The
Mahābhārata is an epic narrative of the Kurukṣetra War and the fates of the
Kaurava and the
Pāṇḍava princes. The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE.
 |
| Great Indian Epic - Mahabharata |
The Epic
The epic is traditionally ascribed to the sage
Vyāsa, who is also a major character in the epic. Vyāsa described it as being
itihāsa (history). The epic employs the story within a story structure, otherwise known as frametales, popular in many Indian religious and non-religious works. It is recited by the sage
Vaiśampāyana, a disciple of Vyāsa, to the King
Janamejaya who is the great-grandson of the
Pāṇḍava prince Arjuna.
 |
| Battle of Kurukshetra |
The core story of the work is that of a dynastic struggle for the throne of
Hastinapur, the kingdom ruled by the
Kuru clan. The two collateral branches of the family that participate in the struggle are the
Kaurava and the
Pandava. Although the Kaurava is the senior branch of the family,
Duryodhana, the eldest Kaurava, is younger than
Yudhishthira, the eldest Pandava. Both Duryodhana and Yudhishthira claim to be first in line to inherit the throne.
The struggle culminates in the great battle of
Kurukshetra, in which the Pandavas are ultimately victorious. The battle produces complex conflicts of kinship and friendship, instances of family loyalty and duty taking precedence over what is right, as well as the converse.
 |
| Aftermath of Mahabharata |
The
Mahābhārata itself ends with the death of
Krishna, and the subsequent end of
Yadava dynasty and demise of
Pandava brothers. It also marks the beginning of the Hindu age of Kali Yuga, the fourth and final age of humankind, in which great values and noble ideas have crumbled, and people are heading towards the complete dissolution of right action, morality and virtue.
Timelines
Analyzing parallel genealogies in the Puranas between the times of
Adhisimakrishna (Parikshit's great-grandson) and
Mahapadma Nanda, Pargiter estimated 26 generations by averaging 10 different dynastic lists and, assuming 18 years for the average duration of a reign, arrived at an estimate of
850 BCE for Adhisimakrishna, and thus approximately 950 BCE for the Bharata battle.
B. B. Lal used the same approach with a more conservative assumption of the average reign to estimate a date of
836 BCE, and correlated this with archaeological evidence from Painted Grey Ware sites, the association being strong between PGW artifacts and places mentioned in the epic. John Keay confirm this and also gives
950 BCE for the Bharata battle.
As far as the scientific evidence of Mahabharata is concerned, the first and foremost evidence is the archaeological findings of
Prof. B.B. Lal of the
A.S.I. (Archaeological Survey of India - a Govt. of India organization) who excavated the Hastinapur site in 1951 and found out a flooding zone that was carbon-dated to 8th century (800 BCE - 700 BCE). This event of flooding of Hastinapur is also mentioned in the Puranas to have occurred about 4 generations from Parikshita, the grandson of Yudhishthira. So, clearly, the Mahabharata war could have occurred only 130–150 years before this flooding of Hastinapur.
 |
| Hastinapur Archaeological Evidence |
Based on the archaeological evidence of Prof. B.B. Lal and the phenomenon of double eclipse pair stated in the Mahabharata, we are able to clearly locate the Mahabharata war to 827 BCE. All the planetary positions also, as stated in the Mahabharata, match this year very clearly, to the T.
Demography of Mahabharata
The period is turbulent with feuding cousins from ruling
Kshatrya (Khatri) family battling over a piece of fertile land in North Indian plains. The local feud is escalated to a full scale war involving their relatives and friends. Let's note that all rulers are from the Kshatryya (Khatri) clans who ruled over all of India all the way up to
Gandhara in Afghanistan. These clans are arrogant, proud, and indulge in pastimes of the rich such as hunting, gambling, and playing chess. Due to caste and class barriers, they intermarry with each other but its limited to the other ruling clans.
Newcomer Nomads - Yadavas
The
Yadavas are new arrivals in North India. They are outsiders who have settled in NW India as large nomadic tribe engaged in cattle farming and milk produce. As their population grew northwards,
Kansa, the Kshatrya ruler of
Mathura was overthrown and
Krishna, a young prodigy of Yadava clan supplanted as the new ruler of Mathura. The legend of him being the abandoned son of Kansa's sister seems to be an afterthought to legitimize his status as Kshatriya ruler. This is the first instance of Yadava demonstrating political clout but their ambition was spearheaded by Krishna masterminding the great battle of Mahabharata. His manipulations resulted in massive causalities among the existing ruling clans and paved way for the demise of Kshatrya (Khatri) reign over North India.
 |
| Yadavas - Cattle Herderers |
Naming Corrections
It is said that the ballads and historical chronicles are written for the victors. Mahabharata is no exception to this rule. The bias and prejudics of the author is clearly demonstrated in the representation of
Pandavas as nobels while the losing cousins
Kauravas are depicted as arrogant and evil-minded brats.This representation is further exaggerated and assumes the height of hyperbole when the Yadava king
Krishna is hailed as incarnation of God.
