined for greatness is no simple blessing. It is also a burden. It creates distance between the self that exists and the self that others demand. It divides the inward life. On one side stands the human being — curious, perceptive, still becoming. On the other stands the figure already imagined by prophecy and expectation: king, conqueror, perhaps even something divine.

Between those two selves, tension began to gather.

…

This marks the beginning of one of the deepest conflicts in Alexander’s life: the tension between man and myth. To be called divine is not only to be praised; it is to be estranged. Myth enlarges a name, but it can also separate a man from his own centre. Identity, once fractured by the gaze of others, does not easily return to wholeness.

And yet from that fracture came fire.

Not yet visible in conquest. Not yet written across history. But already present — in the refusal to accept inherited limits, in the instinct to look beneath appearances, in the certainty that the world as given was not enough.

Alexander-The Boy Who Turned Fear Toward the Sun [S-1632]

Before he knew himself,
he was already named.
Not as he was,
but as he must become.

The horse no man could tame
bowed not to strength,
but to sight.
He turned it toward the sun—
and in its shadow,
found its fear.
So too would he face the world:
not by force,
But by understanding its illusion.

He did not read Achilles.
He recognised him.

Whispers followed him—
son of Zeus,
child of destiny.
But in the quiet of his own mind,
No voice answered:
“Who am I?”

 Sham Misri

 

Who Was Clitus the Black?

Clitus the Black (c. 375–328 BC) was a respected officer in the Macedonian army and a close friend of Alexander the Great. He was the son of Dropidas. He served as Alexander’s nurse. Clitus was renowned for saving Alexander's life during the Battle of the Granicus in 334 BC.

Clitus was a Trusted Veteran. He was part of the "Old Guard," having served under Alexander’s father, Philip II, and later commanded the elite Companion cavalry.

Why “The Black”: This nickname distinguished him from another officer, “Clitus the White.”

He was crucial to the army’s success, commanding the royal squadron of the Companion cavalry.

Alexander’s Grief and the Death of Clitus

In 328 BC, during a drunken party in Maracanda (modern-day Samarkand), a heated argument broke out between Alexander and Clitus. Clitus openly criticised Alexander for adopting Persian customs and favouring younger officers over the older Macedonian generation.

The Killing: In a fit of rage, Alexander seized a spear from a bodyguard and struck Clitus dead.

- **Immediate Regret: ** According to historians such as Plutarch, Alexander was instantly seized by remorse—so much so that he tried to kill himself with the same spear.

Mourning: Overwhelmed with grief, Alexander retreated to his tent for three days, refusing food and drink as he mourned the loss of his friend.

Ancient writers judge that Clitus bore some blame for speaking so harshly and recklessly to his king, yet Alexander was plainly at fault for allowing anger and drunkenness to overcome his judgment.

As soon as the deed was done, Alexander understood its horror. Some accounts say he tried to take his own life with the same weapon, feeling he had committed an unforgivable act. Others describe him throwing himself upon his bed, calling out not only for Clitus but also for Lanike, Clitus’s sister, who had nursed and raised him as a child. Her sons had already died fighting for Alexander; now, by his own hand, her brother had fallen as well. In that thought, his grief deepened.

For three days, he reportedly refused all food and drink, neglecting himself entirely. Only at the urging of his companions did he finally take nourishment again. Some seers suggested that the disaster had befallen him because he had failed to properly honour Dionysus. Alexander readily accepted this explanation, as it allowed the event to be seen not only as personal failure but also as a sign of divine displeasure.

Yet around him, other voices emerged—voices of flattery. The philosopher Anaxarchus argued that Alexander deserved divine honours even more than heroes such as Heracles or Dionysus, and that it was fitting to honour him while he was still alive. Thus, sorrow did not stand alone. Even in his grief, the dangerous language of godlike elevation continued to gather around him.

Although Clitus had questioned him, Alexander’s remorse was immense. The event is often cited as a moment of severe, impulsive regret that highlights the immense pressures on Alexander during that period.

A Poem by Sham Misri

The Banquet and the Spear

At feast and fire, the wine ran deep,
And flattery woke from reckless sleep.
They praised the king beyond all men,
Beyond old gods and heroes, then.

