Monday, November 17, 2008

The Myth of Bharat

The Myth of Bharat 



In modern times, bigoted Brahmins have projected Bharatavarsha as the 
ancient Sanskrit name for the whole of India. This, however, has no 
historical foundation. Bharatavarsha did not include the whole of 
India and never did, but only denoted the kingdom of the Aryan invader 
Bharata, who was a chieftain of one of the Aryan tribes that invaded 
India. This small region comprised only a small part of the upper 
Ganges valley. 

Epigraphic Evidence 

The epigraphic evidence confirms that Bharata originally did not mean 
the whole of India. but only a small part of North India. Kharavela 
who lived c.63 BC - c.23 BC ( C.R.Mishra, p.114 ), was one of the most 
famous kings of the Kolarian-Dravidian kingdom of Kalinga. His 
conquests ranged far and wide. They are celebrated in the Hathigumpha 
inscription. The nineth and tenth lines of this inscription clearly 
mention that he invaded Bharata from Kalingam thereby implying that 
Bharata at that time did not include the whole of India - 
Line 9-10 : "And, in the nineth year, (His Majesty) [ Kharavela ] 
caused to be built the great victory place - royal residence at the 
cost of thirty eight hundred thousand (coins). 
" Then, in the 10th year (His Majesty) who embodied the principles of 
politics, diplomacy and peace, caused (the army) to march towards 
Bharatavarsha for conquest ." 
-- ( C.R.Mishra, p.128 ) 

Prof. C.R.Mishra notes that Bharata did not originally denote 
India : " Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the 
regions of northern India " (C.R.Mishra, p.121). Elaborating this, he 
states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha 
inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India - 
" In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha' 
is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the 
name denoted North India at that time." 
-- ( C.R.Mishra, p.130, n.79 ) 

A.L. Basham states that Bharatas was one of the invading Aryan tribes 
which settled in the region between the Satlaj and Jamna, which later 
became known as Brahmavarta (Basham, The Wonder that was India, p.30). 

Thus, the first time that we have undisputed usage of the word 
Bharatavarsha, it denoted only North India. There is no evidence of 
Bharata's kingdom extending beyond Northern India. 

Historical Evidence 

Historical evidence refutes the Brahmanist claim that Bharata 
conquered the whole of India. Bharata's ancestors lived in the region 
of the Caspian sea in Central Asia; they were nomadic tribesmen of 
Aryan stock. Bharata's legendary capital lay in the Kabul valley, ie. 
Yusufzai territory of modern Afghanistan: 
" According to local tradition, the original seat of the empire of 
Bharata was much further to the morth-west, namely, at the site now 
occupied by the ruins of Takh-i-Bahi, in the country of the Yusufzais 
to the northward of Peshawur." 
-- ( Wheeler, p.48n.2 ) 

From this base he descended with his hordes of Aryan horsemen 
onto the plains of India. There he defeated Indra ( Wheeler, p.45 ), 
a descendant of the first Aryan invader Indra, earning himself the title 
"most renowned of the Lunar race" ( Wheller, p.47 ). He then conquered 
the Upper Ganges valley, exceeding Indra's dominion. 

After the wars of annexation, the Raj of Bharata extended over the 
enitre doab between the rivers Ganges and the Jumna right up to the 
junction of these 2 rivers ( Wheeler, p.44 ). It is thus obvious that 
Bharata's empire, Bharatavarsha, only included a few provinces in the 
Ganges Valley. 

His son Hastin founded Hastinapur further down the Ganges valley, 
after this second wave of Aryans had pushed on from the neighbourhood 
of Peshawar up to the banks of the Ganges ( Wheeler, p.48.n2 ). It is 
thus evident that even the lower Ganges valley was beyond Bharata's 
control. Hence, the Brahminist concept of `One Ancient Bharata' under 
perpetual dominion of the Brahmin Aryans is a fallacy. In the words 
of Winston Churchill, `India is as much a nation as the equator' . 

No comments: