Chapter 1
Prologue
Objective and Hypothesis of the Study
The objective and hypothesis of the study is to bring to the fore many faultlines, distortions and subversions ingrained in the ancient Indian history, particularly that of the Krishna and the Mahabharata period and the so-called ‘Black period’. The period seems to be the second foundational after that of the Indus and Harappa civilization, to the all the civilizational developments and the progression of the Indian civilization in particular and that of the world in general.
Methodology and Sources
As the subject matter pertains to the ancient period and a personality obtaining variegated attentions, controversies, interpolations and subversion, the study applies the explorative, the formulative, the analytical, the critical, the interpretative and the descriptive methods. The approach of the study is multi-disciplinary utilising the tools and techniques of the Anthropology, the Geology, the Sociology, the Political science, the Psychology, the Physical sciences, the Environmental studies, the Archaeology, the Marine archaeology, the art, the literature, deconstruction, migration, the settlement Geography, the ethics, the philosophy, communication theory, philology, Comparative literature, including that of the History.
As the study is the ex-post-facto reading of the ancient epoch, it is based primarily on the secondary sources. Nevertheless, all the possible efforts have been made to tap the Primary sources as well. The study tours have been undertaken to the places associated with the Mahabharata and the Krishna period: Mathura, Dwaraka, Vrindavan, Hastinapur, Purana Quila of New Delhi, Gokul, Badrinath, Rajgir, Gopalpur, Puri, Mithila, Avantipura and Haripura (J &K), Prabhas Khsetra, Veraval, Bhalaka, Okha, and Bet Dwaraka (Gujarat), Chamba, Dharamshala and Manali (HP). A lot of data and information have been gathered, processed and collated with the study.
The data and the materials collected from the Shri Krishna Museum, Kurukshetra; National Archives, New Delhi; Mathura Museums, Mathura., Patna Museum, Dharamshala Museum and Chamba Museum (H.P.) have been factored in the study. The excavation reports of the various archaeological expeditions such as Mathura, Purana Quila, Dwaraka, Hastinapur, Atranjikhera and the likewise have been analysed, scrutinized and put to the critical evaluation, and the conclusion arrived therein have been used for making the study authentic.
The folklores, the folktales and the collective memory as internalized by the generation after generation and passed onto the succeeding one have also been utilized for gathering the information and obtaining insight of the period and the personality. Moreover, D. D Kosambi’s unique mechanism of ‘present social layers’ giving enough idea of the remote past have been applied with the interesting and the shocking facts tumbling out of our pulverized past.
In addition to these, the brahamanical and other literatures such as ShrimadbhagvatGita, Bhagavat Puran, Vayu, Garur Puran, Mahabharata, Manu Smirti have been deconstructed and the materials thus obtained have been factored into the study.
Literature Review
There is no dearth of the literature relating to the Mahabharata and the Krishna period, albeit with the motif of mystifying and making them happening in the circular time. In fact, almost all the brahamanical and the non-brahamanical literatures seem to have been transcript or put down in the written format with the sole aim of transposing the Krishna and the Mahabharata period to the mythical realm.
There is one book –Yugandhar by Shivaji Savant, which seems to be viewing Krishna and the Mahabharata period as historical one but with the apology to the God. Moreover, the writer has put disclaimer that it is the fiction work for obvious reason. Yugant by Karve has also some critical and the analytical historical inputs, though it appears to be the sociological interpretation of the epical rendition of the Mahabharata.
The scores of the Puran or what is called as the itihas-Puran and the Upanishad have some historical themes but it has been subverted as the ethical, the religious or the mythical one. The deconstructions of these provide the historicity of the Krishna and the Mahabharata period throwing some light on “Dark Period” as well.
Moreover, score of the literary, the non-literary, the monographs, the sociological and the anthropological history of the different castes such as J N Yadav’s Hisotry of Yadavas, A H Bingley’s The History of Rajputs, the histories and studies of Ahirs, Jat, Gujjar, Brahmins, Jaina and Budhist Texts, ancient foreign travellers and ambassadors’ accounts, memoirs, Acharya Chatursen literature on the republican era or the Gana-Sangha period before its conquest by the monarchy and later on by the imperial monarch have some or the other themes, the undercurrents, and the latent references to the period being discussed. These all have some streaks of the historicity of the period being discussed.
The theme relating to the historicity of the Krishna & the Mahabharata period or that of the so called ‘black period’ seems to be permeating the epic Mahabharata, Pauranic literature, Upanishad, Gita , other brahamanical and non-brahamanical literature but it has been subverted, pulverized and mystified, turning them into the myths and the legend or what Wheeler et la has commented, ‘a vehicle of brahamanical teachings’.
The study seeks just to chaff out these subversions, brazen attempts of the pulverization and the mystification of the bardic text when it was converted into the written format at the beginning or end of new millennium. It seeks just to remove the cobweb of the subversion, the pulverization and the mystification woven around the socio-political history of the ancient India.
In spite of the discovery of the large city-state of Dwaraka under the water off the Arabian Sea in Dwaraka in Gujarat in 1992 by S. R Rao imparting the historicity to the Krishna period and his foundational contribution to the humankind[1], in the opinions of the Indian historians and historiography, this does not support the grandeur and civilizational development as mentioned in the Mahabharata and other scriptures. Notwithstanding the textual and non-textual, archaeological, philogical, folklores and other non-conventional sources substantiate the historicity and the grandeur of the Mahabharata and the Krishna period. And even if Krishna and his period has been termed as tribal and more mythical than real by arm-chaired and myopic historians, he and his age appears to be summing up the hitherto civilizational developments and cultural milestones , right from Pre-Indus period, Mitanni, Harappa and Indus civilization. Krishna and Mahabharata period is the continuation of historical process started much before the Harappa and the Indus civilization[2].
Even before the breakthrough Dwaraka findings, the city-state of Dwaraka[3], founded by Krishna and the Yadavas, had been put to the excavation in 1962-63, confirming the historicity of Krishna. ‘The period I indicated the use of iron and fine pottery some of which was also painted…… The excavation thus threw light on the theory concerning the submergence of Dwaraka..’[4]
After that Dwaraka was left for the two decades, and in 1979-80 the excavation was resumed which further reinforced the historicity of the Dwaraka and Krishna. ‘The Cultural sequence of Dwaraka as suggested by structural and ceramic evidence found in the excavation shows that there was evidence of habitation in fifteen-fourteenth century BC as lustrous Red Ware and Late Harappan wares were found. The second Dwaraka was inhabited around 900 BC (?), it was confirmed by house floors, thin black-on-red ware. Further, the alternative layers of sand and habitation debris made it clear that during the first millennium BC, the township was destroyed more than once by the storm waters[5].”
The archaeological proof of Mahabharata, Krishna and Yadavas as political class having wide areas under their influence has been established with correlation of Painted Grey Ware (PGW) and Black-Red Ware (BRW) with details in the Pauranic literatures, other literary and non-literary sources. The PGW has been identified with Mahabharata and post-Mahabharata period, and BRW with Krishna and Yadavas, notwithstanding the persisting and self-defying doubts, reservations, and other as usual ifs & buts
The geographical distribution of the BRW with its painted, plain, stripped versions pertains to “Saurashtra, Kutch, along Aravalli Hills, with a base in the Banas Valley, Ahar, Ganga-Yamuna Doab, later Atranjikhera, and Noh. The second direction in which BRW appears to have travelled was along the Narmada Valley and into Malwa and Central India, largely following the river valley and later going eastward to Bihar, middle Ganga valley and ultimately to eastern Ganga valley (Navdatoli, Eran, Mahisdal and Chirand). The further southward extension of BRW via the West Coast and through Vidarbha seems to have occurred late. The BRW therefore essentially skirts round the Ganga-Yamuna Doab and the substantial concentration of this culture occurs in Kutch, Kathiawar and in the districts of Udaipur, Bhilwara, Bharatpur, Indore, Bhind, Ghazipur, Mirzapur and Varansi.”[6] This vast geographical extent of Krishna and Yadavas lineage tally with Puranic literature[7], and present settlement patterns of Yadavas in these areas further reinforce and authenticate it clearly.
Even before it, the famous archaeologist and former Director General of Archaeological Survey of India found Painted Grey Ware (PGW) and Black & Red Ware (BRW) with painted, plain, or interspersed with it in the score of sites and places relating to Mahabharata and Krishna as mentioned in Puranic, literary and non-literary sources.
“The period between the end of Indus (c. 1500 BC and the beginning of historical period (c 600 BC) was formerly regarded as ‘Dark Ages’ of India. B. B. Lal undertook exploration of the sites referred in ancient Indian texts, such as Hastinapur, Mathura, Kurukshetra , Indraparstha. He published a paper highlighting the importance of Painted Grey Ware (PGW).”[8] Afterwards, a methodical excavation was commenced at Hastinapur during 1950-52 resulting in the identity of what is known as PGW culture[9].
“Consequently the explorations have led to the discovery of as many as 650 sites of this culture. While the main concentration of sites is in the Indian Punjab, Haryana, North-eastern Rajasthan and Upper Ganges-Jamuna basin in Uttar Pradesh, the occurrence of some sites has been reported from as far as Lakhiyo Pir in Sindh (the related material is in Central Antiquity Section, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi).[10] And it was also found in Harappa, southern Punjab in Pakistan.[11] Sites along the dry bed of the Ghaggar in the Bahawalpur region of Pakistan have already been referred and also Ravi-Jhelum Valleys of Pakistan Punjab since the Gharinda near the Indo-Pakistan border has yielded it.[12] Sravasti[13]in Uttar Pradesh is the eastern most boundary of the PGW. Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh is the southernmost site where like Sravasti these have not been found independently[14]. The finding of PGW in Thapli in Himalayas on the bank of Alaknanda in the Tehiri district of Uttarakhnad has broadened the horizon of this culture tallying with what has been mentioned in ancient literature”[15].
“ To bring into sharper focus the extent of distribution of PGW culture, it may be pointed from Lakhio Pir in Sind to Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh, about 900 km, a span which compares with that of Indus Civilization. There is another very interesting features from survey undertaken by M. R Mughal in Bahawalpur”[16]. He discovered fourteen sites in Bahawalpur and out of these seven ranges between 1.1ha that is considered as normal range of the sites. Moreover, there are three sites having run of less than 1 ha, other three range between 3 and 4 ha. However, it is worth mentioning that that only one of these 14 sites has the range of 13.7 ha. This points to the emergence of a chief town amidst the smaller villages that later led to emergence of local ‘capitals’.[17]
If one “puts together the ‘time’ and ‘space’ factors, it would seem to indicate a fair amount of concordance between the three periods of Vedic literature as propounded by Max Muller—Rig Vedic, the late Vedic and Sutras (Velit I-III) and Painted Grey Ware (PGW I-III). Indeed, it would be too much to expect more than that, for literary changes need not necessarily keep full pace with changes in the material and vice-versa. …..to recapitulate, people in both Velit I and Velit II were essentially at rural stage and so were those in PGW I and II. It is only towards the Velit III that the signs of urbanization became discernible and the same is situation towards the end of PGW III. In the Velit I and II the houses were made of wattle-and-daub as were the houses in PGW I and II. While no data are available regarding the cereals of PGW I, those of PGW II, namely rice, wheat and barley compare well with cereals of Velit II”.[18]
The horse, making its appearance from Velit I, occurs in PGW I (Bhagwanpura) and PGW II (Hastinapur and Atranjikhera). Knowledge of iron in Velit I is doubtful, neither has PGW I yielded any iron so far (Bhagwanpura, Dadheri, etc ). Iron occurs in Velit II as well as in PG II. Likewise glass referred to in Velit II, is also found in PGW II. Writing seems to have been unknown to Velit I and II as it was in PGW I and II. It is only towards the end of Velit III that knowledge of writing is indicated. More or less the same may be the position towards the end of PGW III[19].
Despite these archaeological proves, literary and non-literary as well as settlement patterns, it is said that the society of Krishna and Mahabharata period was pastoral and tribal! ‘The formulation of the notion of karma was gradual and trapped a range of ideas emanating from the societies settled in the Ganga valley. Mention has been made of tribal origin but this is too vague an entity’[20]. How could a tribal or pastoral society deliver such a highly philosophical and positivist or rather seemingly postmodern discourse in unseemingly ancient period, treatise like Geeta and Mahabharata[21] presenting a high calibre discourse on ethics, warfare, life, statecraft, morality, rights of kings and people, etc, interpolations and additions apart?
The society could not be termed as pastoral or nomadic, the cow herding was one of economic stations, there was trade link between Dwaraka and foreign lands, and it was one of the main reasons for the prosperity and immense wealth of Dwaraka.[22] There has been sea bound and overland trade as many ports in western part of the country off the Gujarat coast attest to the fact. Beside it, many stone anchors[23] found during underwater archaeological expedition by S. R Rao attest to the maritime trade and industry. The embossed image of Krishna found on the coins of Greek city-state also gives the indication of wide range of foreign relations including trade[24]. Moreover, the type of weapons, its sophistication and light and swift chariots denote a sort of industry and commerce.
Either the term such as the pastoral and tribal society should be redefined or at least should be freed from the constraints of western concept and framework. The term nomadic and pastoral society has been borrowed from western historians used for dubbing the nomadic tribes living in the central Asia and Prairie of Europe. The comparison with Krishna and Mahabharata period smacks of contempt and some sort of conspiracy, and it is akin to terming Krishna a mere ‘Gwala (Cow herder). It seems to be continuation of the contempt and the silent hatred that the Indian society had for Krishna and Yadavas from the hey days of the Mahabharata period.
It is quite natural for ‘the historian that the archaeological co-relation may pose a dilemma. If the material culture of the epic is co-related with the earlier PGW culture with which the narrative section of the epic seem to agree to a large extent, then the date of these sections can be placed between the mid-second and mid-first millennia BC, but the culture will have to be described as pre-urban, transitional between pastoralism and an agrarian economy and probably supporting tribal chiefships on the edge of change to state forms and monarchical systems.[25]
There is no doubt that ‘archaeological correlation’ is a challenge for the historians, more so if it is related to the ancient period. The historical mismatch and contradiction is always encountered while dealing with such period and personality that has been appropriated by the vested interests. If one goes for the historical evidence without looking into the merit of their veracity, the intent and interest of those behind the interpretation of evidence, the cooking up of evidence, or the selective use of the evidence or half-hearted evidence gathering, botched up expeditions, or the use of open-ended evidences or the blind acceptance or rejection of the textual evidences, etc., then co-relation becomes quite difficult.
What could be done when ‘even after finding of clear-cut evidence of historicity of Krishna period in wake of archaeological discovery of submerged Dwaraka, which correlates, with textual and non-textual, literary and non-literary mention of that period, there is no taker for this, not to mention hordes of archaeological, literary, non-literary and philological proves?
Then there is a question of inference from the historical evidence, which can be determined by the subjectivity.[26] Even though the material culture of epic—Mahabharata—tally with the earlier PWG culture, the culture of that period has been termed as pastoral and pre-agricultural. What is the reason for that? The contradiction between grandeur and majesticity of the textual evidence and the remains that were found in 1952 archaeological excavation in Hastinapur and Indraparstha, does not exist in 1992 Dwaraka expedition that has removed whatever contradiction and so called mismatch existed. Nevertheless, do our historians take into account the alluvial soil or the humid atmosphere or the incessant flooding of the area that might have destroyed the historical evidence such as the iron artefacts or the flooding and humidity might have rendered these indicators of material culture look like that of pre-agricultural or the pastoral or the tribal culture, or the wilful destruction of evidence as happened during mediaeval period?
Due to this perceived contradiction, this period has been left out from the recorded history terming it as the so-called ‘dark period’. The tribal culture or ‘the edge of tribal chieftainship’ is again debatable. Can a tribal culture produce such sophisticated discourse on the statecraft, war, monism and monotheism as propounded by Krishna or tribal chieftainship execute such a sophisticated war strategy which have found pride of place in the war manuals of the second largest army of the world or famous war doctrines of modern times?[27] Could a tribal society and warring chieftains indulge in the principled and ethical warfare where clear rules of engagement and the right of no-combatants and civilians were adhered to? Could they be termed tribal when modern war, for example the First and Second World War surpassed in savagery, brutal violation of the civilian and non-combatant rights?[28]
Can a modern day war strategist formulate the strategies for numerous asymmetrical wars that Krishna won three thousand years back or can they even dare to plan? Can a pre-agricultural or pastoral economy produce such weapons as Spiral disc (Sudarshan chakra) or swift and high tech Chariots? Can a tribal culture give rise to Gana-Sangh system or Republican credo as found in the conduct of Yadavas and others, and which later in, around 500 BC developed into full-fledged gana-sangha system or the Republican or Ganrajya in North Bihar, Eastern UP and Central India?[29] Can a tribal culture give rise to many social, cultural and religious ethos, customs and practices, which are still being followed? Can a tribal culture or the pre-urban society engage in the inland and the overseas trade? The prosperity of Dwaraka and other Kingdoms attest to this fact, apart from port, jetty, anchors, etc found in the underwater expedition of Krishna’s submerged City state of Dwaraka[30].
However, our historiography and historians paint a picture that seem to be subserving the colonial interest or the vested interests of the Indian society or trying to be in sync with the western history commencing from 400-600 BC. It may be possible they might have been shying away from attesting to these facts as their western education, attitude and peer pressure and their aspiration for recognition in the western world might have prevented them from seeing through these evidences. Moreover, oral tradition and stories of Krishna and Mahabharata, the places like Mathura, Gokul, Dwaraka, Puri, Badrinath, Gopalpur, Kurukshetra and various other places related to this period attest to the historicity of Krishna and epic period. They are everywhere: at home, in the mind, in the collective psyche, in the culture, art, polity, society, and yet they are nowhere in the history books. There is no place for Krishna and Mahabharata period in the Indian historiography, whatever place they have found is only in the footnotes and the parenthesis of history books.
Despite all interpolations and additions, the textual and non-textual evidences attest the splendour and prodigy of the ancient heritage. Particularly after the findings of the remains of meticulously built City State of Dwaraka by S.R. Rao in 1992, who served the Archaeological Survey of India for over 32 years, and is the discoverer of a large number of Harappan sites, including the port city of Lothal in Gujarat, there should be no doubt about the historicity of Krishna and Mahabharata period. The mystification of Krishna and Mahabharata period is the reason behind the ‘mismatch’ between what has been described in the literatures and archaeological evidence gathered from Hastinapur and Dwaraka[31].
“The discovery of the legendary city of Dwaraka, which is said to have been founded by Sri Krishna, is an important landmark in the history of India. It has set at rest the doubts expressed by historians about the historicity of Mahabharata and the very existence of Davaraka city. It has greatly narrowed the gap of Indian history by establishing the continuity of the Indian civilization from the Vedic age to the present day. The discovery has also shed welcome light on second urbanization in the so-called 'Dark age', on the resuscitation of dharma, on the resumption of maritime trade, and use of Sanskrit language and modified Indus script”[32].
Top of Form
It was expected that after this finding there would be rather paradigm shift in the Indian historiography leading to the re-write of Indian history in the same manner as the finding of Indus civilization did in 1920s. There might be the possibility that silence of the mainstream historians at such important finding has something to do with the rightist historians and forces grabbing the opportunity to extend the Krishna period and Vedic period prior to Indus civilization, making it foundational to Indian civilization.
There is no doubt that the shrill and cry of rightist historians and rightist forces have grown more louder, pushing Krishna and Mahabharata period to the 3500-3000 BC. It has been done so that Vedas, in which there is no mention of Krishna (whatever is as adjective or later addition or interpolation) can be authenticated seemingly making Vedic Period foundational that they claim, grounding Krishna to the mystic realm. Meanwhile, the silence of mainstream historians has become puzzling, certainly self-defying rather betraying the hidden agenda of subservience to the power that be and its opportunistic ideology. Apart from it, the status quo is more secure and advantageous in the all type of situations.
Nevertheless, the main objective of the study is to extricate Krishna and Mahabharata period and its splendour, greatness, its foundational contributions to Indian civilization and world at large from the mythology, religious texts, footnotes and parenthesis of the Indian historiography to the mainstream of History. He and his period have to be rescued from the spiritual, religious and mythological domain to the temporal one. It would not only provide continuity to the Indian history, but also restore the acclaim and glory of a great or perhaps the greatest historical personality of the world, who provided the civilizational shift to rather low period of a great civilization started around 3000 BC in the form of Harappa and Indus. A period that has been second[33] foundational and a race or caste or class ( but never tribe) whose political legacy is suspected despite having been the ruling elites of India till the medieval period-- the last one Krishnadeo Rai of Vijay Nagar empire treacherously finished by the deceitful unholy alliance of the Indian kings and foreign invaders[34].
‘The excavated evidence ……. at Hastinapur and Indraparstha in neither case suggest the splendours of great kingdoms with wealthy capitals; rather, they were people with a technologically unsophisticated culture. The elaborate descriptions of material culture with references to a developed agrarian economy and prosperity have to be dated to periods later than the mid-first millennium BC in any co-relation with archaeological evidence…. archaeological continuities can, in some instances, be connected back to the Harappan period in the area… This makes it possible to suggest that some of the traditions at least recorded in the epic could also, in origin, go back to this period. But this does not mean that the epic or the main events date back to the Harappan period’.[35]
There is no doubt that Krishna or the epic period or the main event does not date back to the Harappan Period and there is certainly stake at work in this regard. However, to call the epic period and its people as “technologically unsophisticated culture” would not be appropriate either as archaeological findings at the sites of Hastinapur, Indraparstha and Dwaraka do not support this. What is rather intriguing that the excavations of the first two sites were left incomplete and rather shelved for the good? Moreover, the last one-Dwaraka-- has been left in the dark alley of ignorance and wilful negligence?
“The excavation (at Indraparstha or Purana Quila, New Delhi) revealed that the site has been under occupation round about 1000BC when the people used distinctive bowls and dishes of the Painted Grey Ware. The metal chiefly used was copper (how could iron be found as they rust fastly in alluvial soil and humidity) of which sickles, nail, pareres, antimony rods were found. By the sixth century BC Northern Black Polished Ware had come into use, houses were now constructed of kiln-burnt bricks and terra ring walls were used for the soakage of the refuge water. Copper was supplemented with iron and a system of coinage with Punch marked came into being. …Thereafter, the site was successfully under the sway of rulers of Mathura in second century BC. ……The excavation could not be completed”.[36]
Moreover, the sprawling city of Dwaraka found under the sea off the western coast of Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka, and its remains attesting to the city state and the vast urban conglomeration and its magnificence [37] do not give any scope for such type of approach. What is rather intriguing that the findings of mega city-state of Dwaraka under the sea off the Gujarat coast have not found any mention in the Archaeological Survey of India report[38], perhaps it might be because it was undertaken by ex-director, but it should have found mention like the other reports undertaken by different institutes and universities. This betrays some hidden agenda of the political and social elites not wanting a historical Krishna for obvious reason.
Even if it is accepted that there has been a lot of interpolations and additions in the Gita and Mahabharata, the very life and acts of Krishna testifies to the high state of culture and civilization. Moreover, the urban civilization and the Republics that flourished in the North and Eastern India around the middle of First millennium BC must have owed substantially to the earlier period of Krishna era for its high stage of socio-political development. Otherwise, how could such well-developed urban civilization with high stage of socio-political development with Republican tenet emerge in a vacuum? There is belief among some sections of Indian and foreign historians that this might have been borrowed from Hellenistic civilization or Greek City state. This argument falls flat in the light of the fact that Greek city-states were in infancy, trapped in the mutual warring and bickering stage[39], whereas in India Republicanism had already attained the maturity. There might be possibility that the situation might have been other way round.
There seems to be no break and gaps in the historical process started well before 2500 BC and so called ‘dark period’, ‘break in historical processes’ and ‘lack of urbanization’ between 1500 BC and 500 BC has been disapproved by the emergence of archaeological findings in Dwaraka, Bhagvanpura, Thanesar and other places in North India and central India. ‘The results of the excavations undertaken by Archaeological Survey of India under the leadership of Shri Jagat Pati Joshi in Bhagawanpura, 24 km northeast of Kurukhstra in 1975-76, have yielded interesting evidence of rich material culture and interlocking of late Harappan with Painted Grey Ware cultures (identified with Mahabharata and Krishna period) in the later phase of the occupation of the site….The excavation revealed a two-fold sequence of cultures designated as Sub-period I A and I B within a deposits of 3.20 m and showing the interlocking of late Harappan culture with that of Painted Grey Ware culture in the late phases of the occupation of the mound.’[40]
‘The Sub-period I A (1700 BC to 1300 BC) revealed a late Harappan settlement on mud platform. One such mud platform, measuring 4.25x10.00 m was found having landing scape. It appears that the late Harappans first established themselves up the alluvial deposits and then raised solid mud-platforms in two successive phases as a flood preventive measure. The site was twice damaged by floods, the second one when the painted Grey Ware people were living here with the late Harappans in Sub-period I B. The pottery of this Sub-period generally falls in six board groups: the majority of pottery is red ware of the late Harappan type, well levitated and fired, both plain and painted, a red ware similar to Cemetry ‘H’type, incisive ware having a variety of designs and some with pre-Harappan lineage, thick grey ware generally associated with Harappan and late Harappan assemblage and plain and painted pottery of Bara type. In the red ware group, the shapes were comparable with late Harappan types of Bara, Bahadrapad, Atranjikhera, Siswal IIB, Miththal IIB, Daulatpur and Raja Karan Ka Qila.’[41]
‘The Sub-period I B (1400 BC to 1000 BC) is marked by coming together of late Harappan and the PGW peoples (identified with Krishna- Mahabhrata period )…..among other things one oval structure and two houses were found……. The structure and houses had burnt earth and bricks, animal bones, dishes and bowls of PWG, terracotta beads, bone styli and copper object, besides a few Harappan pottery. In the final phase, houses are built of burnt bricks as indicated by scattered bricks, which surfaced due to ploughing activity. Six oval shaped structures of burnt bricks are associated with this phase… No iron was found (How could iron be found as they rust and get destroyed in alluvial soil and flood plains!)[42]
If there is no activity on the part of the mainstream historians to acknowledge these findings, it betrays some political and social agenda of the stakeholders of the society; and some sort of internal and external conspiracy to deny the historicity to the personality and the period that has been perhaps the second foundational to all the civilizational developments of India and world. It could be substantiated by the fact that Greeks, Christian and even Muslim claims Krishna as belonging to their respective cultures and civilizations. What a self-inflicted conspiracy that has no parallel in the recorded and unrecorded history of human beings!
“Before 2500 BC a third Bronze Age Civilization, symbolized by the populous cities, highly skilled industries, far-flung commerce, and a pictographic script, had emerged in India. On the flood-plains of the Indus and its five tributaries (the Punjab) of mixed origin and diverse racial types had combined to create artificial islands of culture in a desert jungle……. Over a huge triangle, four times the areas of Sumer, bounded on the west by the mountains of Baluchistan and Waziristan, on the north by the Himalayas and the east by the Thar desert, reigned a civilization as uniform as that of Mesopotamia or Egypt. The physical remains of the artificial world in which it flourished are equally imposing. The cities, as large as those of Sumer, are built almost entirely of kiln-fired bricks, the manufacture of which must have consumed stupendous quantities of laboriously gathered fuel.[43]
How could such an imposing civilization disappear and there is no trace of it which is termed as ‘dark age’. Now the Aryan invasion theory has been discarded completely and yet how could ‘dark age and ‘pastoral and tribal culture’ could still persist? Has there been any civilization other than Indus and Harappa that took u turn, turning its all developments, technological breakthroughs, trade and commerce spread over to such a vast area to the naught, and started again from tribal, pastoral and ‘technologically unsophisticated’ upstart ? Is progress and development is circular or linear? Is there some sort of conspiracy or some faultlines wherein despite the plethora of historical evidences, no inclination to reclaim this period from ‘dark age’ is perceptible? Or the ‘vacuum’ or ‘gap’ was created intentionally to subserve the vested interests? Has not a linear progression have been converted into the circular one?
“In commerce the Harappa culture gravitated more towards west than the east, for the Harappa seals belonging to the period between 2600 BC and 1900 BC, especially after 2400 BC have been found in some quantities. Whether the Harappa traders set up in Sumer their regular trading agency just as the Semites did in Asia Minor is not known; in any case there must have been certain well defined laws to regulate such brisk commercial relations[44].
How could such well-defined law and agency or some sort of state that managed such a vast volume of trade and commerce and industry spread over vast areas could again revert back to the pastoral and tribal entity? How could an industrial and urban civilization turn into agrarian? While foundational civilizations of Harappa disappeared and other civilization developed or was it historical transplantation of one civilization with other? Why textual and other historical evidence are being discarded, and emphasis is being laid on the archaeological evidence for which no concerted efforts have been made? Even if many archaeological evidences have been found, these are not being acknowledged and correlated in initiating the discourse of continuity of civilizational progression without any break or gaps?
With the discovery of submerged city state of Dwaraka with all the splendour and the grandeur as mentioned in Mahabharata and other scriptures[45], there should not have been any doubt about the historicity of the Krishna and the Mahabharata period. Why these have not been taken in account? Why most of the historical evidences attesting to the historicity of the Harappa and Indus and the Krishna-Mahabharata period have been found in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Iran, Greece, etc., not in India? Does not it seem to be an act of historical omission and commission or conspiracy or civilizational theft or wilful destruction of historical facts and evidences?
‘Archaeological evidence from the third millennium BC onwards confirms wide-ranging, overland contacts between north-western India, southern and eastern Iran and the Oxus region, and maritime contacts with Oman and Mesopotamia’.[46] Can a tribal society and culture manage such wide-ranging overland and maritime trade contacts? Can a tribal people indulge in industry and commerce that was required for such overland and maritime trade contacts? Is it possible that such vast industry and trade could be developed without some sort of state and law enforcing mechanism? How could such vast overland and maritime trade contacts, the industry and commerce and some sort of the rudimentary state and law enforcing agency or mechanism that must have been required to manage such wide-ranging trade and industry could lead to ‘dark age’, ‘pastoral and pre-agricultural society’ and ‘lack of urbanization’?
And how could then out of this so called historical dark age, tribal culture and pre-agricultural, rural and pastoral economy emerge a ‘urban’, and Republican state bypassing the monarchical stage of state formation, and then again out of this Republican state emerge a monarchy based empire in the latter half of the First Millennium BC? Is history and state formation a linear process or circular one? Even if there is reversion back to republicanism from Monarchy or vice versa, is it progress or regress? Or for that matter just to align with developments at the world level in general and western countries in particular, the breath-taking progress and development at historical or political level could be discarded altogether? This is what seems to be happening in case of the historical and political development of Indian sub-continent.
The history is replete with such incidents where a developed civilization and culture had been supplanted with other ones, taking everything and claiming as their own. “In the Near East in any case the seeds, dispersed from the original centres, now sprouted into full-blown civilizations. The Assyrians had learned well from Sargon of Akkad and started a civilized state on the Akkadian model. After a further lesson from the kings of Ur, Assyrian kings tried an empire on their own. The Assyrians had taken over from the Sumerians and Akkadian the whole equipment—not only their techniques and armaments, but also their script, their learning, and their ideology. Therefore, they embarked upon imperialist ventures, conquering an empire west of the Tigris and organizing it on the approved lines. ……But about 1450 BC, this western province of the Assyrian Empire fell into the hands of Aryan chiefs, who made it the centre of new state, Mitanni…...[47]
It had been generally seen that this sham had been resorted to by the ancient and modern civilization both, and the victor had claimed the legacies and material developments of the vanquished as their own or in some cases vanquished property, monuments, legacies have been plundered and destroyed.[48] The posterity has been unable to see this sham even if there have been some cases of such civilizational theft which at micro level could be termed as identity theft. This oversight seems to be the continuation of the sham that has been perpetrated in context of Indian history.
“The seals of Harappa have been discovered in Mesopotamia, and they show that the Indus valley people carried on trade with the land of two rivers between c. 2500 BC and c. 1900BC. Thus, the excavation of the Harappan sites throws light on the economic life of the people in the Bronze Age. Numerous tools, metals and other antiquities help us to form an idea of specialized artisans and traders who live between c. 3000 BC and c. 2000BC.[49] It would seem to follow that the craftsmen of the Indus cities were, to a large extent, producing ‘for the market’. What, if any, form of currency and standard of value had been accepted by society to facilitate the exchange of commodities is, however, uncertain. Magazines attached to many spacious and commodious private houses mark their owners as merchants. Their number and size indicate a strong and prosperous merchant community.”[50]
How could such an advanced civilization having strong merchant community and producing for the market of its contemporaries could go into oblivion, while the less developed contemporaries not only survived but also prospered? How could a tribal society based on pastoral economy propped up on the debris of such a magnificent and world’s most advanced civilization? Earlier colonial historiography fabricated the so-called theory of Aryan invasion for sub serving the colonial interests and now this has been proved nothing but a futile exercise of shooting arrow in the dark. However, for very long time mainstream historians accepted this theory and it was being taught in the history books.
This is also a tell-tale commentary on what type of the historiography being fed to the people and what type of historians are they? For many years it was a nice musical note to India‘s political and social elites as they used to feel proud of being part of the western race (via Aryan Theory) unlike the indigenous people. Now it has been proved to be wrong and the decline of Harappa and Indus civilization has been attributed to ‘stagnation’, ‘change in climate’ ‘flooding’, etc. This is again a guessestimate and whatever historical evidence found has been summarily rejected or not taken into account.
In Rig Veda, there is mention of abandoned and unpopulated remains, which were shunned by people as these being haunted; and some historians have termed these as remainiants of Harappa civilization.[51] Why a place is termed haunted? Has anyone tried to look into it and analyse with all possible theories and probabilities? Had Indian historical scholarship given some attention to it and analysed it, the Aryan theory that subverted and distracted Indian history and historiography for quite a long time might have reached it expiry date much earlier.
Perhaps in the context of such mysterious and rather perplexing situation the conspiracy theory of history has been mooted to unearth such riddles of the world history. “A conspiracy serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America (or India) and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology".[52]
Throughout human history, political and economic leaders genuinely have been the cause of enormous amounts of death and misery, and they sometimes have been engaged in conspiracies while at the same time promoting conspiracy theories about their targets. Hitler and Stalin would be merely the most prominent examples; there have been numerous others.[53] In some cases there have been claims dismissed as conspiracy theories that later proved to be true.[54]
Indian history can be dissected with all the possible theories of history such as domination, conspiracy, subversion, distortion, etc. It seems that ancient Indian history has been subjected to subversion and distortion of facts, events, evidences, chronology and its legacies; and its contributions have been so mammoth that it seems to be foundational of all civilizations and cultures, if analysed in non-partisan way. ‘These (Assyrians and Persians), too, adopted the old equipment and organization of Sumero-Akkadian-Babylonian civilization, using not only the cuneiform script, but for the diplomatic correspondence even the Akkadian language.[55]
It is worth mentioning that the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian civilization had owed to Mitanni, Harappa and Indus civilization for its splendour and development. This is reflected from the fact that it was in these areas that most of artefacts and coins and other historical evidences of Indus civilization had been found, not otherwise. It was for these civilizations that Harappan and Indus people were producing and marketing all sorts of the refined and manufactured items. Surprisingly, no items or goods from these civilizations have been found in Harappa and Indus cities. Obviously, these civilizations must have been inferior and less developed as compared to the Indus and Harappa.
The conspiracy angle is further substantiated by, what one of the eminent archaeologist has mentioned that, while there is material evidence for Indus-Harappa civilization, but no literary or textual one. However, in respect of so-called ‘dark’ period in general and Mahabharata & Krishna period in particular, there are many literary evidences but not enough material evidence.[56] Even if the material evidence is available, it is suspected to be not enough or rejected as only one or two artefacts or small quantity do not authenticate or termed as not convincing as ‘only vertical excavation was undertaken, no horizontal explorations was done’, etc. What is rather ridiculous that the flooding, topography, humidity, plunder and the wilful destruction of historical facts and evidences are not considered to have played any part in the lack of material and literary evidence?
However, there has been perceptible unwillingness on the part of Indian political and social elites, intelligentsia and historians, to investigate and unearth this sham and fraud perpetrated on the Indian history in particular and that of Indian society in general. This unwillingness is conspicuous in many respects: Viewing Indian history from the western perspective and frameworks, accepting myopic view of history as transmitted by the colonial interests and their ‘apologists’, lack of motivation in unearthing the facts of history, ignoring the historical facts and the present socio-political dynamics which is continuation of past as pointed by D. D Kosambi[57], belief in myth of Krishna and intentional blindness in not seeing truth and facts behind transforming a historical personality and period into mythical one.
On the one hand are the right wing historians and hard-core Indologists seeing Krishna and Mahabharata period through mystical prism, on other are the secular, the mainstream, the leftist and the left of the centre historians acquiescing in the sham without any inquiry and investigation. That too without taking into account the hordes of archaeological, and non-archaeological evidences and the historical facts. A linear period and timeframe has been converted into the circular one, just for undermining the socio-cultural and political revolution ushered in by Krishna and Mahabharata period. Moreover, it suits their status quoism that is in fact, the cause and effect of this mystification of the historical personality and period.
It is for this reason that Krishna period has been pushed back to 3000 BC followed by Vedic and Harappa period. As they were unable to fit Krishna and his period in the pre-Vedic time frame because the historical facts do not support this type of utopia, they might have thought it would be better if he and his period be pushed back further to the pre-Harappan time frame, for justifying the lack of mention of Krishn and his period in Vedas. In addition, Vedic period could be justified as foundational to the Indian civilization.
It seems such historical transplantation might have been done to undermine Krishna period as foundational one, appearing like the second one to that of Harappa and Indus civilization and the vested interests, read rightist and obscurantist forces led by social elites, wanting to appropriate it. Assuming that it is the foundation on which politico-historical discourses are formed, providing impetus for the socio-political growth and development, the subversion and distortion wedged into the early part of the history is still continued. In fact, it has been fortified in the Indian society becoming the dominant socio-historical discourse. The centre of this distortion and subversion has been Krishna and his socio-political revolution, manifesting in the scientific way of life as found in his Bhagavatism based on the Samkhya, Karmyoga, and what he propounded in the Gita.
The narratives of subversion running deep in the historical process through different socio-political instruments betrayed the awkward fact about its changing the power relations and the course of history. This period marked a break in the continuity of historical process, setting the ground for the foreign rule and invasion. The politico-social system established by Krishna and Yadavas—republicanism, Rightful Conquest, United and calibrated fight against foreigner, were shunned that had given rather a long period of stability. It happened at the end of first millennium when the offer of Puru (Porous) to fight jointly the invasion by Alexander was not heeded by any king or the ruler. Puru fought alone giving Alexander such a tough run-in that latter had to perforce stop his world expedition and return home. Foreign invasions have been occurring even in the past, even during the Krishna’s time. There has been tendency among the Indian political elites to take help of the foreign powers in solving their domestic problem.
But the system of no tolerance for those seeking the foreign assistance and meting out severe punishment for such fifth columnists[58], a Suzerain like power or central kingdom with capacity and capability to act as the uniting force, the institution of Vasudev as the balancing force in the social and political field, and ‘Lawful conquests’[59] that Krishna put in place was shelved outrightly. And hence, there started a period of tertiary formation of Empire, disintegration of Empire by the emergence of small but mutually fighting and hostile principalities followed by the invasion by foreigners, sometimes due to weak defences but most of the time by internal forces seeking the help of foreign powers to settle personal or petty feud[60]. The pattern was repeated until the modern age. Even in the modern times, this pernicious tendency and related maladies appear to have taken the binary of xenophobia and excessive faith and malleability to the everything that is foreign. The emergence of India as ‘soft state’ is the cause and the effect of this historical deviation and the escapism.
India’s myriad of political, social as well as other problems emanate from the unchanged social scape, fostered in reaction to the Krishna and post- Krishna period. The seemingly foundational period had transformed a hierarchical, unequal and superstitious society into seemingly equalitarian one, based on the monotheism of Bhagavat, Rajdharma, seemingly republican credo or gana-sangha system and Vasudeva—a socio-politico entity acting as the balancing force in the society of ancient India .
Even Rabindranath Tagore, Subhash Chnadra Bose and Bhagat Singh have termed this stratified and unjust social order as the harbinger of all type of the ills and the maladies afflicting the Indian society and the Nation. Dr. B. R Ambedkar tried to change this social scape through constitutional provision and intervention of the state, but it was unable to make any difference as the social scape remained grooved in its entangling web of power and hierarchical relations, dominated by one caste or class through its proxy retrograde ruling elites[61].
Even some eminent leaders like Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia and the other socialists in the post-Independent India tried to re-enact this social overhauling but in vain. In spite of these, its power structure and hierarchy has remained intact. This seemingly anachronistic pernicious social order has managed to hold on despite the many ups and downs, the trails and travails of the history and the change in the political regimes. However, once this unchanged social scape is overhauled, it would unravel a new chapter in the history of India.
One thousand years of subjugation of India seems to be the cause and effect of this lopsided, hegemonic and highly regimental & hierarchical socio-political order. The seed of this socio-political scape seemed to have been sown just after the demise of Krishna and end of his era. Moreover, it seems that one class or caste (Brahmin) created it in the league with retrograde Kshatriya class for perpetuating their hegemony and superior position. This socio-political scape led to the fragmentation and pulverization of the Indian society, opening the floodgates of subjugation and foreign rules.
However, if the hegemonic, the hierarchical and the highly stratified lopsided socio-political scape that is still continued, is rectified or at least its hidden face is made public or its incalculable damage to our nationhood or civilization is made public or its hold is broken, India can become a world leader. A power in the real sense of the term, leading to the emergence of new world order factoring in what Krishna laid down in the context of ancient Indian sub-continent, which was then nothing sort of a world considering the constraints and limitations of the age he belonged to. Then Indian subcontinent, which boundary touched modern day Iran in west and China in East, was prototype of the world certainly.
However, the most succinct proof of this socio-political hara-kiri is that the country has come back to the square after getting back its Independence from the colonial rule. It appears the country has again been subjugated within unlike earlier period of without; then ruler was alien, now they are the natives. The native elites seem to be native only in the colour, birth and nationality, but their orientation, direction, attitude and goal are colonial or neo-colonial at the best and self-aggrandisement and crass profiteerism at the worst. The exploitative and looting streaks of the native elites seem to be far, far worse than foreign ones.
Earlier invaders and foreign rulers, except one, settled here regarding this country as their own, mixing up with the natives and getting sucked into their socio-cultural legacies. They, except English people, did not cart away or siphon off the money, the wealth and the riches to their respective countries. Nevertheless, it appears that the native political and social elites are not only belching out the money, the wealth and the natural resources to the foreign countries and stashing these in foreign banks and the foreign lands, but their loyalty and interests too seem to have been decked onto the foreign countries.
In fact, it appears that there has been historical continuity of this exploitative, unjust, exclusive and highly stratified social order, which has remained intact and integral despite all the odds. Perhaps for this reason, many Western historians, including Marx have commented about the unchanging nature of Indian history[62]. This social order was resurrected on the debris of just and egalitarian politico-social foundations built arduously by Krishna and his Yadavas and it has been attested by foreign traveller and ambassador’s accounts[63]. The counter social order built to undermine, negate and neutralize the just, egalitarian and inclusive socio-political order has been gathering strength with every change in the political order, and foreign invasions and conquests.
The unchanging nature of Indian history that has been referred as permanent despotism or anarchy by western scholars[64], including Marx, has something to do with the perpetual hold on the power and domination that the two classes had been having right from post-Krishna period. Despite the change in the time, period, historical process and overall change in the world order, their hold has remained steady and complete. This might have been reason for having such anachronistic view, it is not that view is anachronistic but their hold and hegemony seems to be anachronistic.
The most critical and rather damning observation or the criticism of Indian historical tradition as levelled by Western historians has been that it has been ahistorical society. The criticism is not off the mark as this has been the fact. For Indian as well as for western historians, this ahistorical level has been quite puzzling and perplexing, as it is quite offensive for Indian specially, that a nation or civilization having such long history has been termed as ahistorical.[65]
The critique still seems to be pertinent as the Nation has still not developed historical temperament and regard for history and historical tradition. Rather social and political elites have moulded the collective psyche in such a way that the historical time and personality seems to be ahistorical and mythical and vice versa. There is no need to substantiate it as its proof is found everywhere: the pathetic state of historical monuments and the plunder thereof is for everybody to see.
The collective inertia in exploring the past and the historical tradition is proved by the fact we still not have been able to solve many riddles of the history. Even the break through reading of Harappan script has been stuck up in the historical logjam of whether it is proto-Dravidian or Sanskrit! There seems to be no activity on the part of Indian historians and historiography to even acknowledge the breath-taking Dwaraka discovery. Even if the historical evidence regarding Krishna period and the ‘second urbanization’ has been authenticated, exposing the hollowness of so called ‘dark age’ and attesting a culture perhaps more advanced and developed than that of Harappa and Indus, as evident from the underwater vast urban conglomeration and a sprawling city state of Dwaraka found off the western coast of Gujarat[66].
However, if seen from the perspective of subversion and distortion by the vested interests for maintaining their superiority and unchallenged hold on the society, this ‘ahistorical level’, ‘lack of historical sense’ and ‘disregard for history’ seems to be an important instrument of the social and political elites (Brahmin and retrograde Kshatriya) for upholding the control and hegemony. This rather unseeingly ‘ahistorical’, ‘lack of historical sense’ appear to have been deliberately factored in for sustaining the hegemony and the domination of the stakes in the society.
The historicity of Krishna and Mahabharata period might have upset Vedic assertion about its antiquity and whole religious edifice, which has been the most powerful tool of their control and hegemony over the Indian society, built on thereof. As Veda is claimed to be having been composed in antiquity and in ahistorical time which is circular, but there is no mention of Krishna in it, the later addition and interpolations apart, he had to be ‘appeared not born’ before it. Moreover, Krishna has challenged the Vedic religion by stopping ‘dry ritualism and polytheistic worship of gods like Indra and others. His monism and monotheistic movement in the form of Bhgavat[67] had revolutionised the Indian Society, through the system of Vasudeva, Rightful Conquest, and Republican credo, making of weapon like Spiral disc and other, enforcing a just and Dharama (truth in its all manifestation) based Rajdharama, a social and political mechanism-vasudeva- and a central power or suzerain power or kingdom had put the political milieu of ancient Indian on its civilizational heights.
Nevertheless, the Indian historical tradition goes well beyond Krishna and Mahabharata period to Indus and Harappa (2500 BC to 1500 BC) to Mitanni (3000 BC) and perhaps even beyond that. Moreover, the socio-political reformers and revolutionaries like Krishna, Buddha, Mahaveer, Guru Nanak and Guru Govind Singh, Gandhi and others had factored a revolutionary social and political agenda, threatening the hegemony and the power base of these two classes or castes. Hence, there is distortion and the subversion. What would be better way than to subvert the very historical process and turning a historical period and personality into ahistorical one appearing like ‘Dark period’?
The same subversion and distortion have been factored in the case of written record of history. It is alleged that in India, writing came around as late as 500 BC and before that writing was not known. Even Indian historians do not forget asserting it more often than not emphatically. How could the writing skill spread as Sanskrit was kept limited to certain group and section, and other languages like Prakriti and Pali were neglected and not even acknowledged.[68] In addition to it, this seems to be untenable as writing was known to Harappan and Indus people[69] , and the inscriptions found on the seals and other artefacts extricated from the excavation sites of Harappa and Mohanjodero attest to this. Even during Krishna and Mahabharata period, writing was known as many diplomatic dealings were conducted in written format and even vast urban conglomeration of Dwaraka, submerged under the sea and found in 1990, attests this.[70]
It is also claimed by the mainstream historians that the society of Mahabharata and Krishna period did not know iron-melting and use of iron, kiln-built houses, etc--- parameters of ‘second urbanization’ that is attributed to post 500 BC period. Nevertheless, the textual, archaeological, philological, geographical, settlement archaeology, folklore and other evidences attest to the grandeur and splendour of Krishna and Mahabharata period. There is mention of iron and iron mouldering in Anugita: ‘As liquefied iron being poured out assumes the form of image, such you must understand the entrance of soul’[71], apart from in the text of Mahabharata.[72]
Of the post-Harappan cultures, there is evidence from both the Indus and Ganga Valleys. In the Northern Punjab the Gandhar Grave Culture (1500-500 BC), using a red ware and plain grey ware , shows evidence of copper in the early stages and later an iron technology, and contacts with Iran and Central Asia. The Banās culture of Southern Rajasthan (2000-1200 BC, with possible extensions in the Ganga valley coming to 800 BC) with its characteristic white-painted black-and-red pottery and its probable internalizing of certain Harappan and Post-Harappan cultures[73] prove the continuation of historical process and cultural process without break, as well as authenticity of Krishna and Mahabharata period.
Moreover, the excavation report of archaeological expedition undertaken in Rupar (Punjab) by the Archaeological Survey of India proves the prevalence of Painted Grey Ware (PWG), associated with Mahabharata and Krishna period and its aftermath, over large geographical tract, contrary to what mainstream historians maintain. “What brought about the end of Harappans at Rupar is not clear. However, after a long desertion, the site was re-occupied in circa 1000BC by a people of different stock and trade. These people using characteristic Painted Grey Ware (pls III B & IV B) the same as found at many sites in North Rajasthan, Punjab and Western UP….”[74]
Nevertheless, this exploitative, unequal and repressive social order has been built in such a way that its hold has remained intact, even after many foreign rules, conquests and subjugation. Even Independence from the colonial rulers has been unable to make any difference in this unjust social order. On contrary, it seemed to have provided a sort of legitimization to this unjust and repressive social order. It seems to have re-surfaced and caught hold of the post- Independent India.
The multiple versions of the Indian history, its diversity, the melting pots of the different cultures and the counter cultures, the indeterminate identity and the disoriented socio-political scape—these all have been the offshoot of this order. The invention of 33 crore gods and goddesses, the mystification of the historical time, the blacking out of the towering civilization of the Mahabharata and the Krishna period, the invention of Avatarvad; and gravity defying highly stratified social order as well linear onward march of time, are some of the instrumentalities of this social order for maintaining its perpetual hegemony.
What is rather mindboggling is that this order, apart from appear to have been holding its forte has been becoming labyrinth like with each round of the subjugation, foreign conquests and plunders. While the country and its people have been suffering continuously, unabatedly, this order, and its proponent have been flourishing and devising new techniques of the consolidation and hegemony. There has been a zero sum game in this regard wherein each loss to the country and its people has added to its strength, nefarious design and its unbreakable hold.
The caste or class, the typical caste vs. class dilemma is making of this social order and its progenitors. When caste is pitted against class or is equated, it is denied that any relation exists between these two, as caste is endogamous and exclusive. However, when their interests clash or some exigency demands, caste and class becomes one and each overlapping other. The feudal society of BIMARU (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) states is a case in point wherein class interests transcend the caste barrier. However, when the situation demands otherwise, it is argued that class is not caste and caste is not class, and this has been one of many instruments of maintaining their hold in the society. It seems nothing but a convenient ploy to confuse the enlightened elites, researchers, scholar and the masses.
The most unique thing about Indian socio-political elites (Brahmin and retrograde Kshatriya class or caste) that somehow or other they managed to maintain their hegemony and superiority despite numerous attacks, invasions, conquests, subjugation and foreign rules (and these foreign conquests have been cause and effect of their undermining or doing way socio-political mechanism put up during Krishna’s period). They have somehow or other kept their position unchallenged and for that they must have or might have bartered some or other thing— facilitating the invasion and defeat of local rulers or kings and providing legitimacy to their rule through inventing or fabricating genealogical lineage to lunar (Chandravanshi) and solar (Suryavanshi) dynasty[75]. How the foreign invaders and rulers were able to find the support or perhaps invitation from local kings is proved beyond doubt from different farmans or commemorations (Turkish, Afghan, Persian and Mughal, etc ) given to latter by former.[76]
Moreover, what is the most unique that they seem to have devised a unique and invisibly entangling socio-political network. Whoever comes to their sphere—be it a foreign invader or the person or the group or caste or class moving up the ladder of socio-political power, they reinforce their power and position, becoming their part snared in the power relations. One can have fair idea about this unique system of power relations when reading M. N Sirinivasan theory of Sanskritization, which seems to be legitimizing this unique hegemonic socio-political order[77].
The current of domination and hegemony has become so deep-rooted that it seems to have become intrinsic part of our society. It is for this reason that anyone who rises in revolt against or tries to transcend the impediment or break the glasshouse of socio-political subjugation, ends up in reinforcing the old caste based pattern of domination and hegemony. Thus, Sanskritization theory seems to be justifying, though indirectly, the perpetual form of domination and hegemony grafted onto our social scape. Now this form of domination and hegemony has become so universalized and generalized that, be it formal or informal gathering or relations or any sort of social or political formations, this type of unequal and stratified relations are formed spontaneously.
That the historical facts and evidences of Indian history—that of ancient history particularly—has been subverted, distorted, plundered, pilferaged or destroyed due to natural calamities (flood or ecological imbalances or hydrological changes) or man-made has not been given required attention. Moreover, the looting and destruction of the legacies, weapons, architectural marvels, etc had happened, has been happening and still happening through encroachment or pilfering is enough indication that this should be given importance in bridging the historical gap and hiatus.
Nevertheless, nobody from the comity of historians, with few notable exceptions, even bothers to give attention to this lacuna and even if some seems to be doing it on ideational level, it has not led to any concrete proposals. The most ironic fact is that this pilferage and destruction is continuing unabated. The places and monuments related with Krishna and his life is being encroached, plundered and destroyed systematically, wilfully and with all disregard to the cultural and historical heritage. One can well imagine what would have happened during foreign rules and invasion. The very location of a mosque adjacent to the Krishna’s birthplace monument speaks of the destruction of historical facts.
However, the historical facts and monuments related to Krishna in Dwaraka, Mathura, Vrindavan, Puri, Rajgriha, Gopalpur, Badrinath, Kurukshetra, Ujjain, Jaipur and Gokul and other places have been devastated; and are still being destroyed. Some of these have been wiped out completely, and whatever has remained is still being encroached and pilfered. As if these were not sufficient, a new monument has cropped in Mathura near the birthplace of Krishna, proclaiming that ‘it is here that Lord Krishna has appeared’[78]. It is to be noted that the historical facts attest it being the birthplace of Krishna, which was the jail of Kamas. Now the stakes have put up a new monument that is nothing but a renewed attempt to make Krishna a mystical figure and keep him caged in the temples and Maths.
The shifting of Krishna’s age from 1000 BC-900 BC to beyond 3000 BC is a further attempt to mystify Krishna denying his historicity in the temporal time. Even a small time priest of non-descript temple in a motely town or the village of the country mentions this and does not forget to tell each and every devotee about this. Even the establishment of the system of Char Dham (Four Pilgrimage) related to Krishna’s life—Gokul, Dwaraka, Puri and Badrinath—by Sankarachrya seems to be brilliant strategy to keep Krishna in ahistorical and mythical mode. Hindu or Vedic religion without Krishna or Krishna as God will be nothing but mere rituals and superstition.
Garbe[79] believes Krishna to have lived about two hundred years before Buddha, to have been son of Vasudeva, to have founded a monotheistic and ethical religion, and to have been eventually deified and identified with the god Vasudeva, he founded. In the Mahabharata, we have a combination of all traditions about Krishna that survived till then, non-Aryan hero, a spiritual teacher and a tribal god.[80]
It would not be digression to mention that Indian social and political elites have developed unique art of marginalizing the personality, the period, the eminent historical figures and the trends having the potentiality of threatening their untrammelled and unquestioned hold on the power and the superior position. This has been achieved through transforming them to mystical, supra natural level, generating as many traditions and versions that it becomes quite difficult to infer any conclusion. Ironically, it was one of the master strategies of Krishna to confuse the adversaries with multiple versions of a tactics or things he was going to do. He might have hoped that the posterity would be benefitted from his master tactics, but would never have perhaps imagined that it would be used to consign him to the realm of mysticism with the countless traditions.
However, all the Upanisads and Upanisadic thoughts and philosophical discourse appear to be expanding and explaining what Krishna propounded in the Gita, monism and monotheism of the Bhagavat and the Samakhy or Gyanyoga . The basic structure of discourse in almost all Upanishad barring one seems to be speculating and elaborating upon the Krishna philosophical corpus, his monism and his Bhagavat, the Karmyoga, the Samkhya and his magnum opus, Geeta. Krishna and his philosophy appear to have provided foundational basis for the all the leading philosophers and seers of Upanishad period[81]. Some Indian and western historians have expressed their inability to understand as to how a gap or the Dark Age of Indian history coinciding with Krishna, Yadavas and post-Krishna period could give rise to the high calibre and the seemingly modern corpus of discourse and philosophy in the ancient time. Some have coined the idea that this might have been borrowed from western philosophical tradition or Greek civilization. Nevertheless, this argument falls flat in wake of the fact that the Greek civilization or city-state was in their infancy during the Upanishad period and were at war with each other[82].
If the ancient Indian history is observed through the perspective of the Immigration theory, it would emerge that India must have been the centre of world civilization and migration point from where the people in the ancient time had dispersed to the different parts of the world. This probability has become a possibility in the wake of new historical evidence in the Narmada valley where 70,000 old skulls have been found. In December 1982, a team of scientists of the Geological Survey of India (GSI), led by Arun Sonakia found a fossilized piece of a skull bone at Hathnora on the banks of the Narmada in Madhya Pradesh. It was first prehistoric human remains in India[83].
Afterwards, a right collarbone was found at the same site under the leadership of A. R Sankhyan of Anthropological Survey of India in 1997[84]. In June 2012, he again found another set of hominine fossils – a long bone of the arm and a thighbone. These were found at Netankheri, which is 3 km form Hathnora. No dating has been done of the Hathnora fossils but relating to it to the age of other fossils found in the vicinity, leads to an estimate ranging between 50,000 to 250,000 years. As per dating technologies, the Nethankheri thighbone may be 250,000 years old in the same age group as the skull bone piece. The site is being encroached and in the danger of being destroyed.”[85]
This is the irrefutable proof of the inertia and wilful negligence of the vested interests not mustering enough will and resources to get it carbon-dated, and now like other historical monuments of Krishna and Mahabharata period, it is being destroyed and pilferaged. This reinforces the assumption about Indian historiography and social and political elite complicity in using it as tool of domination and hegemony.
However, it has been the first time in the human history in general and that of India in particular that a dominant and deciding voice or period and race—that of Krishna and Yadavas—has been reduced to the subaltern one, while subaltern one has become dominant one. Subaltern voices of Indian history have been subdued first by clubbing these as dissent or obstruction in the historical process. Moreover who is writing or who are the historians are the main reason behind a dominant voice becoming subaltern one and vice versa[86]. Had the subaltern voices not been suppressed or discarded as dissent one, it would have been some sort of foundational platform to the Indian history. The suspicion or any doubt in this regard got confirmed when one analyses the some important events of the Indian history[87].
It is further reinforced by the fact that the Indian historiography is still at the crossroads whether the mass uprising and the armed protest against the colonial rule, when for a month British rule ceased to exist in 1857, was the Independence movement or the mutiny. The history books continue to follow the colonial version terming it as mutiny-- the post-Independent Indian historiography blaring out the colonial master’s tune. Moreover, there is no mention of Matadin Bhangi[88], who along with Mangal Pandey, became the immediate cause of the mass movement that was the first freedom movement, if seen from any perspective. Apart from it, the caste and the communities that helped and collided with the colonial repressive force in suppressing the movement is still being eulogized as the martial community. This is the prototype of the fossilised and the pulverized Indian historiography grabbing like the drowning man anything that is being offered on the platter. The only condition is that it should not upset the status quo.
How the subaltern voices of the protest or the voices of dissent were neutralized or marginalized through innovative process of social degradation is clear from the deprivation of ‘Dushadhs’. The Dushadhs are the lower caste or a sort of untouchables found in Central India, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and in fact, they have been bracketed as ‘Shudra’. Factually speaking, they were ‘Dusadhya’ which is Sanskrit word, meaning difficult to control. The King in medieval time used to bracket the people or the section that used to rise in revolt against him or any decision of his kingdom as “Dusadhya”.[89] These are some of the faultlines of the Indian history that has been buried under the heaps of lies and cover-ups. Had these not been supressed or their voices not muzzled, these would have provided new dynamism to the Indian history, or would have provided altogether different course direction to the history[90].
The recorded history or the historiography of India per se blatantly ignored, suppressed and distorted these faultlines of the history, adding to the layer after layer of the distortion and subversion. This process of factoring faultlines seems to have started after the Krishna period. It is continued. The so-called hiatus was created to subserve the interest of few classes or the castes. The flood like natural calamities is ignored and the plundering, pilferage and destruction of the legacies/facts/monuments are not taken into account. Perhaps the same class or the caste (Brahmin, later on it was taken over by Kayastha) who has been official recorder of history, might have factored this subversion. Then out of this fabricated ‘hiatus’ or ‘gap’ or ‘darkness’, there emerged a well-developed urban civilization and Republics in Central and Eastern parts of India!
The emergence of Republics or Gana Sangh in Northern and Central India is attributed to surprise element or unknown reason. It was not considered as logical progression from earlier period in general and that of Krishna-Mahabharata period in particular. The surprise element or the unknown reason for the emergence of Republic emanates from the faultlines and myopic view of the historians. The thread of emergence of Republics in Northern and Central and Eastern India around 500 BC goes back to Mahabharata period, Vedic period (1500-1000 BC, Harappa and even pre-Harappa period. At least there is certain documentary and literary proof (Rig Veda, where Yadu or the descendent of Yadavas have been termed as ‘anti-monarchical)[91]. The Mahabharata period has some tangible seeds of the Republicanism, particularly in the conduct of Krishna, Yadavas and its traces are to be found in the official conduct of Mathura and Dwaraka[92].
Moreover, the systematic weakening or marginalization of traditional Kshatriya class (Solar-Ram’s descendants, Ikshavaku and Lunar (Yadavas)} has not been given enough importance by the historians for obvious reason. There arose two significant factors taking the Indian history in the vicious circle of empire formation, emergence of small revolting principalities, disintegration of empire, foreign invasion and subjugation. This all happened due to the shelving of Krishna’ unique mechanism of being united in the face of foreign aggression or punishing severely those hobnobbing with any foreign elements[93] and second, doing away the ‘ Lawful Conquest’[94] and the systematic marginalization and obliteration of the traditional Kshatriya class for maintaining the superiority and hegemony of one caste or class-Brahmin or the priestly[95].
Turn in Historical Process
There came a break in the historical process around the second half of the First millennium BC turning out to be an important one, making India the unending canvass of invasion, plunder and the foreign rule. Foreign invasions have been occurring during Krishna time or even before it. There has been tendency among the Indian political elites or kings or the rulers to take the help of foreign powers for solving their domestic or internal issues. Krishna and his Yadavas stopped this tendency, punishing those taking such step. It is in this context that he put in place a system that would check not only this practice but also the very tendency giving rise to such type of Hara-kiri. Such a great visionary was the Krishna that he anticipated the scenario when foreign invasion would occur in the absence of strong power or disunity among the ruling elites.
He devised a unique system of loose suzerainty under the leadership of a relatively strong power such as Pandavs, enforcing peaceful existence in normal times and acting as catalyst force in the emergency such as foreign invasion or any power threatening the whole arrangement or the mutually agreed rules of engagement. Particularly in the respect of foreign invasions, it could muster collective will and resources of all elites or kings, or meting out deterring punishment to those domestic powers seeking the foreign assistance to settle their personal rivalries or politics. It is for this reason that he had to face many challenging circumstances for propping up such a system wherein one rather benevolent and visionary power having the overwhelming force to enforce the collective will and might.
He set some ground rules such as the loose alliance on equal footing with the unambiguous rights and duties of the engagement. It was a sort of loose suzerainty under the leadership of an overwhelming force such as Pandavs. A loose federation or alliance or the union of all kings, Rajas, Maharajas under one overwhelming central power with mutually agreed rules and code of conducts was devised in accordance with exigencies of the time and the space. This system was put in place in the form of Krishna’s legacies and was religiously followed by his descendent, Yadavas and other ruling elites till the middle of first millennium BC[96].
There was one very powerful political mechanism that Krishna developed and followed or implemented religiously—‘Lawful Conquest’ or Dharma based political dealings wherein he used to follow a principal of replacing the bad and anti-people king with his son or successor, without taking away his kingdom. The war and political dealings or conquest was based on the mutually agreed principle. There are numerous examples such as Jarasangh, Dantvakra, Narkasur, etc where he did not subjugate or usurp their Kingdom despite defeating them[97]. This was discarded by neo-Kshatriya who were tribal, foreigners et la propped by the priestly class for undermining or neutralizing the traditional Kshatriya in general and Yadavas in particular.
After the ascent of non-traditional and new non-Kshatriya ruling class, there came a break in the history of sub-continent. It was the turning point in the history as this norm was flouted when the Nanda of Patliputra and others refused the offer of Puru to fight the foreign invader—Alexander. Puru fought singlehandedly as nobody came to his help, giving debilitating blow to Alexander’s world expedition when he decided to return home.
However, this was the first time that there came breach in the historical process, proving to be rather bane of the Indian history when the era of foreign invasions, loot, plunder and finally alien rule became a permanent fixture with exception of three empires period putting a temporary lid on the foreign invasion and rule. After this, it had become a norm making India a margin in the world history, further marginalized and plundered each time there had been major upheavals in the history. Even Ashok the Great and Akbar the Great did not seem to have done anything for resurrecting such system or any other arrangement acting as antipode to such balkanization.
Moreover, this fragmentation and weakening of political space had its roots in the social scape dominated by powerful Brahamnic class, not coveting any dilution of its hold on political and social power relations. ‘Brahmanism was supported by rent from land and fees for religious services which were inheritable and given in perpetuity. This encouraged a bifurcation of religious and secular authority and led to the weakening of latter. In addition, local autonomy was strengthened as against the centralized system[98]. The secular system that Krishna propped up in the form of an overwhelming and balancing power- Suzerain or central power and Vasudev would remain autonomous from the clutch of the ruling elites and the priestly caste or Brahmanism. It was negated much earlier by the latter making it as a part of avatar corpus, thereafter the former shelving it for the good. Its effects and collaterals however came to full play during this time.
Moreover, the foreign rule and invasion became so much institutionalized and formalized that one foreign invader and ruler started replacing the other-- Hun, Kushan, Pratihar, Persian, Turk, Mongol, Afghan, Mughal and British--without keeping Indian in the loop. It was so internalized that people started missing the foreign rule and invaders, and aggressors were eulogized giving rise to the vanquished discourse sounding like victors ones, and it appears to have been institutionalized. There has developed a sub-culture among the political and the social elites that went on making these foreign rules and loot as a part of the all-inclusive culture. Moreover, this sub-culture seems to be still propelling the hurtled and stratified progression of the history and the politics.
By the end of First millennium BC, the traditional ruling elites or Yadavas and indigenous ruling elites (descendants of Solar dynasty) were marginalized, and pushed towards central and South India. It is testified by the foundation of Chola, Pallav, Satvahan, Rashtrakuta, Pandya, Badiar Kingdom (not in that order) which were led by Yadavas and later on an empire of Vijaynagar under Krishnadev Rai, which was later dismantled by the motley alliances of foreign invaders and local Indian kings[99]. The movement of Black and Red Ware (BRW), which is associated with Yadavas, from North towards South, Central India and Eastern India authenticates it[100]. The political space was directly or indirectly taken over by the priestly class supported foreigners, tribal and non-descript castes that were remote-controlled by Priestly class or Brahmin through their social power arising out of their superior position and monopoly over religion and rituals.
The virtual demise of traditional ruling elites and monopolization of political space by the priestly class in league with retrograde or degenerate new ruling elites shifted the balance of power to the social space. It is because of this that Buddha, though quite different from Krishna, tried to change the socio-cultural scape of India through his scientific religion, even though he and Buddhism were forcibly exiled from this country. While former was banished on ideational and social level, latter was physically or rather forcibly driven out. The numerous temples of Shiva and other deities that have clear imprints of Buddhist worship house and Sangh clearly attest to this reality. Thus, the socio-cultural transformation that he engineered was mitigated, and retrograde social and political elites again reclaimed their lost ground.
During Bhakti movement, which was factored by the reaction against politico-cultural invasion by Islam and was the cause and effect of not following what Krishna warned thousands years ago and systematic marginalization and obliteration of traditional political class (Kshatriya), there was another opportunity to renew our age-old spirit. However, it was squandered again when the bruised Indian collective psyche took a dip in the bigoted devotional comfort, instead of seeking energy and power to fight it back. Instead of reviving the spirit of pragmatism and positivism as lighted by Krishna, Indian collective psyche invented Krishna as lover and love god to find succour in the escapism.
It is argued that there was no leader of the stature of Krishna who could rekindle the fighting spirit. Despite the fact that there emerged a leader, who was of the equal stature of Krishna, in the form of Guru Gobind Singhji, nobody rallied behind him. He was treated in the same way as the stakes dealt with Krishna after him. The same axis had worked in marginalizing him as did in the case of Krishna. Gandhi and his transformative vision too had met the same fate.
Any other great personality, or the system, or the movement commenced to bring out transformation in the highly stratified and hegemonic political and social domain would meet the same fate, unless this invisible but the all-pervading network of social domination and hegemony is unravelled; and Krishna is re-established as the Historical figure, reclaiming him from the mystical, religious and mythical domain.
Chapter-2
Indian Historiography: Tool of Domination & Subversion?
The Indian historiography itself appears to be the organic proof of the subversion and the veritable tool of domination and hegemony, concealing more than revealing the historical process of a civilization having the timeless historical tradition. Yet India and Indians have been termed as being ‘ahistorical’ society ‘’lacking the sense of history”, though its recorded history stretches beyond 3000 BC and unrecorded up to 7000 BC and beyond[101]. The discovery of more than 70,000-year-old Skulls in Narmada Valley has made India probable centre of migration point of homo sapiens dispersing to the different parts of the world[102].
The problem with Indian historiography and historians is that they have been unsuspected yet the willing part of the colonial historians, influenced by intelligence design and Whiteman’s burden[103]. The historiography regarding India that was coloured in the colonial interest and intelligence design put down to subserve its interest, was easily seized by the most of Indian historians as it suited their concern. With the finding of Indus civilization, the scenario changed taking different turn slightly, and dividing Indian historiography in two camps—western oriented or influenced and other outright nationalist or the rightist. Both were to take Indian historiography to the two different directions and mutually contradictory positions that have not been reconciled even now.
With every findings and discoveries, the distance between these two has been growing and the mutual bickering has been increasing, and in this melee our historical and cultural legacies have suffered, particularly the important finding of the Dwaraka under the water off the western coast of the Arabian Sea in Gujarat by S. R. Rao in 1992.[104] This rather unseemly tussle seems to have crossed the limit. While rightist historians have stretched Krishna and Mahabharata to 3500-3000 BC for holding to their untenable position of Vedic age being foundational to the Indian Civilization, the secular, western-oriented, leftist and left of the centre historians have been more steadfast in their cocoon of silence, maintaining their old positions. Even though the stigma of ‘Dark Age’, ‘lack of Urbanization’ and ‘mismatch between textual and non-textual or archaeological historical evidence’ ‘the pastoral and pre-agricultural’, ‘tribal chieftainships constantly at war with each other’ that was put on Krishna and Mahabharata period in particular or between 1500 BC and 500 BC in general has lost even an iota of basis, the silence of the mainstream and secular historians show their bias and their unrelenting steadfastness in status quoism.
This tussle between two forces that can be aptly categorized as rightist and State supported or supporter of power that be or the so-called secular or mainstream historians has been the bane of the Indian historiography. In their struggle for safeguarding their respective stakes, Indian history and historiography has suffered, perhaps intentionally or otherwise as this stalemate is much needed feed for their respective stakes and status quoism. Even temporary truce or permanent ceasefire that seems to be order of the day, is beneficial for both camps, as at stake is the status quo, which is a sort of oxygen for the two who are gasping for fresh lease of life in wake of finding of city state of Dwaraka off the Arabian coast of Gujarat, which had initially threatened their respective positions.
It appears the findings of vast sprawling city state of Dwaraka in the archaeological expedition in 1992 took both groups of historiography by surprise, invoking a sort of shock or caving in of the ground beneath, as it was about to threaten their respective positions and power on which both have been ruling the roost. More so, as this came in the wake of controversy and politico-historical one-upmanship being played out in respect of the birthplace of Rama. The rightists or the religious ones were for the jubilation and shock at the same time.
They were jubilant because it vindicated their position of Vedic age being foundational to Indian civilization and culture, but the date of 1500-1000 BC was quite upsetting and shocking as it led to collapse of whole premise and basis on which their rather obscurantist and anachronistic view rested. They did not accept the age assigned by Rao which was based on the estimate of artefacts and remainiants found thereof. The age and period was highjacked to 3500-3000 BC which seems to be baseless and without any authentic historical facts. The PGW (Painted Grey Ware) which were found in the 1952 has been assigned to 1100-800 BC and the events of the Mahabharata might have occurred around 1000-900 BC.[105]
The breath-taking Dwaraka findings also caught the mainstream, secular, west-oriented and western historians off-guarded as it has the potentiality of upsetting not only the hitherto history of India but also that of world. It was about to factor a paradigm shift in the Indian history in particular and the world history in general. However, as it is the wont of the Indian historians and historiography, guided directly and indirectly by western historiography, whenever there is any breakthrough, some countervailing theories or facts are fabricated to sabotage the findings. Last time it happened in case of Harappa and Indus civilization findings in 1920 when Aryan Invasion theory was shoved into, to mitigate the revolutionary findings.
This time the rightist, religious and obscurantist forces, in their zeal for proving Vedic age foundational to Indian civilization rather than Harappan and Indus, pushed back the Krishna and Mahabharata period to the 3500-3000 BC. This provided the mainstream and secular west-oriented historians the genuine ground and excuse to lapse back in their cocoon of silence, not taking cognizance of the new findings.
It seems to be typical strategy of the western and west-oriented Indian historians, to be silent about the findings and archaeological facts stretching the historical traditions beyond that of western ones. However, if it is not possible to be silent, then they shove into or invent the countervailing theory like Aryan Invasion or India being left out from the centre of human history in terms of migration, or ‘not enough evidence found’, or ‘not found in enough number and quantities’ or ‘no extant house found’, ‘no iron found’ in the alluvial and moist soil, or only vertical excavation was done’, etc. Even though like Aryan Invasion theory, India being left out from history also has been proved wrong with findings of Skulls dating back to more than 70,000 in Narmada Valley[106], is there any taker for this ?
Positioning Indian Historiography
The historiography as tool of domination and socio-political hegemony has its root in Krishna & Mahabharata period and its aftermath. The very description of Krishna, Yadavas and Mahabharata period and its legacies, and their very structure as found in the literature, particularly Mahabharata, which is the book of Krishna and Yadavas just as Ramayana is the book of Rama and solar Kshatriya or Ikshavaku[107], records and chronicles of history reveals the subversion and distortion factored in, to deny what otherwise would have been the foundational period of Indian History, not less than that of Indus Civilization in any respect. That is why Krishna and Mahabharata period is still struggling to scout for space in the history from the footnotes and parenthesis of the Indian history. Despite major archaeological findings such as the excavations in Hastinapur, Atranjikhera and other 650 places where Painted Grey Ware and Black Red Ware Potteries, in most of the places interspersed with each other, were found attesting the historicity of Mahabhrata and Krishna period[108] and Purana Quila in New Delhi[109] in 1954, what was Indraparstha, and discovery of submerged City state of Dwaraka in Gujarat off the coast of the Arabian sea in 1992, have proved the historicity of Krishna and Mahabharata period clearly.
Yet the Indian historiography seems to have steeped so much in the power relations and social hegemony that even breath- taking and paradigm-shifting findings have not made any dent in the respective positions. As mentioned earlier, while rightist or obscurantist camp has hardened its position, the secular or the mainstream camps have lapsed into the silence. Meanwhile Indian historiography continues to wallow in the subversion, the faultlines, the distortion, the lies, the deception, the myopia, the borrowed and loaned theories and perspectives. It has recently been argued that a historical tradition in early India did exist but it was a weak tradition, and given the intellectual interests of Indian society, it is curious that historical writing received little attention[110].
The doubt expressed regarding little or non-existent historical writing is quite significant as it has its genesis in the blacking out of that period of history in general and that of Krishna and Mahabharata period in particular having the potentiality for upsetting the power relations and hegemony and superiority of the priestly class (Brahmin) and retrograde political elites (Kshatriya). It seems the temporal historical record was not written deliberately to distort the progression of history despite the fact that writing was known[111].
In fact, during Krishna and Mahabharata period writing was known as is clear from archaeological discovery of Dwaraka city under the water off the western coast of Gujarat. Moreover, Sanskrit and knowledge were kept confined to certain groups, as Dr. Kosambi had maintained that Sanskrit was deliberately kept restricted to a small number of people, despite the fact it was simplified by Panini and Patanjali who made it orderly and systematic. It was iced up in the hands of what he termed as ‘a disdainful priest class’, consequently the courtly literature ignored much of the real world[112].
This ‘disdainful priestly class’ did so deliberately to use knowledge or information as important tool to maintain their control over the society. Long before the dawn of Information age, this caste or class had mastered the art of using information and knowledge as important means to maintain their power and hegemony over the society. However, only difference was that they used it to block or restrict the information and knowledge that would have benefitted the whole society, the Indian civilization and the world en large.
Consequently, Indian society despite having the longest tradition of the History was termed as an ‘ahistorical’ one or having weak historical tradition. This has been attributed to various factors: to the decentralised nature of political institutions, to the role of the priestly elite in fabricating genealogies for rulers of low caste, tribal or foreign invaders whose status could not be openly disclosed, and to the exclusive control by the brahmanas over the transmission of the tradition. Another view points to the bifurcation of the keepers of the state records, where some were scribes and others brahmana and from the latter a critical intellectual assessment might have been expected.[113]
As if it was not enough, the cyclic concept of the history and time was inserted to subserve the vested interests. The cyclic concept of history and time was also seen as obstructing history[114]. Ancient India had both the cyclic time and linear time concepts, though not described as such but implicit in a variety of forms. The linear time was closely tied to a sense of history and more interestingly, the two concepts did intersect on some occasions. The cyclic time might be described as cosmological. The linear time, also called historical, was functional and dependent on human activity[115].
Distinctions could be made between the cosmological and the historical time but the degree of separation or overlap would vary depending on how history or the past was perceived. Though both were carefully constructed, the cosmological time was a conscious fantasy of time and reflective of authors and their mythologies, whereas the historical time reflected concerns that are more manageable. The two concepts did not exhaust variations of time. The simultaneous use of more than one form of time indicated that different segments of society viewed their past in different ways[116].
Apart from it, this also shows or proves the power struggle or struggle for domination or social hegemony. The cyclic viewpoint of the time and history might have been factored in deliberately for thwarting the great historical process galvanized by Krishna and Mahabharata period, as the ancient Indian society was on high ground after decline of Harappa and Indus Civilization. It was the period when ‘second urbanization’ seemed to have begun laying down the foundation for the third Urbanization and Republicanism that was in existence before it was acknowledged around 500 BC. The republican credo found its manifestation in the stately conduct of the Dwaraka, the Mathura and the Indraparstha further authenticates it.[117]
Even in Rig Veda Yadu kul (forefather of Krishna and Yadavas) has been mentioned as ‘anti-monarchical’ (Arajanya)[118], and they must have been the precursor of full-fledged republics appearing in Central and Eastern India around 500 BC. Moreover, Krishna had ushered in social revolution by stopping the worship of serpents, ghost and superstitious figure like Indra. His Bhagavat sect was based on scientific theory of Karma, Karmyoga, Samkhya Yoga attacking the power base and structure of priestly class; and by setting a higher standard for stately affairs, he must have antagonized the ruling elites of that period as well.
Hence, the priestly class conspiring with retrograde Kshatriya (ruling elites) might have devised the cyclic concept of history and time, to nullify the forward march of historical process. The Krishna and Mahabharata period had set a very high benchmark for the social and the political elites of ancient time. The Varnashram system, the most important tool of domination and social hegemony was gasping for breath as Krishna had rendered it useless by showing its true face. Through his conduct and socio-political mechanism that seems to be ultramodern even by the standard of the modern period, he had metamorphosed or rather revolutionized the socio-political fabric of then ancient Indian society. If seen from modern perspective, some of the acts, thoughts, diplomatic feats, war strategies, social and political initiatives that he took seem to be seemingly postmodern or ultramodern. Hence, they might have thought that cyclic concept would be the most potent weapon for neutralizing him and his revolutionary act.
Thus, Indian historiography seems to be concealing many faultlines, conspiracies, omission and commission, sabotage and subterfuge. It is essential to unravel them, as these seem to have become standard practice and normal process in every walk of the society and the country. Whether be it the ruling elites or the social elites, these faultlines and subterfuge appear to be characterizing their formal and informal conducts. Moreover, ‘a view of the past is increasingly pertinent at times of transition when the past can either be rejected or become a model or can be used to legitimise the changing present. One of the functions of history has been to legitimise those in power. Much of the historical writing which survives from early periods is in the form of statements of the elite…… Perceptions of the past and historical consciousness are found in the varied forms’.[119]
In the context of Indian history, ‘legitimizing those in powers’ does not seem to be ‘one of the functions’ but the main and primary function. In that process, many unofficial, authentic and subaltern points and facts of history have been destroyed and neglected. Krishna and his numerous legacies seem to have become the first historical causality of such ‘legitimizing of the power’. That is why despite the archaeological findings in Dwaraka, the power that be is not interested in acknowledging the historicity of Krishna, as historical Krishna would not only shake the corridors of power but also unravel the reason and agencies or the class or the caste responsible for the one thousand years of subjugation and foreign rule. So it is better that he remains where he has been, in the temples and worship houses. From ‘Hero worship’ to ‘God Himself’, Krishna’s historicity seems to have been subverted beyond reclamation.
Moreover, ‘the foundation of the Indian history would have to be revived through European methods of historical scholarship, with an emphasis on chronology and consecutive narrative, became the challenge.[120] In addition, the European method of historical scholarship during eighteenth century was based on the justification for colonialism, and subjectivised by ‘Whiteman’s burden’ and racial superiority. As the beginning of Indian history has been rediscovered through methods of historical scholarship that was based on European in general and British historiography in particular, based as it was on ‘’the Jewish-Christian teleological view, but (with) secularized the goal; they were thus enabled to restore the rational character of the historical process itself’[121]. The Indian historiography during colonial period dittoed the line of British historiography in particular and that of European in general, but was unable to ‘secularize the goal’.
Consequently, the Indian historiography was bound to hit the block of veneer of mysticism and subversion shoved into through blacking out of the important period and personalities that characterize the Indian historical progression. As the European historical scholarship in general and British one in particular was riding on the credo of the enlightenment and superiority of western race, it was destined to pitch in for the faultlines and subversion wedged into the ancient history of India.
The permanent domination of the two classes or castes, be it in ancient or mediaeval or even the modern period, their continued hold on the socio-political scape despite the countless invasions, foreign rules of one thousand years and loot and plundering, and colonial rule, which seems to have been the cause and effect of subversion and domination by these two class or caste, provided the Western historical scholarship, with few notable exceptions, to further their agenda of despondency and superiority characterizing their attitude towards anything non-Western. However, in this respect, Western scholarship was not to be blamed much. The blame for their lopsided view and perspective must be shared, for the major part, by these two castes or the class and their agents and tools of subversion and domination. Even an entirely neutral and objective outside agencies would have arrived at such conclusion.
‘Each version of the past that has been deliberately transmitted has significance for the present, and this accounts for its legitimacy and its continuity. The record may be one in which historical consciousness is embedded: as in myth, epic and genealogy; or alternatively it may refer to the more externalized forms: chronicles of families, institutions and regions, and biographies of persons in authority. There is no evolutionary or determined continuum from one form to the other and facets of the embedded consciousness can be seen as a part of the latter, whether introduced deliberately or subconsciously. The degree to which forms change or overlap has a bearing on dominant social formations. Similarly, major social and political changes influence the form of historical consciousness even though there is no mechanical correlation between the two'[122].
However, the ‘dominant social formations’ manufacturing the ‘historical consciousness’ have been doing so not as to provide the momentum and push to the historical process, but to maintain their hegemony and dominance; and in that process historical process and progression seems to have been stunted and emasculated. These social formations can be unique in the sense that it has been successfully subjugating the majority through its various tools such as, unending rituals and control through myth, genealogy and subversion of epics and chronicles of family and annals of elites. These have also been used as instrument of validity and legitimacy to the autocratic, pliant and myopic rules and rulers. How can be there evolutionary or determined continuum from one form to another when it has been resorted to exigencies or as per the whims and fancy of political and social elites arising out of their need to validate their arbitrary acts and decrees?
‘Evident historical texts such as chronicles of families, institutions and regions often incorporate mythical beginnings, which act as charters of validation. The tracing of links with established lineages through genealogical connections, and frequently with epic heroes, plays the same forms of drawing upon embedded history’[123]. This ‘drawing upon of embedded history through evident historical texts’ has rendered these invalid and unreliable as historical evidence, and mythical beginnings have further put questions on these as being authentic. The Indian historiography seems to be more concerned about who replaced whom and who followed whom, and weaving historical process in that respect.
However, histories of the Indian sub-continent, such as were to become suitable for the perception of the Indian past, have been witness to three major paradigm shifts. The first comprehensive one was that of James Mill’s History of British India published in the early nineteenth century, where he set out his theory of Indian history sprouting out of three civilizations-- the Hindu, the Muslim and the British. The first two of these he described as backward, stagnant and ahistoric[124]. His theory was to become self-evident to the periodization of Indian history and is with us still, though sometimes in disguised form[125]. A change came about with Vincent Smith’s History of India, seeking to avoid the acuity of Mill’s value judgements. Smith concentrated more on chronological overview, not as much of charged with colonial and anti-colonial sentiment, and arguing for the rise and fall of dynasties as being crucial to the study of Indian history[126]. While Mill seems to be trying to substantiate the British conquest of India, Smith rationalises the colonial rule.
Mill’s and Smithnian version of historical interpretations have been retained, for the most part, in the official and as well as non-official history of Independent India. While justification for British conquest of India in which it were the warring Indian castes and so called self-proclaimed kings, who were nothing but the extension or the representative of two upper castes or class, providing the British with each other heads on platter, has been accepted with some changes. Therefore, it did not seem to be British conquest but Indian’s self-conquest for the British. Only this has been sugar-coated and rejigged in ‘multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-ethnic’ with ‘multi’ prefix is freely available and the country of ‘common or mixed heritage’.
While Mill’s version of Indian history has been accepted with some sugar coating and rationalization, Smithnian history has been reproduced with all its credo of dynastic succession who succeeding whom. However, D. D. Kosambi has suffused some sort of sagacity in the historiography, putting emphasis on history as ‘presentation in chronological order of successive developments in the means and relations of production[127]. As there is absence of reliable historical record, facts and data, he has vouched for the use of comparative method in the Indian history.[128]
His interpretation of the comparative method has made it mandatory for the historian to be an inter-disciplinary person with the ability to use a large number of fact-finding techniques. He harnessed the ability in writing and discussing different nuances of Indology. In addition to it, he was convinced that the India historian was in a particularly happy position since so much of the past survives in the present. As he puts it, ‘… the country has one tremendous advantage that was not utilised till recently by the historians: the survival within different social layers of many forms allowing the reconstruction of totally diverse earlier stages, and making up for the absence of reliable historical records’.[129]
Have these been utilized? It does not seem that the Indian historiography has made use of this ‘tremendous advantage’ until date; otherwise, these survived social layers would have given clear picture of earlier stages. Unravelling of this social layer would rather have resolved many faultlines and subversion of the Indian history that perhaps they might not have wanted, as it would have ultimately exposed the power relations and the hegemony the succeeding lines of historians have been reinforcing. In fact, the highly stratified and hegemonic social layers that are the originator and perpetuator of the inequality, injustice, discrimination, untouchability, myopia, xenophobic social and political elites and the fatalist populace have been reinforced and legitimized as evolving out of the independent forces.
Kosambi has examined the relation of text to the context in his papers on the Bhagavada Gita in which he tried to relate ideology to society[130]. He argued that the Gita in promoting the concept of bhakti emphasizes the unquestioning faith in, and personal loyalty and devotion to, a deity, and these values were toeing the line of the feudal ideology, which required a strong chain of outright loyalties. The text emphasized caste functions and the requirement to do one’s ordained duty as a member of a particular caste which he saw as a message in support of caste society and the conservatism that such a society entails-- a message propounded by the two upper castes or class for keeping the rest of society passive and subjugated.
There is an almost apparent contradiction between the emphasis on cast-duty in the Gita and the universal ethic of the later bhakti movement[131]. This apparent contradiction emanates from what he has mentioned as providing legitimacy to the feudalism and feudal kings wanting their rules to be unencumbered by any protest and insurgency. The secular and scientific texts like Gita and Mahabharata have been so much interpolated and subverted that it appears more like mythical texts mystifying the historical events. Kosambi not only co-related this data with evidence from Sanskrit sources but also from archaeological excavations and contemporary inscriptions bringing the Buddhist material into the wider trajectory of recreating the history of the late first millennium BC[132].
Such comparative investigation and use of various disciplines in reconstructing the early history would have provided some exciting findings and discoveries, had Indian historiography factored this innovative technique. However, it would have also unravelled all the faultlines and subversions that might have prevented them from adopting these techniques.
However, from the study of the gotras Kosambi reached the logical conclusion that the language of Vedic texts could not have been pure Aryan and must have had an admixture of non-Aryan elements reflecting the inclusion of non-Aryans as brahamins. This theory is acceptable to those who have worked on Indo-Aryan linguistics based on the linguistic analyses of the texts and language, which clearly indicates non-Aryan structures and forms both in syntax and vocabulary[133].
Thus, he argued that the names of many of established brahmanas in Vedic literature and the Puranic tradition clearly pointed to their being of non-Aryan origin. Some were given the epithet, dasi-putra (such as Dirghatamas) or else their names suggested totems, as for instance, Ajigarta or Kasyapa. Further, that the original seven gotras of the brahmanas were of mixed Aryan and non-Aryan priests.[134]
At a wider anthropological level, it is maintained that one of the clues to understanding the Indian past was the basic factor of the transition from tribe to caste, from small, localized groups to a generalized society. This change resulted from the introduction of plough agriculture in various regions introducing changes in the system of production, breaking the structure of tribe and clans and making the caste alternative form of social organization. This process was traceable in part from the evolution of clan totems into clan names and then into cast names[135].
The agency that introduced the plough agriculture, which was brahamanical settlements in various parts of the country, would therefore become major factor of control in caste society. These followed by an assimilation of local cults into the brahamanical traditions as is evidently clear from the various Puranas and Mahatmyas. However, no less important is the fact that it led to the sanskritization of local folk cults with ‘the incorporation of brahmana priests and rituals, the association of epic heroes and heroines, and by the inclusion of such cults in Sanskrit mythology[136]. This may partially explain the reason for the dominance of brahamins around the end of first millennium BC. However, had Kosambi gone beyond this period, he would have found some more interesting facts.
The relating of ideology to the history and historical facts may give new insight and perspective[137]. However, it may lead to some sort of the oversight of some important aspects and the phenomenon leading to the lopsided view of the history and the historical facts. For example, the plough was being used even before the end of first millennium BC. There is no doubt that ‘cereals were produced in parts of the Middle Ganga plains around 2000 BC and other parts from 1500 BC onwards. Nevertheless, the Neolithic-chalcolithic settlements are much fewer in comparison with NBPW settlements’[138]. Even Brahmins had been enjoying the control of the caste society much before the end of first millennium BC and they were in dominant position as is clear from Mahabharata and other sources.
Moreover, one of the pitfalls of ideology in general and that of the deterministic ideology in particular is that it puts emphasis on one factor to the exclusion of others, for which Marxism has been criticized and has lost its relevance to some extent. The introduction of plough might be one of the factors for the dominance of Brahmins and they might have introduced in some areas, even this is not confirmed that it was the Brahmin who had introduced the plough. Even during Mahabharata period and much before it, ploughs were being used providing a different perspective of the history and historical process.
However, there was another stream of the historiography, which was sympathetic to the nationalism in India. It was the view of the Theosophical society, which has been allegedly changing the theory to suit its own premises, and this accusation might be imputed to the most of theories and counter theories as prevalent in the history in general and Indian history in particular. A prominent member of the society maintained that not only were the Aryans indigenous to India but that they were also the progenitors of European civilisation. Theosophical views emerged out of what was believed to be an aura of oriental religions and particularly Hinduism, as the supposed dichotomy between the spiritualism of India and the materialism of Europe. The romanticising of India included viewing its civilisation as providing a counter-point to an industrialising Europe obsessed with rationalism, both of which were seen as eroding the European quality of life.[139]
This theory could not be discarded simply because it believes that Aryans originated from India, later on dispersing to Iran, Africa and Europe. If for some reason or the other Aryan invasion and Aryan coming from Europe to India could be accepted for some time and then it was discarded, why not this reverse Aryan dispersal could be given some thoughts? More so when the most ancient civilization of Indus and their pre-cursor, and the skulls dating back to 70,000 years old have been found in the Narmada Valley. The linguistic similarities, the racial feature (that could have been sharpened or blunted due to climatic situation), the similarities of deities, myths, floods and other cultural parallels might provide basis for such theory.
If the Aryan invasion theory could hold its relevancy for such a long time before it died its natural death, why not reverse Aryan invasion theory could be given some thought, even on theoretical level? Could not be it possible that whatever the footprints and historical evidences have been found regarding migration from west to east, might have been that of the reverse migration assuming that the primitive men from this part migrated earlier, might have been returning? There is nothing wrong in putting premium on such type of perspective. There might be some possibility that it might prove right and even if it is not authenticated, it might provide new direction to the study of ancient India.
Moreover, Western historiography and historians propounding the Aryan invasion theory was readily accepted as it had some migration footprints and related evidence. In fact, there had been sizeable migration of Yadavas towards central Asia and other regions after the demise of Krishna when Yadavas were driven to the Central Asian region from Dwaraka and Indraparstha where they founded an empire in Gajani province[140].
This is further substantiated by the fact that Black and Red Ware associated with Yadavas have not been found in large number in Dwaraka and Indraparstha or Purana Quila, New Delhi[141] . This is further corroborated by the absence of any Yadava in and around modern Dwaraka or Gujarat, Mathura and Indraprastha, though some Yadavas are there, they might have settled later on or might have changed their identity or surnames.
This was around 1000-900 BC and even before that an Aryan empire was founded around 1450 BC in the central Asia under the King Gaj, who had built an empire incorporating central Asia and Iran[142]. Ghazni was founded sometime in antiquity as a small market-town and is mentioned by Ptolemy[143]. According to Legends, it was founded by Raja Gaj of Yadu Dynasty around 1500 BC[144]. Due to Archimedean campaign and pressure, Yadavas and other Indians were forced to return to India via Punjab and then they settled down in Jaislmer Area of Rajasthan. Some historians have noted this but their purpose has been to prove Aryan invasion and in some cases, it has been used to prove the foreign descent of Yadavas.[145]
This speaks much about Indian historiography, as to how it likes to jump to the conclusion, accepting theories and perspectives reinforcing its pre-conceived view or notion. This very example unravels many things: how the Indian historiography has been the collaborator in mystifying and blacking out the foundational period of Indian history, next to Indus and Harappan Civilization and its aftermath until 500 BC, which is termed as ‘Black’ period of History. Even if the archaeological evidence of Krishna and Mahabharata period has been found in Dwaraka in Arabian Sea off the Gujarat coast corresponding with what has been mentioned in the Mahabharata and other literary texts and chronicles[146], the mainstream historians seem to have lapsed in the silence.
Historiography in general and Indian historiography in particularly has been malleable or rather susceptible to the all types of theories and perspectives, particularly those ones reinforcing the power relations and hegemony of the political and social elites, and not exposing the faultlines, conspiracies, or posing challenge to their dominant positions. The majority accepted the so-called Aryan Invasion theory and decline of Harappan and Indus civilization due to this foray. Apart from reinforcing the superiority and dominance of Indian political and social elites, who took unbound pleasure in being the cousin of Europeans, they readily accepted that Harappa civilizations must have been destroyed by the invading hordes of Aryan coming from the west.
Now both theories have been proved wrong as new study combining the latest archaeological data along with state-of-the-art geosciences technologies suggesting the decline in monsoon rains led to the weakened river dynamics, playing a critical role both in the development and in the fall of Harappa culture relying on the rivers to fuel their agricultural surpluses[147]. Nevertheless, there does not seem to be any activity on the part of Indian historians, with little notable exception apart, to rewrite or revise the history.
Now it has been confirmed that the term ‘Aryan’ refers solely to the language and not to the people who spoke it or any race imagined or the real. The word airiia in the Avesta is seen as the same of Arya of the Rig Veda. Its etymology has been discussed at length and has been read as derived from meanings such as companion, enemy-friend, stranger, guest, a person of noble lineage or a person of status and possessions[148].
The emphasis today on a particular kind of Aryanism is also a revival of nineteenth century historiography, moulded by specific ideological concerns of the time and place. This historiography has undergone a radical change where the insistence on Aryanism as an essential ingredient of the civilisations of Iran and Greece is now passé, for civilisation is being viewed as a process and not the monopoly of a particular people.[149] This might have resulted from realization that the centre or the leader of human history has been European and now it is shifting towards the East.
However, the wide-ranging exploitation of this theory received a veritable blow with the archaeological discovery of the Indus civilisation. The excavation of the cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro in the 1920’s and subsequent excavations in India and Pakistan, has revealed an extensive urban culture in the northern and western parts of the Indian subcontinent, creating problems for the Aryan theory. Being predominantly urban, the Indus culture is distinctively different from the pastoral-agrarian society described in the Vedic texts.[150]
But the very fact that Aryan Invasion theory and ‘pastoral-tribal’ level that was put on Krishna and Mahabharata period, and ‘lack of urbanization’ ‘Black period’ was readily accepted by the Indian historiography, speaks about the faultlines and the subversive agenda of the Indian historiography. No investigation, no enquiry and no in-depth analysis seem to have been undertaken. Had it been not so, such chimeric and diversionary theory would not have found any place in the annals of Indian historiography. Nevertheless, how it was so enthusiastically accepted is for everybody to see.
However, one should not fail to commend the mainstream historians for successfully withholding the attempt by the rightist and jingoist forces and their self-proclaimed historians to make the Vedic period foundational to the Indian civilization. There should not be any doubt that the Harappa and Indus period has been foundational, not the Vedic period. Nevertheless, in this melee the Krishna and Mahabharata period has been left out which does not seem to be less foundational as compared to the Harappa and Indus civilizations.
Moreover, a long period of a few centuries intervened between the composition of the earliest hymns and their compilation into the Rig-Veda. Even within a strictly monitored oral tradition, there can be changes and if the memorisation extends over some centuries, then some degree of additions and subtractions may be expected.[151] There have been a lot of interpolations and additions in the text even before it was put into written format. Nevertheless, the countless additions and interpolations that have been factored in could not have been resulted entirely from passage of time and limitations of communications. For example, the insertion of Avatar concept and Krishna’s corpus of philosophy in the Rig Vedas and other deletions related to the history of Yadu Kul and other ancient dynasties are not natural or accidental, these seem to have been done deliberately. It betrays rather reinforces the subversive agenda of Indian historiography seemingly having the Janus like characteristics.
The Rig-Veda has approximately been dated to about 1500 BC, by then the Indus cities had declined. Therefore, in accordance with this chronology, the Indus civilisation was prior to the Vedic culture preceding it as foundational to Indian civilisation. If however there were an insistence on 4500 BC as the date of the Rig-Veda, then the Vedic period would precede the Harappan culture. Excavations in Baluchistan indicate that some settlements going back to the seventh millennium and continue to the first millennium thus vastly preceding even the early date which some have proposed for the Rig-Veda. Nevertheless, the pre-Harappan cultures of these sites are not present at the same date in the sites of the Punjab and the north-western borderlands of the Indian subcontinents, which is the location of the Rig-Veda.[152]
The Late Harappan phase, from the early to mid-second millennium BC when the Mature Harappan began to decline, witnesses a return to a stronger regional articulation and diversity in archaeological culture, which was geographically delimited. Once again, there were a variety of cultures emerged at this time, some with no ostensible links with other regions, some with continuities with the Harappan and some with evidence of the arrival of innovations from elsewhere. Settlements in Baluchistan suggest links with central Asia and Iran in the second millennium BC. Interestingly the overlap between the late Harappan and a subsequent independent culture-that of the painted Grey Ware occurs in Punjab and Haryana.[153]
The geographical location of the Rig Vedic saptsindhu is generally taken to be the Punjab and the adjoining borderlands, although some scholars would place the geographical location of the Rig Veda closer to Central Asia and Afghanistan[154]. The ritual of soma has also been linked to some proto-type shamanistic rituals form earlier periods in Central Asia. The Indo-Iranian links tie into the chronology of the Rig-Veda since the earliest suggested date now of Zoroaster is circa 1200 BC.[155]
It (Harappa) was undoubtedly a cosmopolitan world with people on the move, making languages highly flux and mobile. Traders from the Indus cities would have had to use diverse language such as Akkadian, Elamite and possibly Indo-European in the upper Oxus. This further complicates the decipherment of the Indus script, which so far has been divided between two schools, one reading it as Indo-Aryan and other as Proto-Dravidian, where the latter reading seems to be based on a greater reliance on the rules of linguistics[156]. Pre-Harappan cultures in the areas where eventually the Harappan culture evolved are of diverse kinds and distinctly different (that is quite natural seeing its vast area if not seen from blinkered view of European historical scholarship. The Ghaggar-Hakra river system that has been identified with Rig Vedic Saraswati River and has been projected as the nucleus of what evolved into Harappan culture has large number of the sites. However, these cannot be called as sole precursors to the Harappan urbanization.[157]
It is said that Harappan culture has some uniformities and recognizable patterns, the urban milestones with distinctive domestic and public buildings, extensive drainage system. It is said that sheer size of area in which Harappa culture spread might have led to regional variation. The same thing may be said about pre-Harappan culture and post Harappan culture? Then why uniformity is being sought in these cultures when these two have had vast area and the difference in climate, geography and ecology might have factored some substantial variations.
Excavated animal bones from Hastinapur in the first millennium BC when the use of horse was more frequent, indicate that horse bones make up only a very small percentage of the bones, the largest amount being that of bones of humped cattle[158]. As the horse was more valuable, its association was with the more spectacular sacrifices such as the Asvmedha. The eating of the cattle flesh was limited to occasions. It was not eaten routinely. This is a common feature among cattle pastoralists who thus preserve the quality stock.[159] If the culture of the Rig Veda is to be equated with the Harappan culture, then obviously the horse has to be found in the Harappan cities. But there are no horse remains prior to the second millennium BC, some of other identified as horse is that of another animals.[160]
The decline of the Indus cities in the early second millennium BC is now attributed to environmental changes, the closing of trade with the Gulf and the collapse of political authority in the cities. However, the decline of the cities is not an abrupt termination of the Indus civilization as there is some continuity of Harappan traits in post-Harappan cultures and overlap at some sites in Punjab and Haryana. In relation to cultural traits from Iran and central Asia, the possibilities of small-scale migrations into India and the interaction of peoples and cultures over a long period of the time can be assumed. The emphasis is both on smallness and long duration as there was no massive migration such as to overwhelm the existing cultures. This is also much more likely to have been the mechanism by which the Indo-Aryan language came to be established in north-western India.[161]
However, the colonial historiography implanted for subserving its interests and strengthening its case by denying the historical tradition and civilizational legacies, led to further subversion and distortion of the Indian history. Weber and his undue emphasis on the rationality of developments in Europe came under attack and such analyses were seen as the part of a larger racial framework in which ideologues other than Weber attached value judgements of a priori superiority to the rationality. This was undoubtedly quite apart from the question of whether rationality was the prime motive in the development of European capitalism, a question which has been legitimately raised by some of those examining the place of Weber’s thought within the European ideological tradition.[162]
III
History and history writing or the historiography is very complicated subject, as one has to reconstruct as to what had happened in the distant past based on scarce material and artefacts relating to that period. If it is modern history, there is a plenty of material and there is no problem except that too much material and sources confusing the direction of history writing. More often than not, it becomes too much factual and the unnecessary details sneak into inadvertently. The lack of evidences, supporting archaeological findings and confirming document, etc. are the daunting challenge in writing the history of medieval and ancient period.
Another problem, particularly in respect of the history of the Indian sub-continent is the oral tradition that is in stark contrast of the written tradition. Ironically, we have never asserted this aspect, rather accepting what the stakes of history writing, i.e. colonial apologist, imperialist and neo-imperialist forces and the self-proclaimed superiority of some countries and races, have been feeding over the long period.
Uptill now oral tradition of the history was rejected as ahistorical and the society infused with it was being termed as lacking in the cultural experience and the historical tradition. As the Indian social and political elites (Brahmin and Kshatriya) seem to have devised a sub-plot by giving rise to the oral tradition despite writing known to them, it was another tool of the power relations perceived as the sign of backwardness and tribalism. Such was the finesse of the ancient Indian social and political elites whose many acts and deeds viewed as ‘backward’, ‘tribal’ or simply ‘lacking in cultural and civilizational depth’, whereas these were the master strategies maintaining their superiority and domination in the perpetuity.
Most of the time we make the foreigner, particularly western one and western historiography or colonial historiographer scapegoat for not understanding the Indian history or degrading or downgrading the historical and the civilizational heritage and legacy. In fact, the major blame in this regard is to be shared by the ‘disdainful social and political elites’ and their stooge historiographers colliding to make the myopic and the stunted view of the history as the accepted one or the authentic history of India.
In fact, the stakes have woven such intricate yet invisible and hard to penetrate network of domination and hegemony through the unique socio-political structure of caste, which is so malleable as to be rigid as well as flexible, closed and opened , and fortified with the conceivable binaries, yet so versatile that thousand years of foreign invasion, rules and plunders have not affected it. Moreover, it has been providing and continues to provide the institutional and non-institutional support to their hegemony and domination even now.
Even in the contemporary Indian society, such streak of oral tradition has survived among the social and political elites, enjoying the benefits and privileges being handed over for the generations. Many instruments of the social and the political elites such as code of conduct, their socialization, their conduct in sync with changing time and many unwritten codes of political and social elites are the examples of such oral tradition, existing side by side with written one. There is advantage in the oral tradition the written one cannot match, particularly in devising and fortifying the power relations, the hegemony and the domination.
Accordingly, the ancient Indian social and the political elites devised a unique style of the historiography, which has now found the acceptance by acknowledging it as ‘new tradition’ of understanding the history, art and culture. “With the bridging of this divide by such scholars as A.N Doane, John Miles Foley, Katherine O’ Brien O’ Kelfee, Alain Renoir, Brian Stock, and others, a new perception of the relations between the oral and literate has begun to gain currency, acknowledging the existence orality and literacy along a continuum, and are deeply integrated and interdependent cultural forces. As a result of placing the oral and literate upon this continuum, these scholars have encouraged others to see that oral and literate art falls within a common linguistic, aesthetic and cultural domain to which both the oral and contemporary critical theory may usefully address themselves”[163].
In this context, it would be pertinent to mention the two epics, which were originally historical chronicle, but reduced to religious and mythical legends from marital-cum-historical one. These two epics were in the bardic tradition, transmitted orally. It is not be forgotten that even during the bardic and oral tradition, this chronicle of history was reduced to martial legends as the bards and other carriers of oral tradition had to operate in political and social contexts dominated by respective political and social elites. When these were coded and written down by the priestly class (the social elites), these became a discourse on ‘theology, morals and state crafts and mythologies’
The earliest Indian Literature of fundamentally secular character is the two great epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, which, though worked over by a succession of priestly editors, give clear evidence of their origin as martial legends. Their religious importance lay at first in the royal sacrificial ritual, part of which involved telling stories of the heroes of the past. This put the martial ballads into the hands of the priesthood, who, in transmitting them, often altered their superficial character, and interpolated many long passages on theology, morals and statecraft.[164]
Recently oral studies have paid increasing attention to the political contests and implication of oral art. While assessing the current trends influencing the anthropological research into the oral traditions, Ruth Finnegan sees “an interest in the potentially politically contested or contingent nature of much that had in the past been regarded as fixed and essentially definable as verbally transcribed text. “ In contrasting traditional, colonial and recent postcolonial studies of Indian folklore, Gloria Goodwin Raheja notes of current scholars in the field. “We began to see that we could not understand oral traditions without grasping the power relationship that informed the lives of the tellers and singers, and the songs and stories might either uphold or challenge the ideologies that sustained those relations of power. We could no longer accept the decontextualizing and depoliticizing of folklore that so characterize the interpretation style of (William Crooke) and so many others.[165]
Both within and without oral studies, scholars have begun to examine the “intimate relations between what seems to some strange bedfellows: Oral theory and critical theory. Mark C. Amodio has recently called attention to these relations, observing that ‘oral theory and contemporary critical theory share many basic principles, engage many similar issues and ask many closely related questions.” Amodio acknowledges that this sense of commonality has been slow to emerge, a fact he attributes to the two main causes: the narrowness of some oral-formic work and ignorance about oral theory among non-specialist.[166] “A major obstacle to a wider awareness of shared interests has been the long-held belief, among oralists and non-oralists alike in the Great Divide: the chasm that supposedly divides oralists and culture from literate art and culture [167].
To push Amodio’s argument one step further “…… oral theory and contemporary critical theory not only share similar ‘principles’, ‘issues’ and ‘questions’ but may profitably inform each other. Spivak argues that these “best prophets of heterogeneity (Foucault and Deleuz) and others” in fact reproduce the expansionist tendencies of colonialism and neo-colonialism they otherwise like to repudiate.[168]
The west-centric concept and paradigm, whether it is in the arena of history, political science, sociology or art and their use in understanding non-western phenomena, has really played havoc, stunting and hampering the study and research. It seems to be equally relevant in the arena of history in general and the Indian history in particular. The oral tradition of the history must be factored in historical research, and its use in the ancient Indian history and that of world in general would provide new direction and insight. Moreover, it would unravel many mysteries and conspiracies that have been doing round since the long time.
There should be an endeavour to start new practice of writing history based on the oral tradition. Some of the defects of oral tradition such as exaggeration, interpolations, admixture of facts and fictions, myths and superstitions can be controlled and weeded out with the tools and techniques, theories of other disciplines such as linguistics-deconstruction, reasoning, reconstruction, sociology, etc. The literary evidence should also not be discarded altogether as the literature is generally said to be mirror of the society. It can act as an important aid to the archaeology and other historical evidence, if it is deconstructed and socio-political context in which the literature was created, and its author’s subjectivity could be isolated.
However, the most important aspect of the oral tradition is that it has vast scope and can be harnessed in factoring a paradigm shift in the way history and historiography is viewed. As compared to the oral tradition of history, the written tradition of history is very limited in scope and nature. “Written history contains a very patchy and incomplete record of what mankind has accomplished in parts of the world during the last five thousand years. The period surveyed is at best above one hundredth part of the time during which men have been active on our planet. The picture presented is frankly chaotic; it is hard to recognize in it the any unifying pattern, any directional trends. Archaeology surveys a period a hundred times as long. In this enlarged field of study, it does disclose general trends, cumulative changes proceeding in one main and towards recognizable results. Aided by archaeology, history with its prelude prehistory becomes a continuation of natural history.”[169]
It is not, however, to be construed that the oral tradition is far or less superior to the written one and the same can be said about the latter. The stakes did not like the written tradition for the obvious reason. “The speed of oral speech (unlike that of written) is unfavourable to a complicated process of formulation—it does not leave time for deliberation and choice. Dialogue implies immediate unpremeditated utterances.”[170] By this reckoning, the history of writing is coincident with inauguration and development of exploitation[171].
Recently, the Subaltern Studies group has made endeavour to revise the history urging to see it from the point of view of the subaltern groups and trends. The group seems to be “revising the general definition and its theorization by proposing at least these things: First, that the moment (s) of change be pluralized and plotted as confrontation rather than transition (they would thus be seen in relation to histories of domination and exploitation rather than within the great modes-of-production narrative) and, secondly, that such changes are signalled or marked by a functional change in sign-systems. The most important functional change is from the religious to the militant ….. the most significant outcome of this revision or shift in perspective is that the agency of change is located in the insurgent or the subaltern”.[172]
A functional change in a sign system is a violent event. Even when it is perceived as ‘gradual’, or ‘failed’, or yet ‘reversing itself’, the change itself can only be operated by the force of a crisis. What Paul de Man writes of criticism can be extended to a subalternity that is turning things ‘upside down’[173]. “In periods that are not periods of crisis, or in individuals bent upon avoiding crisis at all cost, there can be all kinds of approaches to (the social)….. but there can be no (insurgency).[174]
According to analysis of this group, even the thoroughly successful “elite historiography whether it is of right or the left, nationalist or colonialist is itself perceived to be constituted by cognitive failures. Indeed, if the theory of change as the site of the displacement of a discursive field is their most pervasive argument, this comes a close second. Here too no distinction is made between witting and unwitting lapses. Hardiman points at the Nationalists’ persistent (mis)cognition of discursive field-displacement on the part of the subaltern as the signature of Sanskritization. He reads contemporary analysis such as Paul Brass’s study of factionalism for the symptoms of what Edward Said has called ‘orientalism’”[175].
It is correctly suggested that the sophisticated vocabulary of much contemporary historiography successfully shields this cognitive failure and this success-in-failure, this sanctioned ignorance, is inseparable from colonial domination. Das shows rational expectation theory as hegemonic yet defunct (successful cognitive failure once again) mainstay of neo-colonialism, at work in India’s ‘Green Revolution to prevent A red One’. Within this tracking of successful cognitive failure, the most interesting manoeuvre is to examine the production of ‘evidence’, the cornerstone of the edifice of historical truth, and to anatomize the mechanics of the construction of self-consolidating Other—the insurgent and insurgency. In this part of the project, Guha seems to radicalize the historiography of colonial India through a combination of Soviet and Barthsian semiotic analysis. The discursivity (cognitive failure) of disinterested (successful and therefore true) historiography is revealed. The muse of History and counter-insurgency are shown to be complicit. [176]
Even if the discursivity of history is seen as a continuous sign chains, a restorative genealogy cannot be undertaken without strategic blindness that will entangle the genealogist in the chain. That is why Foucault recommended the ‘historical sense’, much like a newscaster’s persistently revised daily bulletin, in the place of the arrogance of a successful genealogy[177].
However, the subaltern studies have been faulted for limiting the study to the colonial experience. The study seeks to demonstrate “the ‘codes’ of politics in the subaltern domain derive from the power-relationships and ideological formations pre-dating the colonialism and importation of the idea of citizenship. While many of the relationships were in some ways affected by the colonial experience, it would be meaningless to reduce them to that experience alone. It is in this context that the ‘religious consciousness’ of the peasant remains an extremely vital subject of study[178]. In addition, if the space or scope for change or addition had not been there in the prior function of the sign-system, the crisis could not have made the change happen. Thus, the change in signification-function supplements the previous function. “The movement of signification adds something …. Nevertheless, this addition…..comes to perform a vicarious function, to supplement a lack on the part of the signified[179].
The subaltern studies and its narrative, dialogues, counter-dialogues, argument and counter-arguments underscore the need for a ‘historical sense’ what Foucault has recommended as ‘much like a newscaster’s persistently revised daily bulletin, in the place of the arrogance of a successful genealogy’, and the historical process and its causes not limited to the colonial experience only. In respect of the Indian historiography, these two perspectives—arrogance of a successful genealogy and colonial reductionism have been dominating the discourse, leading to a stunted, myopic and lopsided historical tradition.
Moreover, many historical forces going much beyond the colonialism and the factors that genealogical perspective has been unable to grasp have been, it seems, propelling the march of history. Indeed, the colonialism and foreign rules, plunders and subjugation and even modern day state of society where majority are wallowing in the poverty, exploitation and injustices, while minority are in the charge. And the resultant power relations is the cause and effect of the stunted, selfish, myopic and unjust social and political space; and their controlling deities-- elites who have successfully installed such deceptive network, which despite thousand years of foreign rule, plunder and subjugation has been able to maintain their socio-political hold. They still seem to be setting the agenda and direction of stunted and emasculated onward march of the history and the politics.
Chapter-3
Resituating Krishna in Indian History
In the answer to a question, ‘What is history?’ eminent historian E. H. Carr maintains that ‘History is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past[180]. This ‘unending dialogue between the present and the past’ and ‘the historian and his facts’ seem to have been snapped in case of the Indian history. Had not been it so, then Indian historians and historiography must have worked afresh and with unheard zeal and enthusiasm on the finding of underwater ‘urban conglomeration of Krishna’s Dwaraka city’ by S. R Rao in 1992[181]. This is the city-state founded by Krishna on the western coast of Kushsthali off the Arabian Sea three thousand years ago.
This historical fact should have not only lightened up what has been termed as ‘dark or black period of Indian history’, ‘ break in historical progression’, so called ‘tribal and pastoral’, ‘lack of urbanization’ but also factored a paradigm shift in the ancient Indian history in particular and that of world in general. Nevertheless, Indian historians and historiography did not take note of this significant age and personality that seem to be second foundational after that of Harappa and Indus civilization. So they do not seem to be historians, neither they appear to be dealing with history nor history is being discussed. As history, what Burckhardt has viewed, ‘is the record of what one age finds worthy of note in another?’[182]
Despite the loads of historical facts relating to Krishna and his age having found, the Indian historical scholarship and historiography have not shown even an iota of the willingness to start a dialogue between the past and present. Obviously, what is being played out is not the history but the politics of history, betraying the faultlines, the conspiracy, the subversion and distortion. While the centres have been relegated to the periphery, the periphery has proclaimed to be at the centre. The subalterns have become mainstream, relegating the latter to former position, a great historical period and personality has been reduced to the mysticism and the mythical entity.
A great period of the Indian history rather that of the world was transformed into ‘black or dark period’, a great civilization which may stand as second foundational to Indian and perhaps world civilization after Indus Civilization was consigned to ‘pastoral, pre-agricultural and tribal warfare’. The great man, the great philosopher, politician, the great inventor, the great fighter, the great strategist, the great diplomat, builder, social reformer, political doyen, propounder of monism and the founder of first monotheist religion which lead was taken by others have been termed as ‘warring tribal chieftains’ and ‘culturally unsophisticated’ people’.
However, if one analyses the Indian history from the perspective of rebel and great-man theory, many new, interesting and breath-taking vistas of Indian history might open, providing new insight and direction. The rebel and great man has some analogies as far as history is concerned. The role of the rebel in the history has some analogies with that of the great man. Although the great-man theory of history has gone out of the vogue, it still holds some relevance.[183] Hegel has put the great-man theory of history in right perspective: “The great man of the age is the one who can put into words the will of his age, tell his age what its will is, and accomplish it. What he does is the heart and essence of his age; he actualizes his age”.[184]
Krishna was the man of the age that seems to be the foundational period of the Indian civilization and culture, and to some extent to that of world history. It was the age when after the glory and magnificence of Harappa and Indus civilization and its decline, Indian civilization was attaining its magnificence and grandeur. It was Krishna who put into words and deeds the will of his age, telling his age its will and accomplishing it even during his lifetime. What he did was the heart and essence of his age, actualizing it and grounding it to the praxis. Not only this, he appears to have seemingly actualized the modern age, and some of his deeds and acts even anticipated the postmodernity.
Nevertheless, he has been limited to the temples and worshipping houses. His great feats, his inspiring deeds and his Dharma or truth (which sustains and nurture the life, and is good for all and justifiable) based undertakings, and destruction of anti-human and anti-historical forces and tendencies have been distorted as acts or ‘antiques’ of God. Had the social, political, cultural, technological and religious revolutions that he engineered three thousand years ago been worked up, followed up, or improved upon, the whole humanity, including India would have achieved the unprecedented progress, realizing perhaps the dream of one world, one people much earlier.
The wheel of history has reversed at the worst and at the best, it has stopped clicking after his departure. The stakes, the retrograde political and social elites (Kshatriya-priestly class) whom he had rooted out by establishing a socio-political order based on the equality, justice and Dharma or truth began to sprout again in his name, in his place and in his very form. It might have been possible that the same people, Abhirs and Bhil who were generously and readily granted the status of Yadavas, abducted the Yadavas women and children that were being rescued to safe place after the fratricidal genocide of Yadavas at Prabhas Tirth near Somnath temple and who were later released by Arjun[185] might have assassinated him. His transformation as ‘ God of Cowherds’ thus started. There is no mention of such aspect of his personality in Jaya or original Mahabharata. These are later additions and interpolations.[186]
The stakes whom he had destroyed might have found it that they could not wipe him and his inexhaustible legacies even by finishing him. Hence, they might have started a unique game or rather mastered an unprecedented ploy to finish a great personality like him: Transforming such person into God. Thence now, it rather became a precedent or rather a standard practice or benchmark in ruling by the deception and with the aid of ‘opium’. Buddha, Mahaveer, Guru Govind Singhji and Gandhi were to be feted in like manner by being made god or god like by the same vested interests. Only place, time and period has changed, the constant has been the same stakes and their deceptive, hegemonic and stratified socio-political system that Krishna had exposed and destroyed.
By transforming Krishna into God, the stakes killed not two birds, but many with one stone metaphorically. They first killed his great acts, his socio-political, cultural and religious revolutions, and his technological and technical breakthrough. Then they killed Yadavas- an ancient tribe or Kula by making Krishna god. Since he is god, the earthly Yadavas could not claim him as theirs and hence could not dare to repeat the feats that he engineered.
Moreover, there has been canard that Krishna himself had killed the rest of Yadavas after the fratricide. After that, the remaining Yadavas in and around Dwaraka were driven out from India. According to A. H Bingley, Yadus (Yadavas), whose settlements were at Dwaraka and Indraparstha, were driven out of India after the demise of Krishn. They founded Ghazni Empire in Afghanistan and ruled over the whole of country and central Asia up to Samarkand. The pressure of Greco-Bactrian and Persian invasion forced them back into the Punjab, and later they were driven across the Sutlej into the Bikaner desert, where they established themselves at Jaisalmer.[187]
Nevertheless, it was very convenient for the stakes to make him god, establishing him in the temples and worship houses to prevent any stimulus and muse in future. How lesser mortals could get inspiration from god! The demon like forces, the anti-religious elements, the anti-people monarchies and forces of superstitions, whose dark empire Krishn and Yadavas had destroyed took refuge in this logic. It was more a defence mechanism against Krishna revolutions in the socio-political realm of the ancient India. The undercurrent of this mechanism points out that that nobody could dare to repeat what Krishn had done: not to worship any god out of fear or superstition, the Dharma is not offering prayers and worshipping, but it is doing ones duty determined by particular situation and exigencies, without any personal interest and without any expectation of fruits that is what is Karmyoga and face one’s Prarabadh (destiny made of one’s good and bad deeds). In addition, a King should take care of his people and establish a social-political order based on equality and justice[188].
What is the most unfortunate that stakes not only manufactured god out of him but also tried to reduce him to the myth, just to maintain their hold on the power and social status. The later additions and interpolations relating to his childhood in the Mahabharata sounding like mythical forays and other god like acts attest to this fact[189]. These all interpolations, additions and distortions have been inserted in Krishna and Yadavas’ life just to maintain the dominations of two classes (priestly and renegade ruling elites). They knew that Yadavas could establish Krishna Raj again and hence it had become necessary to drive wedge a divide between Krishna and Yadavas. What would be better way than that of making Krishna a god (from god he became God during Bhakti Movement). So that it could be argued that Krishna was not a Yadav but a god, how could Yadavas lay claim on him? Finally, Yadavas were driven out of India, forcing them to settle in Afghanistan and central Asia where they founded Ghazni Empire.
It is not so that it was one time affair; it has become a constant factor in the Indian socio-political life. Krishna has such a personality and charisma that he always threatens to become real, more often than not transcending his apparently surreal existence to become the real. Even during his lifetime, the people were at loss as whether he was real or surreal. It was so because he was a true Karmyogi, Gyanyogi or Premyogi and Yogiraj, and these three matchless qualities making him a virtual god or charismatic personality and Solah Kala Yukt Purush or Sampoorn Purush (complete human being).
Before Krishna, there is no mention of any such personality or god, not even in Veda, such personality or theory predating Krishna is found. Whatever mention is found in the Upanishad or Gita has been the interpolation and later on addition. For example in the Gita, there is mention about the origin of this theory of Karmyoga, Premyoga and Yoga. When Arjun asked about the origin of this Yoga, Krishna answered that it was told by Surya Deva to his son Vivaswan, and after that it disappeared and was again being told by him.[190]. This seems to be interpolation and has been added to make Krishna a mythical figure or to transform him into God.
However, in the recorded and the unrecorded history whether it is oral tradition or written, there has not been reference of any such theory or personality epitomizing and practicing these through his various acts and deeds. What is unique making it irrefutable is that Samkhya Yoga, Karmyoga and Bhagavat has been propounded by Krishna, and his all acts and deeds are based on these three theories, which if analysed would be one unified theory of Karmyoga. If one follows this theory or philosophy aligning it with his personality and acts, he or she would certainly transcend all the limitations to become like Krishna. It is for this reason that stakes might have desperately tried to mystify him.
Consequently, India had to face the consequences of making a great historical personality godly figure or a mythical entity. Krishna had taught the world that any person or entity could become a Vasudev—a title or station or system acting as balancing force in the society, if he could leave aside the results of his action. Through his personal examples and that of Yadavas, he gave the message one should always be prepared for the war. The best guarantee of peace is the preparation for war, this message he delivered three thousand years ago. He put emphasis on inventing new and unique weapon system such as Sudarshan Chakra (Circular Disc), and other technology. He also reminded the general populace of disciplining one’s mind and body through yoga and exercise. He devised such long term scenario to neutralize the aggressive and barbarian tribes living around the geographical extent of Bharat who could pose threat in the future.
Nevertheless, his messages were forgotten, and he was transformed into god and avatar. From hence, the avatar concept seems to have taken its roots in the mind of the people and various religious and non-religious discourses. The concept of avatar, not found originally in the Vedas and Upanishad but later on interpolated[191], was inserted in the various religious and non-religious books and texts, including the Gita. Hence, there started Avatar Syncretism permeating every socio-political discourse and initiative. It was through avatar matrix the stakes devised rather fabricated a socio-political template making general populace believer in the destiny and the providence. The socio-political milieu was so much suffused with fatalism via avatar syndrome that it finally led to the subjugation, and the internal and the external invasion.
Particularly, the collective psyche of the Indian people was begun to be stuffed with fatalism and passivity. In their frenzy to make Krishna god and checkmate Yadavas from repeating what Krishna had done, the stake seems to have concocted the theory of avatar making relevant insertions and additions in all the texts and subtexts. In Vedas, particularly in Rig Veda, the insertion regarding the avatar was made in the latter part of the text[192]. The score of Puranas, also called as itihas-Purana, seems to have been invented for supporting their contention. Prior to this, no mention of Avatar was found in any ancient texts and whatever mention happened to be found are just after thought and interpolation.
Otherwise, there would have been mention of avatar in the beginning of Vedas or when the creation is being discussed. The very fact that there is no mention of avatar proves that it has been later addition for neutralizing the effects and impacts that Krishna and Yadavas made in every sphere of our life around 900-1000 BC. There is mention of 24 avatars in some Puranic texts[193]. Moreover, one can get rather incredulous idea about this concept when it is said that Vishnu had to take nine avatars due to curse by a Bhragava Brahmin.[194]
Some scholars and Indologists quote the word “Krishna” as mentioned in Rig Veda and some ancient Buddhist texts alluding him as ‘kala’, implying Krishna being co-opted even before taking his birth on the earth. This also reinforces the argument regarding avatarvad based on the argument that God descends to the earth in human form for liberating the humanity from the bad and the immoral forces. However, the word “Krishna” as mentioned in Rig Veda has been used as adjective of black for denoting the Dasa or dasyu who were the original inhabitants living in the land. In the Buddhist texts the term ‘kala’ has been used for denote the villainous men or of wicked tendency, while in the Jain texts the term ‘Krishna or Vasudev’ has been used for referring to the great personality, called as the ‘Slaka Purush’[195].
This further corroborates that the concept of Krishna as Avatar might have been devised in the post-Krishna period when stakes to perpetuate their hold and power in the society might have invented it. Otherwise, such an important concept must have found mention in the Vedas. These doubts are further reinforced when one analyses the brahamanical literature and art. “There is another wonderful transmutation that brahamanical literature and art had caused, in the transposition of Buddha in the place of the avatar of Krishna. A record in Paramesvara-Mahavraha-Vishnu graham cave temple at Mahabalipuram and of the time of Paramesvaravaraman, I (c. 670-700.) run like this: Matsya Kurmo Varahascha Narasimhascha Vamanah; Ramo Ramascha Buddha Kalkih tathaiva cha. This was not only a subtle subversion of Buddhism by drawing it into its fold, but also the supersession of that religious dominance, since the legitimacy of the Krishna incarnation of Vishnu had not a whit been impaired by this left-handed compliment to Budhavatara”[196].
It could have started, “from the stage when the heroes of the Vrishni-Yadava clan were apotheosised as divinities for the first time in Indian religious art, from their semi-historical stature. Here was also the germ of god-head absorbing hero-worship, ancestor worship and Vedic nature worship, post-Vedic Samkhya-Yoga doctrines of Purush-Prakriti binary concept, all rolled into one, in the Bhagavat religion given to the worship of these Vrishni heroes, which became popular form about 3rd-2nd century BC, as seen from the temples of this cult at Vidisha and Nagari-Madhyyamika. The Heliodors pillar records at Vidisha, carried on the Garuda column for the god ’Deva-deva’, by the devotee Heliodors who was the ambassador of the indo-Greek King of Antialkidas in the Avanti (Ujjain) court who calls himself as a Parma Bhagavat”[197].
“Thus, Krishna, the semi-historical personality of the late Vedic, pre-Epic stage and the emphatic prime-mover of the Epic stages of the Jaya-Bharata-Mahabharata Compendium (datable perhaps upto the 12 th century BC) and belonging to the Yadvas-Saavata clan, gets diversified by his apotheosisation as the Para and Vyuha format into the Vibhava or the avatara manifestation of the eraly Pauranic periods, is fully accepted as the Antaryami or the indweller-unmanifest god, echoing Upanishadic formulations, and later combining the Gopa-Damodara child-god, the miracle and joy of Gokul on the Yamuna and the heart-throb, comes to be established in the Agamic period. With the compilation of Bhagavat and Agni Purana in the 9th-10th century AD, he becomes the inextricable soul-mate of Nappinnai and Andal in the South, the gopi-vallabha and radha-lila in the North supercharged with god-devotee relationship…[198]”
Thus, the transformation of Krishna from the hero-worship to God Himself is the creation of Bhakti Movement in the sixteenth and the seventeenth century. Particularly, the Gouraiya sect of Vaihsnavism has taken lead in transforming Krishna as God Himself for scoring point over Shiva sect. Moreover, it was devised to give people succour and comfort reinforcing the faith in Hinduism in the wake of incursion made by Islam in the collective psyche of Hinduism[199].
Since then, the unfortunate trend has become a permanent reality of India wherein all the great personalities, the great men and the reformers have been hanged into temple and worship houses as god. This trend started after Krishna has continued until the date. The latest victim of such great farce has been Gandhi, who is in the process of becoming a god. The collaterals of such farce are the more damaging than the principal one. The worshipping of the great personality like Krishna transposed to the mythical realm gives the stakes many advantages. The first and the foremost ones is that by making a great personality the god or the demigod or the almighty God the society is absolved of the following his ideals, values and great deeds. Since the concerned person is the god or the avatar or God or some sort of demigod, his acts or deeds or the values and principles are the godly ones, not to be followed by the lesser mortals.
However, the stakes (socio-cultural and political elites) seem to have turned a great civilization, a robust culture and universal monotheistic religion founded by Krishan into a dogmatic, superstitious and ritualistic one, just for maintaining and perpetuating their hold on the power relations and the domination. Thus, the philosophy, the religion and the life system that was meant for liberating the whole humanity was reduced to the narrowest denomination.
I
Revolutionary and Game Changer
Krishna ushered into such a great social, political, cultural and religious changes that old systems based on dogma, superstition, ritualism and ‘obstructive’ Vedic rituals/ acts collapsed within one generation. The changes were so revolutionary, futuristic and swift that perhaps no other person in the human history might have engineered such a vast array of epoch-making changes and modifications within one generation. The power base of many classes or castes of the ancient Indian society caved in to the mass based popular aspirations. Krishna gave vent to popular aspirations by making political and socio-cultural elites responsive and to some extent accountable to them.
It is worth mentioning that Yadavas and their different branches have inherited some republican and democratic legacies from their ancestors. Rig Veda mentions Yadu tribe rather Kula as a tribe does not hold republican credo as they used to (Kula does not translated into tribe; it is more nearer to dynasty) as anti-monarchical and having Vritya or Mandal or circle system implying the Yadavas’ republican and democratic legacies[200].
Kansa had usurped all the powers, jailing his father, and started persecuting the prominent Yadavas, and the people were suffering under his autocratic rule. Krishna, after exterminating the King of Mathura, did not take the power in to his hands but restored the old system of Vritya or Mandal (circle system) and ruling with the consensus in the consultation with the Samati or Sabha (council)[201]. Contrary to the belief among some scholars viewing such democratic and republican traditions as tribal, Krishna popularized the system of rule by the consensus (Sarv Sahamati or Shamati). Under the suzerainty of Pandavs, Krishna tried to enforce it as the part of the Rajdharama at both macro and micro level of the ancient Indian society.
Moreover, Krishna followed very pragmatic policy in this regard. He destroyed or getting such kings not following the rule by the consensus and in aid with Sabha or Samati ruined, and replacing with his son or other right inheritor as happened in case of Jarasangh, Pandya, Anga (Narkasur), Dantavakra, etc. It is for this reason he was honoured with title of “Vasudev”, and this innovative mechanism came to be known as “Rightful Conquest” or “Dharam Sammat Rule” later appropriated by the Dharmashastra. The shelving of ‘Rightful Conquest” proved to be one of the prime factors leading to such a mutual hatred and bickering among Indian Kings that resulted into the political balkanization, foreign rule and subjugation[202].
Nevertheless, this great act of Krishna must have angered the stakes believing in the traditional concept of Raj Dharma, which was nothing but personal rule with aggrandisement of Rajkosh (treasury or the public money) for private interests. They might have been scared that Krishna’s such initiatives would not allow their personal rule and class or caste domination. Hence, they might have coined such a system based on falsehood, hypocrisy, superstition and ritualism that could not be uprooted despite the passing of three millennium and coming of many reformers such as Buddha, Mahaveer, and countless foreign invasions and one thousand years of foreign rule.
The most important aspect of this great game of the domination and the subjugation is that it started after Krishna departure. Its main objective was to transform any Krishna like reformer or game changer into God or demigod, hanging them metaphorically in temples and worship houses. After thousand years, perhaps Karl Marx got glimpse of such farce when he came to conclusion that religion is the opium of society. What he meant perhaps might be the generation of fatalistic attitude that traditional and dogmatic social elites or the priestly caste or class or religions foster in the people. However, the opium that stakes manufactured thousand years ago in India has still not allowed people to see the truth.
The truth seems to be that it was a very big conspiracy to keep the whole humanity steeped in the dogmatism, myopia and superstition. It was in India and in the context of Krishna that stakes pioneered the technique of smoking out a great personality, a game and rule changer by making him a god, and then a God. It is easy to manufacture a God out of a great personality and great man having a lot of charisma. In addition, it is the most convenient as well because how could lesser mortals follow what the God or demigod has said or done. By making him a god or God, they could rest in peace, as his ghost would not haunt the society or threaten to do so to the vested interest[203].
It is not so that nobody had protested or tried to point the contradiction, but he or she was shunted out depending on the person and situation. Moreover, the stakes had cast such an impregnable net of social exclusion and moral fear that nobody ventured to think about, doing anything or venting their feelings is just a taboo. In this respect, the stakes have erected a very flexible yet a very tangible informal channel for filtering such a potential threat upsetting the whole network of the deception and the mysticism. It is sin to think or see God as human being and in the respect of Krishna it is the greatest sin and even a thought comes to one’s mind he or she will have to do penance[204].
It is ironic that the message and knowledge that Krishna gave was meant for the all, not to be limited to one place and time. The main premise of Samkhya and Bhagavat is that whole world rather the universe is interlinked, a universal consciousness permeating the innate and inanimate objects[205]. One is in the all and the all is in the one like a drop in ocean, which contains ocean as well as contained in it. His famous childhood antics of stealing butter from every house symbolize his universalism. Whenever her foster mother Yashoda Ma used to ask as to why he stole butter from others house when there was plenty of the butter available, he used to say that all the Gokul mandal was his home considering them as his own[206].
Gita--the magnum opus of Krishna—is the most prevailing proof of his universalism. It is another matter that stakes have not spared this song of universalism from their narrow and sectarian attitude. Gita has been distorted, subverted and perverted to such extent that it is difficult to decide as whether it is extension of a Purana or a Smirti. There are so many interpolations that it is difficult to separate grain from chaff. These all were done to transform Krishna into the almighty God mystifying him to the extent that it would be difficult to reinstate his historicity. The very angle and narrative of the discourse has been changed in such manner that Krishna speaking about the grandeur and glory of God becomes God himself. When the third person narrative changes into first person of God, the reader is caught unaware and by the time he comes to know, he is confused as to Krishna is taking about God or as God himself[207].
However, if one analyses Buddhism comparing it with Krishna’s Karmyoga, his temporal and non-temporal philosophy, his Premyoga or universalism, one would find that only difference between the two is that while Krishna believes in Sagun Brahma, Buddha in Nirgun Braham. Krishna’s Premyoga or Samkhya, which seems to be Buddha’s non-violence, has been stretched beyond the limit by the latter. Where Krishna Premyoga ends or fails to make any desired effect on opponent, the violence begins when it becomes inevitable. However, Buddha believes that non-violence should be maintained even if faced with violence.[208]
Nevertheless, the contention that Gita and Krishna’s philosophy has been borrowed from the Buddhism or interpolated wholly is akin to putting the horse behind the cart. There is similarity between Krishna Karmyoga and Samkhya, and Buddhism, only difference is in respect to the existence of God. While Buddhism denies existence of any God, it does acknowledge the existence of Nirgun Braham or universal consciousness or nothingness. Other difference between the two is the use of violence: While Krishna believes in calibrated use of violence and he is in favour of resorting to violence as last effort, Buddha is outright votary of non-violence shunning any type of the violence.
However, Krishna’s Premyoga, which is natural corollary of his Samkhya and Bhagavat philosophy, is the non-violence with empathy for the whole humanity and violence is the only weapon of the last resort. Whether it was the Mahabharata war or the extermination of Shishupal or the Kans or the Jarasangh, or for that matter any other war or duel that he fought, he tried first to resolve the matter peacefully and in the non-violent way. Only after exhausting the peaceful and non-violent options, he resorted to violence as last resort. He never initiated violence without any provocation[209].
The influence of Krishna philosophy and his different temporal and non-temporal theories on the Buddhism could be deciphered from gleaning the various Buddhist texts, which seems to be the extension, supplantation, and elaboration of the Krishna philosophy[210]. There might be some unintended addition or distortion, which is a normal process in the articulation of a theory or philosophy and spiritual discourse.
Nevertheless, the core philosophies of Krishna’s Bhagavata, Karmyoga, Premyoga and Gyanyog or Samkhya are as original and authentic as Krishna himself is. The very personality of Krishna, his conducts, his behaviour, his responses and his attitude towards whole humanity embodies his philosophy and theory that is in Geeta. Therefore, the argument of some historians and scholars that Gita existed before Krishna does not stand the scrutiny of reason in the wake of this argument. The very existence of Gita proves the historicity of Krishna and vice versa.
Even Mahabharata, which is the epic of Krishna and Yadavas, has not been spared from the subversion and the interpolation. Perhaps no other epic has been subjected to so many interpolations and subversion as Mahabharata and that is why its historicity has been lost to the Brahamnic discourse and mysticism. The Hero--Krishna, appears in the middle and showered with derogatory terms of ‘Gwala’ ‘Chor’, ‘Chichhora’ and characterless, yet with the very august title of ‘Poorna Avatar’, while fate, destiny, Brahmins, Rishis, half human and half animal or river take the centre stage[211].
‘ But there remains one other anomalous characteristic of the history great war, as recorded in the Mahabharata …….that is the extraordinary abruptness and infelicity with which Brahamanical discourses such as essays on law, on morals, sermons on divine things, and even instruction in the so-called sciences are recklessly grafted upon the main narrative…. Indeed no effort has been spared by Brahamanical compilers to convert the history of the Great War into a vehicle for Brahamanical teaching and so skilfully are many of these interpolations interwoven with the story that it is frequently impossible to narrate one, without referring to other…..’[212]
Even Gita has not been spared from the ‘grafting of Brahamanical discourse on main narrative’ as is clear from contradictory statements and positions in the respect of the Veda and Vedic rituals mentioned therein. This has led to lack of the unity of the theme and subject. “There are several passages in the Gita which it is not very easy to reconcile with one another; and no attempt is made to harmonise them.”[213] It is so because of the interpolation and ‘grafting of Brahamanical discourse’, particularly in respect of Vedic authority, rituals, Varnashram and equality and justice. How could the same Krishna adhere to the superiority of the Vedas and the Vedic rituals, which he considers as obstruction for liberation?[214] How could the idea of unity characterize Krishna’s magnum opus when so many contradictory additions and interpolations have been made, with sole purpose of undermining the revolutionary and reformative agenda of Krishna?
Despite the fact that the ideas of unity do not fit well with Gita as contended by Wheeler, Max Muller maintains that ….’the Gita fits pretty well into the setting given to it in the Bhishma Parvan; to the fact that feeling of Arjuna, which gives occasion to it, is not all inconsistent, but is most consonant…….I am prepared to adhere, I will not say without diffidence, to the theory of genuineness of Bhagvadgita as a portion of original Mahabharata.[215]
Moreover, the most quotable quotes of Gita, ‘Yada Yada……Srijahami’ has been used to prove the Avatarvad but this is in the direct conflict with the Karmyoga. Avatarvad is a fatalistic concept not providing freedom to do something for the upliftment of the self, society and the populace. Individuals have not to do anything but just to wait for the Avatar who would come liberating them from their oppressive situations. No wonder that Indian society has been waiting to be liberated for the thousand years but that Avatar has no descended yet, despite the saga of subjugation, exploitation and genocide that started from foreign invasion around 1000 AD onward, is still continued. Though foreign rule has ended, yet their legacies are being carried forward unabated, with some prefixes and suffixes judiciously mixed with modern jargons and the confusing symbols and discourse.
Krishna through Gita not only wanted to prod Arjun to fight the war of Mahabharata and help in cleansing the bad and unjust forces from the earth, but also to make everyone the Arjun and the Krishna. In Gita, he says to Arjun that there has been no time when he or Krishna has not been on the earth and there will be not time when they will not be here.[216] This is the very first thing that he speaks to Arjun on war front when he gets disillusioned after seeing that the enemies that he is going to fight are none other than his grandfather, teacher, cousins and relatives. This is the most important aspect of his teaching confirming the immortality of the soul. It puts Krishna and Arjun on the same footing with elevated position occupied by former: both are universal soul and part of universal consciousness that has been and will be taking birth on the earth.
This also implies that though both are the immortal soul and the part of the universal consciousness, yet there is one difference of the role: one is teacher and other is taught and disciple. However, it is to be remembered that both Krishna and Arjun were the great friends, apart from being the cousins. The difference in the status of both has emerged because of Karmyoga: while Krishna is Karmyogi out to help the humanity in making the good and the righteous forces triumph over the bad and the unjust elements as signified by the Kauravas. Without any attachment, any desire for personal gain, any fruitative actions or any desire for result, Krishna is perfect Yogi in sync with Universal consciousness; while other-- Arjun—is ordinary human being attached to the result and involved in the action as the doer.
Hence, the difference between the status of these two persons: both are human beings but one is the perfect Karmyogi, while other is the ordinary human being, attached to the world and the worldly relations, and disillusioned due to the feeling of the doership. While one is liberated, living and acting like lotus in the mud of this life, the other is engrossed in this world, being pulled and pushed by illusory energy of universal consciousness. This gap or difference between these two has been filled up with god and devotee relationship.
This is certainly not a relation between the God and a devotee as is being made out by many experts, Pundits, Guru, Acharyas, and Vaishavites. Bhakti movements and its proponents have interpolated this relation between God and a devotee, particularly during the middle of Second millennium AD. During the time of the Krishna, there was no such devotional type of the worshipping and it was more a sort of the sacrificial offerings to Fire (Agni) and other elements of nature in polytheistic format. Moreover, there was no mention of such relationship as existing between the two in the Mahabharata or the Jaya, the original text. Therefore, it is the later addition and interpolation to portray Krishna as the almighty God. The only possible relations existing between the two, apart from being the cousins, the friends, and the muse might be that of Vasudev and a human being[217].
Therefore, at the time when Gita was happening, Krishna had attained the title of Vasudev as he was addressed as such by Bhisma Pitamah many times[218] and others as well. Moreover, he had already destroyed Kans, Jarasangh, and the other Prati-Vasudev at the beginning of war, and was going to destroy the remaining Prati-Vasudev in the ensuing war. So at the most, the relations between Krishna and Arjun were that of a Vasudev and crucial person whose participation and non-participation was going to decide the fate of war[219].
Hence, Krishna as the God is the later interpolation and addition by the vested interests[220] not wanting any person to become Vasudev and repeat the great acts and the deeds of Krishna. One can decipher and deconstruct the desperation to turn Krishna as God by the facts that even the term, Vasudev, has been added to the various names by which Lord Vishnu or Narayan is addressed. The main purpose of the Gita might have been to prod Arjun to fight the war revealing to the world and future generation that anybody could be Arjun or Krishna and even Arjun like great warrior and person could be like anybody, if he is not free from the egoistic grip of the doership and submerged in the fruitative actions. As regarding Krishna, not everybody can be like Krishna but at least somebody can be like him as attested by the Jain texts.[221] At least one person can be the Krishna or the Vasudev during one period doing away the Prati-Vasudev or the evil persons like Kans, Jarasangh, Duryodhana, Ravana, etc. or the system or the socio-political milieu giving rise to such forces.
When a Krishna or Vasudev comes, he not only destroys Duryodhana, Kansa or Jarasangh but the complete socio-cultural and political milieu, giving rise to such evil forces. It also attacks the traditional powers and the hegemony of the social and the political elites enjoying the unaccounted authority, the supremacy and the dominance over the society. Moreover, Krishna was such a potent force that he had established a new benchmark in the form of Vasudev. What might have been very upsetting and rather threatening for the traditional social and political elites of the ancient India that he had provided virtual guidelines for becoming Vasudev through various acts and machinations. And his life itself was such a broader canvas of the Vasudevhood that one could easily imbibe them becoming the Vasudev. However, even if one could not become Vasudev, then he or she would certainly become an Arjun of the post-Gita.
However, another Krishna-Vasudev or Arjun was the dangerous proposition for the vested interests of ancient period, rather for all the period to come. It is for this reason that Krishna and his Yadavas have never been discussed and deconstructed in analytic way. Whatever discourse has been there it has been within the parameters of the mystical and the godly entity. It is for this reason that Krishna has been relegated to the other world of the mysticism. Nevertheless, his is such personality that it refuses to put stay in other world more often than not sweeping across the collective memory and the consciousness of India. It has been ironic that the more Krishna, his philosophy, life and his messages have been repressed, supressed and distorted, the more popular, versatile and universal he, his philosophy, ideals and messages has been becoming over the three millennium.
While Indians under the leadership of the stakes have been trying to hang him in the temples and the worship houses, the foreign invaders have been trying to dislodge him and his belongings even from those temples. Krishna live or dead, in temple or outside, in politics or in history, in art or literature, in folk lore or in martial art is a revolutionary par excellence whose very presence has transformed the ground situation, threatening the status quoism and heralding a new dawn. The reactionary, the conservative and the status quoist forces have always been wary of engaging Krishna as the philosopher, the politician, the mass leader, the strategist, the family head, the society leader, the gamechanger and trendsetter. Once he is engaged as politician, philosopher, or ideologue, everything would turn down: The modern would become ancient, while ancient would look modern and even post-modern.
The postmodernity we are taking about right now seems to have been anticipated by him three thousand years ago when he said the truth is multifaceted and one has to decide which one is his truth[222]. The reality is subjective as well as objective depending on the person and situation. However, Krishna’s political view goes beyond postmodernism when he says that the truth or the reality is multifaceted depending upon the person, situation, exigencies, space and time. Beyond it, there is a universal truth, which is though relative to time and space, yet its core is constant—what he calls Dharma or Truth which is constant relative to the time and the space[223].
This can be illustrated by the example of Raj Dharma, which is a duty of ruler being fair, and impartial, whether we call it by the name of King, Emperor, Prime Minister or President, towards ruled. This Raj Dharma is constant whether it is the modern times, the postmodern, the post-postmodern, the mediaeval, or the ancient. This Raj Dharma has been constant in the ancient, the mediaeval and the modern times and will remain so in future. Thus Krishna, born 3000 thousand years ago, seem to be more relevant than the postmodernist in the sense that he anticipated postmodernism when he said that the truth or the reality is multifaceted and can be seen from many angles.
Though like the postmodernist he believed that there is no universal narrative[224], yet he posited that there is universal truth or Dharma of every aspect of life, which remains constant, with the changes happening in relative to time and space[225]. Therefore, the postmodernist can borrow vital lifeline from Krishna: there is no universal narrative of a truth or reality, though there is a universal truth or reality, the inability to find it does not mean its non-existence. If there is any doubt in this regard, the premises should be checked as contradiction does not exist and if it exists, there must be some problem with premises, as And Rynd has averred.
Krishna was more than 3000 thousand years ahead of his time and how the ancient society could negotiate him except by making him god or mystifying him? However, Krishna’s personality and his life were such that it could not fit the profile of god as well. Hence, there seems to be the layer after layers of distortions, half-truths and exaggerations about him. However, it was ironic that a universal personality with universal message of one world as reflected in his Bhagavat philosophy has been lost into religious narrowness and myopia. It is another matter that the status quoist had used his universality for inserting fatalism in collective psyche of our society. Nonetheless, that could have provided the world leadership to Bharata, had not we hanged him to the temples and the worship houses.
Nevertheless, this universal phenomenon was limited to the time and the space relegating it to the myth or rather worse than it, hanging between the myth and the reality. Many interpolations and additions were made in the Gita to suit the vested interests. Consequently, the most secular book of the world with pragmatic philosophy of the life has been reduced to a religious book of one denomination as an aid to subserve the feudal and the parochial interests of the social and the political elites[226]. It was meant for the emancipation of the humanity but for the stakes, it has been distorted to the extent that it reads like religious documents of a particular religion. Perhaps most of the people are not aware that Krishna propounded not one Gita but three Gita—one is the core Gita dealing with Karmyoga and providing guidance as to how to live a meaningful and peaceful life.
There is another Gita, called as the Udhav Gita propounding the Samkhya, Bhagavat-the monotheistic philosophy, and Premyoga. It has been subverted by rechristening it as the ‘Ekadash Skandh’ and loading with brahamanical discourse. It discusses the life-death cycle in spiritual way. It also deals with the origin of the world and its destruction, and endeavours to establish a just, equalitarian and pure life system[227].
While core Gita is meant for the worldly people, the Udhav Gita has been propounded for the hermit life, and discusses the creation and its dissolution. The third Gita is called Anugita in which there were the ways and means to increase one’s power and how this power can be harnessed for the well-being of the humanity. It maintains that the human being and the society can emancipate from the bondage and limitations only by working in sync with the universal self, considering whole world as extension of his soul[228]. Thus, Krishna propounded a complete life theory consisting of spiritual, worldly, social, political and philosophical as well[229].
What is the most astounding fact about Krishna is that he not only propounded these theories but also practiced these in his life. His whole life was based on the praxis of these theories. Whether be it the power relations and its various manifestations, the code of conduct of a King or a man in power, or the art and techniques of war, or the immense possibility and potentiality of peace or the centre of power or centre of peace or the universal religion or the social, political, economic and cultural equality or be it prestige and glory of womanhood, or their position in the society, be it hierarchy of caste or class or racial discrimination based on colour and other pretty matters, Krishna not only presented the means to remove these anomalies and contradictions but also practiced in his life. He propounded the theories by practising, not vice versa. Therefore, he is unique from all the predecessors and successors in the sense that he first practiced a phenomenon and then propounding the theory.
As Sister Nivedita has written, “Krishna conquers the snake Kaliya and leaves his own footprint on his head. Here is the same struggle that we can trace in the personality of Shiva as Nagesvara, between the new devotional faith and old traditional worship of snakes and serpents. He (Krishna ) persuades the shepherds to abandon the sacrifice to Indra. Here he directly overrides the older Vedic gods who as in some parts of the Himalayas today, seem to know nothing of the interposition of Brahma.[230]
It is for this reason that stakes tried their best to make Krishna a god or myth. It had become necessary because anyone could repeat what Krishna had done carrying forward his legacies, posing renewed threat to their interests. Krishna had become the biggest threat to the two classes or the castes of Indian society—social and political elites (priestly and political class). He gave open challenge to the priestly class by opposing the system of worshipping based on fear and greed (of getting heaven or birth in a rich and prosperous family) and terming Vedas and Vedic rituals as obstruction instead[231].
He discarded the birth-based division of the society through his acts, dealings and deeds, demonstrating that birth could not be the basis for classifying the society. Through matrimonial alliance with lower castes and tribal people, he challenged the rigid stratification of the society based on the caste. He founded monism and Bhagavat- a monotheistic religion, propounded Karmyoga, and Samkhya as a way of liberation from the sorrow and life cycle, discarding the ritualism, the superstition and the dogmatism[232]. This was the open challenge to the power and privilege of the priestly class.
Guru Sandipan, Vyas, Ghor Angaris who later became the Jain Tirthankar, all were the Yadavas, abandoning the caste based social stratification grounded on the birth. As per Vedas, the social division was functional and its structure was constructed on that. Nevertheless, it was distorted later on by making it hereditary as the some classes, particular upper two—Priestly and ruling class—found it quite convenient to perpetuate their domination and superiority. Krishna challenged this hegemony by providing his own example and that of other Yadavas exposing them before the society that anyone could be Brahmin or Kshatriya. What was important was one’s doings or Karma making one Brahmin or Shudras. To negate this, certain stanzas have been inserted in Gita saying that I (Krishna or God) am the Creator of Varnashram and one should stick to one’s station, indirectly supporting the birth based division of the society.[233]
If one juxtaposes what is mentioned in the Gita in reference to the social division of the society based on the birth and Krishna’s conduct and acts, one would not miss the systematic conspiracy to mystify and neutralize him by making him God. Krishna who did not hesitate for a moment to accept the matrimonial alliance from Shudra or tribal girl, or his Yadavas, who have been termed as “Asuras” due to their proclivity to mix with people of the lower caste or Shudras or ‘Dasa’[234] have been consummating such alliances. Can it be imagined that the same Krishna has been quoted in the Gita supporting the Varnashram system or justifying the social hierarchy based on caste (based on birth)? Even a child could discern the discrepancies and it would not be act of sacrilege to assert such chaffing of the grains from the husk. To preclude such possibility, the interpolator has warned doubting Thomas about having any qualm in this regard.[235]
Ironically, it is alleged that many tenets of the Gita have been borrowed from the Buddhism. This is akin to putting horse before cart, as ‘there is no mention of Buddhism (in Gita), though some of the views of the Gita are like those of Buddhism. Both protest against the absolute authority for the Vedas and attempt to relax the rigours of caste by basing it on a less untenable foundation. Both are the manifestations of the same spiritual upheaval, which shook the ritualistic religion, though the Gita was the more conservative[236] and less thoroughgoing protest. Buddha announced the golden means, though his own teaching was not quite true to it. To prefer celibacy to marriage, fasting to feasting, is not to practise the golden mean. The Gita denounces the religious madness of the hermits and the spiritual suicide of saints who prefer darkness to daylight and sorrow to joy. It is possible to attain salvation without resorting to the cult of narrowness’.[237]
Despite the fact that the word nirvanas occurs in the Gita,[238] this does not show any borrowing from Buddhism, since it is not peculiar to it. In the description of the ideal man, the Gita and Buddhism agree. As a philosophy and religion, the Gita is more complete than Buddhism, which emphasises much over the negative side. The Gita adopts the ethical principles of Buddhism, while it by implication condemns the negative metaphysics of Buddhism as the root of all unbelief and error. It is more in continuity with the past, and therefore had a better fortune than Buddhism in India.[239]
Moreover, ‘some of the ground occupied by the Gita is common to it with Buddhism, and although various previous thinkers are alluded directly and indirectly in the Gita. There is, one view of the facts of this question, which appears to corroborate the conclusion deducible by means of negative argument here referred to. The main points, on which Buddha’s protest against Brahmanism rests, seem to be the true authority of the Vedas and true view of the differences of the caste. On the most points of doctrinal speculation, Buddhism is still but one aspect of the older Brahmanism.[240] (This, older Brahmanism, has been appropriated from Krishna’s Samkhya, and Bhagavat)
The Gita, while it does not go the whole length that Buddha goes, itself embodies a protest against the views current about the time of its composition. “The Gita does not, like Buddhism, absolutely reject Vedas, but it shelves them. The Gita does not totally root out caste. It places caste on a less untenable basis. One of the two hypotheses therefore presents itself as a rational theory of these facts. Either the Gita and Buddhism were alike the outward manifestation of one and the same spiritual upheaval which shook to its centre the current religion, the Gita being the earlier and less thorough-going form of it: or Buddhism having already begun to tell on Brahmanism, the Gita was an attempt to bolster it up, so to say, at its least weak points, the weaker ones being altogether. I do not accept the latter alternative, because I cannot see any indication in the Gita of an attempt to compromise with a powerful attack on the old Hindu system (Vedic )”[241] …
“…….Buddhism is perfectly intelligible as one outcome of that play of thought on high spiritual topics, which in its other, and as we may say, less thorough-going manifestations, we see in Upanishads and Gita.”[242]This is so because the innumerable interpolations and Brahamanical discourses have distorted Gita and finally it has been transformed into a confusing treatise. “We have a noteworthy extract from a standard Buddhist work, touching the existence of the soul. Compare that with the corresponding doctrine in the Gita. It will be found that the two are at one in rejecting the identity of soul with senses, body, etc. The Gita then goes on to admit a soul separate from these. Buddhism rejects that also, and sees nothing but the senses.”[243]
“ Let us compare our small modern events with those grand old occurrence. Suppose our ancestors to have been attached to the ceremonial law of the Vedas, as we are now attached to the lifeless ritualism, the Upanishads and Gita might be in a way comparable to movements like that of the late Rajamohun Roy. Standing, as far as possible, on the antique way, they attempt as Raja Ramohan attempted in these latter days, to bring into prominence and to elaborate the higher and nobler aspects of the old belief. Buddhism would be comparable to the further departure from the old traditions, which was led by Babu Keshav Chander Sen. The points of dissent in the older times were pretty nearly the same as the point of dissent now. …..In this view the old system, the philosophy of Upanishads and Gita and the philosophy of Buddha, constitute a regular intelligible progression.[244]
As Garbe has commented, ‘The teachings of Samkhya-Yoga constitute almost entirely the foundation of the philosophical observations of the Bhagvadgita. In comparison with them, Vedanta takes a second place. Samkhya and Yoga are often mentioned by name, while the Vedanta appears only once’[245]. It is the Krishna who propounded Samkhya and Yoga, permeating the whole of Gita and Bhagavat –the first Monotheism of the world. Whatever Vedic philosophy found is latter addition and interpolation. It is said that some elements of Samkhya was even in Veda and it is even maintained that Kapil Muni[246] propounded Sankhya before Krishna. This seems to be latter addition and interpolation so that Krishna could be shown as propagating the Vedic philosophy. The fact was that he was against Vedic rituals and superstition, stopped the worship of Vedic deity such as Indra and the serpents, the ghosts and the human beings.
What might have shocked the highly regimented and stratified society of 1000-900 BC was the Yadavas act of straying from the Vedic fold and rituals, and mixing with Shudras or ‘Dasa’ initiated and formalized by Krishna. It was the very daring act of entering the marriage alliance with ‘Shudra’ or the tribal girl (Jambwati) and that too by such popular figure as Krishna who despite being not declared King or heir apparent like his elder brother, Balarama, used to enjoy more power and respect than a King. Even today’s leader or the ancient version of dynastic King could not dare to indulge in such dalliance, not even one case has come to the notice so far.
Moreover, Krishna was very fond of the downtrodden and oppressed people such as his friends of childhood or his peers or sixteen thousand hapless women whom society could not accept even if they had been liberated by Krishna from the bondage of demon like King of Pragjyotishpur (Modern Assam) Narkasur[247]. It was the Krishna who adopted them, giving his name and telling them, they were his queens as he had given them all the Magalsutra or matrimonial thread. Can any leader or King dare to think such act even today in the modern age? Enacting such daring deed is a remote possibility. In the thousand years of human civilization not a single person has undertaken such daring act and nor there is possibility anyone would dare to repeat such a revolutionary act.
It is ironic that for this revolutionary and daring act our society had given brickbats to the Krishna instead. In common parlance, Krishna is derided and jeered at for this act. The majority considers him a licentious person and the stakes vilify him for such act. While priestly class reinforced the idea of Krishna as God with the help of this revolutionary act, which is termed as ‘leela of God or the antics of God’, the ruling elites had found it quite handy to brand him as fallen person. Nevertheless, such is the personality of Krishna that it keeps on haunting the collective psyche of India and the world.
Apart from Krishna, another Yadav, Ghor Angaris who was the second guru of Krishna after Guru Sandipan, enacted another revolutionary feat: He himself performed his last rites embracing the Jainism after leaving the Vedic religion. He became one of the Tiranthakars (equivalent to Prophet) who is known as Arashtinemi. Under the direction of Krishna, Ghor Angaris, Sandipan, Durvasa, Udhav and others chartered new path for the moribund Vedic religion after freeing it from dry rituals, superstition and dogmatism. In fact, Ghor Angaris left the Vedic religion in the protest against such ritualism and superstition[248].
Under Krishna’s guidance, dilapidated Vedic religion found new direction and vigour. It is the human beings’ actions that are important and life cycle is determined by their good and bad action. It is the net effect of good and bad actions that decides ones Prarabdh (destiny or future life). One can get liberation from sorrow and happiness of the life only by doing actions without any desire of result. If one is not bothered about the result, he gets instant peace and bliss, not from rituals and superstition. This is what Krishna taught the people though his actions and that is the fulcrum of Gita.
However, it was open challenge to the superiority and hegemony of the priestly class (Brahmin) and it happened first time in the history of Aryavrata that Varnashram system collapsed under its weight. However, the power and wherewithal of the priestly class or caste was not to be underestimated as it hit back through the unique mechanism and method. To maintain its high position and power in the society, they again resorted to their old techniques of converting a universal and inclusive system that is the Vedic religion into dry ritualism and dogmatism. The priestly class neutralized the changes and the transformation brought by Krishna and Yadavas, and in the retrograde act they were actively aided and supported by the traditional ruling class whom Krishna’s Raj Dharma had rendered powerless and without any credibility. This class was also desperate to take it revenge and it got this opportunity after Krishna[249].
The greatest farce of the humanity and the human history was in the full force. Apart from the destruction of the evidence and personal memorial (the flute was found off the coast of Somnath temple, his disc, his sword and others, the gold was plundered), there started a great game of transforming Krishna from temporal domain to the religious, to the mythical one. For that, it was necessary he be presented as extraordinary celestial entity and his philosophy, Samkhya, ideas in Gita and his ideas on statecraft, war, diplomacy, and other social and political innovation were appropriated to the Upanishads, Puranas, and to the characters of real and surreal characters of Mahabharata such as Bhisma, Apastamba, Vidur, and hordes of Brahmin, saints, miracles and other celestial figures. “On all these points, we have opinions expressed, which conclusively establish identity of doctrine as between the Upanishads and Bhagvadgita on the one hand, and Sanatsugatiya on the other.”[250]
Bhishma’s wisdom on the statecraft, war, thumb of the rules for conducting the stately affairs , the pro-people, just, equalitarian rule, and related subjects as imparted to Yudhister after his coronation as King of Hastinapur after great War, while he was lying on death-bed seem to be that of Krishna’s appropriated to the patriarch, perhaps to counterbalance the latter . As per the text, it was Krishna who suggested him to go before dying patriarch and benefit from his wisdom![251]
This also seems to be interpolation as to how dying man could preach such wisdom and ideas on the statecraft. Moreover, his teaching seems to be more of Krishna than that of Bhisma. The influence and imprint of Krishna’s Raj Dharam, political philosophy, pro-people rule based on justice and equality, idealistic yet pragmatic political philosophy is clearly perceptible in the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. In fact, Shanti Parva is a very judicious blend of Krishna’s philosophy, his idealistic yet pragmatic politics, divine origin theory and absolutism; this might have been added to make Bhisma a towering personality and indirectly lowering the greatness of Krishna[252].
Apart from it, a concerted effort of creating the Puranas and Upanishads seems to have been made, just to achieve this purpose. “The accepted dates for early Upanishads are 1000 BC to 300 BC”[253]. While Upanishads were being produced as antipode to Krishna’s paradigm shifting philosophy as his ideas and philosophy were being appropriated without giving credit to him, various Puranas were being created just to mystify him showing him as the mythical figure. ‘Lastly come the Upanishads; and what is their object? To show the utter uselessness, nay, the mischievousness of all rituals performances (compare our Gita pp. 47, 48, 84); to condemn every sacrificial act which has for its motive a desire or reward (Compare Gita, p. 119), to deny, if not the existence, at least the exceptional and exalted character of the Devas (compare Git, pp76-84) and to teach that there is no hope of salvation and deliverance, except by the individual self-recognising the true and universal self and finding rest there, where alone rest can be found[254].
“At Gita, Chapter II, stanza 45, Arjun is told that the Vedas relate only to the effects of three qualities, which effects Arjun is instructed to overcome. At Gita, Chapter VI, stanza 44, Arjun is told that he who has acquired some little devotion, and then exerts himself for further progress, rises above the Divine word-Vedas. And there are one or two other passages of like nature. They all treat the Vedas as concerned with ritual alone”[255]
If one compares Gita, Udhav Gita, Anugita, Samkhya, Bhagavat Philosophy with various Upanishads, one would find how these have been appropriated by priestly class and composers of Upanishads without giving credit to Krishna. Moreover, the date of their composition has been stretched to the mythical time preceding the Gita and Krishna. Though comparative study undertaken by German as well as Indian scholar has nailed this outright lie and propaganda, yet it has not found any merit worth recognition in the discourse and history[256].
II
Political Matrix
Even during his lifetime, Krishna and Yadavas were subjected to the disgrace and the opposition, and non-co-operation from the ruling elites. The majority of Kings, though was opposed to Krishna and Yadavas outwardly due to Jarasangh and Kansa, and their overambitious campaign of getting hold over the Aryavrata, were inwardly very afraid of Krishna and his Raj Dharma. As it put the responsibility and the welfare of people before anything, they considered it as unwanted and unwarranted interference in their unrestricted and absolute right to crown[257].
By finishing the autocratic king of Mathura, Krishna had challenged not only Jarasangh but also all those kings considering their birth right to the crown and brooking no interference of any kind, be it the Raj Dharma or the welfare of the people. Krishna exterminated Kansa with Yadavas support as latter had transgressed the all limits of Raj Dharma by oppressing his people, incarcerating his father, brother-in-law and sister who were Krishna’s parents, i and unleashing terror and mayhem in the kingdom.
However, this act not only angered Jarasangh but almost all kings of Aryavrata also. This became clear when Jarasangh launched attacks on Mathura for avenging the killing of Kansa not once, but the seventeenth times; no king or kingdoms came to the help of Mathura. Even though there were many kingdoms such as Avanti, Chedi, Hastinapur, and others where Yadavas or Krishna’s relatives were the reigning kings, they did not provide any help to the Mathura. On contrary, Chedi’s King Shishupal, who was cousin of Krishna (he was son of one of his paternal aunts) openly sided with Jarasangh in his campaign against Mathura and Krishna. Moreover, Hastinapur that was related to Krishna and Yadavas as Kunti, the Queen of the Kingdom, was Krishna’s aunt, did not wink any light of the support for their kinsmen. Not even the neighbouring kingdoms sided with Mathura and Krishna in their battle against Magadha[258].
When Jarasangh could not defeat Mathura despite making seventeenth attacks, he formed a grand alliance of powerful kings of Shishupal, Rukmi of Vidarbha, Kashi and others along with one foreigner—Kalyavan from far western tribal region of central Asia, and drew a strategy to attack from three sides. When Krishna came to know this grand conspiracy, he made counterstrategy of the deception, the division, the shifting of the war to Gomantak and then the migration to a well-fortified place like Dwaraka, keeping in mind that no would come to the help of Yadavas[259]. As to why it happened that no King or Kingdom came to the help of Krishna and Yadavas of Mathura, there are many theories.
While some says that, it was so because Jarasangh was very much powerful and nobody wanted to invite his wrath by helping them, others maintain that Yadavas were so aggressive and quarrelsome that none wanted to help them. Both theories do not stand the scrutiny of reason as there were Hastinapur, Panchal and other kingdoms, which were not less powerful than Jarasangh, and aggression or quarrelsomeness of Yadavas does not hold much ground, as it had not much to do with helping one’s neighbourly kingdom or relatives.
This unwillingness of neighbourly principalities and their own kinsmen’s kingdom of Yadavas to help Krishna and Mathura had its origin in Yadavraj act of killing an unjust and anti-people king, Kansa shaking their sense of security and their birth right to the crown. It appeared Krishna’s act of enforcing the Raj Dharma had angered all the kings of Aryavrata and that was why they did not come to his help.
However, Krishna being not an ordinary person, had anticipated the non-cooperative attitude of his neighbouring kingdoms and that of his own relatives, formulating his strategy and tactics accordingly. This anticipating faculty and formulating the strategy and tactics which used to keep him three steps ahead of his adversaries made him invincible and unfathomable like ocean, setting many highs in the arena of politics, social relations, culture, warfare and diplomacy, which seem to be unthinkable and imponderable even from the point of view modern day standard[260].
Nevertheless, every act of Krishna has been mystified and eulogized exaggerating it to the extent that it has become myth. Though these have been presented in the normal and the logical way transposing to the mythical realm, the stakes appeared to have shoved in deliberately for warding off any such revolutionary feats. This can be exemplified with the instance of his birth, the stakes say he did not take birth, how could a God be born! He just appeared…. Pragat bhaye Nandlala. In addition, Krishna’s childhood, his adolescence, his youth, and his old age and his departure has been distorted and interpolated with such finesse that it looks like the surreal myth[261].
Krishna’s birth has been subjected to the utmost distortion and interpolation as it was the foundation providing the base for erecting an epical saga of myths, mystification, lie and propaganda. Mahabharata does not mention anything about Krishna’s childhood. In fact, Krishna comes to the scene in the latter part of the epic. The addition of Krishna’s childhood was made when the Jaya—the original name of the epic—came to be known as Mahabharata and there one can find the mines of distortion and addition. It was the Krishna childhood that has found the favourite distortion ground for the obvious reason. Krishna was the eighth child of Vasudev and Devaki who were the brother-in-law and sister of Kansa who had usurped the Kingdom of Mathura by putting Maharaja and his father into jail.[262]
The fact might have been like this: Krishna’s father, Vasudev was the brother of Nand, the chief or Mandaladhish of Gokul Mandal that was one of the most powerful branches of Yadavas. The marriage of Devaki, Kans’s sister with Vasudev had made them more powerful. While Kans was not having any son or daughter, Vasudev-Devaki was being blessed with the progenies who might be the powerful contender for the thrown of Mathura. That might have upset Kans’ plan. It was the straight game of the power and Kans did not want to take any risk in the respect of any competitor to his throne.
To justify the brutal killing of infants, he might have tried to give the colour of heavenly forecast and the vested interests making it the basis for mystifying the historical Krishna. … (They) “incorporated the Andhaka-Vrsni segment and evidently regained the territory because the struggle between Kamas and Krishna was an internal struggle between members of the same lineage segment, as well as kin group, since Kamas was the maternal uncle of Krishna[263].
However, there are hardly any parallel concerted efforts in any other civilization sacrificing a great personality and the period at the altar one or two castes or classes interest. These two classes—priestly and retrograde political elites—that still seem to be dominating the Indian society had hatched their mega conspiracy three thousand years ago after the demise of Krishna for perpetuating their hegemony for the good. Their master plan is still working and it is in process of making another great personality and period - Gandhiji- God or god like[264].
Meanwhile, the mega plan of the subversion or rather conspiracy seemed to have faced major challenge when Buddha had unmasked the hypocrisy and conspiracy of these two classes or castes around the latter half of the first millennium BC. Moreover, for more than half millennium even their traces were untraceable. The disdain and injustice meted out to the Krishna, his legacies and his period was partly redeemed. However, Buddha’s negligence on the power and his excessive emphasis on the non-violence again put these two classes or castes back into the saddle. It is another matter they paid the price for making Krishna God in the form of one thousand years of foreign rule, violence, exploitation and plundering.
Nevertheless, the whole life of Krishna was like the sacred sacrificial altar for his values and the principles of Monism, Vasudev, Rajdharama and Universalism as contained in his Bhagavat philosophy. The Gita, Udhav Gita and Anu Gita, the propagation of Raj dharma and founding of a loose federation under the suzerainty of Pandavs, the tradition of debate and discussion, the affairs and the matters of kingdom conducted on the principle of common consensus, taking Mantriparishad (council of ministers) and Sabhasad into confidence on every issue of importance, the strategies and tactics for the all sorts of war such as how to win an asymmetrical war, the art of fighting a ‘Guerrilla’ war, how to use geographical terrain, climatic conditions and constellation of stars and weather conditions as an aid of war and registering victory, how to make one’s position secured and undefeatable before launching attacks on the bad, wicked and untruthful forces and how to have love even for the enemy for anticipating his next move, etc. are some of his contributions to the mankind.
If these or even some of the Krishna contributions had been researched and acted upon, the humanity in general and India in particular would have benefitted to the extent that we would have achieved the hither to civilization progression two thousand years back. Or even much before that, but for the vested interests we have not been able to achieve the minimal civilizational progression, particularly in the social, the cultural, the political, the weapon making technology, the warfare and the interstate policy of Krishna’s time!
However, Mahabharata war saw the unmatched and the unprecedented skill and quality of Krishna as the war hero, the great strategist, advisor, pragmatic diplomat and peacemaker. Above all how one person could change the fate and the direction of war! Firstly, Krishna made his position unassailable and himself safe by preferring to take part in the war as non-combatant. By choosing to be the chariot driver of Arjun, his position was unique in the sense that he got the chance for giving the cool and calibrated suggestions to the Pandavs. It was the Krishna who tilted the asymmetrical war in the favour of Pandavs despite all the odds stacked against them.
In addition, the Kauravas had the more fighters, the cavalries, the chariots and the foot soldiers in their camp as compared to the Pandavs. However, it was Krishna’s strategy and leadership, the anticipatory faculty, his unmatched skill of taking the advantage of the opponents’ weaknesses and neutralizing the opponents’ strength by the stratagem and the diplomacy that wrested victory from the Kauravas. He took advantage of the terrain, the climate and the solar constellation synchronizing with the war for registering victory over the opponents[265].
Nevertheless, what was the most unique about Krishna was his unflinching faith in the goodness and the truth. Moreover, his whole life was an unending circle of the Karmyoga taking all the ups, the downs, the different challenges and the nuances of the life in stride. He undertook all works and challenges of the life as true Karmyogi living like an observer and leaving the results on to God or the interplay of Karmas . He was the true believer and ardent follower of the Karmyoga, facing every challenge, every hurdle, and the problems that were gargantuan in every aspect without caring for the result. It was because of this steady and the unflinching faith in the Karmyoga that he emerged victorious in the every situation of his life.
It is this aspect of Krishna— being perfect Karmyogi—that had been obliterated by the vested interests in their attempt to make him God, so that people could not repeat his acts following his great feats. Once Krishna was neutralized by establishing in the temples and the worship houses, then half work was done. Rest was done by the superstitions, the excessive ritualism and ceremonial acts with which Krishna was buried in the memory of the collective psyche. Consequently, all the lessons and great acts he presented before the world was thrown to the winds.
He put emphasis on the war preparedness keeping the aggressive and the barbarian tribes inhabiting the boundaries of Bharata in the mind and created a centre of power with the loose alliance and the agreement among themselves regarding the rules of the engagement. He stressed the importance of being united in the face of foreign attacks by propping a centre of power under the suzerainty of one powerful king or entity acting as the centre of the balancing force. By establishing himself and Yadavas in Dwaraka-- a well-fortified kingdom secured three sides by the violent sea of western sea—in the far west of Saurashtra region, he started playing the balancing act and finally attaining the title of Vasudev. He subdued Magadha by getting Jarasangh killed in the duel with Bhīma and not allowing any king or kingdom to grow so powerful as to threaten the loose alliance and mutual agreement among the kingdoms[266].
His concept of “Vasudev” might be construed as akin to the modern day, United Nations acting as the balancing force and not allowing any situation or country becoming a threat to the international peace and prosperity. The Vasudev concept was not meant for the personal aggrandisement and personal ambition. It was a concept far ahead of the time it was conceived. The Vasudev was a body enshrined in a powerful king or the personality or the entity being more powerful than the average kings, or having the capacity and the wherewithal to deal with a situation arising out wherein two or three or more number of the kings or the other entities threatening the very existence of social or political scape. It appeared to be more an equilibrium enforcing mechanism or the entity rather than a mythical one.[267]
However, after the Krishna, the Yadavas were driven out of the Dwaraka and the Indraparstha[268] transmuting Krishna into the ‘God of Cowherds’. The stakes bounced back to their earlier position, demolishing and discrediting whatever development and growth he and his period had attained. The clock of the development was turned back. The trajectory and the trail blazed by Krishna and his Yadavas were picked up initially by the Yadavas themselves founding Ghazni Empire in central Asia and later on Chandragupta-Chankya following the feats. Asoka and Akbar had also trailed Krishna in founding an empire, though it was different from the model the latter had established.
Rudolphs have done research on the centrist character of Indian polity and economy, finding its traces to the history and the culture of India. They attribute such centrist character to the Empire era of Chandragupta-Chankya, Asoka and Akbar.[269] Had Krishna not been relegated to the Godhood and the mysticism, Rudolphs might have included his names also along with Chandragupta and other empire builders. In fact, the empires built by Chandragupta, Asoka, and Akbar and later on the British were the extension of what Krishna had founded under the suzerainty of Pandavs, obviously with some differences arising out of the exigencies of the time and the space. The main difference was that Krishna did not annex the territory of the King he defeated, what was called as ‘Dharma based Conquest’ appropriated to the Dharmashastra and the brahamanical literature.
It is argued that at that time it was a tradition not to annex the territory of the defeated king. However, this does not seem to be grounded in the reality as Jarasangh had attached and annexed the territories and the properties of many kings he defeated. In fact, it was the message meant for Krishna successors that empires should be founded on some sort of the cordiality, the equality and the fraternity. The defeated kings should not be treated like vassal or serfs, but mutual relations should be based on some sort of the honour and the equality of the status. The relations characterized by a suzerain power and his allies were nearer to the status enjoyed by the Prime minister of Westminster with fellow ministers, which is that of ‘First among Equals’.
However, the empires started disintegrating due to, among other things, wrong foundation—forcible annexation of the territories, the unequal relations, and lord-slave relations characterizing the relations between emperor and its constituents. These all were against the principle established by Krishna. The secret campaign by the stakes to marginalize Krishna and his principles and ideals by making him God got further boost when Bhakti movement swept across the country. The Bhakti Movement, which came into being due to direct attack by the foreign invaders and the challenge posed by the egalitarianism of the Islam, led to further relegation of Krishna to the Godhood and the mythical identity when he was transformed into the Almighty God Himself. Particularly, the Gouraiya sect of Vaishnav tradition established Krishna as God himself[270].
Meanwhile, the world scenario started to move fastly. The violent and the barbaric races around India started to spread their tentacles after being pushed from their places due to the various forces. The advent of new equalitarian religion and the inter and the intra-religious squabbles led to the attacks and the counter attacks in and around the areas of the Indian sub-continent. While the forces across the world were sharpening their arsenals and honing up their military and non-military skill, our political and social elites were busy in undermining and falsifying or mystifying the military and non-military skill and tactics that Krishna had imparted for the benefit of the posterity. While the political elites had become myopic and self-complacent after driving Yadavas out of Dwaraka and Indraparstha who had the new empire, Ghazni in the central Asia,[271] the social elites were busy in befooling people through the dry rituals, dogmas and superstition making society the fatalist and inert. The Indian elites also forgot one of the most important tenets of Krishna’ political philosophy—that was to remain united in case of invasion or attack by the foreign powers and not invite or take help of any foreign power.
Even the Yadavas, who had founded an empire in Central Asia, were forced out from there by the Greco-Bactrian dynasty, came back to India[272], they were not taken seriously. They might have pleaded with then dominant powers to remain alert and be prepared for the push from the West. Nevertheless, it seems their pleadings might have been ignored; otherwise, they would not have spread across North and North-west India after founding a Kingdom in Jaislmer. What happened afterward is well known and one need not mention the foreign invasions, the subjugation, the plunders and ultimately the foreign rules that followed. It was inevitable and we had to pay the price for mystifying and negating Krishna and his footprints. In fact, we are still paying the price in one way or the other.
It is because of this tendency of mystifying and negating Krishna and his legacy that even scholars have started raising voice and doubt about his philosophy and his very existence. However, there is another category of experts and eminent personality like Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, who had insightful eyes and enough guts to say convincingly that Krishna was a historical personality. It must be remembered whatever the great acts he did, whether in political, social, and cultural spheres was revolutionary and unprecedented even from the point view of today. Even the weapons he made were so sophisticated and unique that it used to return to the source after hitting the target. It was so sophisticated that it used to change the trajectories the moment the target changed the track or made U-turn or any unprogrammed or unexpected manoeuvrings.
Even today despite all the breath-taking and unprecedented breakthroughs in the field of technology and weapon making technology, more so in the age of Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD), we have been unable to make such missile that returns to its launching pad after hitting the target. Even the American guided missile and bomber aircrafts and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs) do not come any near to it.
What our civilization did? Instead of learning its technique and doing further research and investigation, as to how Sudarshan Chakra (Spiral Disc) was made, what made it to return to its launching pad or its source after hitting the target or how it used to change trajectory as per the movements of the target; it was concluded that God or some demigod had given it with some powerful mantras. This was the simplest thing we could do. Even it was said a great sage, Parshuram, the destroyer of all the irresponsible and tyrannical kings from the earth who incidentally was born thousand years before Krishn and even before the Lord Rama, had gifted it to Krishna[273]. Even if it was a gift made by Krishna during his one of the many tactical detours in the jungles and other such places, it should have been investigated and researched upon.
However, it is also believed that Shiva gave spiral disc to the Parshuram who, in turn, gifted it to Krishna making tactical run from Jarasangh for forcing the war not on his territory or that of his antagonist but to a virgin and neutral location, surrounded by the jungle and fortified by the steep hills on three sides and western sea on the fourth side[274]. The nutshell is that it was a Godly act, so there was no need to investigate and research it. Since it was a Godly act, we could not make its prototype or its replica. It is very simple and convenient for us: You do not have to use your brain and brawn, just wait, God would come in his one or other form (it is a part of Avatar syndrome ) and do what you wish to do.
Coming to Krishna’s niche weapon of spiral disc (Sudarshan Chakra) acting as deterrent apart from destroying many adversaries, it was mindboggling weapon even then. And even after the thousand years of civilization and technological development, mankind has been unable to make its replica or any missile coming near to it. It has been reported that USA has been working on such weapon unsuccessfully for the last one or two decades. Even the guided missiles and UAVs do not come near to the Spiral Disc so far as its accuracy in hitting the target was concerned[275].
What would have happened if the Indian society had investigated these, doing research and developed a scientific temperament? It would have become the world power and the leader long before Asoka or Chandragupta built a pan Asian Empire. It would not have paved the way for the countless invaders, the barbarians and the plunderers, and finally thousand years of the humiliating foreign rules. It is because of this lack of scientific and inquisitive tendency that Krishna enlightened three thousand years ago that we are being lead rather than becoming a leader.
No invader or barbarian would have dared to cast an eye on the country. No Tamur, no Mughal and no British would have ventured to think about the subjugation and the plunder, had Indian society followed Krishna, not limiting him to the bells of temples. His emphasis on both the temporal and the spiritual strength, the weapon and the flute and a strong centre with loose and rather the friendly alliances like of which he erected under the suzerainty of Pandavs, for which he worked arduously and even did not hesitate to go for such a destructive war as that of Mahabharata, would have steered the country through all the ups and downs of world history. Above all, the Indian society would have been history maker, and perhaps the world politics and the history would have shaped in such way that there would not have been the Alexanders or the Persian or the Mughal or the British invaders and colonizers.
Had the Indian society not hung him on to the high podium of the temples and the worship houses working upon his unmatched social and political legacie such as Vasudev, giving it a consideration by institutionalizing it, the country would have been world leader. In addition, the concept of one world and one people with one universal government and civil society would have been perhaps realized long, long ago.
Even Vasudev concept has been distorted, some considering it as the personal political ambition of Krishna, while others have conjoined it with the bandwagon of the prophets, avatars or God Himself. If the concept of loose federation with one strong centre that Krishna built under the suzerainty of the Pandavs uniting the whole Bharat Varsh or Aryavrata is taken as model political structure, then it could be applied at the world level. If Krishna could do it three thousand years back, when there were all types of the limitations of the time and the space, why could not be it done right now?
Moreover, apart from weapon making, Krishna provided future guide map of being united against any foreign aggression by presenting a political model based on one suzerain power at the centre with all other kingdoms or republics in loose and friendly alliance, with one Vasudeva or Krishna as balancing force[276]. He developed a navy and ports –Dwaraka-- on Western or Arabian Sea and maritime trade was resumed[277]. He gave equal importance to Army and Navy, thus giving the future generation enough hints to be vigilant and develop a balancing and uniting force or the entity. It also implied that we should not neglect our maritime security lack of which led to the colonization and the subjugation by the British.
The lesson given three thousand years ago has just gone unheeded as the most of the invaders have attacked from land as well as seaside. Even British were able to colonize us because of their maritime superiority as British were then a great maritime power. Moreover, he emphasized the importance of having strong, slick, fast- and battle-hardened army by setting an example in Yadav sena or Narayani sena. The military leaders such as Satyaki, Avgah, Kroshtu, Shini, Kritvarama, etc. who were expert in going on long expeditions.
Then Indian sub-continent was like the world during Krishna period as there were no faster means of the communication and the military technology was not so sophisticated and developed. Yadav army under his leadership used to go on the long expedition to the Assam (Ang), Vidarbha, Magadha and other far flung areas for maintaining the power equilibrium in the ancient society of India. Even three thousand years ago, Krishna developed and put into practice the art of the power equilibrium, which institutional manifestation was the evolution of Vasudev, not allowing any king or kingdom to get so powerful as to threatening the very unity and the existence of Bharata. He was dead against Jarasangh because he had emerged so powerful as to endanger the very fabric of ancient Indian society.[278]
He also mastered the science of warfare putting forward many theories how to win asymmetrical wars, Guerrilla war, overt and covert operations, forts and war based on forts and fortifications. All the wars that he fought or the wars that were fought under his guidance or the leadership such as the Mahabharata war or countless wars with Jarasangh were the asymmetrical in the sense his side had many disadvantages or opponent were stronger. He showed to the future generations how to fight guerrilla war (with Magadha) use of the Art of deception in war, multiple attack, the art of dividing the enemy having bigger army ,using terrain to one’s advantage, treating nature and location as force multiplier, forcing war to location of his choice which can inflict maximum damage to the enemy (in case of Jarasangh when he left the battlefield and took it to western region of Gomantak {Girnar}hills, sowing the seed of division in army).[279]
By establishing a pan Indian empire under wise and mighty Pandavs he gave message that the India or for that matter any country or nation or empire can be invincible and strong only with having powerful centre with periphery under control. This model is still being followed world over, including in India. Rudolphs have mentioned about historical and cultural tradition of strong centres with not so strong units or peripheries that Chandragupta, Asoka, Akbar, British and later Republic of India followed the same model. Though Rudolphs[280] have not mentioned Krishna, obviously because Krishna has been made more of mythical figure rather than historical one, yet the centrist model they discussed and which they attributed to Chandragupta, Asoka and others in fact was first implemented during Mahabharata period.
This model worked until the so called revival of republican kingdom in India 500 BC. Even this republicanism has its origin in ancient Kula or dynasty of Yadu about which Rig Veda mentions as ‘non-monarchical’[281]. Non-monarchical means democratic or republican, though not in present sense or in the present term. If one analyses the history of Yadu, Yadavas in general and Krishna particularly exploring his political philosophy as reflected in his various acts and conducts, one would certainly find democratic and republican streaks and streams permeating these all , and cannot be termed tribal. Instead of acknowledging the foundational contribution, he and for that matter Yadavas have been termed as tribal or ‘Assur’ or Shudras or were alleged of losing Kshatryahood (Knighthood).[282]
Thus, the history of democracy can be stretched from 500 BC around which republican kingdoms flourished in India, to 1000BC the period that is called as period of Mahabharata period. However, it may be shocking for western scholars who could utmost concede Indian historical legacy unto 500 BC or 300 BC or whichever may be posterior to Hellenistic or Greek tradition. It would be very difficult for them to accept anything that is anterior to their history or culture or historical legacies. Even they consider the republican legacies with disdain and disbelief but they cannot but help as its authenticity has been attested by Greek travellers and ancient Chinese travellers[283]. In fact, Krishna pioneered the war based on fort and fortification by founding the Dwaraka - a natural fort garrisoned three sides by the Indian ocean or Arabian sea with one side opening to the mainland through the narrow bay.
That is why Sister Nivedita has commented, “The foreign reader, taking it (Mahabharata) up as sympathetic reader only and not as scholar, is at once struck by two features: in the first place, its unity in complexity; and in the second, its constant effort to impress its hearers the idea of a single centralized India, with an heroic tradition of her own as formative and uniting impulse”[284]
If Krishna’s setting up of the Pan Indian entity (that was not the empire in the sense Chandragupta. Ashok, Alexander, other Persian and Roman kings , Akbar and later on British empire were because Krishna did not annex any kingdom or subjugated any kings) is subjected to the rigour of historical-political analysis, it would certainly be ascertained that he made a concerted effort in this regard. In fact, he neutralized and finally got Jarasangh exterminated d because the latter was trying to establish an unjust empire by plundering the kingdoms, annexing their territories and killing their Kings. The pan Indian entity rested on the two pillars of Vasudev and a just and powerful central authority in the form of Pandavs that Krishna set up under his guidance. The concept of Vasudev needs to be seen in different context, different from religious concept that later on might have been co-opted into the Avatar concept.
In fact, the Vasudev concept, in its micro form (whereas at macro level it acted as balancing force) is nearer to the concept of the ‘philosopher King’ as developed by Plato around 400 BC, without any intentional or unintentional attempt to conclude that Plato might have got the idea of philosopher king from Krishna. Such possibility could not be denied as some scholars have given opinion to this effect[285].However, Krishna’s was unique concept, acting as central entity that was powerful enough to coerce anyone to the desired goal of Dharma ( Truth, Fair play, Universal law of justice and equality) based rule. He and his Yadavas, under the banner of Vasudev, acted, intervened and interceded like UN, but unlike latter, they were not effete, as world body has been reduced to now-a-day.
How Krishna had resisted Jarasangh, neutralizing and checkmating him at every step, putting obstacles in his untrammelled ambition of becoming an emperor, defeating and finally getting him finished without any bloodshed was the unmatched and unprecedented victory saga of asymmetrical, guerrilla war, tactical retreat, alliance and counter alliance, taking enemy by surprise, overwhelming the army with multi-pronged and simultaneous attacks and other such tactics and the strategy of war. It has inputs of the diplomacy, the variegated war strategies and tactics where he used a small army of Yadavas to resist the numerous attacks (seventeenth time) on Mathura by Jarasangh. After the seventeenth attempts when Magadha was unable to defeat the Yadavas, Jarasangh had come with all the force and the determination to crush Mathura, Krishna shifted the battle away from the home turf, to the western region in Goakmantak (Girnar)[286].
On the risk of being called as battle quitter ( it is no coincidence that one of his names are Ranchhor) he had achieved many goals: First he saved the lives and properties of Yadavas by shifting battle away from Mathura to Gomantak Hills, he gained some time to recuperate and gather his supporters and allies, thirdly he took the advantage of terrain and by first arriving he has got the advantage of familiarization and acclimatization.
As Krishna had demolished all the social, religious, and the political farce that was being perpetrated on the Indian populace by instituting a new socio-political system based on the Dharma or Truth (universal law of justice as interpreted in reference to the certain space and time, and reference of public good) and his descendants carried forward his legacy of democratic or republican credo,[287] it might have become necessary for the then ruling class and social elites, to either demonize or deify him.
Chapter-4
Repositioning Krishna in Historiography: Myth and Mystification of History
Indian history seems to be queer amalgam of the mysticism, the myths and the hard realities. While the reality that might have threatened the power relations or have the potentiality of challenging the domination and the hegemony that social and political elites (Brahmin-Kshatriya) had have been, has been turned into the myth and the time and the period related with it into circular from linear one. On the other hand, some myth has been created to act as reality, while the reality has been consigned to the myth to blunt its revolutionary contours.
This trend is exemplified by the attempt to make Krishna and his period as mythical, and myth of Parshuram which has been used as antipode to the historicity of historical period and personalities. Manu is another example of how to make a historical figure, who gave the Indian and world civilization a secular social and ethical code, which might have preceded that of Hammurabi. But for seven or 14 Manus that have been created and their time has been converted to circular one, the historicity of Manu is doubted and related with this is the Flood myth.
There is every possibility that massive flood might have swept across North Indian plain and it might have been between decline of Harappa civilization and Krishna and Mahabharata period. “There is a close parallel in the structures of the Sumerian and Indian King-lists. The post-Deluge dynasties are less mythical with more acceptable lengths of reign. In this context the date of 3102 BC the equivalent in the Christian era for the start of the post–Deluge dynasties and of the kaliyuga, assumes greater significance. There are echoes of similarities in certain legends and references to the deities”.[288]
However, Manu has been subjected to many myths and legends. “….They explain the origin of seemingly contradictory statements of the Smirti regarding Manu. When he is represented there as a descendent of self-existent Brahman and a Prajapati who takes prominent part in the creation or as identical with supreme Brahman (the same reference occurs in Mahabharata, I,I, 32), on the other hand as a rishi and a king of the remotest antiquity, it is now pattern that these conceptions have been taken form Vedic literature and that, different as they are, they have grown out of one fundamental idea which makes the first man and progenitor a half-divine and half-human being, an assistant in the work of creation, and the founder of moral and social order among men[289]”.
It is not improbable that the Vedic school believed, when Katyana composed his Sarvanukramanika of the Rig Veda, in the existence of several distinct Manus. Finally, the association of the ten great sages whom Manu Svayambhuva created, and who in turn created other Manus[290], in the work of creations, rests on such passages as those quoted by Apastamba II, 24, 3-6, 13, where successive destructions of the world are mentioned, and ‘this creation is declared to be the work of Prajapati and of the sages. However, the complete development of the myth of Manu belongs to the schools of the Pauraniks and Aitihasikas and we find in the Puranas and Mahabharata many legends which are partly identical with or closely related to that told in our Smirti[291].
“ ….. in post-Vedic times the Brahmans did not hesitate to change the character of ancient school-books and to convert them into generally binding law-codes, either by simply taking them out of their connection with Srutas and Grihya-sutras or by adding besides matter which, in the eyes of orthodox Hindus, must greatly increase the sentiment of reverence felt for them”[292].
The ancient Indian social elites seemed to have acquired the mastery in generating myths out of the historical period and personality, and turning mythical figures into seemingly historical one. It is for such mastery that even Western and Persian civilization seemed to have developed knack for indulging such historical jugglery for the obvious reason. “The designation of elements in the New Testament or in the traditional formations of Christian doctrine as ‘mythological’ has been rated by some scholars to a mythical pattern which they believe to have been current in the Near East around the time when Christianity first appeared. Unlike the dying-and-rising-god pattern of earlier times, this was redeemer myth, originating in the Iranian religion and passing them to Gnosticism. An outstanding prophet of this theory was Reitzenstein, whose magnum opus on “Iranian Redemption Mystery’ was published over fifty years ago. In its Iranian form, the myth relates to Gayomart, the first man (whose name means ‘mortal life’, Avestan Gaya-mareta).[293]
In the Avesta, Gayomart appears occasionally as the ancestor of Aryan peoples and the first believer in the teaching of Ahura Mazda. (In the Avesta, the primal man is Yima (cf Vedic Yama). In Buddhism and other Zoroastrian texts of the seventh century AD and later, however, Gayomart appears as an important figure in the Cosmic drama: he is heavenly being, son of Ohrmazd (Avestan Ahura Manda): he battled with Ahriman (Avestan AngraMainyu) the evil power for a cycles of 3000 years, at the end of which he was killed by him. From him, after his death, the human race sprang up; and the end of the time, Saosyant (the Saviour) appears to raise the dead, Gayomart will rise first and be exalted to archangelic rank. This myth certainly had a long career in oral tradition before it received literary form, but it can scarcely be dated earlier than Sassanid era (AD 226). Quite apart from its late date, there is little enough in Gayomart myth that could give rise to New Testament concepts of the Son of the Man or the man from heaven. [294]
It is clear that myths are invented, borrowed, supplanted and in some cases used for various purposes. But the main purpose of invention and intermingling of the myths with the history and the culture seems to be claiming the historicity of imagined period or denying the historicity to a historical period and personality; and invention of some sort of the historical, the political and the cultural agenda. The borrowing of the myths and their circulation and their universality, moreover their similarities point to their versatility. All the myths seem to be same in their structures and forms, and might have been borrowed from ancient India traditions. It seems ironic while in India historical period and personalities have been turned into the myths, in other parts of the world the myths have been borrowed from India to claim the longer historical tradition despite having the brief one, in comparison to the latter.
Moreover, there seems to be general tendency of mystifying the Indian history and since its start from the Krishna and the Mahabharata period, it seems to have become permanent phenomenon. Even if it is not overt, it seems to have gone undercurrent as it is reflected in the chronological and the cynical view of the history, particularly those being taught in the classrooms. Manu is another example of a historical figure being mystified for the petty reason. It is worth mentioning that it was Manu who gave first social, political and juridical code to the humanity, perhaps much before that of Hammurabi. But for the attempt to make myth out of him, he was unable to find mention in the history. Manu was also father of Ella from whom Alia dynasty started to which Yadavas traces their ancestry[295]. It is for this reason he might have been subjected to numerous attempts of making him mythical figure with 14 or 28 Manu being projected to have taken birth in the circular period like that of Parshuram[296].
It seems the ancient Indian history has inherent fascination for the myths and the mysticism. It is but quite natural if one sees the India historical landscape with the perspective of the hidden agenda of the social elites or the priestly class for their superiority and hegemony in perpetuity. Mysticism stands for the view that the meaning of history lies somewhere outside the history, in the realm of theology or eschatology. There are many supporters of this view of history, including such writers as Berdyaev, Niebuhr and Toynbee. Another side of the coin is the cynicism, which stands for the view that history has no meaning or a multiplicity of the meaning that is arbitrarily assigned to it[297]. A F. Powicke has observed : ‘The craving for an interpretation of history is so deep-rooted that, unless we have a constructive outlook over the past, we are drawn to either to mysticism or cynicism.”[298]
‘Like the ancient civilizations of Asia (read Indian), the classical civilization of Greece and Rome was basically unhistorical. Herodotus as the father of history had few children; and the writers of classical antiquity were on the whole as little concerned with the future as with the past. Thucydides believed that nothing significant had happened in time before the events that he described and nothing significant was likely to happen thereafter. Lucretius deduced man’s indifference to the future from his indifference to the past’[299].
Poetic vision of a brighter future took the form of vision of a return to a golden age of the past—a cyclical view assimilating the process of history to that of the nature. History was not going anywhere, because there was no sense of the future.[300] The same unhistorical view characterized the Indian history right after the Krishna and the Mahabharata period. Though Krishna, through his vision and the pragmatic approach towards future, provided momentum to the history by doing away the superstitions, fatalism and escapism; giving full support to the Mahabharata war fought for a future not to be obstructed or distorted by the evil, the inhuman and the obscurantist forces. Moreover, it was a war fought for reinforcing the republican credo of choosing the able and right successor to the power or crown and defeating the monarchical blind spot of appointing the eldest progenitor as King, irrespective of the capability and the acceptability. There seems to be no attempt to deconstruct the Great War from this perspective.
Nevertheless, the Upanishad period, started from some time after the Krishna and Mahabharata era[301] is a proof of this faith in the future as inevitable growth and development of the human being and the society. However, it was taken over by the cyclical view of the time and the history as is reflected by the various itihas-Puranas traditions. The linear time was transformed into circular one, making the historical process identical with the natural process, and carting the primary forces of the history beyond the grasp of human being—Nature, God or theology or eschatology.
The eternal time and its cyclical manifestation in the form of Four periods as Sat Yuga (period eternal goodness and truthfulness), Treta Yuga (the period slightly less good and truthful), Dwapar Yuga ( Age of good and bad, truthfulness and untruthfulness) and Kaliyuga (Age of bad, untruthfulness and anti-religion) was devised to enforce such fatalistic and eschatological view of the history. The same view of the history prevailed in the western world during classical period (500 BC onward) wherein there was no hope and aspirations for the future and neither the past was finding any consideration.
However, there was one difference between the Indian mystical view of the history and that of the western world. Apart from the difference arising from the Indian civilizations being anterior to and much older than the Western world, there was one very subtle reason: While it was natural in the case of western world as it had freed itself from the barbarism and was proceeding to attain some sort of the civilizational depth. In India—the oldest civilization of the world which recorded history goes beyond 4000 BC and unrecorded one to 7500 BC and beyond—the mystical view of the history was deliberately factored in, just for mitigating the dynamism and the momentum that the Krishna, the Yadavas and the Mahabharata period provided to the history. They had showed that the history could be directed and marshalled towards the goal of a moral Dharam (Truth) based equalitarian society.
Another difference, no less subtle, is that while the western world saved itself with the introduction of the teleological view of the Judo-Christians in the history[302], the Indian history slide further down the eschatology and the fatalism by subverting and inserting the Avatar syncretism in the social and the cultural history. The Indian historiography, which the priestly class has ferociously been guarding with the support from the official recorders and the ruling elites (retrograde Kshatriya) since the ancient time, might not have felt secured with the eschatology and the assimilation of historical process with natural one.
The floodgates of the reason, the pragmatism and the Karma theory that Krishna and the Yadavas had factored into the historical process might have forced them for taking the cover of Avatar matrix and the mysticism. It is for this reason they might have introduced the chimeric concept of the Avatar, upholding that the human beings have not to do anything to ameliorate their existence from the forces of dark and evil, but wait for the God’s reincarnation as human being on the earth, who would do all the works.
Meanwhile, in the Western world ‘history thus acquired a meaning and purpose, but at the expense of losing its secular character. The attainment of the goal of history would automatically mean the end of the history: history itself became a theodicy. This was the mediaeval view of the history. The Renaissance restored the classical view of anthropocentric world and of the primacy of reason, but for the pessimistic classical view of the future substituted an optimistic view derived from the Jewish-Christian traditions. ……The rationalists of the Enlightenment, who were the founders of modern historiography, retained the Jewish–Christian teleological view, but secularized the goal; they were thus enabled to restore the rational character of the historical process itself. History became progress towards the goal of the perfection of man’s estate on earth’[303].
Nevertheless, there was no such course correction for the Indian historiography as it was wallowing in the eschatology and the fatalism, with staid chronology of who ruling when and who replacing whom. The same condition prevailed even today, only difference is the some undefined or obscure goal has been added and the imagined progress has been inserted purposely. However, when the colonialism had taken its firm route in the country and was considering for the political rule, their attention turned towards its history finding the Indian society ‘ahistorical or unhistorical’. As it was in the same condition of the mysticism and the eschatology as the Western society was in the pre-Enlightenment and the Pre-Renaissance time, it naturally found the Indians ‘unhistorical’, and the history without any goal or progress.
However, they seemed to have missed the wood for the tree. How could they have deciphered the subversion and the distortion that the social and ruling elites had factored during the time when the western society was under the grip of barbarism? Indian history must have appeared to them like a dark tunnel where the gloom of the eschatology and the fatalism was reigning supreme. There was no sense of the direction and no goal: the history was the unending series of who replacing whom and who following or preceding whom, and who attacking or invading when. To them, Indian society must have appeared to be in the permanent freeze where nothing changes except the nomenclature, and one invader following the other and one foreign rule replacing the other. No wonder that for Marx et la, India epitomises ‘Oriental Despotism” where nothing seemed to be changing.
However, Western Indologists of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries popularized the stereotypes of the oriental despotism and the hold of religion and spiritualism, yet these came under heavy attack, largely justified, from the Indian scholars. After India attained independence, the west developed a kind of the neo-orientalism based on the sociology. As a concession to the independent republican status of India, Western historians and Indologists modified the idea of the perpetual despotism, but they placed undue emphasis on the role of religion, particularly rituals, and on the divinity of kingship[304].
The Oriental Despotism is the nucleus concept to this view of the ancient history of India and it is implicit in the Mill’s History.[305] Mill sees Indian history in racially compartmentalized perspective having three strands of the historical development—Hindu, Muslim and Christian or British. First two he considers as backward and the last one as modern, providing the momentum to the development and the progress[306]. There is no doubt that such view is anachronistic yet indicating as to how the Indian history is invaders’ annals where it is difficult to decipher who has been the aggressor and the aggrieved. Whether the internal aggression has been more dangerous or the external one or it was the internal aggression that invited the external aggression!
If seen from this perspective, Indian history, right from the ancient to the modern, has been weird concoction of the internal and the external aggression. Though in the recorded history and the historical discourse of world as well as in that of India, the external aggression has been delved into, short shifting the internal aggression purportedly or otherwise. Perhaps it might have been left out deliberately because it was the internal aggression in the form of the subjugation, the domination and the hegemony of the highly stratified social order that seems to have invited the external aggression. The very fact that this has happened, and such stunted and lopsided discourse still pervading the historical and non-historical space, with some few and far protest such as the subaltern studies and the alternative history, seem to be justifying such conclusion. However, this has never attained the centre stage nor it has the prospect in the near and the distant future.
The external aggression with the floodgates of the friendly or ‘invasion on invitation’[307] has been on the cards. It seems the plunder and the invasion by the hordes of the different beaten and harassed or pushed or uprooted tribes of the central Asia and the west Asia has been the cause and the effects of this internal invasion, consequent upon the subjugation and domination of the majority by the minority of the social and political elites. It appears the social elites, read the Brahmin or the priestly class, first systematically decimated and obliterated the political class or elites (Yadavas and traditional Kshatriya of solar dynasty) by pitting them against the foreign invaders and indigenous tribal[308] and then giving the latter legitimacy through the grant of solar or lunar genealogy. Finally, they delivered the last proverbial blow by appropriating the powers and privileges for themselves[309]. Consequently, the Indian history right from the so-called ancient, the mediaeval and the modern seems nothing but a gory playground of who attacking or invading when or who replacing whom, without any change in the ground reality.
That is why Hegel made observation about the absence of dialectical change in the Indian history, resultantly dismissing the Indian civilization as being static, despotic in its orientation, and outside the mainstream of relevant world history[310]. This view might have partially emanated from the Greco-Persian antagonism, as there was a lot of luxuries item imported from India, some exaggerated details by the foreign travellers and ambassadors might have given the impression of ‘fanciful notion of all powerful, despotic, oriental potentate’. The crusade and related literature on Turks undoubtedly reinforced this image.[311]
Nevertheless, when interest in this notion of oriental despotism was revived in the eighteenth century as an explanation for the continuity of empires in Asia, the focus was shifted from the acts and doings of the despot to the nature of despotic state. Given the concern of the eighteenth century France and England, the central question was seen as that of private property in land, and the state ownership of land.[312] Even Marx endorsed the idea with its emphasis on a static society and an absence of change, working up the theory into the model for Asian Society—that of the Asiatic Mode of Production. Despite his penchant for dialectical change and related development, he concurred with the so-called Asiatic mode of production.[313]
“The notion of historical change, other than changing dynasties was unacceptable to the nineteenth century thinking on the Indian past. The unchanging nature of society is central to the theory of Oriental Despotism. The span of Indian history was seen as one long stretch of empire with an occasional change of dynasty. In fact, empires were of short duration and very infrequent. There was only one empire in the early period, the Mauryan empire lasting from the end of the fourth to the early second century BC which would even approximately qualify as an imperial system. It was not until the historical writing of the twentieth century that some concession was made to change, and imperial golden ages were interspersed with the dark ages of smaller kingdoms”.[314]
In this respect, western scholarship is not to be faulted, as it was unable to see through the intricate and the entangling web of socio-political network of hegemony and subjugation that Indian social and political elites had woven in the form of caste and their rather permanent domination and hegemony thereof. Despite all the foreign rules, the invasions, the plunder, the subjugation and the conquests, the position of the social and the political elites (Brahmin and retrograde or the priestly class designated tribal and foreign invaders as Kshatriya) and their domination have remained intact. For this, they did not mind bartering the larger good of the society, and in fact, these all the foreign rules, the conquest, and the subjugation seem to have been the cause and the effect of their subversion and domination started after the Krishna and the Mahabharata period.
The lack of social and historical change has been noted as an explanation as to why there are neither the historians nor the historical records in pre-colonial India. It is maintained that superficially, political forms have changed and there have been administrative monarchies and feudal politics, but beneath this, the caste structure has preserved a constant form. Even religion does not succeed in destroying the caste since the religious sects take on the characteristic identities of the castes. The only exception to this was the Buddhism and significantly, Buddhism did not survive in India. Its disappearance was not due to Hindu intolerance, since intolerance requires political dogmatism, which was lacking in India. Rather, it was the abstracting of the Buddhist community from the social life that prevented it from denting the caste system, and furthermore the monastery was closed to those in opposition to authority.[315]
Nevertheless, the Indian society during the Krishna and the Mahabharata period (1000-900 BC) was passing through a revolutionary stage when the Vivek (reason), the pragmatic attitude of Karmyoga, the goal of Dharam (ethical and universal principles of law and justice) based society was galvanizing the Indian society and the people. The reason and rationality (vivek, Budhi and vichar-vimrash) was characterizing the socio-political scape of the ancient India based on Gita and monism, Monotheist religion—Bhagavat--founded by Krishna[316]. In addition, the technological breakthrough in the weapon making, the means of communication and building, the concept of Vasudev--a socio-political mechanism to neutralize any indigenous social, political and foreign force threatening or likely to threaten the core of values and principles of the ancient society, a suzerain like power acting as united force in the wake of foreign invasion and as the benevolent and the uniting force during time, had revolutionized the socio-political scape of the ancient India.
After this second foundational period of Indian history, there came a U-turn in the ancient Indian society. This becomes clearer by the fact the post-Krishna and post-Mahabharata period is known as ‘dark period’ and there is an informational vacuum about this period. Then all of sudden an urbanized civilization rose on the debris of so-called ‘dark period’ and then within one generation the Indian civilization bounced back to reclaim its old glory. It is this period that has been termed as the ‘dark period’ and that of ‘informational vacuum’ piggy riding it the social (priestly class) and the retrograde political elites reclaimed their lost leadership by factoring distortion and subversion in the ancient Indian socio-political scape. The foundation of the mystification of the Indian history was thus laid down; Krishna and his legacies were started to be hijacked by transposing him to the godhood and hounding out of the Yadavas from the Dwaraka and Indraparstha.[317]
Consequently, many myths and the counter-myths were created for mitigating these revolutionary changes. It was necessary to depose Krishna from the temporal realm and install him in the non-temporal, religious, or spiritual domain, and for that, myths were essential. As to defend one lie, one has to invent many lies, so it seems to be the case in the respect of myth. There is an example; the myth of Parshuram has been created for weakening, marginalizing and degrading the ruling elites (Kshatriya in general and Yadavas in particular). It is maintained that Parshuram had destroyed all the Kshatriya not once, twice or thrice but many times[318]. The time or the period that he belonged to was circular: he was present during the time of Rama and Krishna. It seems a perfect antipode to Krishna. Thus, it appears that the myth of Parshuram has been created for mystifying Krishna and his innumerable legacies.
As ‘the myth is implanted form of the deepest layer…… Events are assumed to have happened, and time is almost proto-chronos since it involves gods and the supernatural in an active role with humans and animal. The significance of myth of the historian lies more in its being the self-image of a given culture, expressing its social assumptions. The role of myth in this context is often explanatory. Origin myths are concerned with cosmogony and the start of events such as the Flood myth’[319].
The myths whether in India or western civilization have been used for the various purposes. Myths particularly in the ancient India have not only been the ‘implanted form of the deepest layer’, these have also been fabricated, forged and distorted for neutralizing and nullifying the historical process and historical personality. If the myths are put to the deconstruction and the interpretation, these would confirm the subversion and the distortion that Indian history in particular and that of world history in general has been subjected to.
With the evolution of a more heterogeneous and stratified society, myth were questioned and explanations sought. Some myths were replaced with new or different versions and others added to and embellished, often to such a degree that the original myth became almost opaque. That myths in some ways mirrored society was not their sole function, but there were other functions.[320] The myths have been changing and being put to various purposes. However, no concerted or focused attention has been given to the subversive and the negative use of the myths.
Many of the seemingly contradictions in the stances and the configurations characterizing the epics can perhaps be explained by these texts (and particularly the Mahabharata), reflecting something of a transitional condition between two rather different structures, the societies of the lineage-based system and that of the monarchical state. Idealized characters are seldom the gods but rather the heroes occupying the centre stage and the gods remaining in the wings. Sometimes the earlier deities even come in for a drubbing. The importance of the heroes is further endorsed by their being almost the terminal descendants in the major lineages of the past, a matter of some despair for their death is seen as the wrapping up and putting away of the lineage society, which, in certain areas, was being replaced by monarchies.[321]
Many historians, including Romila Thapar has underlined the interpretation of the myths as prerequisite for the study of the early cultures. Eminent historian Kosambi has reinforced their importance, as his works are full of such interpretations. In a detailed discussion of the story of Pururavas and Urvasi, which he traces through its many variants in the texts, he dismisses the simplistic nature-myth interpretation of Max Muller and his contemporaries seeing the disappearance of Urvasi as symbolic of the vanishing dawn on the rising of the sun[322]. Basing his premise on a functional anthropological analysis in which he argues that it reflects the institution of sacred marriage in the prehistoric societies as well as the ritual sacrifice of the hero by the mother goddess.[323]
One of the frequent strands in his explanations of the myths relates to his belief that the societies have been matriarchal in origin, gradually changing to patrilineal, and the myths thereof reflecting the transition from the one to the other. This view largely derives from the writing of F. Engels, terming it as the ‘mother-right school of anthropology’. He applies the same argument for explaining the Kumbha symbol or birth from a jar of certain brahmana gotras and of the Kauravas in the Mahabharata where the jar has an obvious symbolic equation with the womb. Bride price seems to be a relic of the matrilineal society[324].
The interpretation or rather deconstruction of the myths, whether be Indian, Sumerian, or that of Judo-Christian would unravel many faultlines, conspiracies and facades of history. The Biblical myth of the lost tribes, for example, could perhaps be reference to some important tribe that might have founded some ancient civilization. It might have resulted from their rather shortened historical tradition as compared to other old civilizations. Similarly, flood myth might have found its votaries in discuss the cosmology or the cyclical concept of the creation.
Moreover, the colonial rulers fabricated the myth of Aryan invasion for justifying their loot and illegitimate rule, cramming down the argument that the so called Indo-Aryans were the agriculturist, involved in the internecine tribal warfare. They were not the native of the land and came from the Central or Eurasian steppe. Hence, there is an informational vacuum or hiatus between the decline of Harappa Civilization and so-called arrival of Indo-Aryans. As so called Aryans were the agriculturalist and involved in internecine warfare, they could not be termed as the inheritors of the Harappa and the Indus Civilization.
Another strand in the myths and mystification of the history is the Avatar concept that has been one of the powerful tools in the subversion and the distortion of the ancient Indian history. The very concept of Avatar or Messiah complex seems to have been concocted in the post-Krishna era for precluding any Krishna like cathartic act. The entire concept of Avatar is based on the motive of how to set the upsetting personality and acts of Krishna within the fold of the Vedic religion.
Indeed, it was very arduous and difficult task as his social and political engineering had turned everything topsy turvey, and the stakes and their motive to keep their hegemony intact had been exposed beyond the seemingly reclamation point. The secular Gita had outshined all earlier temporal and non-temporal discourse. By founding a monotheist sect-Bhagavat, he had redefined the very concept of the religion in the light of universal law and justice as conceived in the context of a particular space and time.
Another tripping point of the Avatar concept is that after Krishna, no other Saviour or the Avatar has descended to the earth for rescuing the people from the irreligious, bad and tyrannical forces that have been terrorizing the populace for the thousand years[325]. Dharma or truth or ethics has just disappeared, injustice and cruelty are killing the innocent people apparently due to the excessive greed and myopia. The human history has not witnessed such a gut-wrenching cruelties, the injustices, and the exploitations as the societies world over have been confronting for the last three thousand years. India and the Indian society has been the fulcrum of such cruelties, plunders, injustices, genocides and the brutalities killing and terrorising the populace. Nevertheless, no Avatar has descended; taking out the basis of the Avatar concept, and proving its concoction for averting the revolt or the revolution arising thereof.
Moreover, there is no mention of Avatar or Messiah in the Vedas. Whatever mention thereof is in the latter part of Rig Veda and Puranas making it later additions or interpolation. There is a mention of Slakas Purush (eminent Personalities) in the Jain Texts, mentioning the Vasudev and Prati Vasudev, but no Avatar syndrome.[326] The transformation of Krishna as the Universal God is the product of the Bhakti movement in the mediaeval age and particularly during 16th or 17th century when Gouraiya sect of Vaihsnavism transformed Krishna into the Poona Avatar of Vishnu [327].
There is no doubt that whenever the crises of the morality, the degradation and the degeneration affects the humanity, whenever the grave injustice and the crass exploitation defines the relations among the human beings, great personality or Mahan Purush comes to earth for rescuing the humanity from the devilish forces. Even in the Gita it is said that ‘ yada --- yada hi dharamasyaglani…… However, it may be the later addition and the interpolation, or the distortion attempt for grounding the Avatarvad. There is no doubt about the fact that Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Mahaveer, Slakapurush and other Tirthankars, Gurus (teachers) such as Nanak Dev, Guru Govind Singhji in India and the prophets or messengers in the other parts of the world have been coming from time to time for such catharses.
However, it does not mean that they have been ‘God’, in some religion calling them God is a blasphemous act. In the Islam and the Christianity these Prophets and Messiahs have not been transformed into God, it is heresy to say so. Why then it has been done in case of our civilization? There seems to be no other justification for it than to perpetuate the domination and the hegemony of the priestly (Brahmin) and the retrograde ruling elites (Kshatriya) for keeping the masses under their tutelage. There is every possibility that it might have been started after Krishna, because he had revolutionized each and every aspect of life by infusing pragmatism and the hope for future, and doing away the old values and precepts based on dogma and dry rituals.
Krishna created a ruckus in the Indian society three millennia ago through his revolutionary feats in the every arena of life, appearing revolutionary even today. It resulted into the complete break from the past, threatening the very existence of the dominant classes or castes of the priestly and the ruling elites. He liberated the Indian society steeped in the superstition and the dogmatism, and reeling under the cruel and the unjust rulers who were, for their personal ambition, neglecting their Raj Dharma.
He not only exterminated the demons like kings ruling across the Bharat Varsh or Aryavrata or the present Indian subcontinent but also established a socio-political system based on Dharma and universal law, fair play and justice as interpreted in the context of the time, the space and the circumstances. He stopped the worship of demigods such as India & other polytheistic Vedic gods, instituting new religion--Bhagavat-- in strictly monotheist format. He broke all the social, political and religious taboos. There were many Yadavas such as Udhav who was the greatest Brahmin, Ghor Angris who did his last rite from his own hands and joined the rank of Tirathankars of Jain, leaving the Vedic religion and came to be known as Arashtinemi[328]. Krishna himself was a yogi par excellence transcending the material existence and becoming one with Param Braham or the Super Soul or Universal consciousness. He attained the title of Vasudev in his own lifetime[329].
Thus, it must have dealt a debilitating blow to the personal and the social standing of the priestly and the ruling classes lording over ancient populace on the basis of birth and unaccountable power. A Yadav could become a Brahmin and vice-versa and a Kshatriya could become Brahmin and a Brahmin a Kshatriya. More than it, this provided a momentum in the society, galvanizing the mind of the people that they could be liberated from the bondage tied to their respective birth. The functional division, which might have been the original plan of the caste system, seemed to have restored inadvertently, making the lives uncomfortable for the priestly and the ruling classes of the ancient India.
Hence, there started the greatest farce of the humanity: Gita was distorted, Krishna was mystified, and made God so that nobody could dare to repeat his great acts; and Yadavas were hounded out from Dwaraka and Indraparstha.[330] There were many insertions made in the Gita related to the Varnashram based caste system, which was against the very principal and values of Krishna. He was being portrayed as God, the line between God, Great Personality and or Human being was demolished. The Avatar system or the Messiah complex was concocted to prevent any repetition of Krishna like acts by any human being in future. Whoever tried to repeat the Krishna like acts or tried to reform Indian socio-political system was banished with force as happened in case of Buddha & Buddhism or was hung to the temples and worship houses.
These two castes or classes refused to engage with Buddhism, though initially they had no option as the very structure of the political class was transformed, as non-Kshatriya had come to the power, and the era of empire had begun. While Chandragupta gave protection to Jainism, Asoka and his descendants adopted Buddhism giving it state protection. Once the empire era gave way to the fragmentation of the power and emergence of the smaller kingdoms, these two classes regained the lost ground. Ultimately, they banished this great way of life from India.
However, when Buddhism became the third largest religious force in the world and a sizeable section of the Indian populace, oppressed by the repressive caste hierarchy showing their inclination to join this progressive religion, which was based on Krishna’s Bhagavat and Karmyoga minus sagun Braham, Buddha joined the pantheon of Avatars. There were many concerted efforts for casting the Buddha in the Brahamnic fold and tradition a la Krishna for reinforcing the plank the reformist ideology of Buddhism had eroded.
Again when the Islam emerged as major religious force in the world, they refused to engage it even if it came knocking at their doors. Incidentally, the Islamic invasion and later on the Christianity also upped its ante trying to chip in the oppressive social structure erected he cause and effect of the injustice meted out to Krishna and Mahabharata period by making him God and forgetting the lessons that he taught, and hounding of the Yadavas in particular and obliteration of traditional Kshatriya or ruling elites in general. Had not Krishna been transformed into God, and his social and political legacies mitigated, perhaps no force on the earth whether it was armed forces or the spiritual forces or proselyting forces would have tried to enter our sphere of influence.
Same farce is being perpetrated in the name of Gandhiji. He is in the process of being declared as God. He has already attained the position of sainthood or Mahatma (A Great soul) and in the process of being declared a demigod or God. Even during his lifetime he was being compared as ‘Krishna’ or Avatar which he denied virulently[331]. He knew that he would court the same fate, if declared God or Avatar as was the case in respect of Krishna, Buddha, and like on.
How priestly class with tacit support and collaboration of the retrograde ruling class subverted Gita by inserting the stanza like that of 27 in Chapter 10 of book wherein the God declares that He is the King or monarch among the human beings[332] (UchachesarvasmswaniNaradhipam……). This seems nothing but sheer distortion of most sacred and sublime book of knowledge and self-inquiry. This appears as nothing but blatant attempt to insert the central tenet of theory of divine origin of the state. Dr Kosambi has undertaken a very comprehensive study of Gita and has come out with conclusion that there are many contradictions and interpolations[333].
How stakes (priestly class & political actors) subverted the great acts, ideals, social, political and cultural revolutions engineered by Krishna is best reflected by the distortion and subversion that Gita, his magnum opus, has been subjected to. Firstly, it is contended that Gita existed before Krishna and it was said by the mythical Sun God to his son Vivaswan, after that it was lost to mankind until Krishna revived it. This seems to be nothing but a flagrant attempt to belittle the great Krishna, who is as unfathomable as the ocean. Then it was further said that even before the birth of Krishna, there has been mention of him in various Puranas and Smirti. However, these Puranas and Smirti have been conceived just to elevate Krishna to the position of Godhood. Moreover, these are later additions.
These arguments are nothing but very smart and calculated move to make Krishna a non- historical figure. First of all, the argument that Geeta was composed before Krishna falls flat before the fact that the very life of Krishna and his deeds and acts were embodiment of what he said in Gita. Moreover, there is no mention of Gita in Veda. Had Gita existed before Krishna, then there must have been mention of him and Gita in the Vedas. Then it is said that there was mention of Krishna and Gita even before their actual existence. To support this argument, various Puranas are quoted. However, these all were invented and added just to prove Krishna as God himself or the incarnation of God so that he could be easily mystified.
His mystification had become quite necessary, as he had broken the monopoly of political and social elites of the ancient India. The domination of two or three classes or castes of Brahmin, Kshatriya and business class had not only been broken, but the very basis on which these two or three had been ruling the roosts—Varnashram-- had been challenged . Varnashram was, has been and still is the only basis to claim superiority and subjugate the majority of the populace. Krishna and his Yadavas challenged this: Krishna and Yadavas like Atri, Durvasa, Udhhava, and Arashtinemi who later joined Jainism after doing his last rites and left the Vedic religion for good, were Yadavas by birth but their conduct and acts were that of Brahmin.[334] In fact, they were more versatile and knowledgeable than Brahmins. Even Guru Sandipan was Yadav, and they were more Brahmin than the Brahmins by birth. Udhav was called as ‘Avdhoot’—the highest order that any Brahmin or Pandit could achieve. Krishna himself appeared to be Brahmin of the Brahmins.
Krishna, Balarama, Avgah, Shini, Kroshtu, Satyaki, Kritvarama etc. were more Kshatriya than the Kshatriya. It was alleged that there had been loss of Kshatryahood from the time of Yayati for a very funny and unsubstantiated reason. Therefore, they were not Kshatriya, rather they were called ‘Gwala’ and the term is still being used. However, in reality, they were more Kshatriya than Kshatriya, and in fact, they had raised the benchmark of Kshatryahood to a such a high level that even for the traditional ruling elite it was very difficult to achieve.
Therefore, after breaking the myth of Varnashram by being both Kshatriya and Brahmin par excellence, Yadavas broke the claims of third one—Vaishya or Business class. Yadavas were businesspersons par excellence and they have proved it by setting up a new city, new port and a thriving commerce[335]. The riches and prosperity of Dwaraka was in itself the irrefutable proof of their business acumen.
Therefore, Krishna and Yadavas challenged the domination of all the three classes or castes based on birth. It was a virtual collapse of ground beneath their feet for claiming superiority and domination over majority of the populace. It was a challenge to whole Varnashram system and it had collapsed due to unprecedented and unmatched acts and deeds of Krishna and Yadavas. Initially, the system of caste was devised for the functional division of the society and castes were allocated as per ones vocational status. However, later on it came to be based on birth, as it was very convenient to claim superiority and maintain domination over the masses.
As Krishna and Yadavas had challenged the very structure and superstructure of the society, it had become essential for then society to take its revenge. First Krishna and Yadavas were tried to be vilified. This had started even during his lifetime when he was being called “Gwala” or Yadavas were stripped of Kshatryahood and vilified as ‘assura’. There are many proofs to support this argument: How Krishna was termed as womaniser and lover of sixteen thousand women whom he liberated from Narkasur, the king of Ang (Assam). However, it might have boomerang as Krishna and Yadavas were more popular than what stakes might have thought. After that, they might have realized there must be some other strategy, to neutralize Krishna, and what would be better way than to mystify him, making him God.
It was said that Krishna had supported Pandavs because they were his cousins, not because of establishing a Pan Indian entity under the suzerainty of Pandavs. This argument does not seem to have an iota of truth as there were others such as Sishupal and Dantvakra– who were also his cousins but he obliterated them because they were proving to be rather an obstacle in the realization of pan Indian balancing entity in the form of Vasudev. He might have supported Pandavs because he saw in them a potentiality, to establish an empire based on Dharma that could defend Aryavrata from all types of inimical external and internal forces. Otherwise, there does not seem to be any other reason for supporting Pandavs right from the beginning despite many problems, and even at the risk of angering Balarama and other Yadavas.
Whether it was Draupadi’s marriage with Pandavs or his matrimonial union with Rukmani, the princes of Vidarbha, a powerful centre of power that was siding with Jarasangh, his purpose was to check Jarasangh running amok the whole Aryavrata and establishing empire based on injustice, violating the Rajdharama or collectively agreed conduct of political engagement of ancient. It is for this purpose that he put his support for Pandavs in their inheritance struggle with Kauravas..
Even the exodus of Yadavas from Mathura to Dwaraka under the leadership of Krishna might have been factored by this desire, to erect such mechanism that could hold the unjust and bad forces from capturing the seat of power and plundering the Aryavrata for personal ambition as Jarasangh was doing. However, the short-term goal to this exodus might have been the relief from constant attacks by Jarasangh on Mathura and the exodus was precipitated by the news of the attack by Jarasangh in collaboration with anti-Yadavas forces and some foreign powers such as Kalyavan, to crush Mathura for the good.
Nevertheless, the long-term goal must have been finding a secure place so that Krishna and his Yadavas could achieve their goal of establishing a just and Dharma-based central power under the suzerainty of Pandavs. For that, they needed a secured place from where they could attack the inimical forces but it would be difficult for their opponents to hit back them. In addition, Dwaraka, surrounded by Arabian Sea in all four directions and connected with mainland of Saurashtra by a narrow and navigable bay was the best place for this purpose.
Jarasangh nefarious design could be gauged from his means to achieve his personal ambition to lord over the whole of Aryavrata. He had dethroned 96 kings, annexing their kingdoms, leaving the people to bear the agony of kingless kingdoms, and being ruled by the remote king. He had arrested all of them and was waiting for Hastinapur, Panchal, and other powerful kings to fall prey to his over ambition. He had announced when the total arrested kings would be 100, he would perform a ‘Sharaghani’ yagna where he would sacrifice all the king, thus ruling and lording over the whole of Bharatvarsh. He had forged alliance with like-minded kings of Sishupal of Chedi, Rukmi of Vidarbha, and Kansa of Mathura in North. Krishna upset his scheme when he killed Kansa in a duel, and it was very rude jolt to Jarasngh’s ambition. Kansa was powerful allies in North whom he had taken his in sphere of influence through marriage alliance of her daughters with him.[336]
There is no doubt that Krishna was elevated to Godhood just to marginalize his social and political revolution. Moreover, the Yadavas had become a force and victory machine and every Yadav was potential Krishna. This was a very dangerous proposition as one Krishna had transformed the socio-cultural and political reality of not only of his time but to the time to come also. If every Yadav is allowed to have aspiration to be like of Krishna, then traditional political and social elites whose power and hold had been eclipsed by Krishna and his revolutionary acts, would never see the day when they would get the old glory and power.
This exasperating situation might have forced them to devise a unique strategy of making Krishna God and the perfect Avatar decked with all sixteen qualities and arts on one hand, while Yadavas were denigrated to the extent that they would be demoralized and socially ostracized. Apart from driving out substantial number of Yadavas from Dwaraka and Indraparstha, they tried to divide the remainiants into various sub-castes as Jat, Gujar, Ahir, , etc., so that social and political control over them could be established without any problem. Recently, a DNA test was done on the Yadavas, Jat, Gujjar, and genetic similarities have been found on many counts among them[337] proving the thesis that these have one, divided for subserving the interests of the stakes.
Moreover, the Jat and Gujjar appears to be the branch of Yadavas that had migrated towards North and Northwest area of modern day western Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi Rajsthan and Avantipura, Haripura and Pahalgam areas of Jammu and Kashmir as overlapping movement of PGW and BRW in these areas prove, which tally with Pauranic texts.[338] The settlement of Jat, Gujjar, Ahir and Yadavas in these areas further authenticates the fact of these being the different branches of the Yadavas, spilt by the stakes to subserve their social-political agenda of decimating traditional Kshatriya in general and Yadavas in particular. The settlement patterns of Jat, Gujjar, and Ahir, which is interspersed with that of Yadavas in some areas and in other no trace of Yadavs found. In addition to these, their similar socio-cultural traits proves the great game of division played out to achieve the rather obnoxious goal.
They seemed to have devised three-pronged strategy—political, social and cultural to neutralize Krishna and Yadavas. The driving out of Yadavas was part of this grand political strategy under which they painted Yadavas in black, alleging that they had lost their Kshatryahood. Hence, they were kept outside the four-fold division of society. Though it was pronounced discreetly, yet it was obvious that the loss of Kshatryhood meant that they were relegated to the status of Shudra—the lowest order. It was not pronounced openly and certainly not before any Yadavas then, neither it is done right now out of fear.
However, it is a fact now: Yadavas are neither Kshatriya nor Vaisya, so the logical conclusion is that they are Shudras, the lowest of the wrung . In social relationship and events or gatherings, Yadavas are placed along with Dalit-Backward classes and accordingly they have been provided reservations in the government services. Even in this respect, it has been taken care that policy of division factors this denigration of Yadavas: as while Yadavas of Haryana and Delhi have been categorized as higher than that of central, Eastern and Northern Indian. Even in South, such a policy of socio-cultural marginalization visa-a-visa Yadavas is being followed. Moreover, the unfounded and unsubstantiated rumour, propaganda, outright lies and canards were inserted in Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads to the effect that Yadavas had become so tyrannical and uncontrollable that Krishna himself destroyed them in Prabhas Kshetra[339].
If one deconstructs what happened 3000 years ago in Prabhas Kshetra when all prominent Yadavas were assassinated and even Krishna was not spared, which has been termed as consequence of curse of some Brahmins. While in some other Pauranic texts, it has been said that it was Krishna who killed Yadavas, it is clear-cut case of justifying the act or interpolation of dominant thoughts. What might have happened is shrouded in mystery, lies, propaganda and deliberate concealment of the fact and events.
There might be the possibility that the class or caste which drove Yadavas out of Dwaraka and Indraparstha, and forced them to found an empire in Central Asia-Ghazni[340], the same class or caste—Brahmin, retrograde Kshatriya in cahoots with some clans or Kingdom of the region of Dwaraka or tribes--might have killed all prominent Yadavas when they were in inebriated state. To avoid the wrath of rest of Yadavas, the concoction of lies and propaganda might have been devised.
This can be further substantiated by what happened immediately after the tragedy of Prabhas. Yadava women were abducted and were released when Arjun came to the rescue after receiving the message from Krishna. How could be it possible or how it could be coincidental that soon after, the Yadavas were killed in brawl, their women were abducted[341]. There might be the possibility the same group or caste or clan or tribe that abducted the Yadavas women might have assassinated the prominent Yadavas taking advantage of darkness, their inebriated state and brawl. The same group might have been instrumental in assassinating Krishna and the story of Jarah Bhil might be just a pliable story to hide the identity of real assassin.
Where were all the gold of Dwaraka gone? It is said that low temperature and absence of any corrosive factors under the sea lead to preservation of things for the thousands of years. Then what had happened to those gold, gems, and riches or remainiants of grand city? Even if it is assumed that other might have got corroded or destroyed, what about gold and other mixed metals which are never destroyed?
It indicates the probability that Dwaraka was plundered and looted by the same stakes that had killed the brawling Yadavas in Prabhas, abducted their women and assassinated Krishna in the forest of Bhalaka, Veraval. There are many reasons for believing this theory. Apart from non-availability of proof, disappearance of tons of gold, Sudarshan Chakra and other weapons of Krishna, Balarama, Satyaki, Avgah, Shini, the most convincing proof is that Krishna, from the forest of Veraval sent message to Arjun to escort all Yadavas ladies, children and elderly people to Hastinapur and Indraparstha? There must have been some serious things such as plundering, looting, attack or like that might have been going around, that was why Krishna might not have gone back to Dwaraka. Instead, he sent message for Arjun to come and escort Yadava women, children and elderly to Hastinapur and Indraparstha. What prevented him from going back to Dwaraka?[342]
Moreover, other contradiction that emerged from the submergence of Dwaraka, as to why Yadavas were driven out from Dwaraka after the demise of Krishna? If Dwaraka was submerging or had submerged, then why not Yadavas settled in mainland of Saurashtra? Why women, children and elderly people were escorted to Indraparstha, while Krishna remained in the dense forest and rest of Yadavas were forced to leave and take refuge in central Asia where they founded the Ghazni Empire.[343]
If these contradictory facts were seen in juxtaposition with what various scriptures have to say in this regard, the doubt and suspicion would be confirmed regarding subversion of history and historical facts. Moreover, the theme of domination and hegemony would emerge as one of the most startling farce of human history. If it were analysed and deconstructed, it would become clear that Dwaraka before its submergence was plundered and looted, even the cause of Krishna demise seems to be suspect. There seems to be a larger conspiracy hatched three thousand years ago, to obliterate Krishna and Yadavas from India for the good.[344]
It appears to be more a case of pre-planned conspiracy to obliterate Krishna—a force that had transformed the socio-political scape of ancient India, a visionary, social and political revolutionary, master par excellence in diplomacy and expert in warfare. While the stakes have succeeded in achieving first goal, as Krishna has become not only God but also God of gods, Yadavas have survived their joint political-social-cultural-military onslaught. However, it is another matter that due to this socio-cultural onslaught, Yadavas started to hide their identity, putting different titles to their name. One can find presently different titles being suffixed by Yadavas spread all over India, ranging from Punjab to Bengal and Kashmir to Kanyakumari. It is for this reason that Yadav Mahasabha has made clarion call to all Yadavas to start reusing their title ‘Yadav’[345]. One can understand or estimate the intensity of socio-cultural onslaught that stakes launched against Krishna and Yadavas.