But Clitus, angered, would not bend
To words that false-tongued flatterers send.
He spoke of Philip, spoke of fame,
And said the host shared the name.

He raised the hand that once had saved
The king at Granicus was fierce and brave.
That truth, in wine and fury cast,
Turned joy to ruin, dark and fast.

The king leapt up, his reason gone,
And rage drove harder than the song.
A weapon flashed, a friend fell dead—
And silence filled the hall with dread.

So, glory’s lord, who conquered far,
Was conquered there by wrath and jar.
For one wild moment, broke apart
The strength of the empire and of the heart.

Sham Misri

 Ref:

+was+Clitus&rlz=1C1CHZN_enUS1010US1010&oq=Alexander’s+Grief+for+Clitus-who+was+Clitus&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTEyMTAwajBqN6gCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Wikipedia

Quora

 

 

**Diogenes: The Dog Who Bit an Emperor**

 **Diogenes: The Dog Who Bit an Emperor**

Diogenes of Sinope (c. 404–323 B.C.E.) was no ordinary beggar. He lived on a riverbank in Greece, owning nothing but a beautiful begging bowl and a loincloth. He begged at temple gates and ate whatever he received.

One day, after finishing his meal, he walked toward the river. A stray dog ran at him, snarling. Diogenes fled into the water for safety, swam a short distance, and emerged on the opposite bank. There, in a burst of ecstasy, he rolled joyfully in the sand. Then he stopped and thought: *"My life is worse than that of a dog."*

This was a strange realization—because he was already ecstatic. Yet he understood that many times before, he had wanted to throw himself into the river but hesitated, worried about wetting his loincloth or losing his precious bowl. On that day, he threw both away and lived totally naked.

Diogenes was later captured by pirates and sold into slavery, eventually settling in Corinth. He became famous for his radical acts: lighting a lamp in broad daylight and announcing, "I am searching for a human being." When Plato was asked what sort of man Diogenes was, he replied, "A Socrates gone mad."

He slept and ate wherever he chose, toughening himself against nature. He declared himself a cosmopolitan—a citizen of the world, not of any single city. He famously followed Antisthenes like a dog, becoming his "faithful hound." He begged for a living and often slept in a large ceramic jar in the marketplace.

In Athens, he once took a tub for a home. According to *Lives of Eminent Philosophers*, Diogenes had written to someone asking for a cottage. When the man delayed, Diogenes simply moved into a tub in the Metroön, as he explained in his letters. The inspiration came from watching a mouse, which taught him that one can adapt to any circumstance. That adaptability became the root of his legendary self-discipline.

Diogenes mocked convention relentlessly. He carried a lamp in daylight, claiming to be looking for an honest man. He criticized Plato, disputed his interpretation of Socrates, and sabotaged his lectures—sometimes by bringing food and eating during discussions.

Another pivotal episode occurred during his enslavement in Corinth. When asked what he could do, he answered, "Govern men." That is exactly what he did after being bought by a man named Xeniades. Xeniades and his household learned to follow Diogenes' ascetic example. One story says Diogenes became a cherished member of the household and was freed; another claims Xeniades freed him immediately; yet another says he grew old and died in Xeniades' house. Whatever the truth, the point is the same: Diogenes the slave was freer than his master.

He was also known for mocking Alexander the Great, both in public and to his face when Alexander visited Corinth in 336 BC.

Now comes the most famous encounter between them.

One day, Diogenes lay on the riverbank, eyes closed, rolling in the sand in great ecstasy. Alexander the Great, riding his tall horse and dressed in imperial robes, looked down at him. He raised his voice and nearly screamed: "You wretched animal! You don't have a single piece of cloth on your body. You are like an animal. What could you possibly be ecstatic about?"

Diogenes opened his eyes, looked up at the most powerful man in the world, and asked a question no one had ever dared to ask an emperor: *"Would you like to be like me?"*

The question struck Alexander deeply. He answered, "Yes. What should I do?"

Diogenes said, "Get off that ridiculous horse. Take off those emperor's clothes and throw them into the river. This riverbank is big enough for both of us. I am not conquering the whole thing. You can lie down and be ecstatic, too. Who is stopping you?"

