I recently saw few Out Of India Theory (OIT) proponents put forward arguments that claimed Vedic people had a tribal and an expansionist mindset. This apparently pushed the other tribes out of India who went on to become Iranians. This narrative prompted me to write this blog to debunk this nonsense and defend the Vedic people and culture.
What this blog is not about
This blog is not about disproving the OIT. I am a fan of Shrikant Talagiri ji's analysis of Vedic and Avestan text. But using his methods I reached the conclusion that Iran is the homeland. This thesis needs its own series of blogs to explain it in detail.
This blog is also not going into the philosophy of the Vedic texts. The OIT proponents regurgitate the debunked arguments that Rig Vedic texts are an inferior karma kanda. They claim the superior philosophy of the Upanishad was a gift of east Indian tribes who adopted the Vedic religion, I guess these OIT proponents have not heard of the book "The secret of Vedas" written a 100 years ago by Sri Aurobindo. Or they did not have the capacity to understand it. Nevertheless this blog is not about defending the superior philosophy and vision of of the Rig Vedas.
This blog is about the Vedic people who fought wars to defend the dharma. They have inspired several generations to recognize the Asuric forces and defend the Dharma. Their message still inspires the followers of the Vedic religion. To degrade the Vedic people as tribal expansionist with crude philosophy is an insult that needs a proper response.
Dharmic nature of the wars in Vedas
Let us examine the 3 wars that the OIT folks mention. The first one is the Hariyupiya / Yavyavati war in book 6. The second is the Dasaranjana in book 7. The final one is the Varshagira battle in book 1.
In the Hariyupiya war the protagonist is Abhyavartin Chayamana a Prthu. The Prthu are supposedly the progenitors of the Iranian Parthians. If the Vedic religion was tribal why would it praise a proto Iranians? The Vedic religion welcomes all the tribes that were open to accepting the Vedic dharma. The same Parthians in the next Dasaranjana battle become antagonist (7.83.1) since they reject the Vedic dharma.
The Dasaranjana war described in 7.83 probably best describes the nature of this war for Dharma.
सत्या नृणाम् अद्मसदाम् उपस्तुतिर् देवा एषाम् अभवन् देवहूतिषु || 7.83.7
It clearly says that the 10 kings opposed the Vedic sacrifice (dharma). Further it says that Sudas won because he stood by Satya. Devas were pleased with his piety. There should be no further doubt that this was a war for dharma and not a war for expansion.
Another verse that is misquoted to paint Dasaranjana as a war for expansion in 3.53.11. It describes the Vishwamitra aiding the Ashvamedha for Sudas. The Ashvamedha was done by Sri Rama and Yudhishtra. Then they must also be accused as an expansionist. This comes from a poor understanding of the Vedic yagna. There is no forced displacement of people here. It is an attempt to spread Vedic religion to avoid future conflicts. We have lost this spirit which explains the current state of affair of the Vedic religion.
Finally the Varshagira war. The religious nature of the conflict is well known and documented in the Iranian text. This probably was the final dharmic war of the Vedic people that put an end to the Asuric monotheism in India for a long time. We can learn several lessons from it.
Sudas was neither an Aryan, nor a Puru
Another accusation of the OIT is that the Vedic text belonged to a Aryan and a Puru tribe and their ancestor was a Bharata. Sudas of the Dasaranjana war is supposed to belong to this tribe. The only proof of a Sudas (father of Somaka) being a Puru and descendent of Bharata is in Vishnu Purana. The OIT, who otherwise reject Puranic evidence, proudly have embraced this to serve their narrative.
The fact is Sudas fought Aryans (7.83.1) and Purus (7.18.13) in the Dasaranjana battle. The tribe of Sudas is called Trtsu (7.18, 7.33). Trtsu are distinguished from Aryans (7.18.7). Sudas is distinguished from Puru in 1.63.7. There is not even a single verse that calls Sudas an Aryan, Puru or a Bharata. Yet the OIT has created a fake Puru Bharata sub dynasty and placed Sudas in it.
