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' .