Alexander replied, "Yes, I would love to be like you. But I do not have the courage to do what you are doing."

History books have always celebrated Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.) as a paragon of courage—the glamorous Macedonian ruler and conqueror. Yet here, he admitted his lack of courage before a naked beggar. So he said, "I will join you in the next life." He postponed it.

Who knows about the next life?

From that encounter, a strange dispassion and coolness dawned on Alexander. Toward the end of his life, he lost his passion for battle, though he continued fighting out of habit. Once the passion died, so did his energy. And he died.

Just before his death, he gave a strange instruction to his people: "When you make my coffin, cut two holes on either side so that my two arms hang outside—just to show all of you that even Alexander the Great goes empty-handed."

He was thirty-two years old.

 

“Who smashed my hut…”

Where From

Where do these colourful flowers come from?

Where did these pearl fountains come from?

Where does this gushing water come from?

 

Everywhere, big buildings have come up,

Everywhere, houses with beautiful paint are seen

Everywhere there is a heavenly scene.

Who has smashed my cottage, my hut (2)

Who brought these servants and volunteers?

Haven't my children become forest dwellers?

Sudama imagines! perplexed. Sudama was pressing hard with his hands, perplexed, looking in, out and near the frames.

 

Hasn't my beloved wife given me a deceit?

Where are those tiny buds and flowers gone?

I feel for their love to see them again.

Who destroyed my hut? again.

Pitiful Sudama became perplexed. He was observing some uncommon phenomena,

Something strange was happening...

Lo! Sudama saw his beautiful wife Susheela come out to receive him in the forest.

Who smashed my hut, ...

who smashed my hut

Story of Bucephalus

 

Story of Bucephalus

An early story shows Alexander’s unusual courage and sharp understanding. This is the story of Bucephalus, the famous horse that later became his favourite war horse. The animal was brought to Philip as a gift, but it seemed so wild and dangerous that no one dared to ride it. While others dismissed the horse as vicious, Alexander watched carefully and realized that it was not truly savage. It was frightened, especially by its own shadow, and full of spirit rather than bad temper.

When Philip ordered the horse to be sent away, Alexander begged for a chance to try. He approached it calmly, spoke to it gently, and turned it so that it would no longer see its shadow. Then he mounted it and, instead of fighting against it, let it run freely until it had spent its fear and excitement. Soon, he brought it back under perfect control. The court was filled with amazement, and Philip praised him greatly, saying that Macedon was too small a kingdom for such a son.

Alexander’s judgment proved correct. Bucephalus became faithful and obedient, allowing only Alexander to ride him in battle. Later stories say that the horse once saved Alexander’s life by carrying him out of danger even after being badly wounded. When Bucephalus finally died, Alexander honoured him with burial and founded a city named Bucephalia in his memory.

Yet alongside this courage and intelligence, Alexander also showed a fierce and impulsive temper. His mother, Olympias, and his father, Philip, were bitterly divided, and Philip eventually married another woman. During the wedding celebrations, a guest named Attalus made remarks that Alexander took as an insult to his mother and to his own birth. Enraged, Alexander threw his cup at him, and Attalus threw one back. When Philip rushed forward in anger, he stumbled and fell. Alexander mocked him sharply, then left the palace and went away with his mother to Epirus. This scene revealed both his proud loyalty to his mother and the fiery impatience that remained part of his nature.

 

Nearchus

Nearchus

In 325 BCE, the Greek military commander Nearchus led a naval expedition from the mouth of the Indus River (in present-day Pakistan) to that of the Euphrates in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq). His voyage served several purposes, not least of which was to transport a large portion of Alexander the Great’s fighting force from India back to Greece. However, his primary mission was to discover a sea route between the Indian subcontinent and the Near East. He succeeded, thereby enabling significantly greater trade and exchange between India and the western lands.

**Background**

The career of Nearchus (360–312 BCE), a native of Crete, is inextricably linked to that of his friend and leader, Alexander the Great (356–323 BCE). Alexander’s father, Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 BCE), had conquered the Greek city‑states with the ambition of uniting all of Greece and then subduing the declining Persian Empire. But Philip was assassinated before he could undertake this mission, leaving it to his son to become one of history’s greatest military leaders.

