The traditional descriptions of Bhārata in the ancient literatures.
(1)
DEFINITIONS OF ‘BHĀRATA’ IN ANCIENT LITERATURES
The term ‘Bhāratam janam’ (भारतम्-जनम्’, ऋग्वेद 3.53.12) probably occurs for the first time in the fifteenth century BCE text of the Ṛg Veda as a reference to the ‘Indian national’; much before the birth of Emperor Bharata (son of King Duśyanta and Śakuntalā) mentioned in the Ādi Parva of the Mahābhārata. Thus the theory that the country called ‘Bharat’ is named after a person or a king is outrightly rejected.
Interestingly, the word ’Hindu’ has its origin in the Middle-East; not in India, where it was, and perhaps still is, used as a reference for the natives of the geographical region popularly called ‘Hindustan’ in Persia; or ‘Hind’ in the Arab world, which the West has designated ‘India’.
According to the Persian historian Ferishta the land which was first ruled by the Noah’s grandson Hind – (the son of Ham) – is called ‘Hindustan’.
The natives, however, still stick to the traditional reference – ‘Bharat’ – for India; which is officially confirmed by the Indian Constitution – ‘India, that is, ‘Bharat’… (Article-1, Constitution of India).
Despite numerous interpretative definitions of Bhārata, particularly from the Atharveda and a number of references from the Puranas, the focus of the paper is on ‘social engineering’ of the colonialists and their ‘agents’ (vide clause 34 of Macaulay’s Minute of Education 1835) to ontologise India by transforming the ancient Indian traditions and institutions prismed through the Christo-European lenses.
Traditionally, ‘Bharat’ (Bhārata) has been defined as
उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम, भारती यत्र सन्तति ॥ (विष्णु-पुराण 2.3.1)
Meaning:
The land that stretches from north of the ‘ocean’ to the south of the Himalayas is called ’Bhārata’ (‘भारतम्’); and its inhabitants are ‘Bhāratī’ (भारती).
A similar description of ‘Bharat’ under the Mauryans is given in the Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra,
देशः पृथिवी! तस्यां हिमवत्समुद्रांतर मुदीचीनम्।
योजन सहस्र परिमाणं तिर्यंक चक्रवर्तीक्षेत्रम् ॥ (Arthaśāstra 9.135-136)
Meaning:
The area extending from the Himalayas in the north to the South Sea; and Cakravartī Kṣetra (or the Mauryan empire) transversely stretches one thousand yojanas. Further, it was extended to the border of Greece under the Greek king Antiochus vide line 1-4, Major Rock Edict II: Girnar Version) retaining the essential features of the Mauryan administration for a vast territory with diverse languages and cultural practices under the third century Buddhist Emperor Asoka testified loudly by his edicts inscribed on Major Rock Edict VII: Girnar Version etc. Further, a larger India appeared under the Guptas, particularly upon the conquests of Samudra Gupta in the fourth century CE.
THE FIRST REFERENCE TO ‘BHĀRATA’ IS TO BE FOUND IN THE ṚGVEDA
This may be reiterated that the first reference to the term ‘Bhāratam’, is to be found in the ṚgVeda, viz.,
भारतीळे सरस्वति या वः सर्वा उपब्रुवे ।
ता नश्चोदयत श्रिये ॥ ऋग्वेद 1.188.8 ॥
श्रेष्ठं यविष्ठ भारताग्ने द्युमन्तमा भर ।
वसो पुरुस्पृहं रयिम् ॥ ऋग्वेद 2.7.1 ॥
त्वं नो असि भारताग्ने वशाभिरुक्षभिः ।
अष्टापदीभिराहुतः ॥ ऋग्वेद 2.7.5॥
य इमे रोदसी उभे अहमिन्द्रमतुष्टवम् ।
विश्वामित्रस्य रक्षति ब्रह्मेदं भारतं जनम् ॥ ऋग्वेद 3.53.12 ॥
तस्मा अग्निर्भारतः शर्म यंसज्ज्योक्पश्यात्सूर्यमुच्चरन्तम् ।
य इन्द्राय सुनवामेत्याह नरे नर्याय नृतमाय नृणाम् ॥ ऋग्वेद 4.25.4॥
भारती पवमानस्य सरस्वतीळा मही ।
इमं नो यज्ञमा गमन्तिस्रो देवीः सुपेशसः ॥ ऋग्वेद 9.5.8 ॥
However, the occurrence of the term ‘भारतम्’ in combination with जनम्’ (ऋग्वेद 3.53.12) as a reference to the ‘Indian national’ is rather a conclusive signifier for the ‘Bharat’ as a nation or rashtra’ , used much before the birth of Emperor Bharata of the Mahabharata period. Which is why, the popular English rendition for the ‘Bhāratam janam’ given by the Euro-Christo-centric translators as “posterity” or “race of Emperor Bharat” tends to distort the Indian historicity and historiography defying all academic standards in its venture to push the date of composition of the Mahābhārata before the ṚgVeda. Needless to state that the ṚgVeda was composed much before the age of Emperor Bharat, and is to be corroborated even by the most popular and acceptable sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, that mentions the date of its composition in the sixteenth century BCE).