The fake Bharata Puru dynasty of OIT
There is a Bharata Puru dynasty in the Itihasa and Purana. They are the descendants of King Bharata son of Dushyanta. But Rig Veda does not have a single sukta that mentions a combination of the Bharata and Puru. The main reason is that the events of the family book of the Rig Veda precedes the Bharata Puru of the Itihasa. Yet the OIT has combined Bharata, Puru and have mixed the Trtsu and Srnjaya to concoct a new Dynasty. They claim the Rig Veda to be the book of this concocted tribe. The accusation of Vedic people as tribal will fall apart if we unravel this concocted dynasty.
Let us start with the Trtsu tribe. The members of this tribe are Athithigva, Vadhryasva(6.61.1), Divodasa, Pratardana(7.33.14,9.96), Pijavana(7.18.22,23) and Sudas(7.18.25). The OIT then uses evidence from Puranas to add Sahadeva and Somaka to this tribe without any evidence from Rigveda.
The second dynasty that is mixed with Trtsu is the Srnjaya. The members of this tribe are Devavata (4.15.4), Srnjaya(6.27.7), Prastoka (6.47.22) and Devasravas (3.23.2). No one from this dynasty is ever called a Puru, yet they are concocted into the fake Bharata Puru dynasty.
Some blatant fraud by OIT to mix the Srnjaya and Trtsu are the evidences cited in
- 6.47.25. A fake ancestry of Divodasa to Srnjaya. Nowhere in the verse is Divodasa mentioned. The previous verses in the sukta (6.47.22) refer to 2 donors Prastoka and Divodasa. Evidences outside of Rig Veda link Prastoka to Srnjaya. Yet OIT falsely links Divodasa to Srnjaya to create this fake Bharata Puru dynasty. In fact this verse makes it abundantly clear that Divodasa is not the Srnjaya's descendant.
- 7.18.22. False claim that Devavata is an ancestor of Sudas. The verse says Devavata's descendants gave cow to Vasishta and Sudas gave 2 Chariots. These are 2 separate donations. Sudas is not Devavata's descendant. Similar to evidence in 1.67.3 (where Sudas and Puru are mentioned as separate people), Sudas's identity is merged into Devavata's descendant identity to create the fake Bharata Puru dynasty.
So far I have unraveled the Trtsu, Srnjaya and Puru from the fake Bharata Puru dynasty. Now it is time to unravel the fake Bharata tribe.
Bharata is a religious identity, not a tribe
As stated before, Bharata is certainly an identity of a tribe in the Itihasa and the Puranas. But in Rig Veda it is a religious term used for Agni and its worshippers. The lack of understanding of the philosophy behind the Rig Veda has allowed OIT and AIT to concoct this fake Bharata tribe in Rig Veda. If Bharata of Rig Veda was a person why does not the text give a clue as to who is his father, brother, son, wife etc.? Indologist side step this issue by claiming that he was a remote ancestor. Rig Veda mentions the relatives of remote ancestors like Manu and Yama. But there is no background for this fictitious Bharata.
In the Rig Vedic philosophy Agni is the spirit behind the human body, soul and mind (3.26.7). The objective is to manifest this spirit and let it guide the destiny of the Vedic worshipper. The Vedic gods help humans with other psychological powers. This Vedic Agni needs a Bharata or a human bearer (bringer). Hence the Vedic worshippers are called Bharata or sons of Bharata in several hymns of Agni (6.16.19, 6.16.45, 6.16.4, 2.7.1,2.7.5,3.23.2,7.8.4). The Vedic kings who fight for Dharma are guided by Agni. Hence they are also called as Bharata (3.53.12,3.53.24,3.33.11,3.33.12,7.33.6,6.16.4). In fact Bharata or Bharatiya is a much better word to replace the ambiguous "Hindu" tag that the Iranians have labelled us with.
Hope this blog dispels the narrative that Vedic people were tribal, nationalist or expansionist. They were dharmic people from various tribes who accepted Vedic Dharma and laid down their life for its protection.