 

The Kambojas

The Kambojas were ancient people who lived on the crossroads of Central and South Asia. They are a fascinating group to study because their identity straddles the line between the Iranian and Indian worlds.

Scholars largely agree they were an **Iranian people** living in the borderlands of modern-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, who were deeply influenced by the Indian cultural sphere.

Where They Lived: The Kamboja Mahajanapada

Their homeland was the kingdom of **Kamboja**, one of the sixteen **Mahajanapadas** (great kingdoms) of Iron Age India, which flourished between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. It was located in the **Uttarapatha** (northern division) of the Indian subcontinent, in the extreme northwest, bordering the kingdom of Gandhara. Its territory stretched from the **Hindu Kush mountains** into Central Asia, including parts of modern-day **Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan**. The capital of Kamboja was **Rajapura** (modern-day Rajauri in Kashmir).

Who They Were: A Unique Indo-Iranian Culture

The Kambojas' mixed identity is reflected in their culture, language, and religious practices.

Indo-Iranian Origins: The ancient Kambojas were likely of **Indo-Iranian** origin. While some sources describe them as Indo-Aryans, most scholars now agree they were an **Iranian people**, closely related to groups like the Indo-Scythians.

Iranian Language: Linguistic evidence shows they spoke an **Iranian language**, similar to **Younger Avestan** (the language of the Zoroastrian holy texts).

Zoroastrian Religion: Unlike the Vedic religion of most Indian kingdoms, the Kambojas were adherents of **Zoroastrianism**. A unique piece of evidence is their belief in the religious duty to kill certain "harmful" animals like insects, snakes, and frogs—a practice specifically prescribed in the Avestan Vendidad.

Kshatriya Status: In the Indian social framework, they were considered a **Kshatriya tribe** (the warrior and ruler class). However, later texts like the Manusmriti suggest that by neglecting Vedic rites, they fell to the status of Shudras.

Warrior Reputation: The Kambojas were famous in ancient literature for their skill in warfare, particularly as **horsemen and cavalry**.

The Kambojas in History and Literature

The Kambojas come from a wide range of ancient texts.

Sanskrit and Pali Literature: They are frequently mentioned in post-Vedic Sanskrit and Pali literature, including the **Mahabharata**, **Ramayana**, **Puranas**, Buddhist **Jatakas**, and the **Arthashastra**. The Mahabharata mentions a Kamboja king named Chandravarma.

Ashoka's Edicts: The first precisely dated reference to the Kambojas comes from the Major Rock Edicts of the Mauryan emperor **Ashoka** (r. 268–232 BCE). These edicts mention the Kambojas living on the border of the Mauryan Empire.

Grammarians: Ancient Indian grammarians like **Yāska** (c. 5th century BCE) and **Patañjali** (2nd century BCE) noted a distinctive feature of the Kamboja language. For example, they used the verb "śavati" for "to go," a word not found in standard Sanskrit.

Later Migrations and Influence

After the Mauryan Empire declined, the Kambojas, often allied with other Central Asian groups like the Sakas (Scythians), Yavanas (Greeks), and Pahlavas (Parthians), began migrating into the Indian subcontinent.

They established a dynasty known as the **Kamboja-Pala dynasty** that ruled parts of **Bengal** in the 10th and 11th centuries CE.

Their name is also believed to be the source for the name of the country of **Cambodia**, as Kambuja is the ancient Sanskrit name for the region.

The modern **Kamboj or **Kamboh** community, primarily found in the greater Punjab region, is considered by many scholars to be a descendant of the ancient Kambojas.

In summary, the Kambojas were a powerful Iranian people on the fringes of ancient India. Their unique culture blended Iranian and Indian elements, and their legacy as skilled warriors and far-ranging migrants connects the histories of Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and even Southeast Asia.

