Historical Sense in Ancient India

Historical Sense in Ancient India

  • Objectives
  • Introduction

Foreign scholars have often complained about India’s lack of an indigenous tradition of historiography. India possesses an enormous heritage of literature accumulated over the Centuries, much of it relating to past events, yet there has never’ been a historian to compare with those of ancient Greece and Rome, or later European scholars who contributed to the development of history as a discipline. Indifference to the western conception of history, to the idea that man can be its subject and agent, actively working to change the human condition, is cited as a distinguishing trait of Indian civilization. Explanations offered for this deficiency are that Indians have no sense of history, are not interested in factual or ‘objective’ history, or have in any case had such a static society that there has been little in the way of historical development to encourage its scientific study. Indian religions, besides acting as ‘a tremendous force for social inertia’ in that they usually adopt a reactionary attitude towards social change, are also blamed for inculcating a world view that has never been conducive to any interest in what westerners know as history. How far these assumptions are justified, and what has been achieved in the field of Indian historiography relating to the pre-modern period, are the concern of this chapter.

  • Historical Sense in Ancient India

Scholars, including the historians, Indologists and orientalists, are divided in their opinion about the historical sense of the ancient Indians, particularly the Hindus. It has been said that the ancient Indian had no sense of history and chronology. Alberuni was the first to remark that “The Hindus do not pay much attention to the historical order of things, they are very careless in relating the chronological succession of their kings, and when they are pressed for information and are at a loss, not knowing what to say, they invariably take to tale-tellings”. This remarks was made buy him in AD 1030 in his work Tehkik-i-Hind. It is striking to note that the genealogies of kings of different dynasties in the Puranic records, which were the principal sources of information for him for writing his book as admitted by himself, are in proper historical and chronological order, of course, with a few exceptions. It is paradoxical that he calls his own works “a simple historic record of facts”, but the sources on which it is based are spoken of as unhistorical. He presents the picture of Indian civilization as painted by the Hindus himselves. He has himself tried to fix the chronology of some istorical events with the help of the chronological data furnished by the Hindus in different works, as it appears from his book.

S.R.Sharma in an attempt to justify the statement of Alberuni writes that his “ version of the lack of historical sense of Indians justified by the paucity of historical works properly so called in our country down from ancient times. Materials from which history can be constructed is undoubtedly available in abundance but very little of it shares the character of regular history”. But on the other hand, A.K.Majumdar asserts that “…. We can’t admit that the Hindus had

incapacity for writing history and our ancestors have not bequeathered to us any reliable historical work for early period. They know the simple art of writing history.

L.J.Trotter and W.H. Hutton have remarked that “…the old Hindus produced, not one historian of even the smallest mark” . Any sensible historian will accept such kind of absurd remark. Some scholars have leveled the charges against the ancient Hindus that they wrote no formal history at any period”. They did not have capacity to write history. Though genuine materials once abounded in India yet we find no national history of the Hindus. H. Beveridge opines that “ With the exception of a work on Kashmir, the literature of India has failed to furnish a single production to which the name of history can in any proper sense of the term be applied. These biased remarks made within conceptual framework have increasingly given rise to misgivings in the minds of many. However, the subjective elements should not be allowed to influence and overshadow our objective judgment.

A.S Macdonell is of opinion that “History is the one weak spot in Indian Literature. It is, in fact, non-existent. The total lack of historical sense is so characteristic that the whole course of Sanskrit literature is darkened by the shadow of this defect, suffering as it does from an entire absence of exact chronology. In the first place early India wrote no history because it never made any…. Secondly, the Brahmans whose task it would naturally have been to record the great deeds… have felt but little inclination to chronicle historical events”. This is nothing but a totl rejection of truth.

  • Opinion against historical Sense in Ancient India

Nothing can be more farther from truth than the statements that ancient India was without history and historians. The ancient Indians had distaste for history. The details of past events did not interest them and, therefore, they did not record them.

J.W.McCrindle (a popular authority on Ancient India by the classical writers) holds that “ The Indians themselves did not write history. They produced no doubt, a literature both voluminous and varied… but within its vast range history is conspicuous by its absence. Their learned men were Brahmanas whose modes and habits of thought almost necessarily incapacitated them for the task of historical composition…they allowed events, even those of the greatest public moments, to pass unrecorded, and so to perish from memory and Sanskrit literature if deficient in history and chronology. But his views cannot be accepted as they run contrary to the truth. R.G.Bhandarkar’s observation, that “India has no real history….the historical curiosity of the peoples was satisfied by legends what we find of a historical nature in the literature of the country before the arrival of the Mahommedans, can also be disposed of. He like many other scholars considers only Kalhana’s Rajatarangini a historical work.

It is really very unfortunate that some Indian and foreign scholar have fallen into the grip of confusion about the historical value of Sanskrit literature. The confusion has been made worse confounded buy some recent writings on historiography in the context.

It is not correct to say that only the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Sumerians maintained the historical records. The Indians in the ancient past were not historians and had no political history like them. It is further said that “The Hindus have no history and no authentic Chronology…. And there is no certain date in the wide range of their literature except what is imported from Greek history”. In fact, each country had its own tradition of historical writings and each tradition has its value. The value of historiographical tradition in ancient India should be judged independently and not by comparing with that of other countries.

  • Historical Sense in Ancient India and Classical World- A Comparison

Quite a few historians of ancient India have opined that in all the large and varied literature of the Brahmanas, Buddhists and Jains there is no single work which can be compared to the Histories of Herodotus, historical work of Thucydides or the History of Polybious of Greece or the Annals of Livy or Tacitus of Rome. But this is not because the ancient Indians had no history. E.J.Rapson remarks; “We know from other sources that the ages were filled withstirring events; but these events found no systematic record. Of the great foreign invasions of Darius, Alexander the Great and Seleucus no mention is to be discovered in any Indian work. The struggles between native princes, the rise and fall of Empires, have indeed not passed similarly into utter oblivion. The memory is to some extent preserved in epic poems, in stories of the sages and heroes of old, in genealogies and dynastic lists. Such in all countries are the beginning of history; and in ancient India its development was not carried beyond this rudimentary stage. He further observes that the literatures of Brahmana, Buddhists or Jains are deficient as records of political progress. And by their aid alone it would be impossible to sketch the outline of the political history of any of the nations of India before the Mohammedan conquests.

It will be futile and unproductive exercise to draw a demarcation line between the historical writings in ancient India on the one hand and in ancient Greece and Rome on the other from the standpoint of degree of importance. All these three ancient countries were the repositories  of  historical  wisdom.  James  Tod  has  rightly  pointed  out  that “Those who except from a people like the Hindus a species of composition of precisely the same character as the historical works of Greece and Rome commit the very egregious error of overlooking the peculiarities which distinguish the native of India from all other races, and their intellectual productions of every kind. Their history like their Philosophy, their poetry and their architecture are marked with traits of originality”. He speaks very highly of historical sense and

historical works of all kinds of ancient Indians. He further adds that historical records including the Puranic ones and other works of a mixed historical character existed in ancient India.

The said ancient Greek and Roman historians produced only political histories, whereas the ancient historians of India touched upon all aspects of history- social, economic, political, religious and cultural. Both ancient Indian and classical tradition of historiography have relative value. Max Muller is absolutely right in stating that history provides a comprehensive knowledge of all that happened in the past. There is history in the large and history in the small, each has its value, but their values are different.

It is worthy of note that in every country and in every age the body of history has been shaped by the events of the contemporary age which were not identical at all. The events became the theme of historical writings or subject for historians to deals with. The historians make history and the subject makes historian. Instead of the historian choosing the subject, the subjects choose the historian. Sometimes history is produced by a historian and a sometimes historian is produced by an event. The historian, before he begins to write history, is the product of history.

As in ancient India so in ancient Greece and Rome history developed as a branch of literature. To the Greeks and Romans also history was an art and not “a critical science”. Very few of them were critical historians. It is not the fact that the classical historians concerned produced purely scientific histories. In fact, they made both scientific and artistic approach to the study of history. They too like the ancient historians of India adopted the literary style of writing. They have been called literary artists by the authorities on classical historiography. Even Herodotus, the father of history has been described by them as a great artist and story teller. It is a fact to reckon with that he has also mixed up history with myths and legends. All ancient historians, whether of India, Greece or Rome, were much more concerned with the artistic presentation of the truth than the creation of regular and scientific history. Greece was not the first home of historical composition as generally believed by the scholars. It is equally not correct to say that the Greeks first learnt the art of writing history. The history acquired its meaning and purpose and received the treatment in both ancient India and Greece concurrently. The contemporaneous growth of historical sense and development of historical writings in both the countries cannot be denied. And, thus, it will be unfair to highlight the importance of one and discard or depreciate the value of other.

See also  ITIHASA-PURANA TRADITION IN ANCIENT INDIA; TRADITIONAL HISTORY FROM THE VEDAS, EPICS AND PURANAS

We do not find ourselves in agreements with E.J. Rapson that if “any ancient Indian literature, Brahamana, Buddhist and Jain” is compared with Greek and Latin classics, it will be found that “in none of them has the art of historical composition been developed beyond its earliest stages”. He further observes that “Its sources-heroic poems, legendary chronicles, ancient genealogies-are indeed to be found in abundance. From the literature and from the monuments we learn the names, and some of the achievements, of a great numbers of nations who rose to

power, flourished, and declined in the continent of India during the twenty-two centuries before the Mohammedan conquest; but not one of these nations has found its historians”. The literature of ancient India “supply materials by means of which it is possible to trace the daily life of the people, their social systems, their religion, their progress in the arts and sciences, with a completeness which is unparalleled in antiquity; but events are rarely mentioned, and there is an almost total absence of chronology. Dynastic lists with, in some instances, the length of the different regions are certainly to be found; but these in themselves supply no fixed point for the determination of Indian chronology”.

In above observation we find both acceptance and distortion of truth. His all statements are correct except that ancient India had no historian; and in ancient Indian literature historical events are not recorded and chronology is totally absent. The statements of J.Allan, Wolseley Haig and H.H.Dodwell are also of mixed nature. Ancient Indian literature in comparison to European literature, according to them, is of little value from historical and chronological points of view. They state that the two great epics are of little importance for political history. The Puranas, whose authors may be compared to medieval chroniclers, are mainly legendary and mythological collections”. But they “contain certain amount of genealogical matter, the historical significance of which it is very difficult to estimate. The only professedly historical work, the late twelfth century chronicle of Kashmir, contains a certain amount of historical information….Bana’s Harshacharita, a pseudo-biographical work, contains disappointingly little of historical value and belong to literature rather than history….The historical data that can be gathered from Sanskrit and Pali literature cannot be despired, but interpretation is often difficult and there is an entire lack of chronological data. It is with the help of synchronisms given by….mainly Greek and Chinese writers that the chronology of Indian history has been built up”.

The Purana are very authentic records of dynastic genealogies and chronology, Bana’s Harshacharita is a historical biography and forms part of historical literature; the chronicle of Kashmir contains a bulk of valuable historical information. The Puranic and Buddhist literature are not deficient in chronological data and it is on the basis of this data that chronology of ancient Indian history has been partly built up.

  • Opinions in favour of historical Sense in Ancient India

Some balanced and rational judgments have been pronounced on the subject under review. Affirming the historical sense of the ancient Indians and their historical writings, Maurrice Winternitz, a German Scholar writes “one must not believe as it has so often been asserted that the historical sense is entirely lacking in the Indians. In India too there has been historical writing and in any case we find in India numerous accurately dated inscriptions which could hardly be the case if the Indians have had no sense of history at all. It is only truth that the Indians in their writings of history never knew how to keep fact and fiction strictly apart, that to

them the facts themselves were always more important than their chronological order, and they attached no importance at all especially in literary matters to the question of what was earlier or later. Since the fifth century after Christ inscription too begin to give us information about the dates of many writers. He further asserts that there is an abundant wealth of historical information in ancient Indian literature; which forms a necessary complement to the classical literature of ancient Greece and Rome.

A.B.Keith is perfectly right is stating that “To the old complaint that India has not historians and no historical sense it has recently been objected, doubtless with a measure of truth, that there is certain amount of writing and a number of facts attesting a degree of sense for history. In view of the antiquity and the developed character of Indian civilization it would indeed by ridiculous to expect to find India destitute of historical sense….” But his statements, that despite that abundance of its literature history is so miserably represented, and that in the whole of the great period of Sanskrit literature there is not one writer who can be seriously regarded as a critical historians”, are not absolutely correct. He, however, admits that some historical and semi-historical works were produced in ancient India. The Puranic genealogies, the Pattavlis of the Jains and the works of the Buddhists, according to him, are of considerable historical value. The biographical works of Vakapatiraja Padmagupta, Bilhana and others in his estimation are of greater historical value. The chronicle of Kings of Kashmir in his opinion like that of others is nearest approach to history. And its author, Kalhana, is called by him “ a true historian”, who, according to him, is not a suitable match for Herodotus. We are in perfect agreement with him that the historians of Kashmir made substantial contributions to the growth of historiography of a serious nature. He points out that the national feeling, which is a powerful aid to the writing f history, was not evoked in ancient India. The political events which took place in India up to the twelfth century AD, including the foreign invasions and the struggles and wars between rival dynasties and empires, were not recorded byits historians of ancient times because of absence of such feelings. The struggles and wars between native rulers do find mention in some ancient Indian historical works; but the foreign invasions could not be recorded by ancient historians of India which may be attributed to non-availability of sources concerned in India during their times and not to the absence of national feeling among them.