Perfect example of this prejudice is displayed by corruptions of the names of Kaurava princes. In Sanskrit, the suffix "KU-" or "Du-" represents bad, ugly, or wicked. While the suffix "SU-" represents good, beautiful, or noble.
The author
Vyasa demonstrates his biases and hatred for the Kauravas by corrupting the names of Kauravas and replacing suffix "SU-" with "KU-" or "DU-". The cousins are labelled as "Kaurava" but this could be "Saurava" or "Paurava". Their father, the elderly King is named as "
Dhrutrashtra" meaning "Fake Nation" which is clearly a derogation of his real name. No parents will name their first offspring as "Fake Nation" who is destined to be the next king. A good guess for his real name could be "
Susarshtra" that later identifies his children as "
Saurava" or "
Kaurava". Just like the children of King Pandu are referred to as "Pandava".
Similarly the names of "Kaurava" princes are corrupted to represent them as the bad guys:
Suyodhan becomes Duryodhan,
Sushashan becomes Dushashan, ans
Sushala becomes "Dushshala"..
Landscape of Relations
In the battle of Mahabharata, the feuding cousins were supported by their relatives from marriages as well as friends and collaborators. Analyzing the feudal groupings and their demographic locations, its evident that Mahabharata was a war between two distinct subgroups of Kshatryas (Khatri) related by marriage alliances and located by regional profiles.
The "
Sauravas" were supported by their cousins and relations from the West - Punjab, Sindh, NW Frontiers, Himachal, and Afghanistan.
- Paurava - Mid Punjab (Now Jhelum district in West Punjab) - Puri clan in Punjab
- Kekaya - West Punjab (Region inear Lahore in West Punjab) - Kakkar clan in Punjab
- Madra - Mid Punjab (Region now known as Majha or the mid Punjab)
- Sindhu - Sindh (Sindhi clans)
- Gandhara - NW Forintier & Afghanistan (Kandhari clan in Punjab)
- Bahlika - Balkh or Bacria in Afghanistan (Behl clan in Punjab)
- Vahika - Now Wahi near Rawalpindi in West Punjab (Wahi clan in Punjab)
- Kamboja - Gujjars from Central Asia (Kamboh clan in Punjab)
- Sauvira - South West Punjab (Seraiki Region) (Sabherwal clan in Punjab)
- Sivia - SW Punjab (Sibia clan in Punjab)
- Aratta - Northern Sindh (Arora clan in Punjab)
- Dradas - Balochistan, Eastern Afghanistan (Dardic clans)
- Mallawa - Multan (Malhotra and Malhi clans in Punjab)
- Avanti - Rajasthan/Madhya Pradesh
The
Pandavas were supported by their cousins, relations, and friends from Haryana, UP, Gujarat, MP, Bihar, Bengal, and the South.
- Mathura - Southern UP (Vrishni kingdom ruled by Kamsa)
- Panchala - North Gujarat
- Dwaraka - North Gujarat
- Vidarbha - South Gujarat
- Anga - Myanmar (Burma)
- Vanga - Bengal
- Kalinga - Assam
- Magadha - Bihar
- Matsya - Western UP
- Vatsya - Western UP
- Kosala - Eastern UP
- Chedi - South
- Telinga - Andhra
 |
| East-West Divide of Mahabharata |
This divide has continued for centuries and separates the people of North West India (primarily Punjab, Sindh, and NW Frontiers) from the rest of India. The Rest of India failed to join the call given by Guru Gobind Singh and joined the Mughals against Baba Banda Singh Bahadur. During India's first war for independence, the rest of India did not support the Sikhs during the five
Anglo-Sikh Wars (1843-1849) Instead they joined the British against the Sikhs. As a retribution, the Sikhs did not support the mutiny of 1857.
 |
| Poorbias of British Army against Sikhs in 1949 |
This divide was clearly visible when the rest of India was mute spectator to the massacres of Punjabis and Sindhis during
Partition of India by Muslim League led Pakistan, More recently, a vast majority of Indians supported and justified Indian Army's attack on Golden temple during
Operation Blue Star.