General Sudakshina of the Kambojas was invited by Duryodhana, the Kuru king of Hastinapura, to help him in the Mahabharata war against the Pandavas. Sudakshina Kamboj came to his side with an Akshauhini powerful army of ferocious Central Asian warriors, which also included the Shakas and Yavanas, besides the Kambojas. Of the ten distinguished Generals appointed by Duryodhana to efficiently manage his vast host of army, Sudakshina Kamboja was one such distinguished General.

The Kambojas had been famous throughout all periods of history for their excellent breed of horses as well as famous horsemen or cavalry troopers. They repeatedly appear in the characteristic Iranian roles of splendid horsemen and breeders of notable horses. The epic, the Puranic and numerous other ancient literature profusely attest the Kambojas among the finest horsemen. They were constituted into Military Sanghas and Corporations to manage their political affairs, as Kautiliya and Mahabharata amply attest for us. They are also attested to have been living as Ayuddha-jivi or Shastr-opajivis, which means that the Kamboja cavalry offered their military services to other nations as well. There are numerous references to Kambojas being requistioned as cavalry troopers in ancient wars by outside nations.

Alexander's conflict with the Kambojas was one of the most fiercely contested and brutal episodes of his Indian campaign (327–326 BCE). This wasn't a single battle but a series of grueling mountain sieges and encounters. The Kambojas, known as the **Ashvakas** ("horse-people") to Indian sources and **Aspasioi** and **Assakenoi** to the Greeks, were famed for their horsemanship and martial culture. Their refusal to submit led to a campaign marked by exceptional bravery on both sides, horrific violence by Alexander's army, and the legendary involvement of Kamboja women warriors.

The Opposing Forces: The Ashvayana and Ashvakayana Clans

The Kamboja resistance was primarily led by two related clans:

The Aspasioi (Ashvayanas): Located in the **Kunar and Panjkora river valleys**, they were the first to engage Alexander's forces. They fought with great tenacity, reportedly losing **40,000 captured** as slaves.

The Assakenoi (Ashvakayanas): Inhabiting the strategic **Swat and Buner valleys**, they possessed formidable strongholds like **Massaga, Ora, Bazira, and Aornos**. They fielded a massive army of **30,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry, and 30 war elephants**.

A Chronicle of Brutal Sieges:

Alexander personally led the campaign against these clans, who offered "stubborn resistance in all of their mountainous strongholds". The fighting was savage and defined by several key sieges:

The Siege of Massaga: This was the campaign's most critical and bloodiest battle. After their commander fell, his mother, Queen **Cleophis**, took supreme command and rallied the defenders, with local women also joining the fight. Alexander only captured the fortress through a "political stratagem and actions of betrayal". In a brutal act of retribution, he **slaughtered the entire population** and razed the city to the ground.

The Fall of Ora and Bazira: Following Massaga's destruction, Alexander's forces committed similar massacres at the nearby stronghold of **Ora**. The inhabitants of **Bazira**, seeing the fate of their neighbors, were forced to abandon their city and flee to the rock fortress of Aornos.

The Siege of Aornos: This legendary siege was the campaign's final act. Kamboja holdouts gathered at Aornos, a near-impregnable mountain fortress. The siege became a personal challenge for Alexander, who was determined to take a fortress that even the mythical hero Heracles had failed to conquer. His engineers built an earth ramp up the sheer cliffs, allowing his army to take the strategic position.

The Warrior Women of the Kambojas

A unique and remarkable aspect of this conflict was the active participation of Kamboja women. The courage of the Ashvakayana Kamboj women was legendary. Taking up arms beside their husbands, they famously preferred **"a glorious death to a life of dishonor"**. Queen **Cleophis** stands as the most powerful symbol of this resistance, a leader who chose to fight rather than surrender her homeland.

The Aftermath of a Conquered Land

The Kambojas were ultimately defeated, and Alexander's conquest brought a violent end to their independence. The conflict was a "war of annihilation" for these clans, and its brutality served as a terrifying warning to others. With their homeland subdued, Alexander was able to secure his supply lines and advance deeper into the Punjab, leading to his famous battle with King Porus.

In the end, Alexander's victory came at a great cost, but the fierce resistance of the Kambojas cemented their reputation as one of the most courageous peoples he ever faced. This conflict remains a testament to their martial valour and a vivid illustration of the brutal realities of ancient warfare.