A.K Warder, a great authority on Indian historiography, has strongly advocated the historical sense of the ancient Indians. He has presented in his work abundant proofs of historical writings in ancient India. He says that it is superficial misconceptions that ancient India produced little or no historical literature. He has firmly established that there was continuity in historiographical tradition in ancient India from Vedic antiquity to the twelfth century AD.

U.N.Ghoshal. A.D. Pusalker, R.C.Majumdar, R.C.Dutt, Radha Kumud mookherji, Radha Kamal Mukherjee and Romila Thapar, the noted authorities on ancient Indian history, have

proved beyond doubt that the ancient Indians had a true sense of history and roduced historical and quasi-historical writings was maintained in ancient India; the historical tradition is preserved in the epics and Purana, the historical biographies, historical chronicles and other historical treaties were composed in different parts of India, the Hindus, Buddhist and Jains made significant contributions to the evolution of Historiography in ancient India.

Radha Kumud Mookerji has rightly pointed out that “History is not merely political and chronological and is not to individual and datable facts and events. History is more important and interesting as a history of thought. It is social and cultural history.

  • Ancient Indian Historical Sense- Assumptions

It is not merely the genealogies, biographies and chronicles of kings but also other materials of history that received the attention of the ancient Indians. There were different conceptions of history. There is a positive evidence to prove the recording of history in the time of Chandragupta Maurya,. Various state officials were appointed by him to collect the details of all important events and to put them in writing which constituted the source material of history. It is evident from the Arthasastra of Kautilya that it was the duty of the Gopa (an official in charge of five or ten village) to keep a record of everything concerning a village including its agricultural products and trade and commerce. He had to show social groups, class and caste, and different professionals and occupational groups. He had to register the total number of the Kshatriya, Vaisyas and Sudras, farmers, traders, artisans, labourers and slaves. These materials supply invaluable data for the purpose of social and economic history of the contemporary age. Kautilya also testifies to the maintenance of the archives in the Maurya court.

Hiuen-Tsang testimony of the practice of preserving historical records in India also deserves our notice. He during his stay in the country for about fifteen years (AD 629-45) noticed that its each province had its own state officials for maintaining written record of events. He has distinctly mentioned that there were separate custodians of the archives and records. The officials annals and state papers, according to him were called ‘Ni-lo-pi-Cha’ or ‘Ni-lo-Pi-t’u’. The Sutas were the first to keep the records of the genealogies of royal families preserved nsome of the Puranas. The practice of maintaining written record continued fro centuries after Hiuen- Tsang. At the courts of kings archives were maintained for preserving the records of important happenings. The archival records were used for compiling mainly the chronicles and Vamsavalis. The existence of the historical chronicle of Kasmir, Gujrat and Nepal support the belief that the royal archives of different states contained such chronicles.

A great nation never passes away without leaving record of its deed and achievements. Ancient India was not bereft of such record. “ Each successive age has left in its literature, an impress, a photographs as it were, of its thought and civilization; and when we bring all these

photographs together….we perceive at a glance the whole history of the Hindu nation and its civilization.

It is also believed that some of the ancient annals and other written records were destroyed or tempered with by the Muslims in the course of their invasions of India.

The inscriptional records also reflect the historical and chronological sense of the ancient times. The inscriptions constitute valuable testimony to historical writings in ancient times. They are in fact the earliest history in rose…betraying the historical ideas of their authors. They give a lot of historical information with reliable dates. They supply genealogies of the reigning kings and recount their as well as their ancestors’ lives and deeds, throw light on conditions of gifts and grants of lands, etc. Inscriptions engraved on stones, copper plates, rock, pillars, walls and coins bespeak the history of the land. The historical sense of the authors or composers of the inscriptions can in no way be doubted. The information supplied by Harisena in Allhabad pillar inscription about the conquest and campaigns of his patron, Samudragupta (AD. 335-375) and by Ravikirti in Aihole inscription (AD 634)about the achievements of Pulakesin-II, the Chalukya ruler of Badami (AD 610-43), vindicates their sense of history. Historical events were recorded in the inscriptions at the instance of the contemporary kings so as to preserve them as records for the future.

See also  एशियाटिक सोसाइटी ऑफ बंगाल

Most of the ancient Indian inscriptions are dated. They give the dates of the events that took place during the reign of kings. They specify the reign periods or length of the reigns of the kings. The inscriptions of Asoka, King Kharavela of Kalinga, Rudradamana of Junagarh, the Satavahana, Samudragupta, Harsa, the Palas, Senas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Pallavs, Cholas and Hoysalas are important from both historical and chronological point of view. Fleet, an authority on Gupta inscriptions, had to accept that the ancient Hindus had an ability and capability to write history.