Besides, the Jaina and Buddhist literatures, too, are fraught with tangible references to Bhārata or Jambu Dvīpa by the descriptions of the five geographical divisions of the Indian subcontinent, namely, Uttarāpatha, Madhyadesh, Prācyadeśa, Dakṣināpath and Aparānta of the ancient India, verifiable even by the Greek sources. All the more, the term raṭṭha for ‘nation’ is lavishly used in the Pali sources, e.g., Raṭṭhapāla Sutta. The Pali texts viz., Lokasaṇṭṭhāna-Paññatti, Okāsalokadīpanī, Cakkavāladdīpanī and so on are replete with the references to the Indian subcontinent or Jambu-dvīpa. The ‘Mahāgovinda Sutta’ (depicts the Indian nation in the shape of a bullock cart (Sakaṭamukhī) as being described ‘rectangular’ in the north and ‘triangular’ in the south; similar to the larger earth, which they designated ‘Mahāpaṭhavī’. These computations or cartography are the exemplifications of the ancient Indian marine advancements and the well-developed Indian mathematical traditions tangibly confirmed in the texts of Aryabhata (sixth century; who measured the diameter of the earth; value of pi etc.), Varahamihira, Bhaskaracarya and Sridharacharya (invented the Quadratic equations) etc., that still resonate in most Asian cultures and civilisations e.g, Angkor Wat in Cambodia, Borobudur and Bali, Indonesia, Batu Cave in Malaysia, Leshan in China notwithstanding the popularity of Buddhism beyond Asia. Moreover, the traditional interpretations of the sixty-three ṛcā-s of the Pṛthivi Sūtra occurring in the Atharvaveda may further substantiate the traditional geographical and cultural extent of ‘Bhārata’. Last but not least, ‘Bhārata’, according to the Puranas, is often projected in the shape of a ‘turtle’ with its ‘neck stretched out’; or as ‘a bow drawn by’.
(2)
TRANSFORMATION OF ‘BHĀRATA’ TO ‘HINDUSTAN’ & FROM ‘BHĀRATĪ’ TO ‘HINDU’
The Persian historian Ferishta, however, has declared that the land that we call ‘Bharat’ or ‘India’ was first ruled by Noah’s grandson – Hind, the son of Ham. Which is why it is called ‘Hindustan’ in Persia; ‘Hind’ in Arabia; and ‘India’ in the West (as the Western languages often do not pronounce ‘h’ sound); yet, following the Abramanic or Semitic tradition of the Old Testament, West too has probably shared the similar view if and only if the geneology of Noah’s is recorded accurately in Ferishta’s History of Hindostan
(3)
A JOURNEY FROM ‘HINDUSTAN’ TO ‘INDIA’ & TRANSFORMATION OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL’HINDU’ TO A ‘RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY’
Nathaniel Brassey Halhead: The first Indologist and ‘The Father of Hindu Laws’. Had prepared the first Hindu Code titled A Code of Gentoo Laws (1776). The closest interpretation of the term ‘Gentoo’ is ‘sub-human’. The code was the English rendition of an existing text, prepared under the Mughuls; it was locally redacted as Vivad Arnav Setu by the local Calcutta priests. Though exposed to Arabic and Persian texts, Halhead had no exposure, whatsoever, to the Indian culture. Yet, he undertook the huge responsibility of preparing the first Hindu Code as Redcliffe had undertaken the huge responsibility of drawing the line of partition for India and Pakistan without acquaintance with Indian geography or demography. Thus a precedent was set for a casual approach towards the study of Indian culture for the Indian academia that is baffling to NEW INDIA.
ORIENTALIST ENGINEERING IN RESTRUCTURING THE INDIAN SOCIETY
The popular reference for a non-Semitic Indian during early British colonial days was – ‘Gentoo’ (interpreted in the sense of a ‘sub-human’), a term first used by the Portuguese as a reference for an Indian native. In the backdrop, typical of the Western colonial perception towards the native Indians, the Laws for the non-Semitic Indians or the ‘Hindus’ were first formulated with the title – A Code of Gentoo Laws (1776) by the British government. Later on, for administrative convenience the term ‘Gentoo’ was dropped and use of ‘Hindu’ came into vogue following the Mughal administrative practices. Besides, the use of the term ‘Hindu’ was commensurate with their Euro-Christo-centric outlook to legitimise the distinct cultural identity of the Indian Semitic groups, namely the Jews, Christians and Muslims, from rest of the natives. Thus were the Indian cultural traditions or the Sanatani Parampara were to be prismed through the Christo-Euro-centric perception to be defined as a ‘religion’.