Kamboj-or Chhimba are variously described as a caste, community or a Sikh clan of India.^[1]

Their traditional occupation in the Samba district of India was dying and hand-printing calico fabric. It was probably some of these people who moved to areas of Himachal Pradesh, where they created a somewhat different style of printing cloth that was much favoured by the Gaddi people of the region.^[2][3]

The Kambojas were a southeastern Iranian people living on the northeastern edge of Iranian territories, bordering India. They are known only from Indo-Aryan sources, first appearing in the late Vedic period. Their language was close to Younger Avestan, and they practiced Zoroastrianism, including the ritual killing of small animals as prescribed in the Avestan *Vendidad*.

The earliest attestation of the name comes from the *Naighaṇṭukas* and Yāska’s *Nirukta*, which notes that the verb *śavati* (‘goes’) was used only by the Kambojas. This form matches Younger Avestan phonetics, confirming their Iranian linguistic affiliation. The word was known to grammarians by about 500 BCE.

Ashoka’s Great Rock Edicts (mid-3rd century BCE) mention the Kambojas alongside Greeks and Gandharians as border peoples of the Mauryan Empire. Benveniste argued that the Iranian language in the Aramaic version of Ashoka’s Kandahar inscriptions was Kambojan. Greek-Kamboja pairings also appear in the *Mahābhārata*. In Buddhist and Sanskrit texts, the Kambojas are listed among the sixteen great peoples of ancient India. They shaved their heads, had kings, and were famous horse breeders; their horses were prized for warfare and were imported to India.

The *Jataka* describes them as “non-Aryan” with strange customs, notably killing small animals for religious reasons—a practice linked to the Avestan *Vīdēvdād* and Zoroastrian *magi*. Ashoka’s term for “good obedience” in the Kandahar bilingual also shows Mazdayasnian vocabulary.

Fussman proposed that two rock inscriptions from Dašt-e Nāwor (in a Kharoṣṭhī-derived script) are in a local Iranian language, possibly Kambojan (“Kambōjī”), which would place the Kambojas in the mountains around Ghazni and the upper Arḡandāb. Another hypothesis connects *Kamboja* to the name Cambyses, meaning “ruler of the Kambojas,” and historical unlikeliness before Cyrus II.

Bibliography

1.        Singh, Joginder (2014). "Sikhs In Independent India". In Singh, Pashaura; Fenech, Louis E. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies. Oxford University Press.  ISBN 978-0-19100-411-7.

2.        Hāṇḍā, Omacanda (1998). Textiles, Costumes, and Ornaments of the Western Himalaya. Indus Publishing.

3.        Fenech, Louis E.; McLeod, W. H. (2014). Historical Dictionary of Sikhism (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-44223-601-1.

4.    4.   G. A. Grierson, “The Language of the Kambojas,” JRAS.

5.    5.   B. Ch. Law, Tribes in Ancient India, 2nd ed., Poona, 1973

6.     6.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhimba.

7.      7. M. Witzel, “Early Eastern Iran and the Atharvaveda,” Persica 9, 1980

8.      8. É. Benveniste, “Une bilingue gréco-araméenne d’Asoka. IV. Les données iraniennes,” JA 246, 1958.

9.     9.  Boyce and Grenet, Zoroastrianism.

10.   10. J. Charpentier, “Der Name Kambyses (Kaⁿbūǰiya),“ ZII 2, 1923

11.  11.  G. Fussman, “Documents épigraphiques kouchans,” Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 61, 1974

12.     Schmitt 2021.

13.     Sharma 2007

14.     Boyce & Grenet 1991

15.     Lamotte 1988, p. 100.

16.     Boyce & Grenet 1991

17.     Caudhurī 1967

18.     Bopearachchi 2025

19.     Strand, Richard (2022). "Kamboǰas and Sakas in the Holly-Oak Mountains: On the Origins of the Nûristânîs" (PDF). Nuristan: Hidden Land of the Hindu Kush.

20.     Bailey 1971

21.     Boyce & Grenet 1991

22.     Boyce & Grenet 1991

 

…