The coins also like inscriptions give us the dates of rulers and events. Among the non- literary sources these two provide the most important materials for writing history of ancient India. Ancient India was not devoid of either history or historians. The hitherto existing impression created by some Indian and foreign scholars that the ancient Indians lacked in historical sense can be dispelled on the basis of the richness of historical materials embodied in different kinds of literature and the inscriptions. They have displayed enough historical sense in the genealogical lists of royal dynasties, biographical works and chronicles. Some of the Purana, Pali chronicles and commentaries, and the Jain works, Kalhan’s work and the inscriptional records testify to their knowledge of both historical and chronological sense of ancient Indians.

  • Conclusion

The ancient Indians were acquainted more with the art than sciences of historiography. It would be too much to expect scientific, serious or absolutely genuine histories from the authors

of ancient times. The professional historians of today with few exceptions in their zeal for the truth, accuracy, objectivity and authentic chronology often neglect the study of histories contained in ancient Indian literature. It has been aptly remarked that the modern historian of ancient India unceremoniously discards the ancient forms and ideas, the very context of ancient historical works. The value of the works produced by ancient historians of India should be judged by the standard prevailing in a contemporary age and not by the modern standards of historiography. Every age had its own tradition of historiography. The prevailing attitudes in any age guide or influence the historian in the treatment of his subject. The ancient concept of history and chronology was totally different from the modern one. The ancient historians of India have presented the facts whatsoever without distorting them. The tradition of presenting history within a chronological framework had not fully developed in ancient India. In ancient Indian historical writings, facts are more important than the chronology.

The tradition of historical writing in ancient India began in the time of Vedavyasa and continued till the end of twelfth century AD. The oldest Indian historical tradition is preserved in the Rgveda. The Rgveda hymns about the Aryan people speak of the sense of history of those who composed them. These hymns constitute the earliest evidence of the historical sense in India. And the composition of the original Bharata Itihasa or Bharata Samhita and the Purana Samhita or Itihasa Samhita by Vyasa in theDvapara age marked the beginning of Indian historiography. The two main tradition of historiography in its early phase were the epic and Puranic. The Puranic tradition is relatively of greater value. The Puranakara were the first to record and preserve the dynastic genealogies and chronology- the two legitimate constituents or components of history. Their historical conception and chronological perception find reflections in the information they have supplied about the kings of different dynasties with length of their reign. They have provided the dynastic history of India in a very systematic way up to the beginning of the Gupta rule. The details of the Kingdoms and the dynasties of the Gupta post- Gupta period furnished by them with some chronological data though not very systematic are also of considerable historical value. The other two important tradition of historical writing in ancient India were the Buddhist and Jain. The Buddhist and Jain scholars produced a number of semi-historical works before the seventh century AD.

Ancient Indian historiography anterior to the seventh century AD was largely based on Itiohasa-Purana tradition. However, its impact on the historical writings of the later period to a considerable extent is also discernible. The traditional concept of history went on changing with developing historical sense, prevailing historical tradition in a contemporary age and events of the time.

The period extending from the seventh to the twelfth century AD proved to be a blooming one in the history of historical writing in ancient India. A number of historical

biographies were produced in different parts of India during the period. The court poet who wrote the biography of his patron highlighting his life and achievements was no less than a historiographer. There were many such court poets. The kings who patronized them also deserve the credit of giving fillip to the production of biographical works by encouraging them to undertake such works. They wanted their court poets to records both the past and contemporary events for the purpose of preserving them for the future. The biographies of many famous kings who occupy important place in the annals of ancient India were composed by their respective court poets during the period. Some biographies are the productions of the historical school that flourished in the post-Harsha period under the patronage of the Palas of Bengal, the Paramaras of Malawa the Chalukyas of Gujarat and Kalyani and the Cahamanas of Sakambari. The chronicles were also written in Sindh, Kashmir, Gujarat, Odisha and Nepal. The writing of historical biographies and chronicles were the two significant stages in the evolution of Indian historiography. The biographies and chronicle composed during the period form important parts of historical literature. Besides these works, other historical works of various kinds were produced during the period.

The Jains made more serious approach than the Buddhist to history as evidenced by the quality of the works they produced. They have a number of historical treaties to their credit. They, however, like the Hindus made significant contributions to the development of historical writing in ancient India. The Muslim author of the chronicle of Sindh was one of the ancient historians of India.