SIMULATION OF THE WESTERN FEUDAL MODEL OF THE EUROPEAN DARK AGE TO RESTRUCTURE THE INDIAN SOCIETY
The second Code for the ‘Non-Semitic natives’, however, replaced the term ‘Gentoo’ by ‘Hindu’. It was titled The Institutes of Hindu Law, Or The Ordinances of Menu, (1796), wherein the term ‘Menu’ (for ‘Manu’) was wilfully employed to import a false sense of religious authenticity and legitimacy for its acceptability. Factually speaking, the new code was modelled not after the Manu’s Laws but after the sixth century The Institutes of Roman Laws – meant for the Christian subjects of the Roman empire. The aforesaid Catholic laws were written during the reign of the Roman Emperor Justinian-1 for strict adherence; and was strictly implemented in the medieval West as well.
William Jones: prepared the second Hindu Codex in the model of the sixth century Roman Christian Laws casting Manu in the image of Roman Emperor Justinian-1. The Code, when prismed through the Semitic lenses transformed the Indian Sanatan tradition into Hinduism; and christened it as a ‘religion’ embedded in the ideal of castus.
The investiture of Charlemagne as the Holy Emperor by Pope Leo- III in 800 A.D. was to end the anarchy in West which had no Emperor eversince the collapse of Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D. Charlemagne is known as the ‘Father of Europe’ for protecting the ideals, values and belief systems of the medieval West; which the Western colonialsists used to shape modern India introducing Western education following Macaulay’s Minute on Education since 1835; with little or no change till date.
The Medieval West was, however, not well-developed, particularly upon the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE. Since then, it was gasping for economic recovery. As the king, the real owner of the land there, would not control all the land by himself, so he divided it up among the Barons, who in turn, pledged their loyalty, soldiers and taxes to the king. Likewise, the barons granted their fief or land to Dukes or Duchess, who in turn to Count or Countess and so on to a smallest manorial unit. Corollary to the manorial economy medieval western society was governed by the feudal system characterised by four-fold social echelons on hereditary lines, namely, Clergy, Nobility. Commoner and Serf on criterion of ‘castus’ ‘purity’ of blood, race, lineage to structure the Western society. The rulers and the clergies were the members of nobility conventionally called ‘high born’ with ‘divine rights to rule’. The leader of a church or the bishop, also of a noble descent, was equally empowered like a feudal lord to govern his land or a ‘diocese’; maintain knights and troops; collect taxes in addition to task of moral policing, education etc. The Lords (including clergy) held absolute power over the fief or manor including holding court and deciding punishments for crimes for his subjects. The commoners including the serfs or peasantry, too, were defined or identified on hereditary lines (or jāti or biological birth) and their vulnerability to serve the nobility was reckoned as the ‘will of God.’
Thus, the idea of castus was central to a feudal society characterised by hereditary feudal lords of the medieval Europe that was to maximise the ‘state’ revenue by optimum exploitation of the hereditary peasantry or workers.
The statistics reveal that around 90 percent of the Western people were peasants and worked in the land. They were not free and had to work very hard. Which is why most of them would die before reaching the age of 30.
In the backdrop Cornwallis Code (1793) was formulated and strictly implemented in India. Eventually, the Indian institutions and society of the majority population were restructured; the Sanatani tradition was prismed into a religion called ‘Hinduism’ with castus as its religare to legitimise or justify its religious definition.
