The Location of the Bharata Pūrus in My Writings

 

The Location of the Bharata Pūrus in My Writings

Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

After all this argumentation about the original location of the Bharata Pūrus in my writings, let me set the records straight

Since no-one can quote anything in my 1993 book where I say the Pūrus originated in Kashi, let me do their homework for them and point out a section in my 2000 book where it can be alleged that I claimed the Rigvedic kings were kings of Kashi. This was in my description of the Anukramaṇīs for X.179.2, where I pointed out that the verse is attributed to Pratardana Kāśirāja, and that this could indicate that according to the Anukramaṇīs Pratardana was a king of Kashi, and I even waxed eloquent on this point.

But I also simultaneously pointed out that:

“Maṇḍala X, as we saw, was composed after the other nine Maṇḍalas, and compiled so long after them that its language alone, in spite of attempts at standardisation, is sufficient to establish its late position. The ascription of hymns in this Maṇḍala is so chaotic that in most of the hymns the names, or the patronymics/epithets, or both, of the composers, are fictitious; to the extent that, in 44 hymns out of 191, and in parts of one more, the family identity of the composers is a total mystery.

In many other hymns, the family identity, but not the actual identity of the composers, is clear or can be deduced: the hymns are ascribed to remote ancestors, or even to mythical ancestors not known to have composed any hymns in earlier Maṇḍalas”.

However, the above aberration in my enthusiastic description of the Anukramaṇīs for X.179.2 in my second book was not borne out anywhere else in my actual analysis on the subject and therefore no-one can honestly claim that I placed the Bharatas in Kashi.

In my first book in 1993, I have not analyzed the geography or other data in the Rigveda on my own, I have only described the descriptions of analysts of the Puranas (like Pargiter and Bhargava) as to the locations of the various dynasties. I repeatedly pointed out that the earliest forefathers like Manu, Ikṣvāku and Sudyumna were mythical persons. But, in noting the Puranic descriptions, I described the situation as follows:

“At this point of time, the Purāṇas shift their major focus on to five dynasties, which they claim to be branches of the Sudyumna/Aila dynasty. These five dynasties are located as follows:

a. The Pūru dynasty: located around the region of the Sarasvati river (the Punjab, Haryana, and adjoining parts of western Uttar Pradesh).

b. The Anu dynasty: located to the north of the Pūrus, in the region to the north of the Paruṣṇī river (Kashmir).

c. The Druhyu dynasty: located to the west of the Purus (the north-west frontiers, Afghanistan).

d. The Yadu dynasty: located to the south-west of the Pūrus (Gujarat, western Madhya Pradesh, northern Maharashtra).

e. The Turvasu dynasty: located to the south-east of the Pūrus (location uncertain, but specifically to the cast of the Yadus).” (TALAGERI 1993:303).

I continued: “Of these, the Pūrus are most certainly the continuation of the main Sudyumna line. This is proved by both the Vedic evidence … and the Puranic and epic evidence (which clearly states that Pūru inherited the ancestral kingdom, around the Sarasvatī river, from his father Yayātī).” (TALAGERI 1993:303-4).

A few pages later, I repeated this geographical picture:

“The Purāṇas locate the five dynasties, which are classified as Sudyumna dynasties, as follows:

1. The Pūru dynasty: the central region (Punjab, western Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh).

2. The Anu dynasty: the northern region (Kashmir).

3. The Druhyu dynasty: the western region (northernmost Kashmir, the northwest frontiers, Afghanistan).

4. The Turvasu dynasty: the south-eastern region (not stated clearly, and not identifiable; but supposed to be to the east of the Yadus. In any case, the dynasty fades away into obscurity in the Puranas itself).

5. The Yadu dynasty: the south-western region (Gujarat, western Madhya Pradesh, northern Maharashtra).

Bhargava, however, insists that all these five dynasties ruled in different parts of the Punjab itself. He, in fact, locates them in the same directions as indicated above, but within the Punjab: the Pūrus in the centre, the Anus to the north, the Druhyus to the west, the Turvasus to the south-east and the Yadus to the south-west. But the Pūrus, by all accounts, have to be placed on the banks of the Sarasvatī and cannot be restricted only to the central part of the Punjab. Hence, it is rather difficult for Bhargava to place the Turvasus and Yadus to the south-east and south-west respectively of the Purus, and yet show them located within the Punjab. Hence, when showing the locations of the five dynasties, in the map shown by him, Bhargava places his trust in the indulgence, or carelessness, of his readers” (TALAGERI 1993:322-23).

Please note that I have maintained this same geographical description from my first book in 1993 to my most recent blog (whichever) where I have described the locations of the five tribes. The Pūrus referred to here are the ancestral Pūrus, of which the Bharata dynasty of the Rigveda constituted just one later subtribe.

[Incidentally, in referring to the Bharata dynasty prominent in the Rigveda:, Bhargava writes: “The Paurava dynasty's list ends with the foundation of its branch, the Tṛtsus, who ruled very near the (main-line) Paurava territory” (TALAGERI 1993:326).. Nowhere do Kashi or Ayodhya enter into this picture.]

 

Let us go on to my second book (published in the year 2000), which occurs at the very end of the 1990s, and is also the book where I made that reference in the form of the above admittedly unwarranted aberration in my description of the Anukramaṇīs for X.179.2:

In that book also (even after giving some nominal consideration to the Anukramaṇīs for X.179.2), I point out in my actual analysis not only that Divodāsa and Sudās were kings of Kurukshetra (with Kashi nowhere in the picture), but even that their ancestors were likewise kings of Kurukshetra :

“The references to Haryana are fairly distributed throughout the Rigveda, right from the oldest Maṇḍala VI: VI.1.2 refers to Agni being established at Iḷaspada. Even more significantly, III.23.4 tells us that Devavāta (an ancestor of Divodāsa of the oldest Maṇḍala VI) established Agni at that spot.” (TALAGERI 2000:117-118)

 

Likewise in my third book (2008):

“The references to the eastern rivers (Sarasvatī, Āpayā and Drṣadvatī), in the second oldest book, in III.23.4, speak of the establishment of sacred fires on the banks of these rivers by ancestors” (TALAGERI 2008:100).

“the establishment of the sacred fire at “the centre of the earth” in Kurukṣetra by the ancestors of Sudās (in III.23)” (TALAGERI 2008:127). 

I need hardly add that in subsequent books (2008, 2019) after my second book (in the year 2000) and in my blog articles (which started after 2012), nowhere is there even the hint of any reference to the Anukramaṇīs for X.179.2 or to any location of early Pūrus in Eastern U.P (whether in Kashi or Ayodhya): everywhere the ancestral land is unequivocally Haryana.

So was it just my enthusiastic description of the Anukramaṇīs for X.179.2 in my second book (2000), which was contradicted sharply in my actual analysis in all my four books (1993, 2000, 2008 and 2019) including that same book (2000), and in every single one of my blog articles, which has led to these persistent allegations that I located the early Pūrus in Kashi or Eastern U.P.?

Well even this single aberration (in my description of an Anukramaṇī reference) has not been cited by these people, and it required me to do that homework for them. There is no other reference which can be cited.