It is not correct to say that the ancient Indians did not produce political history. The deeds of kings, the political events, including struggles between native princes for power and political supremacy, attacks and invasions, wars and conquests and rise and fall of kingdoms, etc., are described in detail especially in the biographies and chronicles of the post sixth century AD.

The tradition of historical writing in south India was no less rich than that of in other parts of the country. Various kinds of quasi-historical works were produced in south India both before and after the seventh century AD which include histories of kingdoms and dynasties, and biographies.

It is a wrong notion that except the Rajatanagini of Kalhana, there is no work in Sanskrit literature which merits the little of history. The fact remains that Kalhana was the best of all ancient historians of India and his work was the best of all historical works produced in ancient India.

There were various school s of historical writings in ancient India. The historians of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Kashmir schools made proportionately greater contributions than those of other schools to the evolution of historiography in ancient India. The historians of these three

prominent schools left imprints of their writings on the historical thoughts and writings of the succeeding generations of Indian historians.

There was no poverty of historical knowledge and no dearth of historical works in ancient India. The works produced as a whole throw light on various aspects of ancient Indian history and culture. The view held by some scholars that the regular historical works on the part of the Hindus has long been a desideratum is not tenable.

The Puranic, Buddhist and Jain traditions of chronology and the the chronology supplied by Kalhana are of great value.

The ancient Indians did possess historical sense. We, of course, do admit that only few of them were endowed with perfect sense of history and were critical historians. There were both historians and historiography in ancient India. However, there was none among the ancient Indians to leave for posterity the complete history of ancient India. The histories we have belong to different ages and different brains” history is what the historian makes”.

  • Idea of Bharatvarsha

In traditional and legendary Hindu literature, India is called Bharatakhanda. It is known as Bharatvarsha or the land of Bharat, famous king in the Pauranic traditions. Bharatvarsha was said to form of lager unit called Jambhudvipa that was considered to be one of the seven concentric legendary islands comparing. The present name ‘India is derived from ‘Sindhu” (the Indus), the great river in the North- West. The early Aryan settlers in India were amazed at the sight of the huge river and called it ‘Sindhu’ meaning a huge sheet of water.

Ancient India was known as Bharatvarsha.The ancient Indian historians and scholars differ in thier views regarding how the name Bharatvarsha had been derived. According to Vedavyasa the name Bharatvarsha was derived from the name of the Bharat, the son of emperor Dhyanta.

Bharatvarsha signifies the nation of Bharat. According to the Aitareya Brahmana “Bharata was a universal monarch who had built a vast empire winning vast areas of land spread all over the four directions”. He had performed Aswamedha Yagna and the name Bharatvarsha derived from his name”. According to one of the hearsay of Maitareya purana “the land ruled by Manu, the primogenitor of the human race, was named Bharatvarsha”. For system of justice and love for the public, Manu was known as Bharat.

According to Jainas and Bhagavadas ‘the name of the eldest son of Rishabha deva was Bharat, who was a virtuous person and great ascetic. The name Bharatvarsha was derived from his name.

All the facts cannot be taken to be logical because traditionally only some small towns or provinces have been noticed to have derived their names from the name of some prominent person. The large countries are named after its citizen and race. In this context, it could be said

that the name Bharatvarsha had been derived from the Bharata race of the Vedic Aryans because this race is known to be in the forefront of the contemporary political power. Consequently under the influence of its culture the entire nation came to be known as Bharatvarsha. This fact has been explained in the Vayu Purana as ”the nation to the north of the sea and to the south of the Himalaya is known as Bharat, because it is inhabited by the progeny of Bharat.

  • Scriptural View on the concept of Bharatvarsa
See also  प्राच्यवाद क्या है? (What Is Orientalism)

Bharatavarsha literally means the continent (‘varsha’. Sanskrit) that is dedicated (‘rata’) to light, wisdom (‘bha’). Vedic Rishis devoted themselves to the quest for the eternal truth and ultimate reality, kevala jnana, satchidananda. The Bharatas were a venerable and ancient tribe mentioned in the Rg Veda, particularly in Mandala 3 of Bharata Rishi Vishwamitra. Mandala 7 says the Bharatas were on the victorious side in the Battle of the Ten Kings.

There were three personifications of ‘Bharata’ in Hindu tradition, one each in the first three yugas, or time cycles. The first Bharata was born in the Satyuga as the son of Rshabdeva, first among recognized ancient sages. The Jaina community traces its spiritual lineage from Rshabhdeva, designated as the first Tirthankara; he is also known as Adinath, and synonymous with Siva, the foremost yogi of the Hindu tradition.