When preparing the second Hindu Code William Jones, was appreciative of the vital role of castus in a society largely dependent on agricultural revenue. As being a British he was also aware of the British Royal Marriages Act enacted in 1772 in consideration of the castus factor to preserve the racial purity of the British royalty. Further, he viewed Manu as the Indian counterpart of the Roman emperor Justinian-I as he had painted Kalidasa’s Śakuntala in the ‘image of a British lady’ in his inadequate Sanskrit translations. Eventually, he brought out the second Hindu Code based on an ‘unestablished’ text presumably a Manu’s Shastra, which the Pundits of the time had dubbed as ‘Kuluka’ (‘filth or foulness of the tongue’). Besides, his code neither conformed to a Śrauta literature like the Vedas etc.; nor to a Smārta like the Ramayana, Mahabharat belonging to the confirmed Sanatani tradition. Soon the laws corollary to the Cornwallis Code were implemented throughout the British India for an efficient system of the revenue collection on hereditary lines. Thus, the feudal model of the medieval west was adopted to restructure the Indian society on hereditary lines. This is how the geographical ‘Hindu’ was transformed into a religious ‘Hindu’. Hinduism was thus ontologised in the model of Justinian Codex. And the Orientalists hatched the idea of legitimising it to implicate the sense of a religion attributing ‘pre-ordained birth’ as its religare or ‘binding condition’ essential for a religious definition to suit the Semitic faith. As baptism etc. are reckoned as the religare for a Christian identity; so was ‘pre-ordained birth in a in a particular caste’ adopted as the religare for recently defined religion called ‘Hinduism’. This perception suited the missionaries which defined ‘a Hindu by birth’; which in other words meant, no one could be converted to Hinduism; though Hindu can be converted into Christianity or the like. Which is why the British administration wilfully interpreting the four-fold varṇa as a synonym for caste (jāti, lit., birth) presenting it as a prototype of the four-fold Western social echelons classified on the criterion of biological birth.
Thus, the classical definition of the varṇa, which Lord Krishna has given in the Śrīmadbhagavadgītā was was outrightly sidetracked by the colonialists. Needless to affirm that varṇa in the Indian tradition is explained on the criterion of ‘guna-karma’ (merit and karma); not on consideration of the biological birth; or on hereditary lines.
Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭam, guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (Śrīmadbhagavadgītā 4.13)
Meaning: the four varṇa-s are created on consideration of one’s guṇa (merit) and karma; [not by the biological birth, i.,e., ‘jāti] – was set aside to ontologise Hindu and Hinduism.
Besides, the Manusmṛti too confirms the similar defintion
Śūdro brāhmaṇatāmeti brāhmaṇaścaiti śūdratām ।
Kṣatriyāj jātamevaṃ tu vidyād vaiśyāt tathaiva ca ।। (Manusmṛti 10.65)
Historically, it is held that the biological father of sage Aitreya was a shudra, yet, he became a Brahmin by virtue of his merit and karma. Furthermore, the biological fathers of Alush, Jabal, Dhrishta, Shaunak, Harit and Vishwamitra too were non-Brahmins, yet they became Brahmins. Buddha too has condemned the social stratification on hereditary lines in scores of discourses, e.g., in the Suttanipāta he affirms that
Na jaccā vasalo hoti, na jaccā hoti Brahmaṇo
Kammunā Vasalo hoti, Kammunā hoti Brahmaṇo (Pali Suttanipāta 1.7.27)
Meaning: No one is ‘low-born’ (vasala); nor ‘high-born’ (i.e., Brahmin). It is by virtue of the merit of one’s karma that one becomes a vasala or a Brahmin.
SOCIAL ENGINEERING TO RESTRUCTURE THE INDIAN SOCIETY USING THE CRITERION OF CASTUS, CASTA AND CASTE:
The social stratification of the West on criterion of castus was first modified and introduced in the Latin American colonies in the name of the Iberian ‘casta’ to suit the colonial administration to delegate castewise economic and social responsibilities. Cornwallis, the British Army General, however, had occasions to watch the advantages of the institutional changes in the Iberian colonies accrual to the rapid economic growth, when leading the British army during the American War of Independence. By and by, when Cornwallis was appointed as Governor General of India, he introduced new laws popularly known as ‘Cornwallis Code’ (1793) to effect institutional changes in the Indian society based on the criteria of the Latin castus and Iberian casta to delegate responsibilities on caste or hereditary criterion for an efficient system of revenue collection – the key to the agro-based Indian economy for the same reasons that had worked in the medieval west; as well as in the Latin America.
Social stratification in Iberian colonies based on casta for an efficient colonial administration besides the castus model of medieval Europe prompted Cornwallis to introduce a system of hereditary zamindari system in India for evolving an efficient system of revenue collection corollary to the success of Permanent Settlement (1793).
Cornwallis’s surrender. (Above) The British General Charles Cornwallis surrendered before the American revolutionaries in 1781. However, during his stay in America Cornwallis had occasions to watch the functionality of the Latin American Society structured on the Iberian casta lines for colonial administration. In the backdrop, he introduced the institution of hereditary feudal lords in India, hitherto unknown. This is how he could effectively implement the Permanent Settlement in 1793 for efficient revenue collection. Thus, the principles of the Latin castus or Iberian casta restructured the modern Indian society believing non-hereditary varna as hereditary caste.