Was the history to be blamed for this divide?
Reference
- https://www.quora.com/Ancient-India-What-is-the-scientific-date-of-mahabharata-war-1#
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_Khanda
this is excellent, to me it is so original. should be a subject of PhD research, chapter in school textbooks
ReplyDeleteThis is highly innacurate. The Kauravas had allies from all over India. It is true that base of alliances was more western shifted, however that was simply because the Kauravas were in control of the Kuru Kingdom, so the dispossessed Pandavas had to seek allies East such as the Magadha Kingdom. However, even many eastern shifted kingdoms supported the Kauravas. The Kirata kingdom of East India supported the Kauravas. You falsely claim that Krishna "masterminded the Kurukshetra war" to achieve Yadava control. Don't you realise that the Vrishti (Yadavas) supported the Kauravas in the war? Only Krishna and Satyaki supported the Pandavas, the rest fought on Duryodhana's side. Also why are you trying to conflate the Kuru Kingdom with Punjab? You do realise Hastinapur(the capital of the Kuru Kingdom) was located in what is now Western UP.
ReplyDeleteYou falsely claim that the Yadavas were cattle herders and were foreign to North India. What nonsense! The Yadavas were descended from King Yadu. They were a Chandravanshi (lunar) Kshatriya clan which was mentioned in the Rig Veda! You falsely claim that Krishna(a Yadava) usurped the throne from the "Khatri" Kamsa. King Kamsa was a Yadava himself! He was born to the Yadava King Ugrasena! Also, why are you using a modern Jati distinction (Khatri) to describe an ancient King. Jatis did not exist back then so using a term like Khatri for Kamsa makes no sense. You may as well call Krishna a Jatt!! The term Yadava does not refer to a caste or a Jati but a Gotra (lineage). Just as the Pandavas were a Gotra coming from King Pandu, the Yadavas or the Yaduvanshi dynasty, were the progeny of King Yadu. It's a completely different concept from Jati (which emerged thousands of years later), which were endogamous units one had to marry within. Rather one has to marry outside their Gotra,
Mr. Anonymous, Looks like you did not read my blog in full or were not paying attention. I have listed the ancient kingdoms who sided with Pandavas or Kauravas. This list is based on the Mahabharata itself. Mapping these kingdoms geographically tells a clear picture that Kauravas were supported by kingdoms West of India and the Pandavas received support from kingdoms of the East. See my map for details.
DeleteYou need to check your sources as Rig Veda was written at least 800 years before Mahabharata and it does not mention Yadavas or Krishna. Yadavas were the cattle herding nomads who had settled in the region of Gujarat to Mathura. Yadavas were same as Gowalas, Ahirs and Gujjars, the cattle herding nomads. In fact Krishna grew up in a cattle farm - Gokula.
So you can have your own interpretation. Krishna's deeds and valor were not enough to classify him as a Kshatriya. One of the name for Krishna is "Rannchhod" is due to him running away from the battlefield. This is least likely to be a Kshatriya like quality as per Gita. He never fought a single battle in Mahabharata and lived all his live in deception and plotted the demise of Kshatriyas. Mahabharata weakened the NW border of India forever and eventually it was overrun by the Persians, Greeks, and eventually by the Turks.
Jarasandh, the Kshatriya ruler of Magadha defeated Krishna, forcing him to abandon Mathura, and take refuge in the shores of Dwarika in Gujarat. He was the father-in-law of Kansa and never accepted Krishna as Kshatriya.
The only true Kshatriyas are the Punjabi Khatris who migrated to the plains of Punjab carrying Rig Veda. Some parts of Rig Veda were even composed in Punjab. Their way of life was adopted by the rest of India and the ruling elite assumed the title of Kshatriya. Now you know the rest of the history ...
Interesting theory of an East/West split (kinda reminds me of Robert Kaplan's Gurdaspur-Kathiawar Salient Theory), but it falls apart after even a cursory reading of Mahabharata.
ReplyDeleteKalinga (Orisaa, not Assam) and Anga (Karna's kingdom) were firmly on the Kaurava side.
Chedi (Shishupala), Magadha (Jarasandha) and Matsya (General Kichaka) were hostile to Pandavas until they had a "regime change". Kekaya was firmly with the Pandavas.