Jinasena’s Adipurana says three great events occurred simultaneously in Jaina history: Rsabhdeva attained enlightenment and became the first Jina; the cakra (wheel) appeared in the armoury of his son Bharata and proclaimed him a cakravartin (emperor); and a son was born to Bharata, ensuring continuation of the Iksvaku dynasty founded by Rsabhdeva.

Elaborating the multiple rebirths of father and son in the bhogabhumi (world of enjoyment) where salvation is not possible, the Adipurana explains their evolution to karmabhumi (world of karma) where the law of retribution operates and men follow different occupations (karman). Rsabhdeva created the Ksatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra castes; Bharata later created Brahmanas and appointed kings.

The duty of the cakravartin is total conquest of all the directions (digvijaya) by means of superior moral and political powers, to unite the country under a single moral kingdom and prevent anarchy. Readers will note that the Cakravartin is not merely an ideal ruler, but a powerful ancient political concept, inspired by a vision of the Hindu bhumi as a unity which was not belied by the presence of multiple centres of political power. That is why civilisational values permeated the whole land and gave the tradition its abiding continuity.

As first cakravartin, Bharata fasted, meditated, performed puja and followed the cakra symbolizing his kingship as it moved of its own accord to various parts of the country. He paused to perform pradaksina in Saurastra, where the Jina Aristanemi (cousin of Sri Krishna) would be born, all the while circling Ayodhya, centre of Aryavarta (land of the Arya, noble ones).

Bharata thus subjugated rival kings and punished those who taxed their subjects excessively. His digvijaya was accomplished without violence, through innate capability, on account of punya (merit) acquired in previous lives through practice of Jaina precepts. He exemplified the virtues of compassion (daya), divine-wisdom (brahma jñana) and penance (tapas).

The second Bharata was born in the Tretayuga as the son of King Dasaratha of Ayodhya, and younger brother of Sri Rama. He embodied the virtues of love (prema), devotion (bhakti), and brotherhood (bandhutva).

The story of the Ramayana is well-known, but briefly, Keikeyi, the second wife of King Dasaratha, schemes to have the heir apparent, Sri Rama, sent into exile for fourteen years, and her own son, Bharata, appointed crown prince in his place. Rama, accompanied by his brother Lakshman, and wife Sita, departs immediately and the grief-stricken Dasaratha passes away soon afterwards.

Bharata, then on a visit to his maternal grandfather’s kingdom in Gandhara, returns only to learn of his father’s tragic demise and brother’s unfair exile. Tortured further by the thought that he could be considered complicit in this palace conspiracy, he decides – unswervingly – not to accept the throne. He then leads the people to the forest to persuade Rama to return. This political renunciation of a kingdom won illegitimately is a unique Hindu ethic.

Bharata is regarded as the symbol of dharma and idealism, second only to Sri Rama. To this day, he is revered for his adherence to family values, truth, righteousness, filial love and duty.

When Sri Rama refused to return to Ayodhya as rightful king, Bharata, at the intervention of Sita’s father, King Janaka, accepted the onerous duty of facilitating Rama to live righteously, i.e., in exile for fourteen years. He vowed to immolate himself if Rama did not return immediately at the end of the exile period and ascend his throne. Agreeing to govern Ayodhya only as regent, he placed Sri Rama’s sandals at the foot of the royal throne as the symbol of His kingship.

The third Bharata was born in the Dwaparyuga as the son of Shakuntala and King Dushyant. Their story is part of the Mahabharata narrative, but it was Kalidasa who immortalized their love in Abhigyan Shakuntalam.

Shakuntala was the daughter of Rishi Vishvamitra and the apsara Menaka, who was sent by Indra to distract the sage. Menaka returned to heaven, and her daughter was raised in the hermitage of Rishi Kanva.

King Dushyant was the youngest son of King Puru, who had sacrificed his youth for his father, King Yayati. He founded the Paurava dynasty. Dushyant was hunting in the forest when, following a wounded deer into the hermitage of Rishi Kanva, he found Shakuntala nursing the

animal. He fell in love and they married secretly in the Gandharva style, being their own witnesses.

The king gave her a ring as token of his love and to establish her identity as his wife. Sadly, Shakuntala lost the ring and the king refused to accept her; she retired to the forest and gave birth to Bharata, who grew up so bold and fearless that he played with lions. Some years later, the ring was found and Dushyant brought Shakuntala and Bharat to Pratishthan, where Bharata later became king.

Bharata is regarded as the greatest king of India, who lent his name to the country. He had nine sons, but deemed none of them fit to succeed him, and hence adopted a capable child as future ruler. Bharata personified the values of service (seva), valour (shaurya), and charity (dana).

Thus the three Bharatas (two kings, one prince) seamlessly united the Satayuga, Tretayuga and Dwaparayuga and the land itself in political and cultural unity.

Himalayam Samaarabhya Yaavadindusarovaram Tam Devanirmitam Desam Hindusthaanam Prachakshatey

From the Himalayas all the way to the ocean, the Devas created the sacred land of Hindustan

According to the Vishnu Purana,”The country that lies north of the ocean and the south of the snowy munatains is called Bharat for there dwell the descendants of the Bharat.”

Uttaram yat samudrasya Himaadreshchaiva Dakshenam Varsham tada Bharatam Naam Bharati Yatra Santatih

In other words, it is stated that the subcontinent of India stretches from the Himalayas to the sea. It is known as Bharatvarsha, or the land of Bharat where the descendants of Bharata live. Bharata was a king highly praised in Puranas. As per the contents of various Puranas, Bharatvarsh was a land which formed the part of a larger unit called Jambu-dvipa. Bharatvarsha on Jambu-divipa (the continent) was considered to be the innermost of the seven concentric islands or the continents into which the earth, as conceived in the Puranas, was supposed to have been divided.In epics and some of the Purana, the whole Jambu-divpa is called the Bharatvarsha.

According to one other interpretation, varsham means country and thus Bhartavarsha means the country of Bharata or the country of the descendants of Bharata, son of Dushyant and Shakuntla and nurtured by Rishi Kanva.

Bharatvarsha is said to be widely spread. It also used to be called greater Bharat, the matsya purana states that there were 9 divisions of greater Bharat which have since submerged in the sea and are now beyond reach. These divisions were such as; Indradweepe, Kaseru, Tamraparni, Gabhistiman, Nagdweepa, Saumya, Gandharva, Varuna, Bharat surrounded by the sea.

  • Idea of Bharatavarsa-Assumptions

Defined by Raja Rammohun Roy, a poliglot and an Indian Reformer in his published track titled, “Exposition of the Practical Operation of the Judicial and Revenue System of India, and of the General Character and Conditioin of its Native Inhabitants, as submitted in Evidence to the Authorities in England, with Notes and Illustrations. Also a brief preliminary sketch of the Ancient and Modern Boundaries, and of the History of that country.

“India, anciently called the “Bharat Varsha” after the name of a monarch called “Bharat” is bound on its south by the sea; on east partly by this sea, and partly by ranges of mountains, separating it from the ancient China, or rather the countries now called Assam, Cassay and Arracan; on the north by a lofty and extensive chain of mountains which divides it from Tibet; on the west partly by the ranges of mountains, separating India from the ancient Persia, and extending towards the Western Sea, above the mouth of the Indus, and partly by this sea itself. It lies between the 8th and 35th degrees north latitude, and the 67th and 93d degrees of east longitude.

Raja Rammohun Roy had remarked as follows: Vaarshaa implies a large tract of continent cut off from other countries by natural boundaries, such as oceans, mountains, or extensive deserts. Further, on Bharat he wrote, “Bharat” a humane and powerful prince, suppose to have sprung from the “Indu-Bangs” or lunar race.

Raja Rammohun Roy had excluded the territories east of Bhramputra river, starting from Assam from the territories of India as given in his report. However, he had given following substantiating note about the exclusion of the territories both on the east and west.

He writes;

“The boundary mountains are interrupted on the east between 90 degree and 91 degree East and latitude 26 degree and 27 degree North. Hence the countries to the east of the Burrampooter, as Assam, Ava, Siam, &c as far as 102 degree east longitude, are by some authors considered as part of India, though beyond its natural limits; and by European writers usually called ‘India Beyond Ganges’. There, relics of Sanscrit literature, and remains of Hindu temples are still found. Other ancient writers, however, considered these countries as attached to China, the inhabitants having greater resemblance to the Chinese in their features.

The western boundary mountains are in like manner broken at Longitude 70 degree East, and at Latitude 34 degree North. Consequently the countries beyond that natural limit, such as Caubul and Candhar, are supposed by some to be included in India, and by others in Persia. But many Hindu antiquities still exist there to corroborate the former notion. Not only the northern boundaries of mountains of India, but also those mountains which form the eastern and western limits of it, are by the ancient writers of India termed Himalaya, and considered branches of that great chain. “In north direction is situated the prince of mountains, the ‘immortal Himalaya’

which immerse both in the eastern and western seas, stands on earth as a standard of measure (or line of demarcation).”

Scroll to Top