William Jones’ ‘Hindu Laws’ wilfully misinterpreted the Indian concept of the varṇa system (based on guna [merit] and karma) as a prototype of the four-fold western social echelons, namely, Clergy, Nobility, Commoner and Serf – classified on hereditary lines following the castus principle. Thus, the definition of varṇa defined by Lord Krishna vide Śrīmadbhagavadgītā 4.13 on criterion of guna and karma was set aside to restructure the Indian society legitimising caste system. Hinduism was thus ontologised and officially defined by the British colonialists as a religion implicating pre-ordained caste as its religare that makes a belief system a religion. Interestingly, the Oxford-English Dictionary too has defined caste as a ‘feature of Hinduism’ discounting its Western origin rooted in the Latin castus and Iberian casta.
In the process the Indian society was restructured on the criterion of castus or casta in the name of the English caste exemplifying a brilliant social engineering. Which is why when revenue was fixed permanently (“Permanent Settlement”) the office of the tax collectors or zamindars, hitherto, non-hereditary in India, was declared hereditary on the criterion of biological birth (literally, means jāti) – to empower the zamindars as ‘feudal lords’ of the medieval west; and the labourers or craftsmen as ‘Low-born’ to serve the High-borns at ‘Will of God’ – typical of the Christo-centric Western belief of the medieval age, sidetracking ‘Karma Theory’ of Krishna and Buddha. The Indian priests were thus cast as the Indian counterpart of the Western clergy. This is how, the entire Indian society was restructured in the model of medieval European feudal society and pushed to the Dark Age of the medieval West where sorcery and superstitions were rampant, e.g., Irish belief of black cat crossing the path would bring bad luck; Scottish belief of cawing of crows or ‘raven’s croak is indicative of imminent arrival of guests or misfortune (vide Macbeth Act 1 scene 5); beliefs in witchcraft and ghost stories exemplified in the stories of Dracula etc. Last but not least, the marriages in different castes resulting in outcastes is also an emulation of the Western value system and practices. For example, the abdication of the throne by the British monarch Edward VIII in 1936 with shorn off royal privileges for himself and his descendants for his marriage to a commoner testifies strong adherence to the castus factor in the West that we call “modern”.
Edward VIII, the English monarch and the Emperor of India had to abdicate the British throne on 11 December 1936 on the issue of his marriage with Wallis Simpson as he was legally bound by UK’s Royal Marriages Act of 1772 enacted on consideration of the castus factor to protect the purity of the royal lineage consequent to Prince Henry’s marriage to Anne Horton – a ‘commoner’.
Obviously, the four caste system is not a prototype of the Varṇa System; and varṇa cannot be interpreted in terms of caste or hereditary lines. Conclusively, the caste system in India is modelled after the medieval western society embedded in the colonial motive to push back India to the Dark Age of the Medieval West to preserve, promote and perpetuate the colonial interests.
Burning of Joan of Arc on May 30, 1431, at Rouen in English-controlled Normandy is a reflection of the superstitions of the Western dark age , which they could shed through the Western Renaissance. Unfortunately, the Indian Renaissance was never allowed to take place in India. Instead, the middle-Age Western beliefs were garbaged into India with numerous western superstitious beliefs and practices, e.g., the Irish belief of ‘black cat cutting across the path would bring bad luck’; ravens’s croak would herald the arrival of a visitor or death (vide Shakespeare’s Macbeth); horror ghost stories of the fifteenth century Vlad or Dracula; Vampire slaying ritual (covered by Guardian in 2005 records that “Six men had exhumed the body of their neighbour, staked it, sprinkled it with garlic, and opened the deadbody’s ribcage with a pitchfork; took out his heart, burnt it and drank the ashes in a glass of water.” Likewise, in the 1800s, the residents of rural New England would disinter, desecrate, and rebury the bodies of their neighbors at least 60 times (according to Bell’s Food for the Dead book). Such beliefs are so strong that even today the movies on Dracula or vampires and ‘Omen’ or ‘Exorcist’ are still quite popular in the ‘modern’ West.
The ‘Downward Filtration Theory for caste-based selective education’ in India in the name of Western Education embodied in the Macaulay’s Minute on Education (1835) or 1835 Act (eventually resulted in low level of education in India. It has also been a serious impediment to achieve universal education for India today. Western education, as a matter of fact, was designed to promote Western Consumerism corollary to the Industrial Revolution. In short, Western education in India targeted only a class of persons with high purchasing power to relish the Western products and cherish the ‘Western values’.
Dr C.B.Varma ‘Metteya’,
Ex-Chair, Indian Council of Cultural Relations to Cambodia
Email: cbvarma@gmail.com
For Details and references on the topic please view:
