What is the Myth of Bharat?

Answer 1

In modern times, bigoted Brahmins have projected Bharatavarsha as the

ancient Sanskrit name for the whole of modern Republic 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 present-day 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 Sutlej 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 Republic of 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, i.e. Yusufzai territory of modern Afghanistan: " According to local tradition, the original seat of the empire of Bharata was much further to the north-west, namely, at the site now occupied by the ruins of Takh-i-Bahi, in the country of the Yusufzais

to the northward of Peshawar." -- ( Wheeler, p.48n.2 )

From this base he descended with his hordes of Aryan horsemen onto the plains of Gangetic 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' .