It is worth mentioning that Buddha and Mahaveer were Kshatriya in the tradition of Krishna. All three tried to reform Hinduism or distorted Vedic religion by doing away the ritualism and superstition that had engulfed it. Among all the three, Krishna has been towering figure as he put into praxis his reformative and revolutionary agenda successfully within one generation. Hence, there has been gigantic attempt to mystify him at the best and to make a legend out of him at the worst. It was done in the case of Buddha as well, who has been included as Avatar and it has been post-facto like Krishna. In fact, it might have started after Krishna, and is continued till the date. They tried to do the same act of mystification and Godhood in case of Guru Govind Singhji and Gandhiji unsuccessfully. It may not be surprising that two hundred years from now Gandhiji might be transformed into full-fledged god so that his ideals and values could be trampled more easily.
Nevertheless, enveloping the social totality was the theory of samsara and karma (transmigration and rebirth)[346] which developed into a system for the first time in Buddhist thought. Although Buddhism denied the existence of the soul, merely postulating the continuity of consciousness through a cycle of rebirths, it nevertheless related the ethics of rebirth to caste and this became axiomatic to both Hindu and Buddhist social philosophy. Karma transformed the world into a strictly rational, ethically determined cosmos, representing the most consistent theodicy ever produced in history. Nevertheless, it also required the strict fulfilment of caste obligation. Ethnic and economic factors were no doubt significant to caste structure, but karma reinforced it at the ethical level. There was no universally valid ethic but a compartmentalization of private and social ethic with each caste having its own ethic and therefore, men were forever unequal.[347]
Weber described Buddhism as the polar opposite of Islam and Confucianism: it was an apolitical and anti-political status religion of wandering and intellectually schooled mendicants. It was a salvation religion—an ethical movement without cult or deity and centred on the personal salvation of the single individual. Above all, it advocated that the will to life have to be destroyed in order to achieve Nirvana. Although Buddhism did have a democratic character, it nevertheless did not attempt any rational method in life-conduct.[348]
Weber explains the schisms in Buddhism from the fourth century BC onwards as being due to a lack of strong roots in society, its marginal demands on the laity and its essentially monastic and itinerant way of life. When the monks became materialist minded accepting gifts and proselytized, the religion declined. This decline was helped by the antagonism of secular rulers to Buddhist monasteries and the rising power of the town-guilds. The Brahamanical restoration, as Weber saw it, continued to emphasize irrational ends. Ritualistic activities were strengthened because the brahmanas wished to protect their fees and prebends. Instead of a drive towards the rational accumulation of capital, Hinduism created irrational accumulation chances for magicians, mystagogues and the ritually oriented strata[349]
These ‘accumulation chances for magicians, mystagogues and ritually oriented strata’ might appear as ‘irrational’ but these were very smart and calculated move to regain the control, domination and hegemony over Indian society that priestly class and retrograde political elites (Kshatriya) lost due to reformative agenda of Buddhism. It was the repeat of what happened after Krishna revolutionized the social and political scape of ancient India, leading to the loss of control and domination of these two classes or the castes over the society. The modus operandi seems to have been same as followed after Krishna: denigrate first, and then banish them. When it proved to be a failure, they included Buddha in the pantheon of Avatar. As they made Krishna Avatar and later on God of gods banishing Yadavas to foreign lands or in wilderness. Same strategy was followed in case of Buddha and Buddhists who were banished from the land of their origin. While Buddhist were routed out, their Sangha and other places of gathering, and debate and discussion seemed to have been seized ,[350] Yadavas being a fighter par excellence could not be subdued and banished like Buddhists.
It was these traditional castes or classes and vested interests, who instead of facing the invaders and attackers, might have allowed them to enter the Hindu social-political order. In some cases alliance were formed to deal with domestic rivals[351]. It was done to eclipse the traditional Kshatriya—Chandravanshi and Suryavanshi (Solar and lunar dynasty) whose leading figures had challenged the power and hegemonies of traditional priestly-political classes or castes. The social elites led by the priestly caste or Brahmin used to enforce and reinforce their hegemony through rituals and various types of superstitions. They had transformed the whole life of men and women of the society into unending rituals—right from morning to sleep time, from toddler to aged person, and each and every act of daily life. Moreover, through these, the enforcers of rituals-- this class used to enjoy unlimited and unending power[352]
Krishna attacked these rituals and superstition, thus challenging their power and social hegemony. He exhorted the people not to offer worship out of fear or any compulsion to any deity and through examples set by his life and ideals, he taught them to have unflinching faith over Him who is in everyone and everything. He founded a Bhagavat religion in strictly monotheist format.[353]Thus he propounded and established first monotheist religion in the form of Bhagavat , initiating the concept of universal brotherhood and love for each and every creation whether sentient or insentient and lived his life what he preached.`
“ It is clear that ballad stage (Mahabharata) is the first, Bharat is the next. It must have been composed even when the religion was ritualistic and polytheistic. Those portions of the Mahabharata that inculcate the worship of Vedic gods, Indra and Agni, are the relics of this stage. Women in those days possessed great freedom and caste was not rigorous. There was no element sectarianism, no philosophy of the Ataman or theory of avatars. Krishna appears as a historical character. The next stage of thought represents the period when the Greeks (Yavan), the Pratihars (Pahlavas) and the Scythians (Sakas) entered the country. We have now the Trimurti conception that Brahma, Visnu and Siva are different forms of one Supreme, fulfilling the different function of creation, preservation and destruction[354].
There might be the possibility that these might have been later additions and might have been the grand game of turning a historical figure and period in mythical one. The doubt is confirmed when one realizes that this ‘Trimurthy or Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh conept is nothing but the distortion of Krishna conception of universe, being run and controlled through three natural forces of Tam (Darkness or destruction, Rajas (Passion) and Satva (Goodnes) as mentioned in Gita[355].
The problem with Indian historiography is that it has been torn between nationalist, imperialist or colonial and ultranationalist on the one hand, and religious/orthodox and secular, non-religious on other hand. Meanwhile, the history is being used as convenient tool and a potent instrument to maintain and perpetuate their power and hegemony by the ruling elites in cahoots with social ones. They hardly seem to be bothering the fact that Indian history is gasping for fresh oxygen of research, removal of cobwebs created by socio-cultural elites to perpetuate their social hegemony and power. The problem is that this theme of distortion, interpolation and subversion is still running deep in our national psyche, and the stakes are still reaping the fruit of subversion and distortion sown by their ancestors in ancient time.
However, it is essential to keep in mind that the stakes, whose interests coalesce with foreigners or imperialist version of Indian historiography as both reap the immense material and power benefits from the running theme that India is land of invaders—from so called Aryan to colonial powers. And more so when their indigenous counterparts continue to enjoy the benefit and power positions as the social and political elites seem to have transformed politico-social scape into virtual colony, and had have been hollowing it for thousand years without any discontinuity, irrespective of who invaded and whoever ruled. Such is their indomitable and unmatched hold over social and cultural arena that no ruler or invader dared to break their stronghold over the populace. Moreover, the best or the worst part of it is that they even followed their model of how to be in permanent control and domination even in the face of foreign rule and subjugation.
In wake of new archaeological evidence in Dwaraka[356] attesting the historicity of Mahabharata war and Krishna and other related personalities, and fixing the time frame of 1000-900 BC, (with error of 200-400 years), the so called ‘gap’, ‘black age’ and ‘non-historical society’ ‘left out from world history’ such negative and subjective labels can be washed away. Moreover, the migration theory which has provided new momentum to world history and historical process, could be juxtaposed with it making India very much historical society as well as centre of World history. Even this is conditional on the willingness of social and political elites who seems to have devised such a system of socio-political hegemony, domination and subjugation, which appears automated and self-propelled.
According to Migration theory, around 60,000 BC, the human beings having originated in Africa migrated to different parts of the world. According to this theory, the centre of historical development was Africa from where the people or the group of people fanned out to the different parts of the world. This view was challenged with finding of skulls in Narmada Valley which date has been decided in the range of 75000 to 250000 BC.[357] So in the wake of this new evidence, the view that the historical process bypassed India has been replaced with centrality of India in the historical development[358].
The gap or discontinuity in Indian history could be filled up with new perspective and approach arising out of migration theory and new evidence in Narmada Valley dating back to 75000 BC. Based on archaeological evidence, deconstructed gist of epic, Puranas, and other literature on politics, genealogy, etc, migration and reverse migration, the information hiatus or gap or historical discontinuity between disappearance of Harappa-Mohanjodero civilization and arrival so called Indo-Aryan may be done away. Moreover, there is need of rigorous deconstruction of epics, Puranas, Upanishads, and Vedas, and rezig other facts related to Harappa Civilization and its contemporaries such as Persian, Egyptian and perhaps Hellenistic civilization.
The deconstructed materials that are further filtered for possible bias can be very useful in filling the seemingly unbridgeable gap in the Indian history. With finding of underwater remains of vast city State of Dwaraka off the Arabian coast in Gujarat what is Krishna grand city state[359], one can glean the uninterrupted march of Indian history, which seem to have been highjacked by vested interests creating an artificial lull or vacuum to maintain the hold 0ver the society society. If one analyses the archaeological evidence, folklore, philological patterns and similarities, myths, legends and separate the motives behind short changing a historical figure into mythical or legendry one, it would be not be difficult to discern continuity in the History of India. In addition to it, the Ram and Krishna like towering personalities would start joining the pantheon of Indian history leaving their religious, legendary and mythical stations.
The enigma of the absence of Harappa-Mohanjodero people after their decline due to deluge[360] can be solved by putting migration theory into work, with the help of philology and comparative study of literatures and Pauranic texts. There might be every possibility that they (ancient Indians) might have migrated to Europe via central Asia and after one or two generation of wandering, they might have started to return back to India in small number and might have settled in the areas where so called Aryan had reportedly entered. The slow, sparse and uneven dispersal of Aryan people might be the footprints of the sons of soil, who after one or two generation of sojourn, might have retuned. And with them might have come the cultural impression and memory of flood that is called as flood in Biblical history but it might have been flood or deluge in their own country.
So the myth of many subversive theories can be easily busted when migration theory is juxtaposed with many artefacts and articles found in Sumer and Egypt used by Harappan people. There might be the possibility that these might have come due to trade, but the possibility of immigrants coming and settling for some time and their going back their native place cannot be denied. The archaeological evidence, the historical process as developed world over, literary and philological linkages, a sort of superficial similarities in the development of cultures in Sumerian, Egyptian and Harappan civilizations support this migration and reverse migration.
The migration theory seems to be more acceptable than the invasion theory. The association of the Cemetery H evidence with the Aryans and the supposed massacre at Mohenjo-Daro has been doubted. There is no evidence of Kalibanga having been attacked and it is unlikely that it would have been spared, being so close, if Harappa had been attacked. Post-Harappan cultures rarely build directly on the debris of Harappan sites except at Rupar and Alamgirpur.[361]
T. Burrow, while discussing the term arma and armaka as mentioned in Vedic literature and Panini’s works, mentions about the references to the ruins of Indus Civilization cities. In some cases, it would appear that Indra and Agni were responsible for the destruction of the cities, while in other cases these appear already to have been in ruins. It appeared that the most of these cities were in the Saraswati and Punjab region. It is stated that the dark inhabitants fled and migrated. This agreed with the archaeological evidence that the cities were deserted and not occupied by the new arrivals. They were regarded as places of evil and the haunt of the sorcerers and therefore to be avoided.[362]
This would be hardly the attitude of a conquering people who had actually destroyed the cities. So there seems to be no doubt that these cities might have been deserted due to a natural calamity before the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers who associated the ruins with cities with evil, might have set fire to the remaining ruins and might have attributed to the destruction to Indra and Agni. This would also explain the chronological gap, the Harappa culture having declined by 1750 BC and the Rig Vedic Aryans being dated to 1500 BC.[363]
Recent skeleton analysis of the Harappa culture sites has undermined the theory of the Indo-Aryan speakers representing a large and separate racial group. S. S Sarkar maintains that Harappans were the same as the present-day predominant ethnic types living in these areas, which would contradict the theory of a large scale Aryan invasion or migration.[364] Dr. K. Sen has suggested that ethnic stock of Cemetry R 37 and Cemetry H appears to have been the same although there are cultural differences.[365]
However, it should not be forgotten that truth of Indian history stands somewhere between the surrealism of ultranationalist version of history, and subversion and myopic view of internal social and political elites, and their colonial cousins. The so called Aryan-Dravians divide is nothing but the offshoot of the lopsided view of the Indian history as factored by the exigencies of colonial rule. This cultural divide vapours in nothingness when the evidence of Krishna and Shiva as referred in the literature of Tamil, Telgu, Malayam is compared with epics and itihas Puranas.
“Soon after 2300 BC the imposing state organizations just described and the economic systems they dominated disintegrated. In Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India, eras of prosperity that have left a vivid impression in the archaeological record were succeeded by Dark Ages from which few buildings and inscriptions survive. In India civilization seems to have extinguished. In Egypt and Mesopotamia it soon re-emerges liberated from some of the shackles of ancestral barbarism and deepened as to benefit more fully new classes in society.”[366]
In India, the civilization did not extinguish as is generally understood. It started flourishing and second urbanization process might have begun as it had culminated into highly sophisticated and sprawling city-state as found in Dwaraka. This new civilization not only improved upon the Indus civilization but also gave humanity many things such as sprawling city state, sophisticated weapons such as Spiral Disc which humanity despite many breakthroughs and breath-taking progress in science & technology has so far been unable to make, such a brilliant life philosophy and spiritualism with the universalism of Samkhya and monotheism of Bhagavat.
“ In the second Dark Age that followed semi-barbarous Amorites, Semites from the West, filtered into Mesopotamia. About 1800 B.C. an Amorite dynasty, ruling form Babylon in Akkad, welded Sumer and Akkad into Kingdom ….. termed Babylonia. King Hammurabi consolidated the new kingdom, not only by becoming himself a god of the empire, but by giving it a civil service of governors and judges appointed by the king and a unified code of laws to supersede independent traditional codes…”[367]
It would not be inappropriate to juxtapose Manu and Manusmirtistakes, a first social, juridical and political code that might have predated that of Hammurabi but for great mystification and mythical drive launched by Indian social and political elites after Krishna period in ancient India, in which everything related to Krishna and Yadavas was relegated to myth, mysticism and cynicism. Manu was the father of Ella, from whom Krishna and Yadavas traced their origin, hence they are called Alia or Haiyah dynasty.[368] The flood might have occurred around the decline of Indus and Harappa civilizations or it might have been one of the primary reason for the decline of the most ancient and developed of all ancient civilizations—Harappa and Indus.
Manu is considered as ancestor of Krishna and Yadavas. Hence, there are many versions of Manu and there is perhaps seven or fourteen Manus and age or period he belongs to is circular, and like Parshuram and Narada he is found in every age[369]. Manusmirti is such a potent social and juridical-social code, despite its subversion by the stakes,[370] that some of its codes are still being followed not only in India but also all over the world. There might be every possibility that Hammurabi might have appropriated the code of Manu along with other cultural and civilizational ideas and artefacts as he had ‘welded Akkad and Sumeru taking everything from these two into Babylonia.[371] Moreover, Harappa and Indus had been net exporter of all luxury items, sophisticated technologies, artefacts and other things as is clear from the fact that these items had been found in Babylonia, Egypt and Mesopotamia and not otherwise.[372]
The distinctive achievements of civilizations that differentiate them from barbarism are the invention of writing and elaboration of exact sciences. ‘In Sumer, Egypt and India the new economy had required and elicited conventional systems of writing and numeral notation, of weights and measures and of time-keeping.“ Nevertheless, the cuneiform and hieroglyphic scripts, their mastery demanded a long and specialized apprenticeship or education. On purely practical grounds, a peasant or an artisan had no chance of learning to read and write. Literacy was confined to a special class of initiates, comparable in China. Like the latter, the adepts enjoyed a privileged in Egypt and Mesopotamia.”[373]
When the civilization in India had attained such great height wherein ‘writing and elaboration of exact sciences’ were in vogue around 2300-1800 BC, how could the civilizational growth and development achieved in the field of science, art, politics, philosophy, societal discourses, politico-juridical milestones, war and technology during Krishna and Mahabharata period be denied? More so when the historicity of Krishna and Mahabharata period has been established by finding of more developed and grander city state of Dwaraka as founded by Krishna.[374]
Chapter 5
Krishna: Historical Figure and Missing Link of ‘Dark Age’
Another history now begins to challenge it: the counter history of dark servitude and forfeiture. This is the counter history of prophecy and promise, the counter history of the secret knowledge that has to be rediscovered and deciphered. This, finally, is the counter history of the twin and simultaneous declaration of war and of rights[375].
It is said that history is made of dominant race or class or caste that wins inner or inter-region or inter racial war. But Indian history and historical discourse, primarily in its all chronological or otherwise dimension, appears to be that of losers’, and the foundation of this loser’s history was laid down after Krishna’s demise when the victorious race or caste or class—Yadavas—were expelled from Bharat[376] and forced to migrate to the periphery. And Khsatrya class or traditional ruling elites in general and that of Yadavas in particular were decimated and obliertrated by pitting of foreign and indigenous tribes and races systematically and through different self-suicidal mechanism In addition, a losers’ history discourse was started by turning Krishna as God and Yadavas as demons worth hunting. This loser’s historical discourse has become main discourse as exemplified by the mystical and cynical view of history. It is the discourse that has found its manifestation in the history text books: Who replaced whom and who is replaced by whom or chronological view of history.
The vanquished or the losers discourse has become so predominant that this historical tradition— that of vanquished--has taken firm roots. It is for this reason that despite not winning a single war for last 2000 years,[377] Indian history is presented as that of victors. However, theme and current of vanquished is quite perceptible, if one delves into curves and contours, trials and travails and vicissitudes of the history. The vanquished history appearing like that of victor’s is the main trait of Indian history where even defeats, conquests, plunder, foreign rules and bondage have been transformed into victory, even if it appears nothing but hallowed one.
The new history that now emerges, in contrast, has to disinter something that has been hidden, and which has been hidden not only because it has been neglected, but also because it has been carefully, deliberately, and wickedly misrepresented. What the new history is trying to show is that power, the mighty, the kings and the laws have concealed the fact that they were born of the contingency and injustices of battles.[378]
If one sees the ancient Indian history with this perspective, it would be difficult to conceal the historicity of Krishna and Mahabharata for which whole history of India seems to have been subverted and distorted. This subversion is so deep rooted that it seems to be foundational to all the subversions and distortions ever inserted in the history of any nation. “….The role of history will, then, be to show that laws deceive, the kings wear masks, that power creates illusion, and that historians tell lies. This will not, then, be a history of continuity, but a history of the deciphering, the detection of the secret, of the outwitting of the ruse, and of the re-appropriation of a knowledge that has been distorted or buried. It will decipher a truth that has been sealed.”[379]
The point that Krishna was a historical figure, not mythical or Avatar is proved beyond doubt by the fact that there is no mention of him or avatar concept in Vedas--only authentic source for that period. Whatever mention is thereof are additions and interpolations, and other Vedic scriptures and Puranas are later additions composed after Krishna and Mahabharata period. Archaeologically, the historicity of Krishna has been proved beyond doubt with the underwater expeditions of the coast of modern day Dawaraka which discovered the submerged remains of the ancient Dawarka city, as described in the Mahabharata and the SrimadBhagavatam. The recovered artifacts like the seals and coins bearing names and insignias connected with Krishna demonstrate that the scriptural descriptions of Krishna are not mythological but historical.[380]
‘Underwater exploration yielded two gateways, fort walls, bastions and a jetty at a depth of 10 metres off Dwaraka, in the Arabian Sea. Apart from corresponding to the Mahabharata's description of the architectural features of the city and the mode of its submergence, it has directly fixed a date by TM for the pottery of Dwaraka at 3520 years BP (Before Present, with error of two or three hundred years). Other finds include pottery, bronze and iron implements, three-holed triangular stone anchors at Dwaraka, a late Harappan type of seal made of conch of a composite animal - a bull, unicorn and goat - and lustrous red ware pottery at Bet Dwaraka, linking the site to the Harappan culture, and thereby establishing its continuity. Bet Dwaraka was an island frequented by Krishna who is said to have visited its Shankhodara Temple[381].
In the 4th century BC, Chanakya refers to the story of Krishna's birth, while Megasthenes mentions that the Sourasenoi (Surasenas or Yadavas)hero-worshipped Herakles (Krishna). Their two great cities were Methora (Mathura) and Kleisobora (Krishnapura?) on the navigable river Yobares (Yamuna). He also mentions that Herakles (Krishna) sent his daughter Pandaia to rule over the kingdom of Mathura (Madura) on the southern sea. Was she a descendant of the Pandavas, and did the latter re-emerge as the Pandyas, whose southern capital was named after Krishna's capital, Mathura?[382]
Panini, Patanjali and the Buddhist and Jain works also mention Krishna and the events of the Kurukshetra war, while the Chinese traveller Yuan Chang records that a great war was fought at Kurukshetra and the bones of dead warriors lay buried under the soil[383].
In 180-165 BC, the Greek ruler Agathocles issued coins with images of Vasudeva holding a chakra[384]. Several inscriptions are available in the first century BC: the Greek ambassador Heliodors erected a Garuda column to Vasudeva at Besnagar; the Mora Wall inscription near Mathura mentions the worship of the five Vrishni heroes, including Vasudeva; stone enclosures (Narayanavatika) were built for Vasudeva and his brother Shankarshana (Balarama) at Ghosundi and Hathivada.[385]
The most clinching archaeological evidence of Krishna’s historicity is the birthplace of Krishna at Mathura, which is called “janambhoomi temple’ where underground cellar is still there where Krishna had taken birth. A ‘small scale excavation’ was undertaken in 1954-55 and 1973-74 in ‘Krishanjanambhoomi complex’s north of superimposed mosque of Aurangzeb, which resulted into find of a ‘plain grey and polished black ware as found in Hastinapur. On the basis of analogous finds from other sites, the period may be ascribed to 6th century BC.’[386] A stone age site was found near Govardhan Hills of Mathura[387] but no follow up exploration was done and it was left out in mid-way.
Earlier in 1966, an excavation team led by Prof. H. Haertel of Berlin Museum of Indian Art undertook excavation at Sonkh, 30 Km southwest of Mathura. At the lowest level of ditch was found ‘PGW (Painted Grey Ware) along with Black and Red brown polished including marble, finished plain or coarse grey and red ware. Lumps of iron’ was also found along with stone artefacts[388]. The excavation was continued in 1967-68 and 1968-69 wherein it was found ‘the continuity or overlap between PGW phase and NBPW…… The excavation also yielded a large number of antiquities including objects of iron, copper, bone, stone and terra cotta[389]. No efforts seem to have been made to link these with Krishna or Yadavas.
However, there has come into existence a new monument near the site declaring that it is here Lord Krishna has appeared. It seems brazen attempt to deny the historicity of Krishna and the very attempt attests to his historicity. Moreover, tradition and even eminent historians associate the site with the birth of Krishna, and it is said that it is because of this that Aurangzeb deliberately built a mosque over it.
Krishna is often described as an infant or young boy playing a flute as in the Bhagavata Purana[390], or as a youthful prince giving direction and guidance as in the Bhagavad Gita.[391]The stories of Krishna appear across a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions[392]. They portray him in various perspectives: a god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero and the Supreme Being[393]. The principal scriptures discussing Krishna's story are the Mahabharata, the Harivamsa, the Bhagavata Purana and the Vishnu Purana.
Worship of a deity or hero called Krishna, in the form of Vasudeva, Bala Krishna or Gopal, can be traced to as early as 4th century BC[394]. Worship of Krishna as svayambhagavan, or the Supreme Being, known as Krishna, arose in the Middle Ages in the context of the bhakti movement. From the 10th century AD, Krishna became a favorite subject in performing arts and regional traditions of devotion developed for forms of Krishna such as Venkateshwara in Andhra, Jagannatha in Orissa, Vithoba in Maharashtra and Shrinathji in Rajasthan.
The Sanskrit word, ‘kṛṣṇa’ is primarily an adjective meaning "black", "dark" or "dark-blue". Sometimes it is also translated as "all attractive". In the Lalitavistara Sutra, Krishna is the chief of the black demons, the enemies of the Buddha.[395] A 800 BС cave paintings in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, North India, which show raiding horse-charioteers, one of whom is about to hurl such a wheel could potentially be identified as Krishna[396]
The earliest text that explicitly provides detailed descriptions of Krishna as a personality is the epic Mahabharata which depicts Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu.[397] Krishna is central to many of the main stories of the epic. The eighteen chapters of the sixth book (Bhishma Parva) of the epic that constitute the Bhagavad Gita contain the advice of Krishna to the warrior-hero Arjuna, on the battlefield. Krishna is already an adult in the epic, although there are allusions to his earlier exploits. The Harivamsa, a later appendix to this epic, contains the earliest detailed version of Krishna's childhood and youth.[398]
In early texts, such as Rig Veda, there are no references to Krishna, however some, like Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar attempted to show that "the very same Krishna" made an appearance, e.g. as the drapsa ... krishna "black drop" of RV 8.96.13.Some authors have also likened prehistoric depictions of deities to Krishna.[399]
Chandogya Upanishad (3.17.6) composed around 900BC-700BC mentions Vasudeva Krishna as the son of Devaki and the disciple of Ghora Angirasa , the seer who preached his disciple the philosophy of ‘Chhandogya.’ Having been influenced by the philosophy of ‘Chandogya’ Krishna in the Bhagvadgita, while delivering the discourse to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra discussed about sacrifice, which can be compared to purusha or the individual[400]
Yāska's Nirukta, an etymological dictionary around 6th century BC, contains a reference to the Shyamantaka jewel in the possession of Akrura, a motif from well-known in Puranic story about Krishna[401]. Satapatha Brahmana and Aitareya-Aranyaka, associate Krishna with his Vrishni origins.[402]Pāṇini, the ancient grammarian (probably belonged to 5th century or 6th century BC) mentions a character called Vāsudeva, son of Vasudeva, and also mentions Kaurava and Arjuna which testifies to Vasudeva Krishna, Arjuna and Kauravas being contemporaries[403].
Megasthenes (350 – 290 BC), a Greek ethnographer and an ambassador of Seleucus I to the court of Chandragupta Maurya mentioned about Herakles in his famous work Indica. Many scholars have suggested that the deity identified as Herakles was Krishna. According to Arrian, Diodorus, and Strabo, Megasthenes described an Indian tribe called Sourasenoi, who especially worshipped Herakles in their land, and this land had two cities, Methora and Kleisobora, and a navigable river, the Jobares. As was common in the ancient period, the Greeks sometimes described foreign gods in terms of their own divinities, and there is a little doubt that the Sourasenoi refers to the Shurasenas, a branch of the Yadu dynasty to which Krishna belonged; Herakles to Krishna, or Hari-Krishna: Mehtora to Mathura, where Krishna was born; Kleisobora to Krishnapura, meaning "the city of Krishna"; and the Jobares to the Yamuna, the famous river in the Krishna story. Quintus Curtius also mentions that when Alexander the Great confronted Porus, latter’s soldiers were carrying an image of Herakles in their vanguard.[404]
The name Krishna occurs in Buddhist writings in the form of Kaṇha, phonetically equivalent to Kṛishṇa[405]. The Ghata-Jâtaka gives an account of Kṛishṇa's childhood and subsequent exploits, which in many points corresponds with the Brahmanic legends of his life and contains several familiar incidents and names, such as Vâsudeva, Baladeva, Kaṃsa. Yet it presents many peculiarities and is either an independent version or a misrepresentation of a popular story that had wandered far from its home[406].
Jain tradition also shows that these tales were popular and were worked up into different forms, for the Jains have an elaborate system of ancient patriarchs, which includes Vâsudevas and Baladevas. Kṛishṇa is the ninth of the Black Vâsudevas and is connected with Dvâravatî or Dvârakâ. He will become the twelfth tîrthankara of the next world-period and a similar position will be attained by Devakî, Rohinî, Baladeva and Javakumâra, all members of his family. This is a striking proof of the popularity of the Kṛishṇa legend outside the Brahmanic religion[407].
According to Arthashastra of Kautilya (4th centuries BC) Vāsudeva was worshiped as supreme Deity in a strongly monotheistic format.[408] Around 150 BC, Patanjali in his Mahabhashya quotes a verse: "May the might of Krishna accompanied by Samkarshana increase!". One verse speaks of "Janardana with himself as fourth" (Krishna with three companions, the three possibly being Samkarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha). Another verse mentions musical instruments being played at meetings in the temples of Rama (Balarama) and Kesava (Krishna). Patanjali also describes dramatic and mimetic performances (Krishna-Kamsopacharam) representing the killing of Kamsa by Vasudeva.[409]
In the 1st century BC, there seems to be evidence for a worship of five Vrishni heroes-- Balarama, Krishna, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Samba. An inscription has been found at Mora near Mathura, which apparently mentions a son of the great satrap Rajuvula, probably the satrap Sodasa, and an image of Vrishni, "probably Vasudeva, and of the "Five Warriors". Brahmi inscription on the Mora stone slab, now in the Mathura Museum, proves the historicity of Krishna. The coins of Rajuvula have been recovered from the Sultanpur District.[410]
There is no unanimity among the theologians and religious figures as what is the position of Krishna. It shows he is being interpreted as per the whims and fancies of the person and sects concerned. This also proves the historicity of Krishna.
The most exalted figures in Jainism are the twenty-four Tirthankaras. However, when Krishna was incorporated into the Jain list of heroic figures, it presented a problem with his activities which are not pacifist or non-violent. The concept of Baladeva, Vasudeva and Prati-Vasudeva was used to solve it. The Jain list of sixty-three Shalakapurshas or notable figures includes amongst others, the twenty-four Tirthankaras and nine sets of this triad. One of these triads is Krishna as the Vasudeva, Balarama as the Baladeva and Jarasandha as the Prati-Vasudeva. He was a cousin of the twenty-second Tirthankara, Neminatha. The stories of these triads can be found in the Harivamsha of Jinasena (not be confused with its namesake, the addendum to Mahābhārata) and the Trishashti-shalakapurusha-charita of Hemachandra.[411]
The story of Krishna occurs in the Jataka tales in Buddhism.[412] In the Ghatapandita Jataka Krishn has been portrayed as a prince and legendary conqueror and king of India.[413] In the Buddhist version, Krishna is called Vasudeva, Kanha and Keshava, and Balarama is his younger brother, Baladeva. These details resemble that of the story given in the Bhagavata Purana. Vasudeva, along with his nine other brothers (each son a powerful wrestler) and one elder sister (Anjana) capture all of Jambudvipa (many consider this to be India) after beheading their evil uncle, King Kamsa, and later all other kings of Jambudvipa with his Sudarshana Chakra. Much of the story involving the defeat of Kamsa follows the story given in the Bhagavata Purana.[414]
As depicted in the Mahābhārata, all of the sons are eventually killed due to a curse of sage Kanhadipayana (Veda Vyasa, also known as Krishna Dwaipayana). Krishna himself is eventually speared by a hunter in the foot by mistake, leaving the sole survivor of their family being their sister, Anjanadevi of whom no further mention is made.[415] Since Jataka tales are given from the perspective of Buddha's previous lives (as well as the previous lives of many of Buddha's followers), Krishna appears as one of the lives of Sariputra, one of Buddha's foremost disciples and the "Dhammasenapati" or "Chief General of the Dharma" and is usually shown being Buddha's "right hand man" in Buddhist art and iconography.[416]
The Bodhisattva is born in this tale as one of his youngest brothers named Ghatapandita, and saves Krishna from the grief of losing his son. The 'divine boy' Krishna as an embodiment of wisdom and endearing prankster is forming a part of worshipable pantheon in Japanese Buddhism[417] "Present day Krishna worship is an amalgam of various elements. According to historical testimonies, Krishna-Vasudeva worship already flourished in and around Mathura several centuries before Christ. A second important element is the cult of Krishna Govinda. Still later is the worship of Bala-Krishna, the Child Krishna—a quite prominent feature of modern Krishnaism. The last element seems to have been Krishna Gopijanavallabha, Krishna the lover of the Gopis, among whom Radha occupies a special position. In some books Krishna is presented as the founder and first teacher of the Bhagavata religion."[418]
The different elements in the worship of Krishna and his transformation from local deity to universal God, from hero worship to God Himself seems to be betraying the hidden agenda of priestly class. In India or for that matter any part of the world the great person like Krishna are revered and worshipped. Krishna was also revered and worshipped by Yadavas and general populace as the greatest ancestor and hero of many battles. Nevertheless, if the great ancestor is transformed into universal god, there must be reason and the reason seems to be nothing but transform him from temporal to non-temporal domain so that his revolutionary and transformative ideas, acts and deeds could be safely placed in the non-temporal domain of divine.
Krishna seems to be key to the mystery, distortion, break, gap, enigma, vandalization and subversion by the internal as well as external forces that Indian history in general and ancient history in particularly has been subjected to. This key would not only unravel the mystery and enigma of Indian history but also disentangle the various knots in which our political, social, and cultural history has been floundering for a long time. If Krishna and his age is untangled from religious and mythical pedestal, and brought forth to the historical ground, then the entire enigma, all the mysteries and breaks or gap would crumble like playhouse of sand.
Krishna, in his pastoral erotic aspect, is evidently of different origin from Krishna the hero. The name means ‘black’, and the god is usually depicted as of that colour. Perhaps the oldest clear reference to the pastoral Krishna is in the early Tamil anthologies, where ‘the Black One’ (Mayon) plays his flute and sports with milkmaids.[419] It is quite relevant to note that Krishna was Andhak branch of Yadavas as his father Vasudev had come from Andhak (Andhra Pradesh, South India) and his mention in Tamil anthologies attest to the historicity of Krishna. Apart from the archaeological evidence of underwater city state of Dwaraka found by S. R. Rao,[420] other clinching evidence regarding the historicity of Krishna is the battle of Mahabharata which is inexplicably linked to Krishna.
According to the most popular later tradition, ‘the Mahabharata war took place in 3102 BC, which, in the light of all evidence, is quite impossible. More reasonable is another tradition, placing it in the 15th century BC but this is also several centuries too early in the light of our archaeological knowledge. Probably the war took place around the beginning of the 9th century BC such a date seems to fit well with the scanty archaeological remains of the period, and there is some evidence in the Brahmana literature itself to show that it cannot have been much earlier’.[421]
The epic as the literature of one age looking back nostalgically on another can become a literature of legitimation. Interpolations are often the legitimation of the present but are attributed to the heroes of the past. The bards were perhaps providing the models of what patrons should be like. …. That legitimacy and validation are essential to the epic is clear from the central event of the narrative, namely the legitimacy of succession, involving elder and younger sons and the problems of disqualification.[422]
We do not know exactly when the Mahabharata was composed . We may be pretty certain that about the time of the rise of Buddhism the Mahabharata was known. Macdonell is of opinion that ‘the original form of epic came into being about fifth century BC’[423]. This view is confirmed by the absence of any reference to Gautam Buddha in the epic. Panini is familiar with characters of the story.[424]
The Asvalayana Sutras mention the work called Mahabharata in addition to the Bharata[425]. We have an inscription of the Gupta kings, which proves the historicity of Mahabharata in that period. Asvaghosa refers to Bharata in his Buddhacharit and Saundararananda. Baudhayana in his Drama Sutra quotes a verse found in the Yayati Upakhayana and another verse found in the Bhagvadgita (2.2.26;2.22.9) and he is said to belong to 400 BC. From all these evidences it may be inferred that the Mahabharata was well established about the time of Buddha”.[426]
“We cannot, however, decide with any accuracy the particular periods of history represented by its component parts. Even after the fifth century BC, we cannot say that it was not added or altered in parts by the later writers who wished to harmonize its teachings with their own advanced notions of religion and morality. There are some who think that the parts of the poem as late as the Puranas and that it was growing till the sixth century AD. In spite of it all , it is not wrong to say that the bulk of the work has remained the same from 500 BC up till the present day.”[427]
The epic relates the heroic deeds of valour which were performed in the great war fought about the thirteenth or the twelfth century BC.[428] Colebrook puts it in the fourteenth century BC, and Wilson, Elphinstone and Wilford are of the same view.[429] “There can be little doubt that original kernel of the epic has, as a historical background, an ancient conflict between the two neighbouring tribes of the Kurus, and Panchals, who finally coalesced into a single people. In the Yajur-Veda these two tribes already appear to be united, and in the Kathaka King Dhratrashtra Vacitravirya, one of the chief figures of the Mahabharata, is mentioned as well-known person. Hence, the historical germ of great epic is to be traced to a very early period, which cannot well be later than the tenth century BC.[430].
If the historicity of Mahabharata war could be proved, Krishna would be naturally become a historical figure and that is what he is. However, the stakes did not spare even Mahabharata when it was being transformed from bardic tradition to written one around first century AD. Krishna appears in the middle of the epic and in some tradition he is shown as not so significant personality, while in another he is shown as incarnation of Vishnu.
The evolution of Bhagavat Sect or religion, first monotheist religion testifies to the historicity of Krishna and as to how he and his great deeds were subverted just for the sake of stakes. “…the Vasudev-Krishna which is the basis of the Bhagvadgita as well as the modern Vaihsnavism. Garbe traces four different stages in the growth of the Bhagavata religion. In the first stage, it had an existence independent of Brahmanism. The central features of this stage, which in the opinion of Garbe continued till 300 BC are the founding of a popular monotheism by Krishna-Vasudev, its alliance with Samkhya Yoga, the deification of the founder of the religion and a deepened religious sentiments of the founder of the religion and a deepened religious sentiment on the basis of bhakti.[431]
The anti-Vedic character of this religion, which is criticized by the commentators of the Vedanta Sutras, belongs to this stage. The brahminizing of the religion, the identification of Krishna with Vishnu, and the pre-eminence of Vishnu, as not merely a great god but as the greatest of them all, belong to the second period, which are about 300 BC. The word Vaishnav as the name of the sect of Vishnu worshippers occurs in the Mahabharata.[432]
The third stage is the transformation of the Bhagavata religion into Vaishnavism and the incorporation of the elements of the philosophical schools of Vedanta, the Samkhya Yoga and the Yoga. This process took place according to Garbe from the Christian era uptill AD 1200. Then comes the last stage of philosophic systematization attempted by the great theologian Ramanuja. …..How does Krishna become associated with Vasudeva-Narayana? In the Mahabharata sometimes he is distinguished from them. Soon he becomes identified with Supreme[433]. Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta (300 BC), mentions the fact that Krishna was worshipped then at Mathura. If we try the ancestry of Krishna , we find it to be name of rishi who composed a hymn.[434] He is said to be descendent of Angiras[435].
In the Chandogya Upanishad, there is mention of Krishna as the son of Devaki and as a pupil of rishi Ghora, an Angiras[436]. It is clear that from the time of the Vedic hymns down to the Upanishad period there was a tradition about Krishna as a Vedic thinker. This seems to be later interpolation and addition. However, in another passage of the Rig Veda Krishna is addressed as non-Aryan chief waiting on the banks of Amsumati with an army of 10,000 to fight Indra[437]. The latter legends relating to Krishna’s turning the Gopas away from the worship of Indra, and the consequent indignation of Indra, which resulted in the heavy downpour and Krishna’s act of lifting up of the Govardhan hills over the head of Gopas to protect them from the rain, may all be based on the incident mentioned in the Rig Veda. In the Artharvasamhita Krishna is described as having slain a giant Kesi.[438]
The four stage of Bhagavat sect as founded by Krishna proves his historicity beyond any doubt. Moreover, it was Krishna whose Samkhya and philosophy of life led to the initiation of Upanishad culture. If one analyses the different Upanishads, one would not fail to notice the footprints and philosophy of Krishna in every Upanishad. The Smirtis and Puranas seem to have been invented to bring reformer and rebellious Krishna who mobilized the masses against Vedic rituals, the central and powerful god Indra, under the larger Vedic fold. It is for this that even Bhagavada-Gita has been inducted under Vedic fold granting it the status of fifth Veda, apart from making additions and interpolation, which is contrary to the philosophy of Krishna.
There are many instances in the Buddhist works wherein Krishna name has been mentioned testifying to his historicity.[439] The historicity of Krishna can be further ascertained after gleaning many anecdotes and deeds ascribed to him in various Jain texts. In some of the Jain texts, there is the entire story of Krishna reproduced with minor changes in the life of the 22nd Tirthankar Arashtinemi (He is also refereed as Neminath) who was a famous Yadav.[440].
According to Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, a nomadic tribe of cowherds called Abhirs used to worship the boy-god. They were a non-Aryan tribe with unrefined manners. The stories and many anecdotes of the libertinism related to the life of Krishna might have been derived from these wandering tribes.[441]Whereas Shri Vaidya is of opinion that Krishna belongs to the Yadav race of Kshatriya who came during the second invasion of the Aryans, a community still pastoral in its habits, which found its habitation on the banks of Yamuna.[442]
Other Indologists like Webber and Dutt maintain that Pandavs were non-Aryan people with the strange custom of brothers marrying a common wife. It was those who propagated the Krishna cult and compiler or writer of Mahabharata seeks to show that it was their devotion to Krishna that led to their victory. The wars and incidents of the Pandavs, a people from outside the pale of Brahmanism, were worked up with a religious motive into epic, and they were themselves admitted into the Aryan fold under the name of Bharatas. Garbe believes Krishna to have lived about two hundred years before Buddha, to have been son of Vasudeva, to have founded a monotheistic and ethical religion, and to have been eventually deified and identified with the god Vasudeva, he founded. In the Mahabharata, we have a combination of all traditions about Krishna that survived until then, non-Aryan hero, a spiritual teacher and a tribal god.[443]
We see in the Mahabharata the process by which Krishna is made into a supreme deity. In some places, he is represented as worshiping Mahadev.[444] There are some contexts, situations and events where his divinity is denied and in some cases he has been denigrated.[445] He is sometimes looked upon as the warrior lord of Dwaraka. Occasionally he becomes a religious preacher of monotheism, which has for its object of worship Bhagavat, the adorable. Sometimes he is identified with Bhagavat himself. The Mahabharata contains several layers of thought superimposed one upon another in the course of ages representing Krishna in all grades, from a historical character to an avatar of Vishnu[446]
Besides, there is no dearth of facts ranging from archaeological, philogical, literature and circumstantial evidence that proves the historicity of Krishna. Nevertheless, contemporary Indian society seems to be not interested in restoring the historicity of Krishna, and is happy in continuing the myth of Krishna as it suits their interests. It is quite natural as the same vested interests or classes that had killed the historicity of Krishna and drove Yadavas out of Dwaraka and Indraparstha[447]., robbed Yadavas of their Kshatryhood, relegated them to the position of Shudras (untouchables) are ruling the roost; and enjoying the perks and privileges bestowed by the progression of history as galvanized by the great acts and deeds of Krishna and Yadavas.
It is no wonder that when the same Yadavas who were driven out of India after the demise of Krishna founded an empire in modern Central Asia, Afghanistan and Iran and when they were pushed and pressurized by imperial campaign of Greco-Bacterinas and Persian Kings, nobody came to their help. Moreover, when they came back to India, they were despised and disdained and forced to found new Kingdom in the desert of Rajasthan—Jaislmer.[448]
The Indian society under the leadership of stakes hackled and ostracized them by spreading unbearable innuendoes that Yadavas started hide their identity and changed their titles. It took more than three thousand years for Yadavas to gather enough strength for reclaiming their title of Yadav, which they stopped suffixing after the political and social elites exerted unprecedented social and cultural pressure following the departure of Krishna. They were vilified and denigrated to such extent that many stopped calling themselves Yadavas, most of them switched to some neutral titles and changed their profession.
There is no doubt that Krishna was not an ordinary person, he was a perfect human being, more like Param Purush, a Yogi par excellence and with a lot of Charisma and some miracle. He was God like figure that had Midas power to transform any situation whether it is adverse or detrimental to any cause into advantageous one. What are objectionable are the motive and the way he was transformed into godhood, just to marginalize his social and political revolution and to gain domination over indomitable Yadavas who might have carried sea-changing legacy of Krishna and others of Yadu-Madhu dynasty, transforming the social and political milieu of ancient India.
The society as a whole supported these stakes, as it did not want a lodestar too high to provide guide map and blue print for future development. On the other hand, it might have been possible that ancient Indian society was too shocked after the departure of Krishna and his Yadavas might have been too bewildered and numb to formulate a suitable strategy. Whatever be the case, it started a new trend in the Indian society: that of engineering a social and cultural farce to hoodwink Indian masses, and propping up new class or caste to cut to the size the traditional Kshatriya classes. After marginalizing Chandravanshi Kshatriya-Yadavas, they started marginalizing Suryavanshi Kshatriya. What are more the vested interests led by the priestly class in cahoots with retrograde ruling class started inducting invaders, foreigners and power brokers as Kshatriya or degenerate Kshatriya or Rajput[449].
It is ironic that while Krishna was mystified and turned into a lover’s legend, Yadavas were hunted, hounded and forced to leave the land of their ancestors, the invaders and foreigners were inducted as new class of Kshatriya leading ultimately to the subjugation by foreigners and invaders. Krishna’s lifetime campaign to form a loose alliance of all kingdoms of ancient India, to stand as united in wake of foreign invasion or anyone taking help of the foreign power was nullified in more than one way. Apart from it, his lifetime campaign to form permanent alliance of all kingdoms under the suzerainty of one benevolent power to checkmate any internal or foreign invasion was annulled, and his emphasis on ever preparedness and his strategy of long military expedition even in foreign territories was shelved and his dictum of uninterrupted military preparedness[450] was shunned.
When the bardic authors were dispensed with and the brahmanas took over, changes of other kinds were introduced: the hero became an incarnation of the deity in the Ramayana (as well as Mahabharata) , or long passages on the duties of the king declaimed by Narada; or the elaborate discourse on creation, ethics and liberation from rebirth by Bhisma in the moksa-dharma section, were interpolated into the Mahabharata so that the text became more appropriate to the needs of the monarchies of the time and the new religious sects. The change to a literary form, extended the social function of the composition[451]
Didactic sections of the Mahabharata where the Sabhaparvan, encapsulating the essence of a lineage society, stands in contrast to the Santiparvan with its rhetoric on the monarchical state. The new ethic is sustained in part by the popularizing of new sources of authority. Among them and significant to the political arena were the king, the brahmana and the rsi[452]. It is clear that Krishna’s historicity and legacies have been highjacked to the non-temporal level at the best and mythical level at the worst.
If seen from objective point of view, there should not be any doubt about the historicity of Krishna and Mahabharata period. As Colonel James Todd has associated Herackles with Baldeva, Krishna’s older sibling, yet he has given indication that he could be associated with both: “How invaluable such remnants of ancient race of Harikula! How refreshing to the mind yet to discover, amidst the ruins on the Yamuna, Hercules retaining his club (Krishna’s club is Komuduki though Baldev or the Balarama is associated with it) and lions’ hide, standing on his pedestral yet worshipped by Suraseni. This name given was to a large tract of country round Mathura or rather Surpura, the ancient capital founded by Surasena, the grandfather of Indian brother-deities, Krishna and Baldeva, Apollo and Hercules. The title would apply to either; though Baldeva has the attributes of ‘God of Strength’. Both are as (lords) of the race (Kula) of hari (hari-kul-es), of which the Greeks might have made the compound Hercules.[453]
Chapter-5
Ancient Indian history in the Matrix of Social Domination
Indian society right from the ancient time has been in the clasp of the social domination, and this seems to have propelled the stunted march of historical process with its attendant social and political ramifications. What is unique that these social and cultural forces are still propelling the hurtled and impeded social and political progression, with most of the structures and superstructures of the yore or what D. D Kosambi has maintained that ‘…the survival within different social layers of many forms that allow the reconstruction of totally diverse earlier stages,……...[454]
Despite the inability of Indian historical discourse to draw such reconstruction for obvious reason, the caste and a stratified hierarchical social order with its attendant inequality and obstructionist agenda has been the dominant reality. The caste structure and its domination or hegemonic tools are still chiselling rather eroding the social and political contours of the Indian society. There is still no unanimity as to what the nature of caste is, and whether it is the facilitating or obstructive force. Those who have been benefiting from it or those castes or classes who have been its propounder for the control and domination over the society have been the staunchest supporter, and those at lower rung of the highly repressive, stratified social order have been against it.
However, the transformation of tribal stage of social-political development into the highly stratified system of caste and then its freezing into status-quoism seems to have been the defining characteristics of Indian social history in its all dimensions. The social development that has remained stuck up in the same structure and functionalism of the caste system was rather a stunted and retrogressive stasis with its closed, exclusive and endogamous feature. This is the point that factors a fundamental difference between caste and class making it the crux or main phalanx of continuous and unabated domination and hegemony over the society.
As to why caste, with its all dynamism and functional vibrancy has been frozen into status quoism, not allowing it to transform into class has something to do with its use by the two castes as tool of domination, hegemony and power relations. There must not be any doubt that what began as functional division of the society was made into hereditary and closed group, just for maintaining the superiority and high status of those at higher rung in perpetuity. However, there have been two inherent phenomenal characteristics of this social development. First is the resistance and disapproval on behalf of some castes in general and Yadavas in particular who have been digressing from this social hierarchy, right from very beginning. Second is the planned and systematic digression of the system by two upper castes whenever the exigencies demanded or demands.
It has been well known about Yadavas that they have been disapproving this closed and exclusive social system from the very beginning and for it, they have been termed ‘Assur’[455] and Shudra, and what not. During Krishna era, this system or Varnashram was turned topsy-turvey and for that Krishna and his Yadavas had to pay the price still overshadowing them at least it seems so. It is another matter that our whole civilization had to face consequences in the form of balkanization, foreign rule and obliteration of political elites which space has been occupied by the social elites and neo-Kshatriya or neo-political elites or foreigners, invaders and tribes coroneted as Kings. Alternatively, it was just alibi to grab and occupy the political scape? This is one side of the coin, which indicates the potentiality of the caste in transforming into class.
Another notable characteristic is that it has been used as two-edged sword or Janus like instrument of the social domination. Whenever some existential crisis ensued or their very existence was endangered or the privilege or status of two upper echelons of the caste hierarchy in general and that of one in particular was threatened as had happened during the first and the second stream of foreign attacks and rule, the rigid structure was made flexible acquiring the veneer of class. During these two streams of invasion and consequent threat to their domination, the foreign attackers, plunderers and looters were given the status of Kshatriya, just to marginalize and obliterate the traditional ruling elites in general and Yadavas in particular.[456] Whereas many non-Brahmins have been included in their fold, just to infuse vibrancy and dynamism.[457]
It is these two cleavages or the faultlines that have had been used to factor the obliteration or emasculation of traditional political elites or caste. Juxtaposed with what happened in the ancient and mediaeval period when the two streams of invaders were let in by the socio-political cleavages, and the steady and planned decapitation of traditional Kshatriya class or caste, the socio-political saga is complete. This seems to be the foundational discourse of the Indian history in its so called ancient, mediaeval and modern dimension explaining the vanquished’s history being presented as victors’ one. The mystery, the dark belly of Indian history or ‘dark age’, discontinuity or break in the civilizational progression seems to be rested in desperate attempts of these two castes or class in general and one in particular for maintaining hegemony and domination at the altar of socio-political subjugation of Indian society. What is rather perplexing and petrifying is that it seems to be continued without any dilution.
Steering clear of the debate or the controversy as to whether caste is progressive or obscurantist, it is not incidental that votaries of this social system are those who have been enjoying the supremacy and hegemonic status over the majority; it has been used as very handy tool of domination and hegemony. One can guess its hold and universality when one sees its prevalence and permeability even in the modern age, still defining factor of the current socio-political realities. However, Ancient Indian socio-political history could be analysed in terms of caste struggle and social domination. This seems to be overriding theme of ancient Indian history in general and that of post-Krishna and post-Mahabharata period in particular.
There is no doubt about the fact that in 1000-900 BC, which could be aptly called as Krishna-Mahabharata period, Varnashram and casteism was in vogue. And Krishna and his Yadavas were praised as well as derided for violating this rigid social order.[458]Even in Veda, there is mention of Varnashram and casteism: the distinction of language and ritual is more frequent than physical appearance. The society is divided into two main groups, the aryavarna and the dasa-varna suggesting a rather simple division into us and them, political success justifying the superiority of the former over the latter.[459]
Then there is mention of fourfold division of the society based on Varna system in the latter part of the text. They may be interpolated and even interpolation shows dominant thinking and ideology of the time. Only the dominant group could dare to do interpolation in such a sacred and important book which very words ‘if enter the ears of a Shudra (low caste), he or she would be meted the punishment of hot oil being poured into his ears.”[460]
Even the most developed and sophisticated ancient Indian civilization of Harappa and Indus was marked by this gross social discrimination. “The small and large structures indicate social stratification. The rulers and members of the affluent section lived in bigger buildings in Harappan times whereas the ordinary people lived in modest two-roomed houses. …… the ancient Indian society was marked by gross social injustice. The lower orders, particularly the Shudras and untouchables, were encumbered with disabilities that are shocking to the modern mind………... Ancient India’s march to civilization was accompanied by the growth of social discriminations.[461]
In addition, this march to civilization is still being accompanied by social discrimination that has been rather internalized and institutionalized in such way that it is difficult to discern these in the different layers of the society. Moreover, it has been accepted and co-opted in the collective mind of the society. It is very difficult to differentiate whether it is modern or the antique so far this social discrimination and stratification based on caste is concerned.
Moreover, this oppressive and repressive social order has such closed and compartmentalized system that it is very difficult to dismantle it. Bougle, who analyses the caste in the light of mechanical structure includes among the characteristics of caste the following four: hereditary specialization; hierarchy and the inequality of right; a clear opposition between elementary groups which isolate themselves through a series of taboos relating to food, contacts, clothing etc., and which resist unification; and the incidence of mobility being collective rather than individual.[462]
Senart had listed three groups among the Aryans: the sacerdotal that had appropriated the sacrificial ritual, the aristocracy founding itself on heredity, and the common people. These three divisions provided the impetus for further divisions and the separation of the Aryan from the non-Aryan. Senart was looking at the origins of caste with reference to Varna. For Bougle the prototypes of castes were not the varnas but the Jatis, which were lineage descendants and indicated the dominance of ancient familial exclusivism[463].
It is not clear how it had originated and whence it had started characterizing the Indian society. There is also no clarity as to whether Brahmin or some other caste/class was the originator of the caste system. The pre-eminent status of the Brahman was not secured from the start, but was gradually usurped by the Brahman after an initial competition for status between the Brahman and the Kshatriya.[464] Initially, it might have been functional division and later on Brahmin or Kshatriya might have made it hereditary and closed system for enjoying the privileged position and resultant power in perpetuity. Moreover, the Indian history seems to be unending saga of maintaining this privileged position by the two castes- Brahmin and Kshatriya.
During Krishna period there is clear indication that Varnashram and caste based social hierarchy was prevalent and its rigidity had peaked which he broke with his socio-political engineering. It is because of this Krishna was derided and showered with chosen terms such as Gwala (cowherds).[465] This stark and rigid social structure is also betrayed by the fact that Yadavas were branded as non-Aryan or Assur for their mixing with lower castes and not observing Brahamnic rituals and edicts.[466] Krishna had smashed the backbone of this repressive and highly degrading social structure by establishing a monist and monotheistic sect-- Bhagavat Panth or Sect and stopping the worship of Vedic gods like Indra and that of snakes and ghosts[467]. Apart from it, the myth of Govardhan and killing of Kaliya serpent proves it.
Krishna had revolutionized the social and political scape of the ancient society by putting an end to superstitions and ‘dry’ Vedic rituals. The Varnashram and Vedic rituals must have had been proved quite sophisticating, stifling for all and sundry of the ancient Indian society. The people and society was wallowing in the grip of superstitions, rituals and cumbersome process of the prestation society. Moreover, the priestly class must have had been interfering in every walk of life as they had woven such intricate web of ‘dry rituals’ in each and every aspect of individual and collective life that it might have had been quite exasperating. The rigid and stratified social order might have had been proving to be anathema to the progress and development. Krishna had not only broken the backbone of this prestation society by establishing a monotheistic sect-Bhagavat and propounding Samkhya Yoga, but also virtually abolished the Varnashram and the stratification thereof.
The Samkhya Yoga and Bhagavat sect that Krishna founded had led to the loss of power and privilege of priestly class. The political scape had already been revolutionized by Krishna and his Yadavas setting a high benchmark for the rulers and ruled. His Rajdharama based on equality and justice for all irrespective of caste or economic status had transformed the traditional political scape of then ancient society. By punishing and dethroning the anti-people, cruel and selfish kings, by creating powerful centre of power in the form of propping of the Pandavs capable of trouncing or suppressing wayward or anti-people or anti-Rajdharama kings, punishing those who used to seek outsiders or foreigners for their internal or domestic issue or matter, etc., he had set a unprecedented legacy that would be difficult to ignore and dismantle.[468]
Krishna had put emphasis on the debate and discussion making ruling elites very sensitive to the public opinion. As was the tradition among Yadavas that they used to have a leader having won the support of all factions, he had just refined it making it an essential part of Rajdharama. He had presented an unique socio-political mechanism—Vasudev—based on the principle of check and balance, to checkmate any force whether political or the social threatening or having the potentiality of disturbing political and social peace or mutually agreed rules of political engagement that was what called Rajdharama.[469] Later on, this was subverted by the priestly and retrograde ruling elites (Brahmin-Kshatriya) making it a mythical entity.
After Krishna, it was perceivable even during his times, the traditional Brahmin and Kshatriya, whose respective power he had routed out started to regroup themselves. There had started a great struggle between these two classes resulting into what has been termed as Upanishad period. The period of the composition of the early and major Upanishads was from about the eighth to sixth centuries BC.[470] They had represented, therefore, a watershed between the Vedic corpus and new ideologies, epitomizing features of what had often been called an ‘axial age’. The earlier texts had put emphasis on the centrality of the sacrificial ritual, whereas the new ideologies had moved away from it exploring the alternative eschatologies with, initially at least, an absence of ritual.[471]
It was Krishna and his Samkhya, Bhagavat, Karmyoga-- even this philosophy has been appropriated to a fictionsus rather mythical character of Kapil Sage and Dev Mata[472]just to deny the credit to Krishna, who had given rise to new discourse leading to the corpus of new ideology. This might have had shifted the power equation resulting into the loss of temporal and non-temporal control of priestly class or Brahamins over the Kings or the political elites.
In fact, the temporal and non-temporal power had come to be vested in Kshatriya as it was in Krishna during his period, giving debilitating blow to the priestly class. It was the first and perhaps the last time in the Indian history that a political authority had challenged the unaccountable power of priestly class and the repressive authority of Dharmashastra. Krishna and Yadavas had defied the Dharmashastra by treating everyone equally irrespective of Varnashram institutionalizing it in his Rajdharama in general and in the Vasudev system particularly.
“Unlike western law which is recitative, the Dharmashastra of India in which the laws are coded, are repressive. The legal system did not seek to cut across caste distinctions and instead supported the hierarchy of castes and the stress on inequality by assuming an ascending scale of punishment. Hindu law was not able to preserve its religious colouring because no political power arose to counter-balance the power of the priestly caste nor did economic life change caste[473]. It was Krishna who had achieved this giving rise to the political power and the system that had not only counter-balanced the priestly class but had also neutralized them. He had also attacked the very basis of caste—Varnashram proving that caste was not the basis of claiming any privilege or any inherent quality. He had also demolished one of the very fundamental bases of the caste—endogamy and exclusiveness.
As to why these changes had come to be characterizing the Indian socio-political scape after Krishna, there are various reasons attributed to it. While some attribute it to the interaction between the Indo-European or Aryan ideas and belief and practices of local non-Aryan or pre-Aryan[474], some see it as protest against oppressive rituals and prestation society , ‘explorations in the search for enlightenment of the human condition and release from its bond’.[475]
Actually, it was the era of post-Krishna period and offshoot of the foundational change that his revolutionary socio-political philosophy had brought forth. Since the most of the historians do not acknowledge the historicity of Krishna, this period and its historicity remains a futile exercise of shooting arrow in dark. The Upanishad period or the Axial Age, which every philosophical, temporal and non-temporal discourse had the undoubted footprints of Krishna’s philosophy-- his Rajdharama, and Vasudev, Samkhya, Gita and Bhagavat-- saw the transition of power, giving new turn to this social domination, wherein Kshatriya had upper hand and the priestly class was marginalized.
The startling feature is that the exploration of these new ideas was undertaken often not by brahmanas but by Kshatriyas. Thus, the raja of the Kuru-Panchal explained to Svetketu that his father, though learned, was not familiar with all aspect of the new teaching, and later Gautama was initiated into the teaching by the raja; brahmanas who had come to Uddalaka Aruni seeking knowledge on atman-Brahman were directed by him to Kekeya raja, Asvapati. In the dialogue between Ajatasatru, the raja of Kasi and Drptabalaki of the Gargya clan, it was clear that the former was the more knowledgeable.[476] The noticeably important role of the Kshatriya had been commented upon both in Upanishads and by modern scholars.[477] The raja of the Panchals said to the learned brahmana Gautama that the knowledge had never been in the past vested in any brahmana, but he would tell it to him.[478]
Distinctions were made between knowledge as for ritual, as intuition, as intellectual speculation that had encouraged debate and the dialectical form of argument, and as knowledge of the atman. The participation of some brahmanas might have led to the eventual inclusion of this material as part of the Vedic Corpus, and it also had occasional references to other earlier Vedic compositions. Nevertheless, later appropriation of the Upanishads could also have been an attempt to stem the heresies of the Buddhists and other sects by tracing the origins of their deviation to Upanisadic thought. It is for this reason that modern philosophers continue to disagree as to whether Buddhism is to be treated as a part of the spectrum of post-Vedic thought rooted in the Upanishads or as a radical departure from the Upanisads.[479]
‘Were they moving away from the sacrificial ritual solely because of philosophical curiosity, or was there also, perhaps subconsciously, a search for an alternative that would discourage the expending of wealth that could be eventually diverted toward maintaining a state system with enhanced powers for the Kshatriyas far exceeding those of the earlier chiefships? Such a shift, of course, was not seen in terms of rational well-being or economic theory. The discontinuance of the Vedic sacrificial ritual would break the nexus between the brahmana and the Kshatriya and would provide a new role for the Kshatriya, more in consonance with the broader changes of the time’.[480]
The mutual dependence of the Brahmana and Kshatriya for power and status could be broken if the sacrificial ritual was discontinued. The reality of power came increasingly to be recognized as lying in access to resources and in some schools of thought, the bestowal of divine attributes became more marginal. As wealth reinforces power bestowing legitimacy, the wealth consumed in the ritual and in gift-giving was circumcising the power of Kshatriya. ….. Hence, the temptation to break away from the prestation economy would have been apparent. ….. The claims to landownership on the part of the Kshatriya families and the use of slaves and hired labour to work on the land increased the resources at their command permitting accumulation of wealth and sharpening the stratification.[481]
Krishna and post-Krishna era underlines the rather high period of Indian socio-political scape when ruling elites or Kshatriya was like philosopher king. The Gana-Sangh system or rather republican credo that Krishna had displayed in his stately conduct or the democratic principles of debate, discussion, and unanimity or a sort of consensus characterizing Yadavas and Krishna’s conducts testifies this. It is to be noted that Krishna had just refined and streamlined what was being followed among Yadavas about which there is a mention in the Rig Veda.[482] There were different Sangha, more often than not called as Vritya and Mandal (unit of their socio-political administration). The leaders of the respective Sangha and Mandal were elected or chosen by majority or the unanimity of the total members constituting a Mandal. The leaders of these Mandal or Sangha in turn used to choose or elect the king or leader of Yadavas.[483]
Krishna had not only institutionalized it but also made it mandatory for taking each and every decision. It is clear from his conduct as he used to take up every decision by convening Sudharma Sabha or used to put every decision taken at the spur of moment or as per demand of the situation when the matter could not be discussed in Sabha, he used to put it in it for the concurrence or the ratification of the decision taken. The King or the leader of any mission or campaign had to be elected or to be agreed upon unanimously by substantial majority.[484]
It was due to this republican or democratic credo of electing kings that Krishna could not be crowned as the King of Mathura or Dwaraka as significant number of Mandalas were against him. This republican credo could have been in the gestation period before it had emerged as full-fledged Republic in North Bihar, East UP and Central India around 500 BC. It is no coincidence that in almost all republics one of the constituent group or actor or the tribe or the caste was Yadavas; Virji republic consisting of Yadavas and Shakya tribe in North Bihar adjacent to Nepal is an example which was later on vanquished by Ajatasatru after the protracted battle[485]. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to term this as a clan or the tribe or caste affairs.
This clear cut republican credo of Krishna and Yadavas was vindicated when Republics were acknowledged to have emerged in 500 BC, but they were not credited rather it was attributed to the unknown factor or mystery or providence or taken away from the Greeks. It was erroneously referred as having started after 500 BC. Even this has been proved wrong in the wake of discovery of a large underwater city state in Dwaraka, positing the second urbanization must have begun from 1000-900 BC which is also termed as Krishna or Mahabharata period.[486] (Though Rao decided the date around 1300-1400 BC, the error of two or three hundred years is possible) However, this important fact has not been acknowledged and even if it might have been acknowledged, it has not led to any revision of the history.
Nevertheless, the rise of monarchy and later on Empire on the graveyard of Republics could not be termed as progressive step in historical progression. In fact, it seemed to be a reactionary development. But for the myopic historians who adjust their historical scholarship in tune with that of Western one, the rise of Republic was a surprise and in fact, it was shown as if it were intra-tribal or clan affairs at the best and at the worst it was a mere eyewash. There is no doubt about that it was reactionary development as monarchy should have been replaced by Republic and not otherwise. That is what has happened or has been happening in the history of western civilization. However, the period was quite uncomfortable as when Republic was flourishing in India, the Greeks were in warring stage of their political development[487]. Therefore, the Indian historians have to set their historical radar as per the trajectory of western historical developments and progression.
Nonetheless, the Indian historians instead of taking contingence of this reactionary development have doubted, rather put a question mark on the landmark advancements, which had rendered any socio-political development in any part of the world insignificant.
Meanwhile, around the second half of the first millennium BC, before the emergence of Buddha and Buddhism, the Brahmin or the priestly class finally seemed to have managed to get upper hand over political elites or the Kshatriya class. They had slowly but steadily factored in their control over the society through another means. “The explanation of social inequalities on the basis of transmigration could keep society under the control of those who pronounced on conduct. The irrelevance of Varna status in the new doctrine level was nullified by this explanation of social differentiation. What began as a search for an alternative path concerned with releasing the atman was pursued as such, but in social practice reduced to a means of controlling the less privileged and justifying their condition on ethical grounds of karma.[488]
By the period before the emergence of Buddha, ‘the dry Vedic rituals’, superstitions, sacrifice, prestation economy and the worship of serpents, ghosts were rampant. The priestly class had managed to regain their control over the temporal authority through judcicous mix of ritual based Vedic relgion with the prestation economy. “The Vedic rituals and prestation exercise a virtual control over Kings and other functionaries of the kingdom. It was a very elaborative process whereby the devotee irrespective of their power and position surrendered themselves to the priest. ‘The yajamana, or patron, had first to be changed from a profane condition to a sacralised one. This involved a lengthy purification during which all other activities were set aside. This automatically excluded as yajamanas those who were essential to the daily curriculum such as men who laboured and women. The yajamana was stripped of authority during this process and underwent a change of status through ritual cleansing[489].
The emergence of Buddha and Buddhism dealt a debilitating blow to the dominance of priestly class. The reformist and pacifist ideology of Buddhism had attacked the rituals, the prestation society, sacrifice and gift giving, other superstitions, which were the tools of priestly class to exercise control over the Kshatriya or the ruling elites and society en large. It has been argued that some Buddhist doctrine grew out of seminal ideas from the Upanisads.[490] This is partly true as it is an attempt to trace all the philosophical and the ethical traditions back to the Upanisads as a mechanism of appropriating heterodoxy, should it become necessary. Significantly, Buddha does refer to these earlier teachers but it is equally clear that his teaching is a departure from them.[491]
There should not be any doubt that it was Krishna who had intiated and provided momentum to a period that has termed as the Upanishad Period or Axial age. During Krishna time, the Axial age as characterized by emergence of Upanishad and republican and quasi democratic credo was in infancy as is evident from Krishna’ mention of ‘Akhyan’ in Gita[492] indicating that it was in primary stage. It was Krishna and his Samkhya Yoga, Gyan Yoga, Karma Yoga and Bhagavat philosophy that had endowed with basis for the elaboration and the maturity or the development of the axial age. There is clear foot print of Krishna and his philosophy therein, and almost all the Upanishads contain many verses and sutras that has been appropriated from Bhagvatgita, Anugita, Uddhav Gita or Ekadesh Skandh in Aitarya Brahmin[493], Khandyoga[494], Kaushitaki,[495] Brihad Aryanak,[496]Taittriya Brahmin[497], Mundaka[498], Maitrya Upanishad[499] and Svetasvtara Upanishad[500].
If one compares the basic tenets of the Upanishad with the Gita, the Bhagavata and the philosophy of Samkhya, these all seem to have been appropriated without acknowledging it to Krishna. There is no doubt it was Krishna whose all-inclusive and universal philosophy of Bhagavat and Samkhya bestowed the foundation and momentum to the Upanishad period leading to the rise of Kshatriya or ruling elites as repository of both temporal and non-temporal authority. This is what Krishna had attained during his lifetime imparting momentum to a period that could be called as the Second Urbanization, coinciding with Krishna period (1000-900 BC), not from 500 BC as is considered by the so-called mainstream historians. The new archaeological underwater findings of the submerged city-state of Dwaraka[501] have proved it substantiating its historicity and authenticity, but there seems no taker for these breakthrough findings even for more than two decades.
Besides it, the superiority distinctly claimed by the latter (Apastamba and Manu) for the Brahmana is not quite clearly brought out in the Gita. ‘Holy Brahmana and devoted royal saints are bracketed together; while Kshatriyas are declared to have been the channel of communication between the Deity and the mankind as regards the great doctrine of devotion propounded by the Bhagvadgita. That indicates a position for the Kshatriyas much more like what the Upanishad disclose.[502]
Even Buddhism seems to have borrowed most of its tenets from Krishna and his corpus of philosophy with some modification such as non-violence, universal consciousness or nothingness replacing Braham, pacifist and apolitical ideology. “Buddhism was heterodoxy because it took the structure of the earlier system (Krishna or Samkhya, Bhagavat) but gave it a new focus. It is not, therefore, confined to the boundaries and framework of Vedic and Upanisadic thought. It not only goes beyond but also changes the paradigm. If the Upanisads mark a watershed between the ideologies of Vedic Brahmanism on the one hand and the ‘heterodoxies’ on the other, drawing upon the concerns of certain categories of brahmanas and Kshatriyas, Buddhist ideology change the paradigm to focus on the concerns of the gahapatis and setthis. It abolishes the notion of a secret doctrine and universalizes its teaching”[503]. Although the Buddha associates the growth of evil in the world with the institutions of the family and the private property, both of which, he argues, encouraged sentiments of possessiveness and continuity for both institution.[504]
The moral responsibility of the individual was seen in the choice of action made by him through his or her chain of rebirth. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad described rebirth as consisting of Samskara, the transmigration of souls, to which was added the notion of karma in its entirety, the outcome of the activities of one life affecting the next. The Buddhists modified the notion of Samskara to exclude the soul and to refer to consciousness as the element that continues, and they appropriated the doctrine of karma in its entirety. Thus not only was the individual responsible for the nature and condition of his present and future lives, but the doctrine of Karma also became a useful means of explaining the origin of social inequality and the creation of caste society.[505]
What is rather intriguing that Krishna, Mahabharata period and the Yadavas and their legacies and the contributions have not been acknowledged, rather brazenly ascribing it to the abstract ‘Dharmashastra’ or brahamanical literature, indicating some sort of the obnoxious nexus or the conspiracies? This is further reinforced by the archaeological findings in the Dwaraka attesting the grandeur and high stage of the development[506], yet it has not been acknowledged terming these as mere hype or the fabricated evidence. However, like other archaeological findings and expeditions relating to the Krishna and Mahabharata period, this also has not been worked upon or it does not seem to even have been acknowledged.
‘Since 1000 BC onwards, a new type of archaeological material is found in Punjab, Haryana, western UP, and in the neighbouring areas of Rajasthan. They suggest a new type of material culture and a new type of settlement. This culture is identified by a new type of pottery called Painted Grey Ware. The excavation of the PWG sites in Atranjikhera and Hastinapur have exposed rice, wheat, and other cereals which show the people to be basically agriculturalists. They live in thatched houses and their settlements were much smaller than those of the Harappan.[507]
“Since burnt bricks were not used, not extant house has been recovered. But iron tools appear in Atranjikhera and other places. They are in the form of spearheads suggesting the Painted Grey Ware people also practised hunting and war as sources of livelihood. The material associated with the Painted Grey Ware people indicates that their social structure was of a simpler type; it was not as complex as that of the Harappans. Tools and other materials remains recovered from the Painted Grey Ware sites do not speak of much social differentiation. The PWG culture came to an end around 400BC although social and economic life associated with it continued in later times.”[508]
It is another matter that the excavation expeditions and the archaeological findings of Hastinapur, Atranjikhera, Indraparstha or Purana Quila in New Delhi, were left in the midway and only few layers were excavated. Moreover, only horizontal excavation was undertaken, leaving aside the vertical one. In addition, Mathura was subjected to ‘small scale excavation’, and others such as Kurukshetra, Gopalpur and other sites did not seem to be ever put to the excavation. Even if some expeditions might have been taken, there is no report traceable anywhere. Ironically, these botched up archaeological expeditions, left-in-midway excavations and coloured interpretations are still being used as fulcrum of discussing and branding the period as “Black or “Dark Period”. The agenda of socio-political domination and blacking out of a foundational period as significant as Harappa and Indus is being carried out unabated.
However, “the Black-and-Red Ware Culture is in some ways the most significant of the post-Harappan cultures. While its origin remains unknown, its unique pottery was produced as a result of inverted firing at lower temperatures, leading to double colour of black and red. By the first millennium BC, it is also linked with diffusion of iron into central India as well as with certain categories of megalithic burials, such as cairn burials, cairn and cist burials, that are particularly associated with the peninsula. Whether the more complex Megalithic monuments of the peninsula with their Black-and-red pottery, iron artefacts and widespread use of the horse are also to be traced to the more northerly Black-and-red Ware cultures remains uncertain.[509]
In terms of correlating this culture with the evidence from literary sources, its distribution carries echoes of the spread of the Yadava lineage, a lineage that is claimed by both Aryan and Dravidian speakers in later periods.[510] With such archaeological findings, there should not be any doubt that it was southern branch of Yadava lineage, which had founded a Kingdom that later came to be known as Pandya Empire. However, it seems to be difficult that the Indian historiography would acknowledge its significance and historicity, subjected as it is to the countless versions, counter versions and narratives. If it is unable to acknowledge the archaeological findings of Dwaraka, it is just impossible to think that Black-and-Red Ware culture would be identified with Yadavas. Despite the fact that Tamil and Sanskrit literature confirming that Krishna’s daughter by the name of Pandya or Pindari was married to the Southern king who founded a Southern empire[511]. The philogical and anthropological analysis of Aiyar meaning ‘the caste or the tribe involved in cow herding’ and ‘Nayyar’ implying ‘not in cow herding but a fighter’ proves its authenticity further.
In fact, “a fundamental doctrine of this age which was to have been secret and originally associated with the Kshatriyas raises many questions, some of which have been discussed by scholars. It is true that the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas were both members of the ‘leisured classes’ in Vedic society and could therefore indulge in idealistic philosophy and discourse on the niceties of life after death. Nevertheless, this is only a partial answer and much more remains to be explained. Was the ritual of sacrifice so deeply imprinted on the brahmana mind and so necessary to the profession at this point that it required non-brahmanas to introduce alternatives to salvation, other than the sacrificial ritual? The adoption of meditation and theories of transmigration had the advantage of releasing the Kshatriyas from the pressures of a prestation economy and permitting them to accumulate wealth, power and leisure”.[512]
There should not be any doubt, as it was a classic example of social and political struggle for domination and hegemony in the society. The Kshatriya or political elites were certainly encumbered by the prestation economy and excessive rituals controlling every aspect of their life, and wanted to come out from the clutch of priestly class. The Upanishad period and the undercurrent theme of domination and protest against it are clearly perceptible from various sources. However, the most authentic and verifiable source is the Upanishad itself—various Upanishads testify to the overt and covert struggle of socio-political domination going on, and the political elites or Kshatriya were clear winner for the time being.
The subversion of Upanishad period and its socio-political legacies, which may also be aptly called as post-Krishna period, was complete before the emergence of Buddha and Buddhism. “…. Heracles (Krishna), …….his descendants, having reigned for many generations and signalized themselves by great achievements, neither made any expedition beyond the confines of India, nor set out any colony abroad. At last however, after many years had gone, most of the cities adopted the democratic form of government, though some retained the kingly until the invasion of the country by Alexander”[513].
This period was not only philosophically and spiritually high period but also politically a breakthrough or foundational period leading to the emergence of Republics. As Megasthenes had rightly recorded that Krishna descendants provided a rule on the line of democratic government[514], various Upanishads and the discourses therein having the clear theme of democracy running in the text could verify it. This seems to be more plausible as there is record of the emergence of Republics in the mid first millennium BC. It was not the emergence, rather the evolution of Republic from the foundation of the responsible and accountable government or rule based on the Rajdharama during Krishna or Mahabharata period. Every decision was taken into Sabha or Sudhrama Sabha[515] or council having representatives of different branches or Mandal or Vritya or the functional groups. The opinion or likely reaction of ‘Praja’ (People ) was used to be kept in the mind while formulating or taking any decision. [516]
Since priestly class had lost its influence, domination and power over the Kshatriya or ruling elites, it had started to take rich people under prestation mode of economy and the general populace under the unnecessary rituals, fear and superstition and hereticism. As priestly class was the official recorder of annals and history[517], the political and economic achievements of the Axial period seemed to have been blacked out. Where there was no possibility of blacking out due to bardic tradition or the sharp public memory, the legends and myths were created, stuffing with chimeric discourses and epithets, to blunt out its effect.
Thus, the caste struggle and domination seems to have been the overriding theme of the Indian history, even if cynics and apologists of all hues may differ. One class or caste (priestly or Brahmin) in cahoots with retrograde elements of Kshatriya class or caste (ruling) had been trying to maintain and perpetuate its hegemony and superiority through various means. They used to have variegated instruments and measures such as genealogy, mystification and making legends of the historical peoples, threatening their power or the ideology or the philosophy, and subversion of ancient texts to the fabrication of some new Puranas or Smirti.
Once started after Krishna, it appears to have continued; only its texture, tools and techniques has changed and that too has been factored by the exigency and pressing circumstances. “From the beginning of the Christian era the Smirtis approximate the vaisyas to the position of the Shudras. By the sixth century traders would decline in the Kali age, that some would become oilman and winnowers of grain, and that some would seek refuge with rajaputras, and others with all kinds of varnas[518].
The role of Chankya or Kautilya--a Brahmin in the founding of Maurya dynasty is a classic example of how priestly class had regained its power and domination over the society during latter half of the first millennium BC . The Brahmin caste slowly but steadily had regained its lost power and control over the society. By the time Buddha and Buddhism appeared on the scene, the Indian society had slide back into the superstition, dogmatism and hereticism, signifying the control of the priestly class.
By the eleventh century, the vaisyas had come to be treated as Shudras ritually and legally. As Alberuni has noted, that both Vaisya and Shudras were used to be punished with amputation of the tongue for reciting Vedic texts[519].This is the period when priestly class had wrested complete control and power over the society from Kshatriya after obliterating Buddhism and its reformative mission, and were running amuck in the politico-social scape of India. It would not be out of the context to mention that Buddha was also Kshatriya like Krishna, rescuing the Indian society from superstition, inertia and fatalism that had gripped the social scape.
Taking lesson from the post Krishna period, they had just obliterated the Kshatriya class or political class from India. They had made the scene so bleak and hopeless that one western expert had to comment about the absence of political class in India[520]. The myth of Parshuram was invented and many Puranas and Smirtis were written to defame and degrade Kshatriya in general and Yadavas or Haihaya or Aila dynasties in particular[521].
This all appered to have started after Buddhism had just replaced the Vedic or Hindu religion from India by the end of first millennium BC. By the middle of first Millennium AD, the priestly class had managed to achieve two very significant (from their point of view but for the larger perspective it doomed the fate of India for good) historical goals: The obliteration of political class or traditional Kshatriya, and Buddhism or Buddhists.
This time (500 BC-1000 AD) as compared to 1000 BC-500 BC, the priestly class had shunned, deliberately degraded, pitted wild and aggressive tribes, foreigners and whoever they thought could be under their control, against Kshatriya class in general and that of Yadavas in particular through various means and techniques as they did during post Krishna and Mahabharata period. They had tough time in managing and neutralizing traditional Kshatriya in general and Yadavas in particular during 1000 BC-500 BC, as they had formed Republic in alliance with local tribe, clan or the caste of the North Bihar, Eastern UP and Central India.
That time, 500 BC-1000 AD, the priestly class seemed to be determined to obliterate the political class or Kshatriya as they might have incensed at the prospect that the latter had appropriated not only temporal and non-temporal authority but also almost finished the Brahmanism and the Vedic religion. The political class was not only patronising the new religion but ignoring the Vedic rituals and prestation economy through which the priestly class or the caste used to exercise unaccountable power; they were not listening to their whims and fancies, couched as they were in the religious overtones. The degrading of Kasi, Mithila and Kekeya in Dharmashastra as ‘mlecchas’ (impure and worth destroying) attests this prospect.
‘Alternatively, was the accumulation of these already present in the fringe areas, described as the mlecha-desa (impure lands) in the Vedic corpus, where the sacrificial rituals for various reasons had become less important? Thus, Janaka of Mithila, Asvapati Kaikeya and Ajatasatru of Kasi could reflect on alternative ways to salvation. This also places a different emphasis on the function of the Kshatriya’[522]. It is because of this different function that priestly class might have been enraged and tried to end the traditional political class (Kshatriya) altogether.
The foundation of Nanda and Maurya dynasties by the priestly class, while former was obscure Brahmin dynasty and latter was founded and controlled by Chankya-- a Brahmin, confirms this trend. They had commenced designating obscure tribes or castes or local populace as Kshatriya, just to side line or neutralize the traditional Kshatriya (Yadavas and others) in similar vein they did through Abhirs, Bhil and others. How ironic and ridiculous is that they were providing the lunar lineage (Yadavas) to obscure local groups or the castes or the tribes and foreigners to obliterate and marginalise the Yadavas and other Kshatriya[523].
Abhirs and Bhils who under the leadership of social and political elites of the ancient Indian society seemed to have plundered Dwaraka before its submergence, assassinated all the prominent Yadavas, and kidnapped the Yadava ladies who were later got freed by Arjun[524], were generously granted the Yadava lineage. This points to conspiracy hatched by the social and political elites of ancient Indian society and a defence mechanism to save them from the rage of Yadavas. Nevertheless, there might be every possibility that ancient society under the leadership of priestly class might have engineered such plundering and massacre of Yadavas for that even Krishna was blamed.[525]
However, this time it had acted as Janus faced destroyer of the traditional political class. On the one hand, new tribes or caste or the obscure groups or even foreigners were being coroneted or designated as ‘Kshatriya’ sidestepping, neutralizing, or dethroning the traditional Kshatriya[526]. On the other hand, they were providing open ground of competing for the power by any group or the tribes or the clans who could abide by the whims and the fancies of the priestly class, opening the floodgates of foreign invasion and plundering later on. This had led to the situation wherein there was free for all. There was no political class left to organize or the resist this series of invasions and foreign rules, and even if there might have been some able leaders, how could they resist when open invitations were being sent to the foreigners to come and subserve the stakes of the priestly class?
The settlement patterns of the different castes or classes[527] in the Indian villages and urbanized rural settlements could be harnessed to prove the great game played for marginalizing, decimating the traditional political class in general, and Yadavas in particular. The settlement patterns belong to cultural geography and are divided into the geography of urban settlements and rural settlements. Thereby, settlements are mostly seen as elements of the cultural landscape[528]. Jordan (1966) emphasizes that settlement geography not exclusively investigates the distributions, but even more the structures, processes and interactions between the settlements and its environment (such as soil, geomorphology, economy or society), which produce them[529].
More recently, the study of settlement has evolved into the interaction of humans with the physical and ecological world.[530] The settlement patterns across India in general and north and central India in particular clearly proves some systematic efforts to decimate and obliterate political class (Kshatriya in general and Yadavas in particular). It was done by pitting them against foreign and indigenously carved Kshatriya hailing from obscure tribes, castes as well as foreign lands, and providing legitimacy through the grant of indigenous genealogies to these. The settlement patterns of Indian villages, urbanized villages and old cities such as Mathura, Varanasi, and Dwaraka, etc gives clear indication about what would have happened during early Indian period.
The great game of decimating political class or Kshatriya in general and particularly Yadavas by pitting foreign attackers, which seem to be more an invitation or some sort of collusion, was there, otherwise they would not have been provided with legitimacy via lunar and solar genealogy so readily. It could be deciphered from the present settlement of the different castes in Indian villages, harnessing D.D Kosambi’s innovative technique of using present layer of the socio-cultural institutions and practices for getting idea about early Indian history, which is hampered by the lack of facts[531]. The settlement patterns, which seem to be revealing a rather systematic plan of balancing rival Kshatriya reinforces this rather self-suicidal game of power and domination, played by the coalescence of social and retrograde political elites[532]. And it did prove suicidal in the form of floodgates of foreign invasions, happening in two streams; firstly it were Shaka, Huna, Pratihar,etc, and secondly it were Afghan, Turk, Mongol, Persian, Mughal, and British.
By the first millennium AD, except Harsh period providing some sort of the unity and peace, this competing for the Kshatryhood or being granted the status of dynasty had led to the opening of the floodgates of foreign invasions. Earlier it was Shaka, Huna, Pratihar and later on it was Turk, Afghan, Persian and Mughal and the lastly British: India became land of invasions and looters. Earlier it was Abhirs and Bhils who plundered Dwaraka,[533] later it was Afghan or Turk or Mughal Kings who plundered Mathura, Somnath or Ayodhya and what not, all relating to the traditional political class or Kshatriya.
By the end of first millennium AD, the traditional political class or traditional Kshatriya was finished, and there was political vacuum that the degenerate political class propped by the priestly class could not fill up. The degenerate political class that priestly class was fostering could not bring stability to the country, except the Maurya and the Gupta. Even the Maurya and the Gupta were unable to provide such institutional and non-institutional mechanism that could have prevented the balkanization of Indian society after them. By this time Buddhism and its reformative agenda was also finished. Sankarachrya led anti-Buddhist movement, supported by the political actors as well finished it, and the Vedic religion with its attendant ritualism and social hierarchy again became a dominant reality.
This could be deciphered from various Pauranic and Vedic literature being written and rewritten or compiled during the first millennium AD. ‘Moreover, it is maintained in itihas-Puran of Pauranic and Vedic literature that Mahabharata war proves to be terminal event. It brought to the battlefield virtually all the lineages of Chandravansh or Yadavas and few others as well and marks the death of lineage’.[534] In fact, it seems to be the post facto justification for the planned decimation of Kshatriya class in general and Yadavas in particular. As all Vedic, post-Vedic and epic literature were compiled into literary form from oral and Pali script to Sanskrit[535] by priestly class (Brahmin) at the end of last millennium BC and the beginning of First millennium AD; these were subverted for justifying this historical hara-kiri. By that time traditional Kshatriya in general and Yadavas were decimated and pushed southward and replaced with Sungas, Kanvas (Brahmin dynasties) and Mauryas, Guptas, Kushana, foisted by the priestly class, and host of indigenous tribes and foreign invaders.
The traditional Kshatriya in general and Yadavas in particularly were slowly being pushed towards South and across Vindhya. The late mo vement of BRW, associated with Yadavas lineage, towards south, west and across Vindhya[536] confirms this great game of decimating the traditional Kshatriya. This late movement of BRW tallied with dispersal of Yadavas across these areas in the Puranic literature. The emergence of Chola, Pallav, Satvahan, Rashtrakuta, Badiar Kingdom (not in that order) which were assocated and led by Yadavas in the southern India due to this push and marginalization of the traditional Kshatrya further authenticates this grand of obliteration of the ruling elites. The last of Yadavas Kingdom, Krishnadev Rai, who established an empire south of Vindhya in Vijaynagar (which geographical extent surpasses that of Akbar and Ashok) was done away by the alliance of Indian kings and foreign invaders.[537]As there was no powerful political class in North and central India, the southern kings such as Rastrakuta had run over north and captured Kanauj. On the other hand, the foreign invasion in the form of Afghan, Turk, Pathan, Mongols, etc became more intensified as there was no political class left to provide powerful resistance.
‘The encroachment of foreign rulers in the post-Mauryan period led to some indigenous families having to recede into the background. Claims to power and to actual status were conceded to the Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Parthians and Kusanas, but claim to Varna status was denied to them and they continued to be called vratyaksatriyas (degenerate), having no indigenous land-base in the sub-continent nor being able to claim kinship links with earlier established lineages.[538] This was despite the fact that some among them did claim kinship of Kshatriya status in their own inscription. The lack of genealogical connections was a form of exclusion.[539]
The degenerate Kshatriya that priestly class had sculpted was unable to stem the tide of foreign invasion and balkanization of the country. Despite the fact even foreign invaders such as Afghan, Turk, and Mongol like earlier hordes of invaders such as Shaka, Huna, Partihar etc. were granted Kshatryahood and provided with lunar and solar genealogy[540], it could not lead to political stabilization. On contrary, it had intensified the internal and external balkanization as more and more indigenous and foreign tribes or the ethnic groups had started competing for gaining some footage in the balkanized socio-political scape of mediaeval India. The history of this period attest to this grim prospect wherein one after another indigenous and foreign rulers were coming and going, making Indian political scape highly volatile and influx, and finally paving the way for the subjugation by the Mughals and the British later on.
“. ….The Stabilizing of what was to be the Aryavrata and the Mlecchalands took some time. In the Rg Veda the geographical focus was the Saptsindhu (the Indus valley and the Punjab) ……… Later Vedic literature speaks of the western Anava tribes as mlecchas and occupying northern Punjab, Sind and eastern Rajasthan, as also the eastern Anava tribes occupying parts of Bihar, Bengal and Orissa. Furthermore, it was necessary to pay them off from time to time to prevent their resorting to plundering and pillaging. …..Indian tradition however maintains that the Yavanas originated form Turvasu, the son of Yayati, associated with one of the very early clans of northern India’[541].
‘Politically too the period from the sixth to the ninth century tended to be unstable in northern India, barring perhaps the reign of Harsa. The kingdoms of the northern Deccan also began to take a political interest in the areas adjoining the Vindhyas, which culminated in the attempts of the Rastrakuta kings to capture and hold the city of Kanauj. …….. The tribes of central India were forced to adjust to both the population movements from the north as also the period in which the areas on the fringes of the Vindhyan uplands giving rise to a number of principalities some of which played a major role in the politics of central India is not surprising’[542].
There was a familiar pattern of a foreign tribe or ethnic group or clan or kings first being invited by the local or the indigenous group to fulfil its local or regional agenda. After they were familiarized with the faultlines and nuances of politics, they had entered with big bang, establishing a rule and dynasty, seemingly helped, guided and provided with fabricated genealogy by the priestly class. There was no visionary and futuristic leader like Krishna who used to punish both the parties—invitee and invited[543], daring to enter the boundary of Bharata. In his place was an internecine class or caste struggle of domination and power between the priestly and degenerate political class that ultimately sealed the fate of India. There was no hold barred situation wherein every indigenous and foreign power or those aspiring to be such were competing for the throne of India and the priestly class appeared more than willing to provide the legitimacy and all sort of helps.
The case of Turk, Afghan and Persian are burning example of this hara-kiri of the Indian history where for domination and power of one class or the caste, the whole country was subjugated and plundered for one thousand years by all sorts of the barbarians and the upstarts. “Familiarity with the Turks was also because they competed with Indian and other traders in controlling the central Asian trade, especially the lucrative trade along the silk route between China and Byzantium and because Buddhism, known to these areas prior to Islam, had been reinforced by missions from north India”[544]. “The initial attacks of the Turks and Afghans were tied into local politics, what Kalhan refers to as the coalition of the Kashmiri, Khasa and mlecchas”.[545]
However, the priestly class would not have imagined that the situation would go to such extent that they would not only lose their control over the situation but their very existence would be threatened. This happened during the Mughal period when their power base was exposed with the threat of proselytization becoming more real than apparent. However, this caste or class struggle for the power and domination led to some rejuvenation of fossilized social scape. Nevertheless, here again legitimization process took precedence over anything else. “A suggested historical explanation for the spread of Bhakti sects links them to the feudalising tendencies of the period after AD 500 and parallels have been drawn between the loyalty of the peasant to the feudal lord being comparable to the devotion of the worshipper for the deity[546].
As the Bhakti movement was sabotaged to provide legitimacy to the barbarian indigenous and foreign rulers, the Buddhism was scandalized and attacked just to regain the complete control over the social scape that was marred with unending hostility between Brahmana and Sramana, leading to tension and unease in the society. “Brahamana-Sramana hostility did not appear over time. It kept cropping up and books authored by the brahmanas in the first millennium AD often refer to Buddhists and Jains as heretics—pakhanda—and the same word is used in the brahmanas.[547]
These faultlines and the power struggle could be deciphered from the genealogical section of the various Puranas. The genealogical history of India needs to be dissected, deconstructed and disinfected from all possible biases and how transition of power from traditional ruling class—Kshatriya class comprising Yadavas (lunar dynasty) and solar dynasty to non-traditional ones led to the break in the power relations and historical process. The genealogical history as mentioned in some ancient, medieval and not so mediaeval treatises and manuscripts are repositories and indubitable proof of the caste or class rivalry of top two Varnas—Brahmin and Kshatriya, and it is raw stuff which deconstruction could clearly show the farce perpetrated on Indian history.
`The gradual prising of historical consciousness becomes visible in the compilation of what came to be called the Itihasa-purana. The phrase remains difficult to define, veering between the perceived past and historicity. It is described as the fifth Veda but was an oral tradition for many centuries until it was compiled in the form of the Puranas in the mid first millennium AD. The genealogical sections of the Puranas were a reordering of the earlier material in a new format[548].
For example, one could discern the fatalism resulting from this caste or class struggle that had gone out of control: ‘The prime mover in this history is the deity Siva and this makes any other legitimation unnecessary. Since the Yavanas had the blessing of Siva, Pithor Raja Chauhan could not hold them back. Those claiming to be Kshatriyas were now not approximating the life-style of their ancestors to the same degree as, language and life-style of the Mughal courts, as is evident from painting and literature[549].
The vamsanucarita section of various Puranas has three distinct constituent parts. The first is the mythical section of the rule of the seven Manus, wiped away by the action of the Flood. This is followed by the detailed listing of the generations in each of the two major lineages. The Ikasvaku is the senior and more cohesive. Descent is recorded only from eldest son to eldest son with a tight control over a well-demarcated territory, indicative of a stronger tendency towards monarchy and primogeniture. The Aila lineage (of Yadavas) is more akin to the pattern of a segmentary system with a wide geographical distribution involving northern, western and central India. Possibly, it reflects a more assimilative system in which the segments are less the result of branching off or migrating away from the main lineage.[550]
This was part of the raw material, which was incorporated into later categories of texts. Thus the encapsulation of the past in the form of varied genealogical patterns in the early Puranas, drew on this material but also interestingly reformulated it and sometimes stretched out the generations. A cursory glance at the genealogies would suggest that they are in part fabricated, all except the last section that carries traces of some historical authenticity.[551] It is emphasised that this is not the age of the noble Kshatriyas, the born heroes, but the age of upstart, Shudra families and foreign degenerate Kshatriyas such as the Yavanas or Indo-Greeks. It is in some ways quite remarkable that through the idiom of genealogical patterns there is so much relating the way the past was perceived.[552]
It is sometimes assumed that with coming of literacy, there is a shutting out of the oral tradition and that if both co-exist there is an antagonism built into the relationship. Yet methods of transmission referring to the oral and the literate involve three situations: firstly, the oral pre-literate where the relevant question is why the oral tradition was continued when literacy was current and was not necessarily antagonistic to the other but complementary; and thirdly the use of literacy[553]. Vedic hymns were composed and handed down orally over many centuries. Even after writing became current in the ninth century BC,[554] these compositions continued to be recorded orally for some time as they are even to this day in some places.
Within the oral tradition in India, there was a demarcation between a carefully preserved oral tradition and a relatively free oral tradition, a difference that was maintained even when the composition took a literate form. The oral tradition therefore cannot be taken as a single uniform system. It is necessary to classify the varieties within it since their presuppositions, functions and form differed. This is clearly illustrated in the two dominant oral traditions of the first millennium BC that were converted to a written form in subsequent centuries, the Vedic texts on the one hand and the epics on the other. As regards the mythological sections, the initial legend alone raises a host of interesting ideas: the concept of the Flood as genesis, the use of the Sun and Moon as the symbol of the two royal lineages (Suryavanshi and Chandravanshi) and the association of these in tribal mythology of India and elsewhere; the fact that the Aila lineage derives its name from sole daughter of Manu, Ila who married the Som (the moon deity), suggests a matrilineal-cum-mother goddess tradition.[555]
It is divulged that since Puranas have to keep pace with changing times, hence a fixed tradition was not required. Nevertheless, something of a tradition has emerged and in the vamsanucarita section, denoting changes in the past. The gods and the sages are associated with the beginning of the history. The founder of a descent group has a special relationship with deity, establishing his unique position. Descent from the founder has a noticeable pattern, such as that differentiated in the Solar and Lunar lines, and this pattern presumes a historical condition. The difference possibly points to variant claims to and forms of political power, becoming both the source and the expression of the legitimation of such power. Attempts to chart the major Kshatriya clans after the Flood are also attempts to fill in geographical space.[556]
The relations of Brahmins with the Kshatriya, although close, were ambivalent ‘The Bhrigus are associated with death, violence, sorcery, confusion, varnasmakara or the mixing of the castes and the violation of the varnashramdharma, the ordering of the society.[557]. In some cases, they are hostile to the Kshatriya as in their attack on the Haihaya clans or in the story of Parshuram the Brahmin who exterminated all the Kshatriya. In other cases they intermarry with the Kshatriya and take Kshatriya wives, making them degraded brahmanas’.[558]
‘The Bhrigus are also proficient in dhanurvidya, the science of archery which is again contrary to the social code since this is the professional expertise of the Kshatriyas. They are the great propagators of Vishnu as is evident from their redactions of Mahabharata and Ramayana, but at the same time claim to be greater than Vishnu in that it is held that Vishnu has to be incarnated seven times because of the curse of a Bhrigu. Ironically, Parshuram finally becomes an avatar of Vishnu. The extermination of Kshatriyas by Parshuram is said to have been repeated twenty-one times, but even some of them escaped. The myth revolves around the issue of power and draws not only on the enmity with the Haihayas, a segment of Yadav descent group, but expands it in the story of Visvamitra and Vasistha’.[559]
There seems to be reversal of the role in the activities ‘wherein Visvamitra who is Kshatriya aspires to have the power of ascetic and the Vasistha who is Brahmin is enamoured of the power of a Kshatriya and wants to become the warrior. It may be possible that Kshatriya-brahamins reflect the two traditions each trying to dislodge other out and the myth of extermination is meant to state, as it has been suggested that Bhrigus finally appropriated the Kshatriya tradition’.[560]
The only reason that seems to be factoring the taking over of this Kshatriya tradition by the Brahmins is the power and control over the society, and the upholding of their superiority challenged by Kshatriya class. There might be literacy and the transmission of ideas of Puranas to the future generation or socialization per se, leading to the change to written tradition from oral one. As a more developed historical sensibility requires written record (It is for this historical sensibility or class or caste sensitivity vis-à-vis that despite knowing the writing during Harappan or even before Harappan civilization, it was not pursued for obvious reason), it becomes imperative to switch over to writing. Writing introduces the changes in the transmission of the items believed to be significant to a culture. However, the form which writing takes and the degree to which it is diffused in the society would influence the historical sensibility. Further, although an account can be changed, nevertheless the change is less radical in a written than in an oral form.[561]
Thus, the historical tradition becomes an instrument of control over society, maintained by a specific category of people whose power derives from their ability to provide those in authority with an identity. A historical tradition, therefore establishes group consciousness.[562] The genealogy and genealogical facts can be used to identify groups and provide them with historical antecedents. It could relate traditions about origins and bridge gaps in traditions or amalgamate them, apart from being used for speculation purpose. Above all, the genealogies were crucial to the political functions and legitimization of the office-holders.[563]
Genealogy was the king’s title to rule and it could include in its patterning, alliances and over lordships. The perception of the past is expressed in the association of the places of origin, of links with lineages and generations accounted for. The newcomers are grafted on or segments detached. The genealogy therefore becomes a useful historical tool. This necessaites that those who keep the genealogical tradition should be aware of their closeness to political power.[564]
“In the composition of the vamsanucarita of the early Puranas, an attempt was made to reconstruct a past constituted for a purpose. Was this perhaps to establish a brahamanical version of the past, distinct from that put together in other traditions? The oral tradition of the bards was incorporated in this version. Despite its inclusion, the perspective endorses neither the bardic view nor that of the Buddhists. …..one of the purposes of constructing a view of the past arose from the recognition that religious authority would be considerably enhanced by association with political power and one of the strengths of such an association lay in the controlling the construction of the past”.[565]
This might in part have been due to the influence of the Buddhist Chronicles and Jain texts where the association of the Kings with Buddhist Councils and sangha appears advantageous to the latter. However, this was done for political purpose …… as it legitimizes power and authority and are closely linked with royal patronage. The social significance of genealogies is demonstrated by the fact that they occur in more than one Purana. Thus, Genealogy was the epicentre of itihas in the Puranas and it remained so in many texts of claims to status. It was not arbitrary but embedded in a perspective of the past and at the same time, was necessary to functions of the present.[566]
Nevertheless, the difference in the recording of ruling families as dynasties after Mahabharata war indicates the perception of difference in the nature of power under a system of monarchical states. The Mahabharata war is the watershed in the periodization of the past as viewed from Puranic sources. Whereas earlier all the descent groups were included under the umbrella terms of the Raja and Kshatriya, now, on the contrary, the social status of the individual dynasties is separately indicated, the assumption being that Kshatryhood was not a prerequisite for monarchy.[567]
The acquisition of power confers rank and therefore a dynasty of Hellenistic origin, the Yavana, is described as Vratya-Kshatriya or degenerate Kshatriya. Dynastic succession is a pointer to the existence of states that now take precedence over non-state, clan-held territories. The establishment of the monarchical state involved a different set of institutions from those of preceding political forms and, therefore, a different basis for royal power.[568]
The genealogy has played crucial role in reinforcing the power relations and the historical process by providing legitimacy to the kings and rulers. “It seems …..that in the Middle Ages, the twofold function of historical discourse can be found on its three traditional axes. The genealogical axis spoke of the antiquity of kingdom, brought great ancestors back to life, and rediscovered the heroes who founded empires and dynasties. The goal of this “genealogical” task was to ensure that the greatness of the events or men of the past could guarantee the value of the present, and transform its pettiness and mundanity into something equally heroic and equally legitimate”.[569]
This genealogical axis of history, which is found mainly in the forms of historical narratives about ancient kingdoms and great ancestors, must proclaim right to be something ancient; it must demonstrate the uninterrupted nature of the right of sovereign and, therefore, the ineradicable force that he still possesses in the present day. Genealogy must, finally, also magnify the name of kings and princes with all the fame that went before them and they transmit their lustre to the pettiness of their successors. We might call this genealogical function of historical narratives.[570]
However, in some countries in general and in India particularly, it has been used to subserve the interests of one class and subvert the entire historical process. Genealogy was turned into ideology. People were fed on the legends and the superstitions that glorified miracles attributed to the ancient rulers of the solar and lunar races and which were enshrined in the Ramayana and Mahabharata.[571]Thus, History was a ritual that reinforced sovereignty and provided legitimacy to whom lacking it.[572]
At another level, genealogies are a commemoration of those who have passed away and, in some senses, they are almost a cult of the dead. They record supposed ancestors, for the connections do not necessarily have to be biological and are required in order that status be bestowed on those making the claims. Frequently the earlier portions of lengthy genealogies are fabricated. Therefore, the nature of connections sought by those constructing the genealogy is significant.[573]
However, the geography and migration of the Lunar line and of the Yadus in particular, would include western and central India, the Narmada, and Vindhyas and large parts of the edge of the Ganga plain, a far wider spread than the more concise circuit of the Solar line in the middle Ganga and just south of it. This genealogical pattern can be suggestive of either the migration or the assimilation of clans.[574] It would be worthwhile to look at the way in which this change is reflected in two categories of literature. One is the genealogical section which is referred to as the vamsanucarita of the early puranas, the Vayu, Brahmanda, Matsya and Vishnu, composed around the fourth-fifth centuries AD.[575]
As the Mahabharata and the Ramayana was later taken over by brahmana authors, primarily the Bhrigu brahmanas[576], and reconstituted in the form of the genealogical section of the Purana, the control over their contents and data was linked to controlling some aspects of the legitimacy of those in power. To this extent, it parallels the resort to history for purposes of legitimacy by many groups in contemporary times. Among the chandravamsa the most important lines were those claiming descent from Yadu and from Puru. There was a reversal of primogeniture where the youngest son, Puru inherited the kingdom. Whereas Iksvakus are said by and large to have observed customs approved of by the brahmanas, the Ailas on the other hand had many social observances which were outside the rules of the Dharmashastra. ………The epic of the Candravamsa was the Mahabharata in which such customs are described at greater length.[577]
‘What is interesting these all are in future tense, (betraying the premeditated subversion?) ……… What are however clear is that the relations of power are now more important than kinship links? Kings are referred to in this text not as rajas but as nripas, literally, the protectors of men. It is also told that kings will arise from families of Kshatriya, mixed castes, Shudras, mlecchas and foreigners and some amongst them will not observe the dharama. Political power was now open and negotiable’[578].
Towards the end of (Vamshvali ) there is another statement, that eventually a new caste of the Kshatriya will be created from those various varnas and some such as the Plundas and Sabaras, who are generally listed as tribal peoples, will claim Kshatriya status. This is an important statement in view of the development after this period when families of obscure origin, or alternatively, of what today are called tribal groups, did succeed in establishing kingdoms and claiming Kshatriya status.[579]
This seems to be both the blueprint and as well as the post facto justification for the obliteration of traditional political class (Kshatriya) in general and Yadavas in particular. The stakes might have been aware that the posterity would blame them for finishing the traditional political class and in that place creating a new class of ruling elites who were myopic, weak, shorn of Rajdharama, lacking in political acumen and vision. In addition, they were local satraps jealously guarding their turf, which ultimately led to the balkanization, the instability and the subjugation of political scape by the foreign invaders and the barbarian tribes.
Chapter 6
Krishna and State Formation in Ancient India
Krishna: Political Philosophy
If Plato is called the father of politics and Machiavelli as that of modern politics, then Krishna could be undoubtedly designated as the father of politics of all the time. It is another matter that he has been relegated to the mystical realm, making him the God Himself. In this melee of subversion, his historicity has been denied and his unmatched and unparalleled foundational contribution to the humankind has been appropriated by diverse range of thinkers, philosophers, intellectuals, foreigners, religions, and all and sundry.
His foundational contribution to the realm of politics, social scape, spiritualism, Yoga, war strategy, peace-making, republicanism, diplomacy, and inter-state or kingdoms relations, philosophy etc, it seems, have been appropriated by the Indians and foreigners such as Patanjali[580], Chankya[581], Sankar or Adi Sankarachrya[582], Plato and Kant[583] (Plato’s Philosopher King, his description of reality or world with shadow on walls if compared with Krishna’s description of world as upturned tree in Gita). Aristotle’s pragmatism, Machiavelli’s realism, war strategies and tactics of Sun Tzu[584], Nirvana and other important tenets of Buddhism[585], universal brotherhood and love as propounded by some modern religions seem to be natural extension of Krishna’s Samkhya and Bhagvat’s Monotheism.[586]
‘From the days of Plato and Aristotle, European thought has turned its attention to such questions as the origin of the state, the ideal form of government, and the basis of law, and politics has long been looked on as a branch of philosophy. India also thought on such questions, but she had no schools of political philosophy in the Western sense. The problems which form the stock in trade of the European political philosopher are answered in India texts, but in a take it or leave it manner, with little discussion; often indeed the only argument in favour of a proposition is the citation of an old legend, used much as Plato’s adaptations of older myths to reinforce his theories”.[587]
How could Indian political philosophy develop in a systematic and scientific manner when there seemed to be competitive pursuit to appropriate and deny the foundational contribution of Krishna to the realm of philosophy, in general and political philosophy in particular by subverting it with all sorts of mystification stratagem ? How could philosophical discourse advance when there occurred an intellectual theft and negation of whole corpus of his philosophical treatise as contained in the Gita, the Anugita, the Mahabharata, the Udhav Gita, and the Upanishad, which seems more an elaboration, and commentary of Krishna’s philosophy than an independent treatise as is being mpresented?
The central theme of five major or main Upanishad as reflected in some of the Mahāvākyas (Great Sayings) such as: Prajñānam brahma, "Consciousness is Brahman" Aitareya Upanishad; Ahambrahmāsmi, "I am Brahman", Brihadaranyaka; Tat tvamasi ,"That Thou art",Chandogya; Ayamātmābrahmā "This Atman is Brahman", Mandukya[588] are nothing but Krishna’s monotheist and non-dual philosophy as contained in Gita, Uddhav Gita, Samkhya and Bhagavat. Of course, this has been very cleverly appropriated to different authors, philosophers and Kings.
Historians believe the chief Upanishads were composed over a wide period ranging from the Pre-Buddhist period[589] to the early centuries BCE[590] though minor Upanishads were still being composed in the medieval and early modern period. However, there has been considerable debate among authorities on the exact dating of individual Upanishads. The Upanishads were collectively considered amongst the 100 most influential books ever written[591]. Writers and scholars such as Schopenhauer, Emerson and Thoreau, among others, have recognized their significance. Scholars also note similarity between the doctrine of Upanishads and those of Plato and Kant[592].
Krishna’s footprints and the foundational contributions is perceptible everywhere but he is not acknowledged. What is ironical that whatever tenets, ideas and philosophies propounded or shown through his various acts have not only been appropriated but made theirs original and blaming Krishna and his Yadavas for afterthought or appropriation? This seems to be the greatest farce of the history[593].
Political Legacies
It is worth noting that Krishna’s political legacies are numerous pervading the past, present and future. The fundamental of politics, real politicking, diplomacy and internationalism that he laid down during many political dealings with the kingdoms, principalities, diplomatic forays, peace-making and war as last resort permeates the history and politics of ancient, mediaeval and modern time. Krishna’s historical, political and social legacy directly or indirectly, acknowledged or unacknowledged has its arch of influence and foundational contributions to the all major streams of the world.
His influence, his political strategies and mechanism, the institutions that he had built up, his real politicking, how to win all types of the war, mostly asymmetrical, political pragmatism, pro-people politics, his contribution to the state formation in ancient time, is just unparalleled and consummate. His emphasis on debate and discussion, republicanism, art of negotiation, how to conduct diplomacy, idealism with pragmatism and use of politics for universal brotherhood has not been acknowledged. In fact, the universal brotherhood seems to be just modern rendition of Krishna’s Samkhya and Bhagavat philosophy[594].The footprints of Krishna, his ideas, his great political feats and his great balancing acts could be deciphered in the progression of mankind in the arena of history, politics, philosophy, and societal sciences. From Plato to Aristotle, from Chankya to Machiavelli, from universalism to postmodernism, from war to peace and from diplomacy to democracy to Republicanism, from monotheism to technology-- Krishna’s footprints and his contribution is there but unacknowledged, unaccredited, and unaccepted.
Krishna and his basic humanistic and universal philosophy, social and political contribution, his strategies and tactics of political and social regeneration and reform, his matchless diplomacy, real politicking, his universalism as contained in Samkhya, the concept of Vasudev as the balancing mechanism of not only of political, and social order but also of inter-kingdoms or principalities or the country has been foundational to hither to civilizational progression and milestones. Nevertheless, he is not acknowledged, his name is not mentioned and the different persons, class, caste, groups, religions and countries have appropriated his all contributions.
“…. Heracles (Krishna), accordingly after his removal from among the men, obtained immortal honour; and his descendants, having reigned for many generations and signalized themselves by great achievements, neither made any expedition beyond the confines of India, nor set out any colony abroad. At last however, after many years had gone, most of the cities adopted the democratic form of government, though some retained the kingly until the invasion of the country by Alexander”[595]
Krishna’s political worldview consists of one centre or central power being sum total of all vritya or Mandal or circle or units or constituents. It is based on loose federative principles with one centre as manifested through the establishment of Pandavs as central power with other units or principalities sharing power and existing on equal basis. This worldview of Krishna may be seen as the refined political version of the practices as followed by the Yadu dynasty, his descendants and Yadavas in general.
According to Rig Veda, Yadus were arajinah meaning that they were without hereditary king or non-monarchical.[596] This non-monarchical or republican credo of Yadavas were refined and institutionalized by Krishna, and for upholding it, he did not spare his own relatives such as Kans, Shishupal and others. Moreover, for the sake of republican credo of electing the capable King irrespective of whether he is elder, Krishna took part in the great war of Mahabharata on the side of Pandavs, who were the sons of younger brother, Pandu of Hastinapur.
A.D Pulsakar has maintained that Yadavas were called Asuras in the Epic and Puranas, which might be due to their mixing with non-Aryans and the looseness in the observance of Aryan Dharma. This reinforces the tradition of protest and dissents, which are nothing but republican or democratic credo as deconstructed in the modern context. It is important to note that even in Mahabharata Krishna is called Sanghmukhya—head of a Sangh (Congress or Congregation). Bimanbehari Majumdar points out that at one place in the epic Yadavas are called as Vritya (Circle), while at another place Krishna proclaims about his clan consisting eighteen Vritya (Circles).[597]
Krishna’s political view is the refined version of these two important aspects of Yadava’s organizational patterns—arajinah (non-monarchical), Sanghmukhya (head of Congregation) and Vritya (Circles). The non-monarchical aspect denotes that they were the ancient repository of democracy as their leaders were elected by Vritya (Circles) which may be eighteen as during Krishna time, to one hundred, depending on the population. These circles were the different branches of the Yadavas based on the geographical or other factors such as lineage, kinship, etc. These circles used to elect their leaders or representatives who were called Mukhiya or Mandaladhish (the term Mukhiya as prevalent in eastern, central and North India might have its origin in it) and these Mukhiyas (sub-heads) might have elected Sanghmukhya (head of congregation) by which Krishna has been addressed in some parts of the epic.
More often than not Vritya (circles) were used to be called Mandal, as there is reference in the Mahabharata wherein Nanda, the foster parents of Krishna and his uncle who was the brother of Krishna’s father has been referred as Mandaladhish (Head of Mandal) of Gokul Mandal. Therefore, the Mandal was administrative unit and the kingdom was organized into different Mandal whose head was responsible for the administration, tax collection and other matters. The Mandaladhish or circle head was responsible and accountable to the King for the all activities and matters relating to a particular Mandal. Even the Mandaladhish was elected by Sabha Parishad, and must have the acceptance and concurrence of the Jan Sabha.
It is no surprise that Chankya or Kautilya cast off his political theory based on the organizational pattern, appropriating not only the nomenclature but also various aspects of Krishna real politicking and diplomacy. Of course, without even acknowledging Krishna and his contribution to the humanity. Even Buddha, whose three-fourth tenets of Buddhism is based on Krishna’ Samkhya, Karma yoga, Gyan Yoga and Gita has not named Krishna in his acknowledgments, though he has done so indirectly by conceding the ancient tradition, thinkers and philosophers[598].
Nevertheless, If Krishna’s worldview and political view is put on the canvass of ancient India when he was engineering many revolutions simultaneously, then Indian sub-continent was a macrocosm of world having all the features and variegated textures that modern world has. Except the technological breakthroughs and inventions, all political, social and cultural trappings and complexities of modern world seemed to be present, with universal power play and ego trips short-circuiting the political and social crossfires. If his diplomatic forays and balancing acts were seen from this angle, it would reveal the unique internationalism, based as was on his Samkhya considering the whole creations as the extension of the all-pervading reality.
The credo of Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam (the whole world is our family), Universal Brotherhood and other inclusive principles must have derived its foundation from Krishna’s Samkhya as its basic premise is that the whole creations whether seen or unseen is the manifestation of the same all-pervading reality.[599] It is interesting that the stakes have not spared Samkhya, arguing it had predated the Krishna as it is maintained in the case of Gita. The mythical Kapil Muni and Devmata have been invented propounding the Samkhya, about whom Buhler and Max Muller declare that they are untraceable: “Some of the Purana Itihas e.g. that of Narada and Devmata, are not traceable in any Vedic work known to us. Devmata’s name I do not find referred to anywhere else.”[600] What seems to be rather innocuous that a discourse has been fabricated between these two just to deny the credit to Krishna?
Whether it is Karma Yoga or Gyan yoga or the Samkhya or Gita or Bhagavat Philosophy his Great War strategies or his realistic and pragmatic politics, his unmatched diplomacy—there has been concerted efforts to deny credit to Krishna, to sabotage or distort his politico-socio-military legacies.
However, Krishna’s concept of political organization and governance is based on what his ancestors--Yadu Kul was following. As per Rig Veda, they were anti-monarchical and hence there was no system of hereditary Kings[601]. Their governance and political organization was based on, what is now said to be democratic one, but the western experts and west oriented Indian experts and scholars termed these democratic traditions as tribal ones. Nevertheless, Yadu or Yadavas used to follow a tradition of governance and political organization that was anti-monarchical and some rudimentary democratic ethos such as debate and discussion, putting every major decision before the Sabha used to be followed in the real sense of the term. That is why in common parlance it is said that Yadavas are cursed not to become King due to many reasons. Nevertheless, not many people seem to be aware of the fact that it is so because Yadavas have been anti-monarchical and hence there is no hereditary King.
However, it does not mean that there has not been tradition of King in the kingdoms founded by the Yadavas. There have been Kings but they have not been hereditary, elected by different Vritya (Circle) of Yadavas. In Mahabharata, there is mention of eighteen Vritya or branches of Yadavas that Krishna united under his leadership[602]. It is different matter that Krishna could not be declared formal king due to some rivalry or the inter-circles (Vritya) differences. However, despite being not the King of Dwaraka, he enjoyed more power and prestige than the King or Prince Balarama.
It is the anti-monarchical tradition of Yadavas that differentiated them from other kingdoms of ancient and mediaeval period. It is because of the selection of kings through consensus or majority that Yadavas have become invincible force in the ancient and mediaeval period. It had many advantages that usually led to Yadavas and Yadav kingdoms becoming dominant force. The selection of king by consensus or the majority usually led to the crowning of such able and popular king who could win the support and approval of all the Vritya of Yadavas. This used to give tremendous power and confidence to the king thus selected as all factions and groups used to rally behind him.
It was because of this anti-monarchical tradition or the democratic tradition that Krishna had never annexed or imposed successor of his choice after defeating the king of a particular Kingdom such as Jarasangh, Pondruk, Dantvakra, Narkasur and others. It was the logical extension of what was being followed in the Yadavas’ kingdoms. This generated tremendous goodwill for Krishna and Yadavas which later helped them to build an a system akin to federation under the suzerainty of Pandavs, epitomising the good and justice that was very close to the Plato’s concept of philosopher king. Later, Dharmashastra appropriated it by rechristening it as “Rightful Conquest” (Dharam Sammat), without acknowledging to Krishna or Yadavas.
However, Krishna not only regularized and streamlined the political traditions of Yadavas inherited from Yadu and Madhu, but also presented a complete system of politics and structural mechanism. It was based on four pillars: A suzerain power with just and righteous tendency as epitomised by Pandavs, a loose alliance of kingdoms or the states based on equal relations, which though loose and incohesive in normal times stood like united and cohesive entity when faced with the emergency like situations such as foreign aggression or any internal disturbance threatening the system. Moreover, he had introduced a powerful socio-political entity or a sort of institution--Vasudev acting as equilibrium maintaining force, and anti-monarchical or republican system of deciding or electing the leader and possible course of actions through consensus or majority decisions.
The main problem is that there is limited source of information regarding his political legacies and contributions, and whatever sources are available have been distorted and subverted. The main source—Mahabharata, Gita and Bhagavat has been distorted, subverted and interpolated to such extent they have become a religious and mythical document.[603] After the Jaya (the original name of Mahabharata) came into the hand of Bhrigu house (important branch of Brahmin) many interpolations and additions were made in the original text[604]. Such distortion and interpolations are self-evident and putting Derrida’s deconstruction to the work, there would be all sorts of biases. The historical facts have been distorted to such extent that it is difficult to discern whether it is history, myth, or religious text.
‘ But there remains one other anomalous characteristic of the history great war, as recorded in the Mahabharata …….that is the extraordinary abruptness and infelicity with which Brahamanical discourses such as essays on law, on morals, sermons on divine things, and even instruction in the so-called sciences are recklessly grafted upon the main narrative…. Indeed no effort has been spared by Brahamanical compilers to convert the history of the Great War into a vehicle for Brahamanical teaching and so skilfully are many of these interpolations interwoven with the story that it is frequently impossible to narrate one, without referring to other…..’[605]
Other sources such as Harivansham, Bhagavat Purana, Vishnu Purana , Matsya Purana etc, are more a religious document than a historical one and have been compiled or authored with the sole objective of transforming Krishna--a historical personality to an Avatar or God Himself. Though these cannot be used as authentic source, many events and acts could be deconstructed from these, and a political roadmap as chartered and established by Krishna for the posterity could be established.
There is another fact confirming the subversion and conspiracy theory regarding Krishna and Mahabharata period. This pertains to the loss of 45 slokas or stanzas of Gita, probability of Krishna’s political thoughts supplanted with that of Bhisma[606] and loss of Ashav (Power) Gita containing his political philosophy. “Kesava spoke 620 slokas, Arjun fifty seven, Sanjya sixty seven, and Dhratrashtra one sloka, such is the extent of Gita.’ It is very difficult to account for these figures. According to them, total number of the verses in the Gita would be 745, whereas the number in the current MSS and in the Mahabharata itself is, as already stated only 700. (Sankara’s commentary states in so many words that Gita he used, contained only 700 slokas)[607]
What happened to those 45 slokas or stanzas and what was the content? Why Krishna’s most potent and notable contribution to the society—his diplomacy, his political vision, his concept of Vasudev and suzerainty, his republicanism and his concept of administrative organization and decentralization—in the form of Vritya or Mandal system—are not to be found anywhere?
Whereas his ideas, acts, tactics, and famous episodes of his life epitomised his ideology, philosophy and whole corpus of discourses on state, society, culture but no precise idea on state, Rajdharama, diplomacy, Vasudev? Why Bhishma’s discourse on deathbed to Arjuna on statecraft and kingship, justice and all matter relating to the statecraft or the kingdom appears more that of Krishna supplanted on former? Why his ideas, concept and invention have been appropriated by all and sundry and not any concerted move was made to reclaim his legacies? Who would make such efforts? The very inertia and unwillingness on the part of society and elites speak of the subversion and distortion in this regard.
Suzerain Power
The suzerain power or such centre of power enforcing the collective will and acting as balancing or antipodal force was the unique contribution of Krishna to India and humankind. Though there has been in existence such concept of the Chakraborty or Rajsui Yagna before him, it was being used for personal ambition or gain. Krishna had given new twist to this concept by making it a collective mechanism and linking it to the day-to-day affairs of all kingdoms, acting as supervisory power. He had devised this mechanism along with Vasudev to keep all the kingdoms within limit of the Rajdharama, which were commonly agreed rules of engagement based on natural and universal law and justice.
The suzerain power might have been conceived while keeping the diversity and differences of the ancient India in mind. One suzerain power was necessary that could keep in check any force or tendency or any kingdom upsetting the collective arrangement or inter kingdom relations. The suzerain power was not only more powerful as compared to other for enforcing the collective will or mutually agreed rules of the engagement, but also benevolent and empathetic entity, anticipating any trouble emanating from any corner and taking preventive or the corrective measure.[608]
Moreover, the suzerain power should not only be powerful but also has the moral power and proclivity to keep the collective unity and bonhomie or relations intact or smooth. So apart from physical and strategic power, it should have also soft power at its beck and a call for maintaining the continuity of the mutually agreed arrangements. It is for this reason that Krishna pinpointed on Pandavs and Indraparstha to act as Suzerain power since they were decked with hard power as well as soft power such as empathy, commitment to goodness, truth and Dharam or truth based order.
Mechanism of Vasudev
By the time Gita was being said to Arjun on the battlefield of Mahabharata, Krishna had become Vasudev, a title and station which was above than any other ones, and used to be granted to a person or probably an institution having godly quality and charisma. Even in the Jain and some ancient Buddhist Texts, there is mention of such titles and station. Particularly, in some Jain texts, there is a mention of a theory according to which in every age and space, there is one Vasudev and Prati-Vasudev. The Vasudev symbolizes good and pure having some charismatic power and personality who kills or destroys Prati-Vasudev who is bad, demon-like symbolizing the dark forces of evil. The text identifies Krishna as Vasudev and Kansa, Jarasangh, Duryodhana etc. as Prati-Vasudev, whereas in other time and space Ram was Vasudev and Ravana was Prati-Vasudev.[609]
The most creative and futuristic contribution of Krishna to the humanity is the mechanism of Vasudev that might be located in a person or an institution. As is the case with the all breakthrough contributions of Krishna, be it Bhagavat philosophy, Samkhya Yoga, Yoga, Gyan Yoga or Karma Yoga or Republican credo or his war theories or Diplomacy or pro-people rule or the Ethical or Dharama based politics, decentralization (Vritya or Mandal System) or weapon making, the Vasudev–a socio-political balancing mechanism--has also been just dumped into oblivion and religious obscurantism.
The concept of Vasudev as the balancing and peace & order maintaining force was a unique notion that Krishna propounded and practised with unheard zeal and dedication. By enforcing its ideals and precepts, Krishna realized the dream of one Bharata and dealt with any fissiparous and destructive force threatening the ancient society. Moreover, no other person or entity had ever thought about it until late nineteenth and twentieth century when in the aftermath of First World War such force or entity was devised. This resulted into foundation of League of Nation which failure had led to the outbreak of World War II. The United Nations came on the debris of the cruelty and genocide and mayhem of the most horrendous war that humanity has ever faced.
Some cynics and critics maintain that there is mention of Vasu as one of the deities in the Rig Veda. Undoubtedly, there is one deity named as Vasu and Bhag, but it does not seem to have any connection with the concept of the Vasudev. There does not seem to be any correlation between these two. The concept of Vasudev does not seem to have any inherent elements making it religious one, unless one is adamant at sabotaging it. There is no doubt that this concept has been transformed into religious one and after that, one does not hear about it. Only use that the concept has found is to invent a theory of Avatar, and that too for subverting Krishna’s socio-political legacies and contribution to the humankind.
However, Vasudev is such a unique politico-social concept, entity, or mechanism that had anticipated the need of UN like institution in the ancient time and for that one could not but feel admiration and awe for such a master visionary that Krishna was. However, the admiration and awe turned into despair and unrequited regret when one found such a visionary and futuristic mechanism could not see the light of day after Krishna. What was more that it was, like other magnum opus of Krishna such as Gita, Samkhya, Karma Yoga, Gyan Yoga, War strategies, Bhagavat, weapon like Spiral Disc (Sudarshan Chakra) making technology, Republican Credo, crusade against Vedic rituals and worship of gods like Indra out of fear, removal of superstition and worship of ghost, serpents, etc, was sabotaged, turning these into mythical one.
Though some historians and scholars term Vasudev as personal ambition of Krishna,[610]it does not seem to be so as it had clear socio-political leverages for course correction and balancing of any socio-political deviation and anomalies threatening the political or the social system. Whatever intervention, interdiction and intercession he and Yadavas had made was not for personal again or for the gain of Dwaraka or for Yadavas, it was for greater good and collective well-being of the ancient political system which was combination of monarchy and rudimentary republican credo, as shown by Dwaraka and other Yadava kingdoms such as Bhoja, Chedi, Mathura and Dwaraka, etc[611].
There is no precise information regarding Vasudev in Mahabharata and Gita, and whatever references are available are scattered and indirect. In Bhagavat, there is a mention of Vasudeva, though it seems to have been subverted like every acts, deeds and philosophies of Krishna. One King of Karush, Ponduruk in coalition with the king of Kashi had challenged Krishna to stop the drama of being Vasudev as he was the real Vasudeva and not Krishna as latter used to wear some insignia and emblem associated with Vasudeva[612]. This clearly establishes that Vasudev was an institution, founded by Krishna as Garbe has commented[613]and it is further reinforced by the fact that for it he did not mind to put his all stakes.
Apart from it, the nature and scope of the institution or the entity of Vasudeva could be inferred from the narratives and third person statements amidst numerous interpolations and subversion inserted in the texts of various scriptures, so called Itihasa-purana and brahamanical literature. In various Puranas such as Bhagavat, Vishnu, Vayu, Garud and others, the concept and institution of Vasudeva has been made outright religious, using it as the basis for declaring Krishna an avatar. Even in Mahabharata, no possible efforts have been spared to transform this most innovative system or institution into religious or mythical one. What makes this mechanism more potent and threatening that any person or group of person or kingdom or principalities or state could don the mantle of Vasudev and act as the balancing force or entiry.
However, one rather intriguing aspect is that Krishna had never explained it and like the missing slokas or the stanzas of Gita that might have contained his political philosophy, there is all probability that this too might have been deliberately lost or subverted. As Krishna had spoken about everything such as are mentioned in Gita, Mahabharata, Anugita, Ashva (Powewr)Gita, Udhav Gita or Ekadash Skandh, it is not possible that he would not have spoken about the politics, power, Rajdharama, Vasudev, etc. Since it is not available or might have been lost or subverted as happened in the case of Krishna views on Politics, Rajdharama and related aspects that seemed to have been appropriated to the Bhisma when Yudhister went to former’s deathbed for seeking political wisdom from him. That too on the advice of Krishna![614] The distortion and subversion seems to have crossed its limit.
This becomes more clear when one does comparative analysis of contents of Shanti Parva and Anugita, Gita, Udhav Gita (Ekadash Skandh), there are many ideas and theories of Krishna that seem to have been appropriated to the Bhisma and the Santiparvan. The idea of state, duty of a King, the responsibility of a king towards his subjects, and other matter related to the justice and administration that Bhisma imparted to Yudhisthir seem to be more belonging to Krishna than to a patriarch, who just for a sake of keeping his words put whole Aryavrata on warpath.[615] For example, there is a familiar verse ascribed to King Janak of Mithila, which says if Mithila is on fire, nothing of mine is burnt (in it). The verse is in Anugita[616]. This verse also occurs in Mahabharata[617]
However, there is one aspect of Krishna’s political philosophy that could not have been subverted and distorted, that is his numerous political, social, and cultural acts and deeds giving the clear idea of his political views. Nevertheless, the stakes have not spared even these by terming as the acts of God (antics or leela of God!) so that no inference could be made out from this storehouse of information. Long before the Information age dawned, the social and political elites of the ancient India had mastered how to use the information, misinformation, or knowledge as weapon for subserving their petty interests and subverting the larger good.
Even Mahabharata war was fought on the political issue of succession, which was not hereditary but on republican credo of making choice of the best King through consensus as being followed by the Yadavas since the time of Yadu[618]. They were not the followers of primogeniture, the main arm of monarchy where elder descent is used to be the claimant of crown irrespective of quality and suitability. Krishna put his whole force, strategy and his all efforts to tilt the war in favour of Pandavs, not because they were his relative as is understood in common parlance and Indian historical-cum-mythical scholarship, but because bigger political issue of the rightful accession of the right kings not necessarily based on hereditary, and future political map of India.
However, the very portrayal of Mahabharata war as the ‘fight among cousins’ ‘warring Aryan tribes going for big war’, ‘Krishna’s mechanism’, ‘Draupaudi Revenge’ or “Drona’s redemption’ betrays the subversive agenda of Indian historical scholarship. The myopia of Indian historical scholarship failed to see or did not want to see, perhaps deliberately, that the value and ideals for which war was fought, did not lead to the so called Kaliyuga, as has been made out in various scriptures and mythical or religious history. It had ushered into the emergence of Republics in post war period; and various foreign writes and travellers have attested it[619]. This rather bright period of ancient Indian history, considered ironically as ‘dark age’, had seen the emergence of the full-fledged republics, and it was continued until the emergence of Imperial dynasty of Maurya destroying these republics.
This historical time--the foundation of empire on the graveyards of republics is considered as starting point of the state formation in India. This rather retrograde step in the state formation is considered as great leap forward in the political and general history of India. One is unable to understand whether the shift from republicanism to monarchy was retrogressive or progressive one. If one peruses the account of Indian historical scholarship, it is considered as progressive one. This may sound confusing but it betrays the agenda of subversion and distortion hidden in the power relations and domination.
Nevertheless, there is no dearth of literary, textual, non-textual, and archaeological and foreigner’s accounts attesting the political and historical grandeur of this period.
Krishna and State formation in ancient India
There is no unanimity regarding the state formation in India among the historians and the political discourse of the country. There is a prevalent view that the process of state formation started only after the establishment of monarchy such as Maurya, Gupta and others in Northern India around the end of First millennium BC and beginning of First millennium AD.[620]
However, if one analyses the state formation based on the establishment of monarchy as is being put forward, then the state formation in India had predated Maurya et la and even that of Hellenics one as advanced in the Greco-Roman Culture. As the development of state is comprehended in terms of the foundation of well-established dynasty or the monarchy and even it is considered as a preliminary stage, then the state formation in India had piped others by many stages and many centuries. It even seems to be disproving Marx and other Indologists’ view of India as the land of no development and permanent anarchy.
In Rig Veda Yadu Kula (it cannot be termed as tribe as tribe does not fit in. Moreover, Kula does not translate into tribe and only succinct translation of Kula is monarchy or dynasty in political term) has been termed as “anti-monarchical” (Arajanya).[621] The very meaning of word which supposes the existence of monarchy and about which it is called anti-monarchical that is Yadu Kul (dynasty) gives enough indication of the advanced stage of the state formation.
Even if it is argued that one source cannot be sufficient for proving the advanced stage of state formation in India, there are other philological, archaeological, literary, folklores and other various sources. Even if it is conceded that state might have been in initial stage in Harappa culture as many architectural structures testify (particularly the elevated large structures and a large hall) attesting some sort of authority to coordinate these things on large scale. Moreover, the massive trade with Babylonian and Egyptian also ascertains some sort of advanced economy managed by some state formations, even if it might have been in initial stage.
“In India, too extreme concentration of the social surplus by a divine monarch, or a small priestly caste, may be deduced from a strongly walled citadel unearthed in the heart of Harappa during 1944. In its shadow stood symbolically a vast granary measuring 150 ft by 56ft. At Mohenjo-Daro, a similar citadel actually enclosed the granary in which the rulers’ real wealth was accumulated. Commodious two-storeyed houses of baked brick, provided with bathrooms and a porter’s lodge and covering as much a 97 ft. by 83 ft., may be contrasted with monotonous rows of mud brick tenements, each consisting of only two rooms and a court, not exceeding by 56 ft by 30 ft in over-all area. The contrast doubtless reflects a division of society into classes……”[622]
“ Many well-planned streets and a magnificent system of drains, regularly cleared, reflects the vigilance of some regular municipal government. Its authority was strong enough to secure the observance of town-planning by law and maintenance of the approved lines for the streets and lanes over several reconstruction rendered necessary by floods.”[623]
By the time Rig Veda was composed, which is calculated to be around 1500 BC to 1200 BC, the state must have acquired some sort of maturity. Even if it is assumed the massive flood might have led to the decline of the Harappa culture or virtual destruction of civilization and subsequent culture, which is called as Indo-Aryan, which might have originated internally or the Harappa people might have migrated to Central Asia or Eurasia due to flood and might have returned back to their land (that is why the pattern of migration is staggered and stunted.)
There is no doubt that there might have been some setback to the state formation. Nevertheless, the state might not have been thrown back to the tribal stage as assumed by many historians. During Mahabharata and Krishna period, which is around 1000-900 BC, the state formation must have crossed the tribal stage and it was in the monarchical stage. This is substantiated by various literary and non-literary, archaeological evidence, as well as subsequent development—emergence of republic in Ganga- Yamuna Doab, which was later destroyed by the emergence of Empire or powerful dynasty in the east.
It seems untenable that from tribal stage, the state formation in India leapfrogged to republican stage and then reverted to the monarchy and then anarchy. There should not be any doubt that the Imperial monarchical system that had followed the Republican ones after its destruction by Maurya et la was the continuation, even if retrogressive, of the political process, as many features and institutions of the latter were included. In fact, the very success of imperial monarchy of Chandragupta Maurya, Ashok, Harshwardhan and Akbar was based on republican ethos and practices. However, this did not prove to be a permanent and stable as it was based on the seizure or annexation of the territory, not on the system of benevolent flexible union and ‘rightful conquest’ as devised by Krishna.
Krishna’s most notable contribution to the state formation in India was the foundation of republicanism providing momentum to the state formation. He organized, streamlined and gave shape to the quasi-monarchy and quasi-republic as existing during his period.[624].Except where Yadavas were ruling, all were the monarchies or the quasi-monarchies. Right from Rig Veda period Yadavas were termed as ‘anti-monarchical’ which means they used to elect their King or the descent did not always follow the primogeniture.
However, there seems to be no unanimity regarding as to what does it mean, ‘anti-monarchical’, though it is a fact that there has been certainly a tradition among Yadavas to elect their leader[625] Some interprets it as ‘political’, while other believes that it means there would be no king among Yadavas. However, folk lore as shaped by the stakes tells another story: it means Yadavas would never have any political power, courtesy Gandhari’s curse and Yayati’s irredeemable act and all other canards spread just to mystify Krishna and denigrate Yadavas.
If the general and the political history of Yadavas (with apology to those who suspect the political lineage of Yadavas!) were analysed, it would become clear that etymological meaning of arajnya is anti-monarchical as they used to select or elect their King or leader and were against the hereditary king. It is for the same reason that Krishna could not be crowned as king despite being de facto or the real king, as some branches of the Yadavas were opposed to his kinghood. Their contribution to state formation could not be denied simply because there were no such parallel state formations in the western or the Greek culture.
The republican credo of Krishna and Yadavas, and the adjective (anti-monarchical) that is mentioned in Rig Veda gets further reinforced by the fact that republics that evolved and established as full-fledged republics in North Bihar, Eastern UP and Central India had Yadavas as the leading constituents (Virji, Lichhavi, Vaishali, Kasi)[626]. Later on even in down South, it is found that Yadavas were one of the constituents of the kingdom that had emerged much later in the form of Rashtrakuta, Pandya and Chola Empire, and the Vijaynagar Empire had also their uncontested footprints, and were associated with one of the branches of Yadavas[627].
The Yadavas had tradition of not following primogeniture, one of the basic systems of monarchy, and they used to select king who was more capable and had the capability to take along with all the branches of Yadavas and other castes and classes of the people. Among the chandravamsa the most important lines were those claiming descent from Yadu and from Puru. There was a reversal of primogeniture where the youngest son, Puru has inherited the king. Whereas Iksvakus are said mostly to have observed customs approved of by the brahmanas, the Ailas (Yadavas) on the other hand had many social observances that were outside the rules of the Dharmashastra. ………The epic of the Candravamsa was the Mahabharata in which such customs are described at greater length.[628]
Krishna’s contribution to the state formation in ancient India is momentous and substantial. He had streamlined the existing monarchies, quasi-monarchies and quasi-republics (Mathura, Dwaraka, Indraparstha, Chedi etc) providing momentum to the state formation which around mid-first millennium BC emerged as the full-fledged republics in North Bihar, East UP and Central India. By putting emphasis on pro-people and Dharma based rule (just and equalitarian) and punishing those who violated this Rajdharama, Krishna and Yadavas had laid the foundation of a sort of responsible and accountable government and kingdoms, which has been attested by Megasthenes[629].
Vasudev, which like everything related to Krishna has been transformed into religious or mythical entity, was a politico-social mechanism to act as balancing force among the monarchies, quasi-monarchies and quasi-republics. Krishna not only streamlined and made these responsible and accountable but also Instutionalized some of the traditional systems and institutions such as Jan Sabha, Mandal or Vritya system, Sudharma Sabha, consultation or post facto approval of the important decisions, the importance of public opinion, etc.
In addition, he established a suzerain power in the form of Pandavs, having capacity to act as uniting force in the wake of external invasion and internal problems among the Kingdoms. He also established a system where any indigenous power or the kingdom seeking the help of foreign powers or the kings or warlords, would be punished with such effect that it would deter others seeking such help or assistance in future[630].
The republics such as ‘Virji, Lichhavi, Vaishali, Bhoja, and others had evolved from foundations of republicanism that Krishna laid during his period (1000-900 BC). This was further strengthened by his successors as attested by Megasthenes. The emergence of full-fledged republics with some shred of federalism or union as all republics had two or three constituents that were advertently or inadvertently were termed as tribal affairs. Since the mainstream historians consider the emergence of republics as surprise element at the best and a tribal affairs at the worst, just to validate their argument of the emergence of the state with the foundation of Maurya dynasty, they could not acknowledge the state formation earlier.
In fact, the foundation of the Maurya dynasty and empire seems to be not only the retrogressive step in the state formation since the Mauryas formed their empire on the graveyards of republics flourished in North, Central and East India.[631]It also proved to be nemesis for the budding state formation as it was lost in the floodgates of foreign invasions and instability.
Shri K.P Jayaswal has tried to prove that ancient Hindu political system, right from the Mahabharata and Krishna period, was partly of republics of the Athenian type, and of the constitutional monarchies such as that of Great Britain. There were such popular assemblies such as Paura and Janpada acting as checks on the powers of the King. As per his views, these organizations were more advanced than anything which modern Switzerland or the United States can boast. “Theconstitutional progress made by the Hindus has probably not been made equalled, much less surpassed by any polity of antiquity”[632].
Nevertheless, the evolution of republic or ‘Gana-Sangh system’ has been one of the most important landmarks in the state formation. However, it has not been given due credit, rather putting question mark on such landmark development. Some Indian and western scholars have discussed it, but there is no further research and there is no taker for this. Moreover, the republics that emerged in the east and the central India around the middle of First millennium BC are considered as aberration or surprise element. The Indian historical scholarship is unable to see the seeds of state formation sown by Harappa civilization, then Vedic period and Mahabharata period, and the cumulative effects of these political developments leading to the emergence of full-fledged republics. These republics were, later on destroyed by the re-emergence of monarchy and imperial monarchy, followed by the anarchy, and invasions and consequent subjugation.
A.S Altekar has tried to understand the causes for the disappearance of the republics in India. He has enumerated seven conditions for the disappearance of the republics in the ancient India. Taking up the case study of Virji republic, he puts forward some recommendations for the survival of republic.[633]. There has been no dearth of scholars, viewing these as milestones of the political development. However, when these developments are tried to be grounded in the historical process, there comes usual problem of mysticism and mystification of the historical process, time and personalities.
Shri P.N Banerjee underlines rather developed state of polity in the ancient India. ‘The ancient system of government may thus be called constitutional. It was ‘Sachivtantra’ and the popular assemblies were in operation not only in the monarchies but also in the republics[634]. R. C. Majumdar was pained to find that it called for great efforts to believe that political institutions ‘which we are accustomed to look upon as of western growth had also flourished in India long ago’. Contrary to the belief that Indian political scape is overshadowed by the religious one, he maintained that ‘religion did not engross the whole or even an undue proportion of public attention[635].
Another historian, Shamasastry is of similar opinion in this regard. He proves that neither during Vedic period nor in the time of Kautilya divine birth or right of kings seems to have been thought of[636]. In his concluding remarks, N. N Law has found that ‘There were wide and various fields of political actions in which Hindu showed considerable judgement and acumen undelegated by the force of beliefs’[637].
Another eminent Indian historian, B. K Sarkar, in his pioneer work of ancient Indian history, has launched a ‘frontal attack on the traditional Western prejudices regarding Asia, such as are concentrated in Hegel, Cousin, Max Muller, Maine, Janet, Smith, Willoughby and Hutington. He disapproves the endeavour of comparing the ‘servile and degenerate Asia of to-day’ with that Asia which was the leader of humanity’s progress. Sarkar outrightly rejects the misnomer held by the western scholars regarding religiosity of Hindu polity, ‘Hindu states were thoroughly…’ (political)[638]. N. C Bandyopadhay too seems to have arrived at the same conclusion that the ancient Indian king could neither claim divinity nor possess any prerogatives. He is of opinion that views of the thinkers who justify the expulsion or destruction of a tyrant disprove the theory of divinity.[639]
Other authority on ancient Indian history, U. N. Ghoshal, in his seminal work on the polity of ancient India has refuted the unfounded and unsubstantiated views of Max Muller and Bloomfield. Their rather ridiculous views that because of certain inherent tendencies in their character, Hindus could not envisage the idea of the state and there is no scope for the interests of state in their scheme of things. However, his main thrusts of criticism have been the writers and thinkers of the history of western political thought, particularly Dunning, Janet and Willoughby. He rightly put a question mark to the Janet’s chimera that the sole city for Indians is the city of divine and place this somewhere between half-truth and outright misrepresentation of the fact[640].
Dunning has stated that the Aryans in India could never develop political science as an independent branch of knowledge and free it from its theological and metaphysical arena as the European Aryans did. On the other hand, Willoughby believes that the Indians could not analyse or rationalize their institutions as they have had supreme faith in the divine creation. While discarding this view Ghoshal maintains that the main characteristics of Buddhist (and Hindu as well) political thought is ‘bold and avowed appeal to human reason’. Moreover, he refutes the typical western views of Indian state as uniformed ‘despotic monarchy’.[641]
D. R. Bhandarkar has also criticized this unfounded and anachronistic view of the western scholars about Indian polity. He oughtrightly rejects the naïve views of Dunning who had no idea about India and it polity. As far as Max Muller and Bloomfield are concerned, who hold the incredulous view that Indian never knew the feeling of nationality and that his heart never trembled in the expectation of national applause. This became more self-evident in the wake of discovery of Arthashastra and Rajtarangini, ‘it is no longer correct to assert that Hindu mind did not conduce to the development of political theories and that Indians never set up politics as an independent branch of knowledge’. He quotes the republican institutions such as assembly (Jan Sabha), Mantriparishad (council of ministers) and other institutions in support his argument.
V. R. R Dikshitar in his work presents a catalogue of institutions of ancient India that he regards as modern. He differs strongly from those holding the view that ancient Indians lacked the capacity for state formation and there has not been any trace of patriotism. He maintains that ‘the oneness of the country and ideal of every monarch to make a digvijay and achieve sole rule over the world extending from the Cape Comorin to the Himalayas indicate beyond doubt the existence of a strong nationalist feeling in the country.’ The verse janani janambhumisca svargadapi gariyasti justifies this character of ancient Indian polity[642].
P. N Banerjee maintains that western writers in general and Hall in particular are permeated with the imperialistic design, viewing International law as ‘favoured monopoly’ of the European family of nations. Shri Banerjee seeks to establish the fact that the ancient Indians had a definite knowledge of the rules of international law according to which they regulated their international conduct’.[643] With the help of comparative study of first world war and wars waged in ancient India, S. V Vishwanath found that the first world war was waged, flouting all the accepted laws of the nations and defying all the notions of international law and morality by not sparing non-combatants and innocent people. On the other hand, wars in the ancient India were fought according to the rules of Dharmayuddha and in which wholesale destructions were forbidden[644].
Underlining the administrative excellence of the ancient India, U. N Ghoshal maintains that principles of taxation devised in ancient times ‘surpass the achievements of classical antiquity and tend to approach the ideas of European thinkers in the 18th and early 19th centuries.’ The view that taxes are given in lieu of the service of protection and security provided by the king is indistinguishable to the similar doctrine of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe.[645]
‘Too many Indologists have studied Indian religion, art, language and literature in a political and historical vacuum, and this has tended to encourage the widespread fallacy that ancient Indian civilization was interested almost solely in the things of the spirit. However defective our knowledge may be, we have ample evidence to show that great empires rose and fell, in political organization India produced her own system, distinctive in its strength and weakness. Therefore, some knowledge of her political history is essential for a true understanding of her ancient civilization’.[646]
Nevertheless, the earliest legend on the origin of kingship occurs in the Aitareya Brahmana, one of the later Vedic texts, perhaps of the 8th or 7th century B.C. This tells how the gods and demons were at war, and the god were suffering badly at the hands of their enemies. Therefore, they met together and decided that they needed a raja to lead them in the battle. They appointed Indra as their king, and the tide soon turned in their favour. This legend suggests that in the earliest times kingship in India was thought to be based upon human need and military necessity, and that the king’s first duty was to lead his subjects in war.[647]
A little later, the Taittiriya Upanishad repeats the story, but in a significantly altered form; the discomfited gods did not elect Indra, but sacrificed to the high god Prajapati, who sent his son Indra to become their king. At this stage, the king was still thought of as primarily a leader in war. Those who have no king cannot fight says the text but kingship was already given divine sanction and the king of the immortals, who was the prototype of all earthly kings, held his office by the appointment of the Most High.[648]
The story of the Mahasammata gives, in the form of a myth worthy of Plato, one of the world’s earliest versions of the widespread contractual theory of the state, which in Europe is specially connected with the names of Locke and Rousseau. It implies that the main purpose of government, is the first social service, and ultimately dependent on the question of the origin of monarchy two strands are evident, the mystical and the contractual, often rather incongruously combined. Another and very important check was public opinion. Popular or semi-popular assemblies limited the Vedic raja, and though these disappeared in later times kings were invariably advised to keep a finger on the pulse of public feeling, and never to offend it too blatantly[649].
The Epics and Smirti literature supported this state of affairs, which discouraged outright conquest. ‘Lawful conquest,’ did not involve the absorption of the conquered kingdom, but merely its reduction to the vassal status. Though many later kings, such as Samudra Gupta, ignored the sacred law and incorporated conquered kingdoms into their empires, custom was against such a practice. In fact, this is Krishna’s political legacy, which has been appropriated by religious books and mythical texts. It was none other than Krishna who had established a ‘Lawful Conquest’ during the time when he was founding the system of Vasudev, and it was one of the fundamentals of the socio-political mechanism of Vasudev.[650]
Krishna used to put emphasis on ‘Lawful Conquests’ or ‘Dharmasmmat Vijay”, as it was the foundation on which all other elements of his Rajdharama had rested. This was followed until the Republics were in existence and it was summarily disregarded and dumped when the monarchy in general and imperial monarchy in particular emerged in east. Another important feature of Vasudev mechanism was that no domestic power would seek help of foreign power or forces in any matter. This too was thrown to the winds and a floodgate of foreign invasion, conquest and subjugation followed stunting not only the state formation in India but also rendering the foundational civilization to the ‘functioning anarchy’.
Some western scholars such as J. Gonda has put had undue emphasis on the role that religion had played in the formation of kingship in India. They maintain that honour shown to a sovereign was similar to the marks of veneration conferred on the images of the gods[651]. There is a gross oversight of the fact that gods are conceived after the patterns of chiefs and kings and are assigned their attributes and qualities. There is another misnomer that the masses have always accepted the divinity of kings[652].
On the other hand, there are some scholars, who overemphasize the role played by rituals and tradition in the formation of polity[653]. However, it is not sufficiently realized that power was made acceptable to the people through rituals, legends, genealogies, marriage alliance, hierarchical ideology and various other means. Further, the fact that the Brahmanas, Srautasutras, Grhyasutras and some other texts deal with rituals, it should not create impressions that all Indian history is nothing but rituals. The inference of social and economic processes from archaeological and anthropological sources is equally important. Rituals and traditions may have their roots in reality but are usually manipulated by the dominant social groups to serve their interests.[654]
Heesterman has observed that India’s struggle against colonial rule has not been broad-based and has been fought among them. He views Indian history as fragmentation and atomization that has remained unchanged. The Indian kings and their kingdom was more interested in sense enjoyment and sense gratification (which is not true as there many examples where they were involved in territorial conquests and welfare of the people). He believes that the kings derive their power and authority from Brahman who is a renouncer. The eternal and transcendent values of renunciation were meant for the kings who followed them[655]
Some Indian historians rightly not agree with it, but it has some truth as far as hold of priestly class was concerned. It is argued that Brahmin opposed the renunciation religions of the Buddha and Mahaveer, and prescribed renunciation only for the fourth stage. However, it was more a turfed war for the domination over the society. These two had challenged the rituals and superstition on which they (priestly class or Brahmin) had established hegemony over the society and it was because that they opposed the renunciation theory.
The Indian historians believe that Brahmans were an integral part of the Varna (another tools of domination and hegemony explain its wilful use by them) divided society which they regulated with the help of the Kshatriyas. They occasionally quarrelled, but they together lived on the gifts, taxes, tributes and presents provided by the artisans, peasants and other sections of the society. Towards the end of the ancient period, the Brahmans were given substantial land grants and rituals were reoriented[656].
The king was primarily considered as a leader in the war, responsible for the defence of the tribe. He was in no sense divine at this early period, and had no religious functions, except to order sacrifices for the good of the tribe and to support the priests who performed them. The priest-king of some other early cultures had no counterpart in the Vedic India. There was no regular revenue system and the king was maintained by the tribute of his subjects and the booty won in battle. If the king had judicial functions, as he certainly had later, there is no reference to them; murder was probably punished by a system of wergild, as with the Anglo-Saxons and some other early Indo-European people, but beyond this we have no information on the administration of justice in the time of the Rg Veda.[657]
“Several chieftains are mentioned by name and there are very unreliable stories associated with them, but only one raja is recorded in the Rig-Veda as performing any deed of the historical importance. This is Sudas, king of Bharatas, the tribe dwelling on the upper reaches of the Saraswati River. Three poems of the collection describe the great “Battle of the Ten kings” at which Sudas defeated a coalition of ten tribes of the modern Ravi. The most powerful of these ten tribes was that of the Purus, who dwelt on the lower Saraswati, and were the Bharatas’ western neighbours; their king, Purukutsa, was apparently killed in the battle. In the succeeding age, we hear no more of either Bharatas or Purus, but a new tribe, that of the Kurus, controls the old land of Sudas and of the Bharatas and much of the northern Ganges-Yamuna Doab. In the traditional genealogy of the Kuru chiefs both Bharata and Puru occur as names of their ancestors, and they are referred to indiscriminately as “sons of Bharata” and “son of Puru”.[658]
Nevertheless, the evidence related with the Mathura proves the momentum of the state formation galvanized by the Krishna and Mahabharata period. The traditional evidence on Mathura suggests a process of historical change from a lineage based society with a prominence of the Yadava lineage to the emergence of a Janpada that of the Surasena, who in spite of contradictory statements seem to have been a segment of Yadava lineage or sought a connection with them. The Surasena Janpada as a territorial unit, claimed historical recognition and was counted among the important states of North India. Its status was determined not only by its being listed among sixteen mahajanpadas, but also by the reference to its political centre at Mathura. ….. Even it came under the control of Maurya, its identity was not totally submerged.[659]
However, there is contradiction in the fact relating to the establishment of the Mathura[660]. It is maintained that Satrughana had two sons, one of whom was Surasena and his descendent ruled Mathura, thus making the Surasena members of the Suryavanshi or Iksvakus lineage and therefor quite distinct from the Yadavas who belonged to the Chandravanshi or Aila lineage. This version is in stark contradiction of other sources where Surasena as descendants of Surasena of the Virsni clan are part of Yadava lineage.
The Yadavas were also called as Madhavas[661], linking them with Madhu and thus making them the original settlers of the region. They had incorporated the Andhaka-Virsni segment and evidently regained the territory because the struggle between Kamsa and Krishna was an internal struggle between the members of the same lineage segment, as well as kin group, since kamsa was the maternal uncle of Krishna. The Bhagavata Purana narrates the story of Krishna in detail starting from the episode of his birth to the eventual migration and the incarnation of divinity.[662]
A variant of the Krsna-kamsa episode also occurs in the Ghata jataka suggesting that it was a well-known theme among the traditional narratives on the past of Mathura.[663] However, this contradiction proves the distortion and subversion of socio-political legacies of Krishna and Yadavas that have been factored in to subserve the stakes. This could be further elucidated with contradictions and numerous versions that exist regarding their political and non-political legacies. Not only the different stands of Indian historical scholarship in reference to the Krishna and Yadavas but also different position by the same scholar points to the deep layer of the subversion that have been inserted in the annals of Indian history.
Information on the Yadavas as political force tends to be vague. They were evidently a pastoral-cum-agricultural society observing what appears to be a segmentary lineage system[664]. The Yadava lineage is projected as one of wide ramifications, both of segmenting and assimilating. Its prestige whether real or imagined is clear from the number of dynasties of the subcontinent who in later periods claimed descent from the Yadavas[665].
An attempt has been made to try to identify their settlements with those of the Black-and-red ware cultures from the archaeology of the second and first millennium BC but the identification remains extremely tentative. Archaeological co-relations with migration raise the problem that the white-painted Black-and-red ware moved from Gujarat towards Rajasthan and to the west of the Yamuna, and not in other direction[666]. It is so because Yadavas after having hounded from Dwaraka in the aftermath of demise of Krishna and prominent Yadavas in Prabhas, and the plunder and loot of submerging Dwaraka that seems to had followed, migrated from Gujarat via Rajasthan to West of Yamuna in Hastinapur and Indraparstha under the stewardship of Arjun.[667] Some of the Yadavas had migrated westward and founded an empire in Gajani in Afghanistan-Iran border and after Greco-Bacteria and Persian campaign, they were forced to come back to India via Punjab, then Rajasthan and west of Yamuna.[668]Therefore, there should not be any problem in identifying the white-painted Black-and-red ware with Yadavas, if the subversion and faultlines are taken into account.
Some of the major segments of the Yadavas, such as the Andhaka-Virsni had been following the gana-sangha system confirmed by both Panini and Kautilya[669]. The gana-sangha system was beautiful amalgamation of the republican and federal ethos, even if it might be at rudimentary stage. However, this does not mean that Yadavas in general and Krishna in particular have not played their part in the state formation and political development. The very facts that they are not acknowledged and their political legacies are suspected speak of the subversive agenda of the stakes.
However, the French scholar Robert Lingat seems to have the balanced view regarding the role of divinity in the state formation and the relation between the temporal and spiritual power (Brahman and Kshatriya). Dharma was ‘essentially a rule of interdependence founded on a hierarchy corresponding to the nature of things and necessary for the maintenance of social order. The king is considered indispensable to the social order in which religious aspirations do not monopolize all human activity[670]. It may be added that this social order was Varna-divided and male dominated, and its laws regarding person and property helped the higher Varna.[671]
The origin of the state was attributed to a number of factors in early literary sources. The surplus production of rice led to the emergence of the institution of family and private property (fields). These two gave rise to the state as there arose need to protect these two institutions as well as prevent intra-caste conflicts[672]. Even in the Rig Veda such concept is found where Yadu are called as non-monarchical (arajanya) and the power is vested in the chief of the tribe or caste. This concept is clear from the various stories regarding the appointment of Indra as the king (raja) with stories elaborated with the growth of the contractual element in idea of the state in later Vedic literature.[673]
However, the purpose of the contract gradually changed from protecting the clan militarily, to the king maintaining the order of the castes and protection of the private property[674]. The contract was complete when the raja was paid back the one-sixth in tax as his wage for services to the people[675]. The divinity aspect had made raja above everything making him beyond reproach and accountability. The Buddhist texts, however, place much more emphasis on the contractual aspect of the state as they deny any sort of divinity in the affair of the state.[676] …..The recognition of increasing stratification was is reflected in the change from the dual varnas system to the four varnas system which is the accepted system in the later Vedic literature.[677]
Moreover, the gana-sangha (Republican-cum federal) system that developed in modern day North Bihar and Eastern UP around 500 BC consequent upon the seminal contribution of Krishna and Yadavas proves their political legacy and sagacity. The distribution of gana-sangha system in the middle Ganga valley was largely in the areas of the present day North Bihar and adjoining areas of Eastern UP…The lineage system was continued in the middle Ganga valley in the gana-sangha or chiefdoms but it rather developed differently from its form in the western Ganga valley[678]. It cannot be referred to as a non-state system, since it has some of the germinal forms which were a precondition to the state, nor can it be called a state since the institutions associated with the infrastructure of a state are not present. It can perhaps be termed as representing a point along a continuum towards state formation, which has been termed as ‘stratified societies prior to the emergence of the states’[679].
Chapter 7
Epilogue
Indian history, be it modern, mediaeval or ancient, seems to be congealed in the unchanged social and political scape. However, it might appear to have changed, yet the undercurrent of the hegemony and domination, social cleavages shaping the overall politico-historical scape has remained unchanged. Oriental despotism[680] seems to be very much alive: the same castes or classes or the political and social elites are at the helm of affair that has been there since the ages. In the veneer of modernity, the same old game of domination and hegemony is being played out, albeit with some superficial discourse of democracy, modernity and the hollowed rights. The traditional domination has given rise to the legal domination[681] and then it seems to have been frozen for the good.
The rot, the stagnation, the cleavages and the faultlines, the dominant discourse becoming peripheral while the peripheral dominant, the vanquished history being presented as that of victor’s one, the myopia of elites, the malleability and the fascination about everything that is foreign and invasion on invitation[682], is continued with some trappings and sham of the exigencies. While some neighbouring countries and others have been making incursions into our geo-strategic domain, others are hollowing us culturally and socially. The social and political elites like their counterparts in the mediaeval and the ancient period continue to be busy in pandering to the interests and the position that would keep them in the locus of permanent superiority and hegemony.
Everything has changed, time has changed and the history has entered the modern and post-modern phase. The postmodernity has been hold by the threatened social and political elites world over in general and that of the Indian ones in particular like the proverbial straw of the sinking man. The credo of postmodernity is that there is no single narrative or dominant reality but multiple narratives or realities, vying for the competing attention and justification. It is said that there is no one reality about India and the Indian history, but multiple realities and perspectives, and all are true or could contest for truth. It appears to be the dominant discourse of the Indian history.
This seems to be self-evident that the subversion and the hegemony piggy riding the highly regimented hierarchical social order with its collaterals afflicting the political and social scape is continued, though in the garb of modernity and post-modernity. In Indian context in particular and world in general, postmodernism with its credo of the non-existence of any fundamental reality or narrative, seems to have become a handy tool for the academic inertia, scholarly masturbation, hollowed discourses, and ploy for reeking in status quoism.
What is rather ironical that this credo seems to have been mastered or anticipated by the Indian social and political elites, at least three thousand years ago, to demolish the historical personality, time and legacies of a seemingly foundational period? The vast array of realities, counter-realities, versions, counter-versions, stories, counter-stories, plots, sub-plots, plots within plots with undercurrent theme running into the socio-political domination for which they did not mind in seeking or inviting the invaders, and all and the sundry. With the dawn of modern, postmodern and the post-postmodern discourse, the myopic and selfish Indian social and political elites and the system that they put into place three thousand years back, to enjoy their superiority and hegemony in perpetuity seems to have been vindicated.
However, this rather fatalistic approach of the postmodernism, some critics have mentioned about it, seems to have evolved, not out of any scholarly and non-scholarly efforts or any significant discourse, but the inability to find fundamental or ‘real’ reality about any discipline or phenomenon. The collective failure of not arriving at any ‘real’ or fundamental reality or the narrative about the politics, societal trends and phenomena, history, cultural faultlines, etc. seems to have been termed as postmodernism. Nevertheless, there must be a fundamental or real reality existing without any doubt, independent of whether one or other stream of historical or for that matter that of any discipline or scholarship finds or arrives at it or not. The failure or the inability to find a real reality or fundamental or dominant reality does not mean non-existence or non-positing of such possibility.
Leaving aside the post-modernism and the post-postmodernism where it is: in the logjam of modernists and postmodernists, if one ventures into the vista of Indian history in its all so called modern, mediaeval and ancient dimensions, this credo of postmodernism--multiplicity of reality or absence of any dominant reality—seems to have been used as the potent instrument for subverting the history and the historical process. This seems to have been done for maintaining the hegemony and superiority of the two castes or class in general and one caste or class in particular. It would not be difficult to deconstruct their strategy and tactics: Generate as many, as diverse realities as possible so that the real reality or fundamental or dominant narrative could be shoved into the dark alleys of ignorance, confusion and uncertainty. This rather great game of travesty seemed to have been played after, or at least its foundation was laid during the post-Krishna and Mahabharata period.
The Mahabharata period or the Krishna and the post-Krishna was blacked out firstly by inventing countless versions, stories and counter stories and then high jacking it to the surreal or mystical and legendary plane. The blacking out of the foundational period seems to have resulted into the wedging of an artificial gap of approximately one thousand years between the decline of Harappa civilization and so-called rise of Second urbanization. In fact, Second urbanization had started much before, at the end of second millennium and beginning of the first millennium BC. The archaeological proves[683], apart from literary, scriptural and settlement patterns, settlement archaeology and the finding of PGW in almost all parts of the country, though dispersed and scattered, have been there for more than two decades. Yet there seems no willingness on behalf of the Indian and foreign historians, social and political elites to acknowledge it. This proves and authenticates the subversion and hegemonic theory on which the study is based, substantiating its hypothesis. In addition, it also validates the historicity of Krishna and Mahabharata period.
One can analyse the history starting from the present, hitherto civilizational progress, pattern of the historical development and overall socio-economic and political developments of the modern period to that of the mediaeval, to the ancient or the vice versa as is the traditional format. On the other hand, history can be analysed from the chronological point of view as from ancient to mediaeval to modern, even if very classification is faulty one, based as it is on certain structures and superstructures evolved in some western countries, which was made the standardized criteria for determining the historical development and the process. As the history of a nation or a state seems to follow a pattern or a sort of continuity, one can decipher many omissions and commissions, interpolation and subversion wedged into the formal or the official history.
Indian history is the most apt case study of such subversion that started 3000 years back and it is continued. One can analyse or get the enough hint of this subversion from the diverse range of the socio-political realities and situations as existing today. Dr. Kosambi has proved that one could get umpteen numbers of evidences, facts and insight into the ancient past of India by analysing the current socio-political and cultural layers and practices in India[684]. Nevertheless, there have been few takers for this as it would have upset the whole edifice of subversion, deception and conquered or loser’s history being presented as conqueror’s or victor’s one. Moreover, it might have unseated the stakes, the classes, the castes from their entrenched positions, exposing their perfidy and outright selfishness in keeping a towering civilization hostage to the interests of one or the two classes or castes. It would have unravelled the continued saga of social and political domination and subjugation that still seems to be playing havoc with our society and polity.
It had started with Krishna, and it is still continued, taking toll of many historical personalities such as Buddha, Mahaveer, Guru GobindSinghji, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Gandhiji, etc.. Moreover, any person or movement would meet the same fate, if he or she or it tries to unfetter our civilization from the clutches of the vested interests, and subversion and deception thereof.
Krishna, his footprints and legacies are everywhere: Here, there, in culture, art, literature, politics, Army, diplomacy, strategies and tactics, duty of ruling elites, pro-people policy, establishment of an egalitarian and just society, doctrine of war, how to win asymmetrical war, folksong, collective psyche, philosophy and psychology, yet he is an ahistorical figure, not grounded in the history. He is only in the mythical and the religious sphere, and the whole edifice of religion seems to be revolving around him.
What is it? Is not it subversion of history? Despite this, the legions of historians of all ilk—Indologists, Western, leftist and rightist, right of the centre, fundamentalist—have been unable to see the historicity of Krishna? Why? Are they in league with the stakes or having myopic view of the history or just being the status quoist who dares not to take any independent position?
The fabrication of history and puncturing a hole in the historical process, which is conveniently termed as ‘gap or hiatus’ or ‘Dark Age’ by transforming a historical time and figure into the mythical or the legendary one, seems to be the central theme of Indian history. It had started with Bhils, Abhirs and perhaps other tribes of Saurashtra region of the modern day Gujarat[685]attacking and ransacking Dwaraka under the tutelage of priestly class or caste and retrograde political elites, granting them the genealogy of Yadavas and providing them legitimacy, and soon Yadavas were rooted out from Dwaraka and Indraparstha.[686] They went to Central Asia and founded an empire known as Gajani Empire. They ruled until 7th century BC when the Median Empire and Archimedes started putting pressure on them. Moreover, they were unable to get any support from their homeland; they were forced to come back to India via Punjab, settling in Rajasthan where they founded a city, Jaislmer[687]. The movement of BRW and emigrational footprints are there, but ironically, it has been used for terming the Yadavas of foreign origin.
After that, the subversion, distortion, mystification and the conquered history being presented as the Victor ones seems to have been institutionalized, opening the door for the thousand years of instability, foreign rules, plunders and loot. Even after the Independence, this was not taken care of, despite Rabindranath Tagore, Gandhiji, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, and Bhagat Singh warning about it. This was seemingly so because the same class or the caste had grabbed the power and monopolized the social and political scape that had been responsible for the subjugation and foreign rule. The foreign rule or colonialism is dead but long live the neo-colonialism by the country cousins!
The same colonial ethos and credo is being followed as the native or the ‘black or brown’ rulers have kept every instrument of the subjugation and exploitation of their erstwhile colonial masters, looters, plunderers and foreign attackers such as the arbitrary legislations, rule books, draconian law and power without accountability or crass loot intact. Perhaps it is for this purpose that every monument of foreign attackers and looters might have been kept intact just to take inspiration from these!
Moreover, the historical gap arising out of the mystification of historical figure and time/period by the stakes has created an abyss that has not been filled up until now. In addition, it has become a breeding ground of the all sorts of distortions, variation, diversities and propaganda. In fact, this abyss has been the cause and effect of all the maladies and problems affecting our social scape, which has adversely afflicted all the other spheres in general and political ones in particular.
How ironic is it that India, centre of world history, point of dispersion of human races to the central Asia, Africa, Europe and America has been left out from any historical discourse until the discovery of some human skulls dating back to the 70000 years in Narmada Valley in the country[688]. The irony is that until now India has been left out from the progression of world history despite making unmatched contributions to the humankind. Even this important finding, like that of Dwaraka, has not been factored into the historical scholarship and discourse.
Notwithstanding the cynics, critics and hypocrites, there has been continuity in the Indian historical process[689] and whatever breaks or the gap peddled as existing has resulted from the subversion by the stakes. The dominant theme of the Indian history has been subversion by the internal and external forces. This theme has been puncturing the artificial hole or the gap in the Indian history. What is rather surprising is that there has not been any considerable protest or dissenting voice. The theme of subversion in the form of domination of one or two class or caste has taken the different form and structure. The structures are the highly stratified social hierarchy and very refined entangling of the web of the religious rituals, social obligation and rituals. What is unique that the domination has remained intact despite the conquests, foreign rules and invasion?
This theme of subversion in the history appears to have been effected through the mystification of the great ancestors and heroes, and the period to which they belonged. The most ironic and devastating effects of the mystification has been that our real heroes, our great ancestors and our civilizational legacies, great historical traditions, political, philosophical and technological contributions to the mankind and history has been lost to the crass interests of a particular caste or class. They have succeeded in making their social, cultural and political domination over the majority not only complete but also permanent in perpetuation. The foreign rules, invasions, conquests and the plundering had not affected their status and position. They were able to maintain their hegemony and domination even if there was foreign rule, and it was so because the subversion was the cause and effect of the foreign rule, subjugation and conquests.
Nevertheless, the faultlines, subversion and distortion factored into the history must be deconstructed and rectified. Moreover, the stake and the class or castes or the tendencies behind such subversion and distortion must be exposed and corrective measures should be taken in the realm of the history, society and the politics. Such lopsided trend and tendencies that seem to have been institutionalized, certainly not allowing our society from attaining the prosperity and glory that it deserves. Such faultlines and subversion must be recognized and neutralized for rescuing our civilization from the stagnation and the stasis.
Once Krishna is rescued from the non-temporal, mythical, and religious domain and re-established as historical one, it would untangle the mysteries, intricate web of subversion, distortion and historical hara-kiri, ‘black period’ or ‘Informational Gap’, about one thousand years of political instability and influx followed by one thousand years of foreign rules and other downsides of the history. This would certainly expose the class or caste behind it and their continued monopoly over the social, political and economic scape of India. It would become clear as to who or what classes or castes or the tendencies have been keeping India chained to the foreign invasion, subjugation, stagnation, and petrification.
Moreover, it would lead to the opening up of new vistas in the field of society, polity, foreign relations, economic and culture after our society go for the introspection and catharses. The research and study that would follow after re-establishing Krishna as the Historical Personality would certainly open new vistas in almost all the fields. That Krishna and Mahabharata period is the second foundational period of Indian civilization after Harappa-Indus--this would become amply clear when Krishna is rescued from the non-temporal and religious domain. It would solve many riddles and puzzles, haunting Indian socio-political scape such as filial love at the cost of society and country, love for everything foreign, India being soft state and dynastic or monopolistic tendencies permeating the every field of activity or occupation. These all maladies have their umbilical cord still uncut from the Mahabharata and Krishna period.
Taking D D Kosambi’s prescription for deciphering the ancient past of India which facts and evidences are littered in the social and political layers and practices, one could, for example find the dynastic tendencies and monopolistic practices relating to the lessons not learnt from Mahabharata period, Krishna’s pragmatic vision and Yadava’s anti-monarchical or republican credo et la.
The most damning and retrogressive tendency, which seems to have been institutionalized and internalized by the Indian collective psyche, is to make god out of any personality or reformer threatening their power and domination through his or her reformative agenda. Either such personality is idolized and caged in the temples, or is demonized as anti-social or anti-national. Gandhiji is the most burning example whose reformative and transformative agenda has been reduced to mere sloganeering. Moreover, he is in the process of being declared god as he has crossed the Rubicon of sainthood, and there has come a temple namely ‘Kirti Mandir’ in his birthplace where all the rituals of a temple or deity are being followed.
The invention of 33 crore gods and goddess are nothing but the logical extension of this master strategy for maintaining the power and domination of the stakes. It has to happen as it is like Janus-faced which can be used for both purposes: for shaming and deceiving and in turn deceived. Despite the 33 crore reigning gods and deities, the Indian society could not be saved from the onslaught and gauntlet of the external and internal enemies. These 33 crore gods and goddesses seem to have cornered the bread and butter, freedom and fresh air meant for the 80 crores. The very invention of 33 crore gods and goddess betray this very dubious and self-suicidal agenda of the stakes.
Moreover, the repeated mention of Kaliyuga, that too in future tense in the epics, Upanishads, Puranas, and Vamshvali--chronicle--betray the agenda of subversion, particularly in the literary and non-literary texts, epics and Puranas, etc relating to the Krishna period. Ironically, Krishna was like beacon amidst the darkness of useless Vedic rituals and superstitions, the anti-people and selfish political elites, the fossilized social scape hollowed by the highly stratified and unjust social system of the ancient India. His Gita, Samkhya Yoga and Bhagavat, based on the fundamental premise that the whole world--animated or unanimated is the extension of the Super soul or the God, and hence his Prem Yoga, which is but the corollary of his Samkhya philosophy exhorting the love for all, the founder of first monotheistic religion—Bhagavat and fore warner of many calamities that befell on our country such as foreign invasion, subjugation, and all the ensuing trails and travails. It seemed to be the golden age of India of all the historical times--ancient, mediaeval and modern.
It is said that the moment Krishna left for the other world, Kaliyuga dawned and all the problems cropped up. If the literary and non-literary, folk tales and archaeological and non-archaeological evidences and places related with Krishna and Yadavas are analysed and deconstructed, it would reveal two things: first, this Kaliyuga syndrome or alibi has been fabricated to cover what was done to Krishna, Yadavas and Dwaraka. Krishna seems to have been assassinated, the prominent Yadavas might have been massacred by the Abhirs and Bhils when they were in inebriated state and without weapon, later granted the status and lineage of Yadava.
Second purpose was to justify the undoing and subversion wedged into the ameliorative and reformative agenda of Krishna, which had upset the social and political agenda of the ancient political and social elites. The Kaliyuga syndrome was the master strategy and tactics and it was, has been and is being used for the subversive acts of the stakes. How ironic is that it is almost mentioned in every brahamanical and non-brahamanical and even in the official and other historical texts, terming Mahabharata and Krishna period as ‘dark age’ or ‘informational hiatus’ just to undo the political, social, philosophical and cultural legacies of Krishna and the Yadavas.
How ‘Dark Age’ or ‘Kaliyuga’ could follow the period that had given rise to the Republics and democratic rules as testified by the Greek historiography[690] and the emergence of republics in North Bihar, Eastern UP and Central India, and urban civilization which started after the foundation of the City State of Dwaraka.[691] It is also contradictory that this emergence of republics and urban civilization has been termed as ‘surprising factor’ ‘bolt out of blue’, etc. This seems to be continuation of the subversion.
One could decipher the contextual relations and nexus between the social and political elites of the ancient, medieval and even modern ones, for terming the post-Krishna and Mahabharata period as ‘Kaliyuga’ by former and ‘Dark Age’ by the latter. The modern social and political elites seem to be trudging along the path of subversion and domination carved at the cost of the subjugation, plunder and foreign rules of thousand years for their stakes.
That is why even after the breakthrough archaeological findings at Dwaraka in 1992 proving the historicity of Krishna, onset of second urbanization and emergence of republics, the historians of all ilk seem to have lapsed into silence for the good. It further proves beyond doubt that the nexus is continued, as the official and non-official recorder of history has been the same class or the castes that have been enjoying the power and domination on the corpse of age defying Indian civilizations.
However, the re-establishment of the historicity of Krishna and Mahabharata period would not only bridge the hiatus or gap arising out of the enigma of ‘Dark Age or Period’ but also provide the continuity to the onward march of mammoth Civilization of Harappa and Indus Valley. Apart from it, this would unravel the faultlines, the political hara-kiri and the highly regimented hierarchical social scape, still wreaking havocs on the greatest civilization of the world.
The End
General References
Beck, Guy L. (1993).Para Sonic theology: Hinduism and sacred sound. Columbia, S.C: University of South Carolina Press.
Bryant, Edwin H. (2004). Krishna: the beautiful legend of God, Penguin
Bryant, Edwin H. (2007). Krishna: A Sourcebook, Oxford University Press, USA
The Mahabharata of Krishna-DwaipayanaVyasa, translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli, published between 1883 and 1896
The Vishnu-Purana, translated by H. H. Wilson, (1840)
The SrimadBhagavatam, translated by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, (1988) copyright Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
Knott, Kim (2000). Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press: USA.
The Jataka or Stories of the Buddha's Former Births, edited by E. B. Cowell, (1895)
Ekstrand, Maria (2004). Bryant, Edwin H..ed. The Hare Krishna movement: the Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12256-X
Goswami, S.D (1998). The Qualities of Sri Krsna, G N Press.
Garuda Pillar of Besnagar, Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report (1908–1909). Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1912, 129.
Flood, G.D. (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Beck, Guy L. (Ed.) (2005), Alternative Krishnas: Regional and Vernacular Variations on a Hindu Deity, SUNY Press.
Rosen, Steven (2006). Essential Hinduism. New York: Praeger.
Valpey, Kenneth R. (2006) Attending Kṛṣṇa's image: CaitanyaVaiṣṇavamūrti-sevā as devotional truth. New York: Routledge.
Sutton, Nicholas (2000). Religious doctrines in the Mahābhārata, Motilal Banarsidass Publ: New Delhi.
Varadpande M. L. (1991) History of Indian Theatre. Abhinav Publications.
Easwaran, Eknath (2007), The Upanishads, Nilgiri Press.
Farquhar, John Nicol (1920), An outline of the religious literature of India, Oxford university Press.
Fields, Gregory P (2001), Religious Therapeutics: Body and Health in Yoga, Āyurveda, and Tantra, Albany: SUNY Press.
Glucklich, Ariel (2008), The Strides of Vishnu: Hindu Culture in Historical Perspective, Oxford University Press: London
Heehs, Peter (2002), Indian religions: a historical reader of spiritual expression and experience, NYU Press: New York
Holdrege, Barbara A. (1995), Veda and Torah, Albany: SUNY Press.
Joshi, Kireet (1994), The Veda and Indian culture: an introductory essay,New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
Kalupahana (1975), Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, The University Press of Hawaii,
King, Richard (1999), Indian philosophy: an introduction to Hindu and Buddhist thought, Edinburgh University Press.
King, Richard; Ācārya, Gauḍapāda (1995), Early AdvaitaVedānta and Buddhism: the Mahāyāna context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā, Albany: SUNY Press.
Klostermaier, Klaus K. (2007), A survey of Hinduism, SUNY Press.
K. Wittfogel,( 1957) ‘Oriental Despotism’, New Heaven
See Vamsanucarita sections of the Puranas and Mahabharata
Yadavas as Aasur, Students’ Britannica India, volume 4, pages 253
V. Kanakasabhai (1904) in his,"The Tamil Eighteen Hundred Years Ago (Chapter IV, Page-53-57, Asian Education Services Publications, Madras) states, " It is beyond doubt therefore that long before the fourth century BC the pandyan kingdom in the south of India had come into existence... It appears that the founder of the southern Pandyan kingdom was a princess. Megasthanes who resided as an ambassador of Seleukus in the court of Chandragupta at Pataliputra, has the following account of the origin of the Pandyas: " Herakles (Krishna) begot a daughter in India whom he called Pandaia.
Sewell, Robert, (2006), A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar), Asian Educational Services, 13th reprint .
Kamath, Suryanath U (2001) A Concise History of Karnataka from pre-historic times to the present, Jupiter books, MCC, (Reprinted 2002)
Yadav, J.N. Singh (1992) Yadavas Through The Ages(From ancient period to date), VOL I, Sarada publishing house, Delhi-110052.
Social, Cultural and Economic History of India [Earliest times to present times] by Raychoudhary, Surjeet publications, seventh reprint 2002, p102
Kongu Nadu (1904) " The Tamil Eighteen Hundreds Years Ago" in Dr. V. Manickam, Makkal Veliyedu (Ed.) A History up to A.D 1400 Asian Educational Services, Madras.
Shrimad Bhagavat Mahapurana: Sukhsagar, Tenth Skandh, translated by Pt. Jwala Prasad Chaturvedi, Published by Randhir Prakashan, Haridwar (India
[1]S.R. Rao, The Lost City of Davaraka, Aditya: New Delhi, 1999, pp xxii,
[2]ibid
[3]At the risk of being accused of using western or Hellenistic term in the context of ancient Indian concept or entity but ironically scores of value judgements or comments on Indian situation based on western premises and context is accepted with all stamp of authenticity
[4] Indian Archaeology—A Review: 1962-63, page 7
[5]Indian Archaeology: A Review: 1979-80, page 25-29
[6]Romila Thapar, Indian Social history: Some Interpretations, Orient Longman: New Delhi, 1979, p 5, 220-222
[7]Ibid; Bhagavat Purana, Ninth and Tenth Skandh; See Vanasacharit of Harvianshma and Vishnu Puran
[8]A. H Dani and V. M Masson (Ed) History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume I, Indian Edition, Motilal Benasrsidas Publications: New Delhi, 1999.
[9] B. B Lal, ‘Excavation at Hastinapur and Explorations in the Upper Ganges and Sutlej Basin:1950-52’ Ancient India, 1954-5510-11, p 5-151
[10]B. B Lal, ‘The Painted Grey Ware’ in A. H. Dani and V. M Masson (ed.) History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume I, 1999, p 421 Indian Edition, Motilal Benarsidas Publications: New Delhi
[11]B. Allchin and F. R. Allchin, The Rise of Civilizations in India and Pakistan, New Delhi:1983
[12]J. P Joshi) ‘ Interlocking of Late Harappa Cultures and Painted Grey Ware Cultures in the light of recent of Excavation’, Man & Enviornment, 1977, 2:98-101
[13]K. K Sinha, Excavation at Sravasti, Varansi, 1959
[14]S Banerjee, The ASI Bulletin, New Delhi, 1957
[15] K. P Nautiyal and B. M. Khanduri (1991) ‘Emergence of Early Culture in Garhwal Central Himalayas: A study based on Excavation at Thapli and Ranihat’, Himalayas, Srinagar (U.K); K. P. Nautiyal, B. M Khanduri and and D. L Rajput (1986) ‘Painted Grey Ware Culture in Garhwal Himalayas: New Evidence and interpolation’, Puratattva, No 17
[16]Lal, 1999, op. cit. 422
[17]M. R. Mughal, 1974, in Archeology 27.2; 1981 in Dani, A. H. ed. Indus Civilization, New Perspective, Islamabad.
[18]Lal, 1999, op. cit., 438
[19]Ibid, p. 439
[20]GananathObeyesekere, ‘Theodicy, Sin and Salvation in a Sociology of Buddhism’, in Edmund Leach, Dialectic in Practical Religion, Cambridge University Press, 1968, pp. 7-40
[21]Even if the interpolations and subversion are taken into account, still it would be treatise of par excellence
[22]Rao, op. cit , Account of Herodotus in A.R.Burn, Herodotus: The Histories, Penguin Classics, 1972,
[23] Some of the anchors are on display in Shri Krishna Museum, Kurukshetra, Haryana, India
[24]Edwin Francis Bryant, Krishna: A Sourcebook, , , Oxford University Press US, 2007pp 5
[25]Romila Thapar, ‘The Historian and the Epic’ in The Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History, OUP, New Delhi, 2002, pp 617
[26]E. H. Carr , What is History?, Penguin Books: London, 1990 (Reprint), pp.22
[27] Sun Tzu, ‘The Art of War’, translated from Chinese by Lionel Giles, 1910
War Manuals of Indian Army and armies of other countries,
[28]S. V Vishwanath International Law in Ancient India, 1929, pp19
[29]Dr. Schwanbeck and J.W. McCrindle, Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian,1877, pp 57-58
[30]C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, ‘The Proto-Ellamites on the Iranian Plateau’, Antiquity, 1978, 52, pp.114-20; S. Ratnagar, ‘Encounters, The Westerly Trade of the Harappa Civilization, New Delhi, 1981; Rao, op. cit
[31]Rao, ibid
[32]Rao, ibid
[33] Next to Harappa and Indus civilization
[34]Einthoven, Reginald Edward. The Tribes and Castes of Bombay. Bombay: Government Central Press. , three volumes, published between 1920–1922; Campbell, Sir James M., Einthoven, Reginald Edward. Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Bombay, 1922-23.
[35]Thapar,op. cit.
[36]Indian Archeology 1954-55: A Review, edited by A. Ghosh, ASI: New Delhi, 1993 (Reprint, first edition 1955)
[37] Rao, op. cit.
[38] Author tried to find in the reports and archives of Archeological Survey of India but could not find it.
[39]Hansen, Mogens Herman. Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006
[40]Bhagvanpura Excavation Report, The Archaeological Survey of India, Chandigarh Circle, Reprint:2013
[41]Ibid
[42]ibid
[43]Childe, Gordon ,What Happened in history, Penguin Books: London, , pp.13, 1982
[44]ibid
[45]Rao, op. cit.
[46]P. H. Kohl, ‘The Balance of Trade in South-western Asia in the Mid-Third Millennium’, Current Anthropology, 1978, 19, pp. 463-92; H. P. Francfort, Fouilles de Shortughai, Paris, 1989; C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, ‘The Proto-Ellamites on the Iranian Plateau’, Antiquity, 1978, 52, pp.114-20; S. Ratnagar,Encounters, The Westerly Trade of the Harappa Civilization, New Delhi,1981
[47] Childe, op. cit
[48]Fenster, Mark Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999
[49]Sharma, R. C., Rethinking India’s Past, Oxford University Press: New Delhi, 2011
[50]Childe, op.cit
[51]T. Burrow, Journal of Indian History, XLI, 1963, Part I, pp159
[52]Mintz, Frank P., The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy, andCulture., Westport, CT: Greenwood. 1985, p. 199
27Arendt, Hannah The Origins of Totalitarianism., New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973p10.
28Dean, Jodi, Aliens in America: Conspiracy Cultures from Outside, 1998.
[55]Childe, op. cit
[56]Lal, 1999, op. cit
[57] D.D Kosambi, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline, London, 1965
[58]Shalv who was punished and killed for the indulging in such hara-kiri, Singh, N.K (2002), Encyclopaedia of Hinduism, Anmol Publications ; See Bhagavat, Tenth Skandh
[59]Shivaji Sawant, Yugandhar, Bhartiya Gyanpeth: New Delhi, 2008 (first edition 2002); Singh, Nagendra Kr (2000), Ambedkar on religion, Anmol Publications
[60] See the all museums , archives in genral and that of New Delhi, Chamba and Dharamshal, H.P in particular where firmnas and titles bestowed on Indain kings and rajas maharajas by the foreign invaders are betraying this self-suicidal act
[61]Singh, ibid
[62]Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976, pp228-30
[63]See Meghasthense’s Indica
[64]K. Wittfogel, ‘Oriental Despotism’, New Heaven, 1957
[65]C. Bougle, Essays on the Caste System, Cambridge, 1971, p. vii
[66]Rao, op. cit.
[67] See Garbe as quoted in Dr. S Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy-Volume-I,OUP, New Delhi, 2008
[68]D. D Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Bombay, 1956
[69]Childe, op. .cit.
[70]Rao, op. cit
[71]Max Muller, Sacred Books of East, Bhagavadgita, Vol.8, MotilalBanarasidas Publishers: New Delhi,1999, pp242
[72]See The Mahabharata of Krishna-DwaipayanaVyasa, translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli, published between 1883 and 1896
[73]A. H Dani, ‘Gandhar Grave Culture’ Ancient Pakistan, III, 1967; B. B Lal, Indian Archaeology—A Review, 1959-60; D. P. Agarwal, ‘C-14 Dates, Banās Culture and the Aryans’, Current Science, 5 March 1966, pp. 114; H. D Sankalia, ‘ New Light on the Indo-Iranian or Western Asiatic Relations 1700-1200 BC’ Artibus Asiae, XXVI, 1963; H. D Sankalia, S. B Deo, Z. D Ansari, Excavations at Ahar, 1969, Indian Archaeology-A Review, 1969-70
[74]Indian Archaeology 1953-54- A Review, Edited by A Ghosh, ASI: New Delhi (First Edition 1954, Reprint edition 1993)
[75] Thapar, op. cit.
[76]In the Museums of Dharamshala and Chamba of Himachal Pradesh, and other parts of India there are many such monographs of invaders and attackers which have been promptly shown as if it were some trophies.
[77]Srinivas, Mysore Narasimhachar,Caste in Modern India: And other essays, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1962, page 48
[78] The new monument has been built and one could see and verify in the Krishna JanamBoomi Complex, Mathura
[79]Garbe, The Philosophy of Ancient India, p25
[80] S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosphy , Volume I, Oxford University Press: New Delhi, 2008 (Second Edition)
[81] The comparative, philogical and content analysis of Upanishads undertaken by foreigners and some Indian scholars have proved that central theme and content of almost all Upanishad has been borrowed from Krishna’s Bhagavat, Gita, Samkhya and karma yoga. See Max Muller, Buhler and S, Radhakrishnan’s works. Moreover, there is no mention of Upanishad in Gita and Mahabharata, it proves that Gita has been composed prior to Upanishad and hence whatever philosophy and discourses related to Krishna’s philosophy in general and Advait Philosophy in particular must have been taken from latter. Moreover, many stanzas, anecdotes and supplementary arguments have been copied in Upanishads such as Mundaka, Brihadaranyaka, Svetasveta, Maitri, Chandogya, etc.
[82] Hansen, op. cit.
[83]Geological Survey of India Bulletin, 1983-84
[84]Anthropological Survey Report, 1997-98
[85]The Times of India, ’30 yrsOn, fossil sites in danger’, dated 05.12. 2012
[86]Carr, op. cit.
[87]Krishna or Mahabharata period and 1857 Revolution
[88]Folklore and local history of Meerut attest this, See the Gazetteer of Meerut, 1859-60
[89]Sharma, op. cit.
[90] Carr, op. cit, pp. 54,58
[91] Rig Veda,I.54.6, I.108.7, X.62.10
[92]See Mahabharata, Sabha Parv, Virat Parv, Shanti Parv and Anusasan Parv, and Mosul Parva; See Yugandhar; See Bhagavat
[93]Bhagavat, Thirteen Skand : Salv is punsihded for hobnobbing with foerign forces such as Kalyavan who was invited to attack Mathura by Salv and Jarasangh
[94]Sawant, op. cit
[95]Late movement of Black-and Red Ware, associated with traditional Kshatriyas in general and Yadavas in particular towards Central and South and East India due to pitting of tribes designated as neo-Kshatriyas and foreign invaders with former and resultant push provides the archeological basis for the marginalization and obliteration of traditional ruling elites (Kshatrya-Yadavas and Ikshvaku ). See Kalhan’s Rajtarangini; See the Genealogical section or itihas-purnas of various Puranas.
[96]Dr. Schwanbeck and J.W. McCrindle, Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian, 1877, pp 57-58, See Bhagavat, Mahabharata and Yugandhar
[97]See Yugandhar; See Bhagavat
[98]Thapar, op. cit
[99]Robert Sewell, A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar), Asian Educational Services, 13th reprint, 2006, p 23; Einthoven, Reginald Edward. The Tribes and Castes of Bombay, Bombay: Government Central Press , three volumes, published between 1920–1922; Campbell, Sir James M., Einthoven, Reginald Edward. Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Bombay, 1922-23. Dr. Kherkar, The Divine Heritage of Yadavas, Bomaby
[100] Thapar, 1979, op. cit. ; Dr. Kherkar, The Divine Heritage of Yadavas, Bombay.
[101]Childe,op. cit.
[102]The Anthropological Survey Report, 1997-98 http://www.ansi.gov.in/paleo_anthropology.html dated23.04. 2013
[103]Carr, op. cit
[104] Rao, op. cit
[105]The Ancient India- A Review, ‘The Excavation Report’, ASI, 1954 and 1955, pp 109
[106] Anthropological Survey Report, 1997-98 http://www.ansi.gov.in/paleo_anthropology.html dated23.04.2013
[107]Thapar, 1989, op. cit
[108]Lal, op. cit, 1999
[109]The Ancient India-A Review, 1953-54, published by ASI, New Delhi
[110]C. H. Philips (ed.), Histories of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, London, 1961
[111]Despite writing known during Vedic period, the Vedas were not put into written format for obvious reason
[112]D. D Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Bombay, 1965
[113]H. Kulke, ‘Geshchichtschreibung und Geshchichtsbid in HinduistechenMittelalte’, Secculum, 1979, 30, pp. 100-13
[114]M. Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, Princeton, 1971
[115]Romila Thapar, “Cyclical time and linear time in ancient India,’ the Dennis Hudson Memorial Lecture, Organized by the Prakriti Foundation, in Chennai, 08.01. 2010 as featured inThe Hindu , 09.01.2010
[116]ibid
[117]See Mahabharata; See Yugandhar; See Bhagavat
[118] Rig Veda, II.X. 5
[119]Romila Thapar, ‘Society and Historical Consciousness: The Itihasa-purana Tradition’, in S. Bhattacharya and Romila Thapar (eds.) Situating Indian History, New Delhi, 1986, pp. 353-83
[120]Romila Thapar, ‘The theory of Aryan Race and India: History and Politics’, in Romila Thapar, Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian history, OUP: New Delhi, 2002 pp.109.
[121]Carr, op. cit, pp.110-11
[122]Romila Thapar, ‘Society and Historical Consciousness’, in Cultural Pasts: Essays In Early Indian history, OUP, 2002, pp124
[123]Ibid, p.125
[124]J. Mill, History Of British India, London, 1918-23
[125]Thapar, op. cit.
[126]Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Oxford, 1919
[127]Kosambi, op. cit.
[128]D. D. Kosambi, ‘Combined Methods in Indology,’ Indo-Iranian Journal, 1963, VI, pp. 177-202; Thapar, op. cit
[129] Kosambi, op. cit.; Thapar, ibid
[130]D. D Kosambi, ‘The Avatar Syncretism and Possible Sources of the Bhagavada Gita’ JBBRAS, 1948-9, XXIV-XXV, 121-34; ‘Social and Economic Aspects of the Bhagavada Gita’, in Myth and Reality, 1962, pp 12ff; Thapar, ibid
[131]ibid
[132]D. D Kosambi, Buddhist India, London, 1903; Thapar, ibid
[133]M. N. Deshpande and P. Hook, Aryan and Non-Aryan in India, Ann Arbor, 1979; T. Burrow, The Sanskrit Language, London, 1965
[134]D. D Kosambi, ‘Brahman Clans’, JAOS, 1953, 73, pp 202-8
[135]Kosambi, op. cit, 1965
[136]ibid
[137]Thapar, op. cit
[138]Sharma, op. cit
[139]J. Leopold, ‘ British Applications of the Aryan theory of Race to India 1850-70’, The English Historical Review, 1974, 89, pp. 578-603, ‘The Aryan Theory of Race in India 1870-1920, Nationalist and Internationalist Visions’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 1970, VII, 2, 271-98; Thapar, op.cit
[140]J.N. Singh Yadav,Yadav's Through The Ages (From ancient period to date), VOL I, 1992,P-236, , Sarada Publictions: Delhi; A. H. Bingley, Handbook on Rajputs, pp.82
[141]Indian Archeology—A Review, 1962-63, p. 7; Indian Archeology-- A Review, 1979-80, p.25-29, Indian Archeology 1954-55: A Review, edited by A. Ghosh, ASI: New Delhi, 1993 (Reprint, first edition 1955
[142]Childe, op. cit.
[143]Guinta, Roberta. "GAZNÈ (or GÚazna, GÚazn^n)".EncyclopædiaIranica (Online Edition ed.) United States: Columbia University
[144]Hari Singh Bhati, Ghazni to Jaiselmer: Pre-medieval History of the Bhatis, 1998, Sankhala Printers: Bikaner, pp 93; Trudy Ring, Robert M. Salkin, Sharon La Boda (1996) International Dictionary of Historic Places: Asia and Oceania v.5 , , Taylor & Francis: New York, P.279
[145]Sharma, op. cit. ; Thapar, op.cit.
[146]Rao., op cit
[147]The Journal of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May, 2012http://www. timesof india.indiatimes.com/topic/proceedings-of-the-National-Academy-of-sceinces, dated 23.04.2013
[148]J. Brough, The Early Brahamanical System of Gotra and Pravara, Cambridge, 1953, xiii-xv; H. W. Bailey, ‘Iranian Arya and Daha’, in Transaction of the Philological Society, 1959
[149]M. Bernal, Black Athena, London, 1987
[150]Thapar, ‘The Study of Society’, op. cit.
[151]Thapar, ibid
[152]J. F. Jarrige, ‘Excavations at Mehrgarh-Nausharo’, Pakistan Archaeology, 1986, 10-22, pp 63-131
[153]Thapar, op. cit.
[154]A. Parpola, ‘The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the Cultural and Ethnic Identity’, StudiaOrientali, . No 64,1988
[155]M. Boyce, Zoroastrians, London, p 18
[156]S. R. Rao, The Decipherment of the Indus Script, Bombay, 1982; I. Mahadevan, The Indus Script, New Delhi, 1977
[157]Thapar,op. cit.
[158]B. B Lal, ‘Excavation at Hastinapur’, Ancient India, 1954 and 1955, 10 and 11, pp 109
[159]B. Lincoln, Priests, Warriors and Cattle, Berkley, 1982, 43
[160]A. K. Sharma, ‘The Harappan Horse was buried in the dune of …,’Puratatva, 1992-93, 23, 30-4
[161]Thapar, ibid
[162]S. Hughes, Consciousness and Society, New York, 1961
[163]Amodio, Mark C. (1998) “Contemporary Critical Approaches and Studies in Oral Traditions”, in Teaching Oral Traditions, Ed. By John Miles Foley, New York: Modern Language Association of America, 95-105
[164] Basham, op. cit. pp.407
[165]McBratney, ‘India’s “Hundred Voices”: Subaltern Oral Performance in Forster’s A Passage to India’ http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/17i/Mc dated 15.07.2011
[166]Amodio, Mark C. (1998) “Contemporary Critical Approaches and Studies in Oral Traditions”, in Teaching Oral Traditions, Ed. By John Miles Foley, New York: Modern Language Association of America 95-105
[167] --------------------, “Tradition , Performance and Poetics in the Early Middle English Period.” Oral Tradition, 15:199-24
[168]Spivak, GayatriChakarborty, “Can the subaltern Speak”. In Marxism and Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg.Urbana:university of Illinois Press: pp273-313
---------------------- (1999) A critique of Post-Colonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
[169] Childe, Gordon, What Happened in History, Penguin: London, 1982
[170]Vygotskyas quoted in Ranjit Guha(ed). Subaltern Studies IV: Writings on South Asian History and Society,OUP, Delhi, 1985
[171]Spivak, GayatriChakravorty, ‘Subaltern studies: Deconstructing Historiography, in Ranjit Guha, ed. ‘Subaltern Studies IV: Writings on South Asian History and Society”, OUP, Delhi, 1985
[172]ibid
[173]ibid
[174]Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1983,p 8 .
[175]Spivak,op. cit.
[176]ibid
[177]Michael Foucault, Language, Counter-Memory, Practice, tr. Donald F. Bouchard and Shetty Simon, Ithaca, Cornell Uni Press, 1977, pp. 156, 154
[178]Dipesh Chakraborty, ‘Invitation to Dialogue’ in Ranjit Guha, ed., Subaltern Studies IV: Writings on South Asian History and Society, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1985
[179]Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, tr. Alan Bass, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982 p. 289.
[180]E. H. Carr, What is History, Penguin Reprint, Harmondsworth, 1990
[181] Rao, op.cit
[182]J. Burckhardt, Judgements on History and Historians, 1959, p. 158
[183]Carr, op. cit. p. 53
[184]Hegel, Philosophy of Right, English translation, 1942, p. 295.
[185] See critical Edition of Mahabharata, published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune
[186]Irawati Karve, Yugant, Disha books, an imprint of Orient Longman, Hyderabad, 1994
[187] Bingley, A. H. , Handbook on Rajput, p.82. This fact is further authenticated by the absence of Black and Red Ware pottery, associated with Yadavas, in the excavation of Dwaraka and Indraparstha or Purana Quila area of New Delhi.
[188]Though terms are western, its equivalent such assamanta, niti and nayay, Dharma, etc were prevalent during that time and even if Krishn did not preach it, he established such order through his acts and precedents.
[189]Karve, op. cit
[190]Bhagvad Gita, by Swami Prabhupada, Bhaktivedanta Book trust, Mumbai, 1986 (1972 first edition), chapter 4, stanza 1, p 191
[191] See Vedas where the concept has not found mention in beginning of the book but at the very end.
[192]Rig Veda, X.70
[193]Bhagavat, Eighth Saknd
[194]Bhrigu Samhita, V.ii.i.,
[195] See Akaranga Sutra and Kalpa Sutra
[196]K. V Soundara Rajan, ‘Macro-Personality of Krishna-Vishnu in India’s Religions Art’ in Stone Sculptures of Kuruskshetra Region from Shri Krishna Museums’s Collection- A Catalogue, published by Shri Krishna Museum, Kurukshetra, p 48
[197]ibid
[198]ibid
[199]Karve, op. cit
[200]Rig Veda,X.10.3
[201] See Mahabharata; Shivaji Savant, Yugandhar, First Edition (2002), Bhartiya Gyanpeth: New Delhi, Chapter: Shri Krishna, Daruk, Arjun, Bhīma ; See Bhagavat
[202]See Mahabharata, Sabha Parva; See Yugandhar ; See Bhagavat
[203] In Mahabharata, Krishna is shown and addressed as Avatar or god right form his entry.
[204]ShrimadbhagvadGita, op. cit,
[205] See Uddhav Gita or Ekadesh Skandh, published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur
[206] See Harivansham and See Bhagavat
[207] See Gita
[208] See Lalitvistara, SeeGita ; See Udhav Gita or Ekadesh Skandh
[209]ibid
[210] See Lalita Vistara as translated by R. Mittra; Apastamba: I, i, I, 2; I, 7, 200
[211] See Mahabharata; Karve, op. cit ; Basham, op. cit
[212]Talboys Wheeler, Hisotry of India, Vol.1 p. 293
[213]Max Muller, Sacred Books of East, Bhagavadgita, Vol.8, , MotilalBanarasidas Publishers: New Delhi, 1999
[214]Gita, Chapter II, Stanza 44, Chapter IV, Stanza 45
[215] Max Muller, op.cit.
[216]Bhagavad Gita As It IS, by Swami Prabhupad, Bhaktivedant Book Trust: Mumbai, 1972, Chapter 2, Stanza 12 , 2.12
[217]Karve, op. cit
[218]See Mahabharata
[219]Ibid
[220]Karve, op. cit.
[221]See Akaranga Sutra and Kalpa Sutra
[222]See Yugandhar, Chapter: Shri Krishna and Udhav
[223] See Udhav Gita or Ekadesh Skandh, published by Gita Press: Gorakhpur
[224]Krishna made it clear by his various acts and deeds questioning conventional social, political, philosophical and religious values and practices that proved this
[225] See Udhav Gita
[226] D. D Kosambi, ‘ Social and Economic Aspects of the Bhagavada Gita’, in Myth and Reality, 1962, pp 12ff
[227]See Ekadesh Skandh or Uddhav Gita, published by Gita Press: Gorakhpur
[228]See Max Muller’s The Sacred Books of East-Bhagavadgita, Vol.8, MotilalBanarasidas Publishers: New Delhi, 1999; See Mahabharata
[229]See Yugnadhar
[230]Sister Nivedita, Footfalls of Indian History, p. 212
[231]See Gita, Chapter II, Stanza 24, and Chapter iv, Stanza 44
[232]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[233] See Gita,
[234]A. D. Pusalkar and Dr R. C. Majumdar, History and Culture of Indian People:The Age of Imperial Kanauj, 1964, p 50
[235]See Gita
[236]The conservative part might have been interpolation as it does not fit in the overall tenets of Gita
[237]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[238]Gita,vi.15
[239]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[240] . Max Muller, Hibbert Lectures, p. 137, Max Webber, Indian literature, pp288, 289, and Rhys Davids, Buddhism, p 151
[241]Muller, op. cit. p 25
[242]ibid, p. 26
[243]Weber’s History of Indian Literature, p. 258; David’s Buddhism, p.94
[244]Max Muller, op. cit. P 27
[245]Garbe, Vedanatakrt, xv.15
[246]Max Muller and Wilson have not found trace of any Kapil Muni and Devmata in any texts and literature of India. Neither they are found in any other literature.
[247]Sawant, op. cit.
[248]ibid
[249]See Mahabharata; SeeBhagavat
[250]Max Muller, op. cit
[251]See Mahabharata, Shanti Parva
[252] Ibid, Shanti Parva and Anushashan Parva
[253]S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol 1., Oxford University Press, Second edition, New Delhi, 2008
[254]Max Muller, Hibbert lectures, p. 340
[255] Max Muller, op. cit. p17
[256]ibid
[257] See Yugandhar; See Critical edition of Mahabharata by Bhandarkar
[258]See Bhagavat
[259]ibid
[260] See Bhagavat; See Mahabharata
[261] See Harivansham
[262]ibid
[263]Brahmnda Purana, X.50 to 54
[264]When the author visited Porbander, Gandhi’s birthplace, it was found that it is known as ‘KirtiMandir (Temple) and puja and Arti are being conducted regularly.
[265]See Mahabharata, Drona Parva, Karan Parva, Shalya Parva
[266]Bhagavat X.1.27-34; IX.23.30; III.63.186; Savant, op. cit
[267]See Yugandhar
[268]Bingley, op. cit.; absence of Black-Red-Ware potteries associated with Yadavas in these two places and absence of Yadava population authenticates it
[269] Rudolph, Lloyd and Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber (2008): ‘The Sub-continental Empire and Regional Kingdom in Indian State Formation’ in their book, Explaining Indian Democracy: A Fifty Year Perspective, 1956-2006, Oxford: Delhi. 2008
[270] Karve, op. cit
[271]Bingley, op. cit.
[272] Bhatia, op. cit
[273]Parshuram is mythical character who seems to have been invented to act as antipode to Krishna and Rama and perhaps to mystify them
[274]See Bhagavat, Second Skandh
[275]In India there is one crude way of throwing stone which if throw form certain angle and with certain trajectory return back to source after hitting the target
[276]See Mahabharata
[277]Rao, op. cit
[278]See Bhagavat
[279]See Mahabharata, Drona Parva, Karan Parva, Shalya Parva; See Harivansham; See Bhagavat
[280] Rudolphs, op. cit
[281] Rig Veda, op. cit
[282] ‘Yadavas as Aasur’,Students’ Britannica India, volume 4, page 253
[283]Dr. Schwanbeck and J.W. McCrindle, op. cit
[284]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[285]Glucklich, Ariel (2008), The Strides of Vishnu: Hindu Culture in Historical Perspective, Oxford University Press,
[286] See Yugandhar ; See Bhagavat
[287]Dr. Schwanbeck and J.W. McCrindle, op. cit
[288]Rig-Veda, X.63; X.72; Kramer, Antiquity, XXXVII, 1963
[289]Buhler, ibid
[290]Rig Veda, I, 34-46
[291]Buhler, op.cit; H. H Wilson, Vishnu-Purana , vol1, pp. 104-5 edited by Hall; Professor Hopkins, Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol. xi, pp. 247-256
[292]Buhler, ibid
[293]C J. M Creed, ‘The Heavenly Man’, JIS 26, 1924-25, pp 113 ff
[294]Bruce, F. F, “Myth and History”, Colin Brown, ed. History, Criticism and Faith: Four Exploratory Studies’ Leicester; Inter-varsity Press, 1976
[295]Manu has been subjected to mystification through deluge and incarnation of Vishnu as Fish or Matsya Avatar. “In the ark of accompanying Manu, seven sages or Saptrishi—Atri, kashyap, Gautm, janamdagni, Bhardwaj, Vashsit and Vishwamitra. Though there is no archeological or otherwise proof, yet the ancient fairs and festivals are associated with Manu. Even very name of Manali village is associated with Manu. The ancient name of Manali is Manu Alaya meaning of abode of Manu. It points to the association of Manu, Ishvaku and Ila with that of law giver Manu whose Manusmirti has been interpolated and subverted by inserting the mutually contradictory statements regarding Manu thoughts and views in the same paragraph ( see Sourcebook of Indian Philosphy) Though there is no historical or archaeological evidence pointing as to when the First Temple was built. However, at the site of present temple there existed a Chalet type temple. According legend Chalet Temple came into existence after the discovery of several idols which is continued to be worshiped (the stone sculpture in asphalt black with peculiar features and contours distinguishing it form that Harappa and Indus and post Harappa ones). The temple is called as DEA RA GHOR meaning the House of Manu. --.Manuabode orManu Ashram carvings, references and findings
[296]G. Buhler, The sacred Books of East, Manu, Vol 25, Fist Published by the OUP, 1886, reprint 1993 by MotilalBanarasidass Publishers: New Delhi
[297]Carr, op. cit, 109
[298]F. Powicke, Modern Historians and the Study of History, 1955, p 174
[299]Carr, op. cit. p110
[300]ibid
[301]Walter Ruben, ‘Die Phiosophie de Upanisads’ in Geschicte de indischenphilosophie, Berlin, deutscherVerlag de Wissenschaften, 1954, pp113
[302]Carr, op. cit
[303]ibid, p110-11
[304]J. W Spellman, Political Theory in Ancient India, 1964; J. Gonda, Ancient Indian Kingship from the Religious point of View, Leiden, 1969; J. C. Heesterman, Inner Conflict of Indian Tradition, Delhi, 1985
[305]R. Koebner, ‘Despot and Despotism: Vicissitudes of a Political Term’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 1951, 14, pp275-80.
[306]Majeed, Javed, Ungoverned Imaginings: James Mill's the History of British India and Orientalism, Oxford: University of California Press, 1992, 225 pp
[307]See Kalhan’s Rajtangini and the scores of Museums across the country in general and Northern region particular where numerous commemoration or commendatory letters of the foreign invaders presented to the local Indian kings for their perfidy are hung brazenly declaring the ‘the Invasion on Invitation’ shamelessly.
[308]See the settlement patterns in the Indian society where the Yadavas and the solar Kshatriya have been aggressively and systematically pockmarked side by side or in eyeball to eyeball manner with tribals designated as Rajput or Kshatriya and the foreign invaders.
[309]See the Pauranic and brahaminical literatures in general and itihas-Puran and the genealogical section of the various Purans in particular
[310]F. Hegel, Lectures on the philosophy of History, London, 1974
[311]F. Venturini, ‘Oriental Despotism’, Journal of the History of ideas, 1963, 24, pp. 133-42
[312]D Thorner, ‘ Marx on India and the Asiatic Mode of Production’, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 1966, 9, pp33
[313]R.A. L.H Gunawardana, ‘The Analysis of Pre-colonial Social Formations in Asia in the Writing of Karl Marx’, The Indian Historical Review, 1976, 4
[314] Thapar, op. cit; V. Smith, The Oxford History of India, Oxford, 1919
[315]C. Bougle, Essays on the Caste System, Cambridge, p. vii, 1971
[316]Radhakrishnan, op.cit
[317]Bingley, op. cit
[318]See Bhrigu Samhita
[319]Romila Thapar, ‘Society and Historical Consciousness’, Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History, OUP: New Delhi, 2002, pp 125
[320]ibid
[321]ibid
[322]D. D Kosambi, ‘Urvasi and Pururavas’ in Myth and Reality, pp42
[323]Ibid , ‘At the Crossroads: A Study of Mother Goddess Cult Sites’, pp.82
[324] D.D Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Bombay, 1956
[325] Though Buddha has been included in the list of Avatar, it seems to have been post facto and a ploy to maintain the credibility and relevance of this syndrome. Lately, the concept of Partial Avatars has been floated with sole purpose of buying relevancy and credibility.
[326]See Lalita Vistara, Karve, op. cit
[327] Karve, ibid
[328]See Yugandhar; See Bhagavat
[329]Karve, op. cit
[330] Bingley, op. cit
[331]Young India, 1946
[332]ShrimadBhagavat Gita,Chapter 10, Stanza 27, published By Vakti Vedanta Trust, Bombay, 2007
[333]D. D Kosambi,’ Social and Economic Aspects of the Bhagavada Gita’, in Myth and Reality, 1962, pp 12ff
[334]Sawant, op. cit
[335] Rao, op. cit
[336] See Yugandhar; See Bhagavat
[337]See Catalogues of FSL, Rohini, New Delhi
[338]Thapar, 1979, op. cit, 220-22
[339]Mahabharata, Mosul Parva, , Ekadash Skandh, Udhav Gita and Bhagavat and Vishnu Purana
[340]Bingley, op.cit
[341]Mahabharata, Mosul Parva
[342]ibid
[343] Bingley, op. cit
[344] SeeMahabharata’s Mosul Parva; See Ekadash Skandh (Udhav Gita); See Bhagavata ; See Vishnu Purana
[345] See yadavamahasbha.com
[346] This seems to be misplaced as Krishna has propounded this theory.
[347]Thapar, op. cit
[348]ibid
[349]ibid
[350]its proof is many Hindu temples having Buddhist imprints
[351]See Kalhan’s Rajtarangini
[352] Thapar, Romila, Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretation, 1987, Orient Longman: New Delhi (Reprint); Kane, P.V. , History of the Dharmaśāstras,Vol. 2 p. 886, Majumdar, R. C., Advanced History of India, 1950, 2nd Edition, London, p 22-23
[353]Radhakrishnan, op. cit ; Garbe, op. cit
[354]Radhakrishnan, ibid,. p. 406
[355]See Gita, Chapter 4; Osho, ‘Gita Darshan, VolI V, 1978, Osho International Foundation, Pune
[356]Though it is quite old, it was found in under water archeological expedition led by ex-director of Archeological Survey of India in 1990s
[357]The date has been decided with comparative method as no carbon dating has been done yet!
[358] Cohen, R. (1996) Theories of Migration, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
---------------------- The Sociology of Migration, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
[359]Deluge seems to be more appropriate as against the attack by Aryan- both Aryan and attack seems to interpolated by colonial rulers to justify their rule and untrammelled loot
[360] Rao, op. cit
[361]B. B Lal, ‘Protohistoric Investigations’ , Ancient India, no 9, 1953, p 88; G. F Dales, ‘The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-Daro’ Expedition, VI, no. 3, 1964 pp 36; A Ghosh, ‘ The Archaeological Background’, M.A. S. I, no 9, 1962, p 1; G. F Dales, ‘The decline of Harappans’, Scientific American, vol. 214, no 5, 1966
[362]T. Burrow, Journal of Indian History, XLI, 1963, Part I, pp159
[363]ibid
[364]S. S Sarkar, Ancient Races of Baluchistan, Punjab and Sind, 1966
[365]Dr. K. Sen, ‘Ancient Races of India and Pakistan: A Study of Methods’, Ancient India, no 20 and 21, 164-65, pp. 178
[366] Childe, op. cit
[367]Childe, ibid
[368] See Vamshvali of Bhagavat ;Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, History and Culture of Indian People, The Vedic Age. BharatiyaVidyaBhavan, 1996. p 313-314
[369]See Mani, Vettam. Puranic Encyclopedia. 1st English ed. New Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass, 1975
[370]How could Manu exalt and denigrate women and depressed classes in the same breath? It is certainly an interpolation. See Manusmiriti
[371]Childe, op. cit
[372]Basham, op.cit
[373]ibid
[374] Rao, op. cit
[375]Foucault, Michel,Society Must be defended, 1997, Picador, New York
[376]Bingley, op. cit., The forced migration or expulsion of Yadavas from Dwaraka is supported by absence of Yadavs in the areas and historical immigration of Yadavas from Afghanistan towards Punjab and Rajsthan and other parts of country which has been ironically used for foreign origin of Yadavas. The immigration footprints and the movement of Black-and Red-Ware associated with Yadavas further authenticates it.
[377]Mehta, Jagat S, ‘The TrystBetrayed: Reflections on Diplomacy and Development’, 2010,Penguin, New Delhi.
[378]Foucault, op. cit
[379]Ibid
[380]Rao, op. cit
[381]ibid
[382] Dr. Schwanbeck and J.W. McCrindle ,op. cit., pp 129
[383]Apte’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary
[384]Two enlarged replicas of Indo-Greek copper coind issued by King Agathocles are on display in Shri Krishna Museum in Kurukshetra. It was found by Paul Bernard on the bank of Oxus in Afghanistan in 1970.
[385]Monier Williams,Sanskrit-English Dictionary (2008 revision)
[386]Indian Archaeology—A Review, 1954-55, P-15; and 1973-74, P. 31
[387]Indian Archaeology—A Review 1974-75, P-48
[388]Indian Archaeology—A Review, 1966-67, P-41
[389]Ibid, 1967-78, P-45; 1968-69. P-37-38
[390]Knott, 2000, p. 56
[391]Ibid, p. 36, p. 15
[392]Richard Thompson,Reflections on the Relation Between Religion and Modern Rationalism,
December, 1994
[393]Mahony, W.K. (1987), "Perspectives on Krsna's Various Personalities", History of Religions (American Oriental Society) 26 (3): 333–335.
[394]Hein, Norvin. "A Revolution in Kṛṣṇaism: The Cult of Gopāla”: History of Religions, Vol. 25, No. 4 (May, 1986), pp. 296-317 ; Hastings, James Rodney, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, (2nd edition 1925-1940, reprint 1955, 2003) [1908-26]
[395]Monier Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary p.306
[396]D. D. Kosambi (1962), “Myth and Reality: Studies in the Formation of Indian Culture”, Chapter I : Social and Economic Aspects of The Bhagavadgita, paragraph 1.16
[397]Wendy Doniger (2008). "Britannica: Mahabharata". Encyclopædia Britannica Online, Retrieved 2008-10-13
[398]ibid
[399]Bryant, 2007, op, cit, p. 4; Sunil Kumar Bhattacharya, Krishna-cult in Indian Art, 1996, M.D. Publications; New Delhi, p.126
[400]http://kurukshetra.nic.in/museum-website/archeologicaltreasure.html; John Muir, Matapariksha: An examination of religions, Volume 1; Edward Washburn Hopkins, The Religions of India,Volume 1
[401]Bryant 2007, op. cit, p. 4
[402] Bhattacharya, op. cit, p. 128, See Satapatha-brahmana and Aitareya-Aranyaka, first chapter
[403]Pâṇini, Asthadhyayi IV. 3. 98; Hastings, op. cit. 2003, pp. 540–42;, See Bhandarkar, Vaishnavism and Śaivism, p. 3 and J.R.A.S. 1910, p. 168. Sûtra 95
[404]Edwin Francis Bryant, Krishna: A Sourcebook, Oxford University Press: US, 2007 pp 5
[405]LalitvistarIII. i. 23, Ulâro so Kaṇhoisiahosi
[406]Ghata-Jâtaka, No. 454
[407]Boehtlingk and Rien(Ed)HemacandraAbhidhânacintâmani,. p. 128, and Barnett's translation of the AntagadaDasāo, pp. 13-15 and 67-82
[408]Hastings, op. cit, pp. 540-542
[409] Bryant, op. cit. , p. 5
[410]Barnett, Lionel David (1922) Hindu Gods and Heroes: Studies in the History of the Religion of India, (Ed) J. Murray. pp. 92, 93; Puri, B.N. (1968). India in the Time of Patanjali, Bhartiya VidyaBhavan, Page 51
[411]Jerome H. Bauer "Hero of Wonders, Hero in Deeds” , Vasudeva Krishna in JainCosmohistory in Beck (ed.) 2005, pp. 167–169
[412]AndhakavenhuPuttaa. www.vipassana.info.
[413]Law, B.C. (1941) India as Described in Early Texts of Buddhism and Jainism, Luzac
[414]Jaiswal, S. (1974) "Historical Evolution of the Ram Legend”, Social Scientist 94: 96.
[415]Hiltebeitel, A. (1990) The Ritual of Battle: Krishna in the Mahabharata, State University of New York Press.
[416]The Turner of the Wheel: The Life of Sariputta, compiled and translated from the Pali texts by NyanaponikaThera
[417]Guth, C.M.E. "MonumentaNipponica”, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 1987 ), pp. 1-23. www.jstor.org. JSTOR 2385037
[418]Klostermaier, Klaus K. (2005) A Survey of Hinduism, State University of New York Press; 3rd edition. pp. 206,
[419]ibid
[420]Rao, op. cit
[421]Basham, ibid
[422]J. A. B. van Buitenan, The Mahabharata: The Book of Beginning, Chicago, 1973
[423]ibid
[424]Gaviyudhibhyam sthira, 8.3.95; Vasudevarjunbham, vun, 4.3.98
[425]Asvalayana Sutras, Grhya Sutras, 3.4.4
[426]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[427]ibid
[428]R. C Dutta, Ancient Hindu Civilization, 1920
[429]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[430]Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature, pp284-285
[431]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[432]ibid
[433]ibid
[434]Rig Veda, viii, 74
[435]See Kausitaki Brah. XXX. 9; Panini. Iv.1.96
[436]Chandogya Upanishad iii, 17
[437]Rig Veda,Viii 96.13-15
[438]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[439]See Lalitavistara
[440]See S. B. E. vol. xxii, pp. 276-279
[441]Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, Mahabharata, Masulparva, chapter vii, and Vaihsnavism, pp. 36-38
[442]Shri Vaidya, EpicIndia, chapter xviii
[443]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[444]Mahabharata, Drona Parva
[445]Muir, O. S. T., iv, pp. 205
[446] Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[447]Bingley, op.cit
[448]Bhatia, op. cit
[449]See Kalhan’s Rajtrangini; See Vanshavali and Vanshacharit or genealogical section of various itihas-Puranas
[450]See Bhagavat
[451]Romila Thapar, ‘The Oral and Written in Early India’, in Cultural Pasts : Essays in Early Indian History, OUP, New Delhi, 2002
[452]Thapar, op. cit
[453]Colonel James Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Higginbotham and co, 1873, pp36
[454]Kosambi, op. cit
[455]Yadavas as Aasur, Students’ Britannica India, volume 4, pages 253
[456]See Vamsanucarita sections of Vayu, Brahmanda, Matsya and Vishnu Purana
[457]Kosambi, op. cit
[458]See Mahabharata
[459]Rig Veda, III, 12, 6; II, 12, 4; III, 34, 9; V; 29; 10; IV, 16, 9;1 33, 4; X, 22, 8: II, 20, 8 ; X.iii. i. Purushsukta
[460]Ibid, III, 34, 9: II, 24, 4,2
[461]Sharma, op. cit
[462]C. Bougle, Essays on the Caste System, Cambridge, p. vii, 1971
[463]ibid
[464]ibid
[465]See Mahabharata
[466]Rig Veda, X.iii. i. Purushsukta; Pulaskar, op. cit
[467] Radhakrishnan, op. cit; Annie Besant, op. cit
[468] See Mahabharata; SeeYugandhar
[469]ibid
[470]Walter Ruben, ‘Die Phiosophie de Upanisads’ in Geschicte de indischenphilosophie, Berlin, deutscherVerlag de Wissenschaften, 1954, pp113
[471]Thapar, op. cit
[472]Muller., op. cit
[473]Maine, op. cit
[474]T. G. Goman and R. S. Laura, ‘A Logical Treatment of Some Upanisadic Puzzles and Changing Conceptions of Sacrifice’ Numen 19, no. 1(1972): 52-67; Ruben, Ruben, ‘Die Philosophie de Upanisads’, Jan Gonda, Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, the Hague, Mouton, 1965, p.37
[475] Thapar, op. cit
[476]Chandogya Upanishad, 5.3.1-7, 5.11.1; BrhaddevataUspanishad, 1.5.16, 3.9.10-26; Mundaka Upanishad, 1.2.9-13
[477]Brhaddevata Upanishad, 2.1.15; Paul Deussen, Thephilosophy of the Upanishads, London, Clark, 1906; reprint , New York, Dover, 1966, p. 17; Arthur B. Keith, Religion and Philosophy of the Vedas and Upanishads, Harvard Oriental Series, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1925, p. 495
[478]Brhaddevata Upanishad, 6.2.8; Chandogya Upanishad, 5.3.7
[479]T. V. R Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, 2nd edition, London, Allen & Unwin, 1960; Pratap Chandra, ‘Was Early Buddhism Influenced by the Upanisads?’ Philosophy East and West, 21 (1971): 317-24
[480] Thapar, op. cit. pp 82
[481]ibid, pp.841
[482]Rig Veda, op. cit.
[483]See Mahabharata; See Yugandhar; See Bhagavat
[484]Ibid
[485]Thapar, op. cit, Raychoudhary, Social, Cultural and Economic History of India: Earliest times to present times, seventh reprint 2002, p102
[486]Rao, op. cit
[487]See General and Political history of Greeks or Hellenistic Civilization
[488]Thapar, op. cit
[489]Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, Sacrifice: Its nature and Function, translated by W. D. Halls, London, Cohen & West, 1964
[490]S. Radhakrishnan, The principal Upanishads, London, 1953, Introduction
[491]Thapar,op. cit, 245
[492]See Gita
[493] See Aitarya Brahmin, p. 26
[494] See Khandyoga, p. 523
[495] See Kaushitaki , p. 126
[496] See Brihad Aryanak, p. 28
[497] See Taittriya Brahmin
[498] See Mundaka, p. 270
[499] See Maitrya Upanishad , p. 53
[500] See Svetasvtara Upanishad, p. 290
[501]Rao, op.cit
[502]Max Muller, Upanishads, vol. 1, p. ixxv; Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol.i, P.508.; Max Webber, History of Indian literature, p. 168
[503] Thapar, op. cit
[504]ibid
[505] Ibid; Maijihima Nikaya, 1.2.89; Anguttara Nikaya, V.288-91
[506]Rao, op. cit
[507] Sharma, op. cit
[508]ibid
[509]Ibid; N. R. Banerjee, Iron Age in India, Delhi 1965; B. K. Gururaja Rao, The Megalithic Culture in South India, Mysore, 1972; A Sundara, The Early Chamber Tombs of South India, Delhi, 1975
[510]Romila Thapar, ‘Puranic Lineages and Archaeological Cultures,’ in R. Thapar, Ancient Indian Social history, pp 240
[511] V. Kanakasabhai, The Tamil Eighteen Hundred Years Ago, Chap. IV, P53-57, Asian Education Services Publications, Madras, 1904
[512] Thapar, op. cit.
[513]Dr. Schwanbeck and J. W McCrindle, Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian, 1877, pp57-58
[514]ibid
[515]See Bhagavat, Ninth and Tenth Skand
[516]See Mahabharata; See Bhagavat, Ninth and Tenth Skandh; See Yugandhar
[517]They have appropriated this function from Sutas or the bards associated with ancient Kings
[518]Skandh Purana, Brahma Khanda, ii, pp39, 291-92
[519]Edward C. Sachau (ed.) Alberuni’s India, 1964, I, 101
[520] Bruce Rich,To Uphold the World—the Message of Ashoka and Kautilya for the 21st Century, Penguin Viking, New Delhi, 2008, p 185, 270
[521] See Bhrigu Samhita; SeeVamsanucarita sections of Vayu, Brahmanda, Matsya and Vishnu Puran
[522]P. Deussen, The Philosophy of Upanishads, Edinburgh, 1906, pp 17; A. B. Keith, Religion and Philosophy of the Vedas, HOS, 1925, pp 495
[523]See Vamsanucarita sections ofVayu, Brahmanda, Matsya and Vishnu Puran
[524]Karve, op.cit
[525] See Mahabharata, Mosulparva; Ekadesh Skandh or Uddhav Gita, First Chapter
[526]See Vamsanucarita sections ofVayu, Brahmanda, Matsya and Vishnu Puranas
[527] Though caste is termed as endogamous and closed unlike class where one can move to other class, yet caste has been showing some characteristics of class e.g, some non-brahamins have found place in the their fold as Kosambi has found or the most succinct example is that of array of foreign invaders, tribal and people of obscure origin have been granted Kshatryahood
[528]Hornby W.F. and M. Jones, 1991: An Introduction to Settlement Geography, Cambridge, 151 pp
[529]Jordan, T.G. 1966: ‘On the nature of settlement geography’ in The Professional Geographer, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 26-28
[530]Warf, B. 2010: Encyclopedia of Geography, 6. Sage Publications
[531]Kosambi, op. cit
[532]Chamba and Dharamshala Museums proudly show the commemoration of Afghan, Turk invaders given to the local rulers for their co-operation or perfidy against Indian kings or rulers.
[533] Karve, op. cit
[534] Romila Thapar, ‘History and Beyond’, Oxford India paperback, New Delhi, 2011, p.159
[535]Karve, op. cit
[536]Thapar, 1979, op. cit, p.220-222
[537]Robert Sewell, A Forgotten Empire: Vijayanagar, , Asian Educational Services, 13th reprint (2006), p 23; Einthoven, Reginald Edward. The Tribes and Castes of Bombay. Bombay: Government Central Press, three volumes, published between 1920–1922; Campbell, Sir James M., Einthoven, Reginald Edward. Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Bombay, 1922-23; See also Dr. Kherkar, The Divine Heritage of Yadavas, Bombay.
[538]Vishnu Purana, IV.21-4:, Manu, X.43
[539]Epigraphia Indica, VIII, pp. 59, 86; E. J. Rapson (ed.), The Cambridge History of India, vol 1, Ancient India, Cambridge, 1935, p.577
[540] See Vamasacharit or Vamshavali or genealogical section of Vishnu Puran, Vayu and Garur Purana
[541]Thapar, op. cit
[542]ibid
[543]Shalv invited foreign king—Kalyavan and both were punished by Krishna who had personally exterminated them—See Bhagavat, Yugandhar
[544] Thapar, op. cit
[545]Kalhan, Rajtarangini, I.170; VIII. 3412
[546]M. G. S. Narayanan and KesavanVeluthat, ‘Bhakti Movement in South India’, in D. Jha (ed), Feudal Social Formation in Early India, Delhi, 1987, 348-75.
[547]Krishna Misra,Prabodhacandrodaya, V. L. Pansikar (ed), Bombay, 1916; Vimalasuri, Paumacariyam, H. Jacobi (ed), Varansi, 1962.
[548]Romila Thapar, ‘Society and Historical Consciousness’, op cit. p133
[549]Vamsavali. 3.1.2
[550] Thapar, op. cit.
[551]ibid; See Vamsanucarita sections ofVayu, Brahmanda, Matsya and Vishnu Puranas;See Mahabharata
[552]ibid
[553]J. Goody, The Domestication of the Savage Mind, Cambridge, 1977; The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society, Cambridge, 1986
[554]Rao, op. cit
[555]Thapar, op. cit
[556]Romila Thapar, ‘Genealogical Patterns as Perceptions of the Past’, in R. Thapar, Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History, OUP, New Delhi, 2002, pp-738
[557]ibid
[558]ibid
[559]ibid
[560]ibid
[561]J Goody and I. Watt, ‘The Consequences of Literacy’, CSSH, 5, 1963, pp 339; ibid
[562] Thapar, op. cit, pp744
[563]M. D Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies, Cambridge, 1969
[564] Thapar, op. cit; D. Dumville, ‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal List’, in P. H. Sawyer and I. N. Woods (eds.) Early Mediaeval Kingship, Leeds, 1977, pp 72-104
[565]ibid
[566]ibid
[567]ibid
[568]ibid
[569]Foucault, op. cit
[570]ibid
[571]Sharma, op. cit
[572]Foucault, op. cit
[573]Thapar, op. cit
[574]ibid
[575]Romila Thapar, ‘Clan, Caste and Origin Myths in Early India’, op. cit
[576]Karve, op. cit.
[577]Thapar, op. cit ;See also Vamsanucarita sections of Vayu, Brahmanda, Matsya and Vishnu Puran; See Mahabharata
[578]ibid
[579]ibid
[580]Max Muller, op. cit
[581]Buhler, op. cit
[582]See Brahamsutra Bhasya by Sankara: Advait or Non-dualistic philosophy propounded by Krishna in Gita and Uddhav Gita has been appropriated
[583]Deussen, P., Geden, A. (2010) The Philosophy of the Upanishads, p. 42, Cosimo, Inc.
[584]Sun Tzu, The Art of War, translated and annotated by Lionel Giles, Special Edition, El Paso Norte Press, 2005
[585]See Gita and Lalitavistara
[586]See Gita and Ekadash Skandh or Udhav Gita, published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur
[587]Basham, op. cit, pp 79
[588]Panikkar, Raimundo (2001), The Vedic experience: Mantramañjarī : an anthology of the Vedas for modern man and contemporary celebration, MotilalBanarsidass: New Delhi
[589]Easwaran, Eknath The Upanishads, Nilgiri Press,2007
[590]Farquhar, John Nicol, An outline of the religious literature of India, H. Milford, Oxford university press, 1920
[591]Seymour-Smith, Martin, The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written: The History of Thought from Ancient Times to Today, Citadel Press, Secaucus, NJ, 1998
[592]Deussen,op. cit., pp.42
[593]Glucklich, Ariel, The Strides of Vishnu: Hindu Culture in Historical Perspective, Oxford University Press, 2008
[594] For Krishan’s Samkhya and Bhagavat philosophy see Ekadesh Skandh or Uddhav Gita, published by Gita press, Gorakhpur
[595]Dr. Schwanbeck and J. W McCrindle, Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian, 1877, pp57-580
[596]Rig Veda, I.54.6, I.108.7, X.62.10
[597]Students’ Britannica India, volume 4, p. 253
[598]Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[599] See Ekadash Skandh or Udhav Gita, published Gita Press, Gorakhpur
[600]Muller, ibid, pp.226
[601]Rig Veda, I.54.6, I.108.7, X.62.10
[602]See Mahabharata
[603]Basham, op. cit; Romila Thapar, op. cit; Karve, op. cit
[604]Karve, op. cit
[605]Tallboys Wheeler, History of India, Vol.1 p. 293
[606] See Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, Book Twelve,
[607]Muller, op. cit
[608]See Mahabharata; See Bhagavat; See Yugandhar
[609]Wiley, Kristi L., The A to Z of Jainism, Scarecrow Press,2009
[610]Karve,op. cit
[611]See Bhagavat; See Yugnadhar
[612]Shrimad Bhagavat Mahapurana: Sukhsagar, Tenth Skandh, translated by Pt. Jwala Prasad Chaturvedi, Published by Randhir Prakashan, Haridwar (India), pp.498-99
[613] Radhakrishnan, op. cit
[614]Mahabharata, Shanti Parva (Moksha)
[615]Muir, Sanskrit Texts, Vol. iv, p.426; Mahabharata, Shanti Parva (Moksha), I, 13
[616] Muller, op. cit. Chapter vii, p. 302-305
[617]Shanti Parva, Moksha, Chapter 178, St.4 and also Chapter 276; Muir, Sanskrit Texts, Vol. I, p 429
[618]Rig Veda, op, cit
[619]See Megasthese’s ‘Indica’ translated and edited by various writers
[620]Thapar, op. cit
[621]Rig Veda, op. cit
[622]Childe, op. cit
[623]ibid
[624]See Mahabharata, Bhagavat and Yugandhar
[625]See Mahabharata; See Harivansham;See Vamsanucarita sections of the Puranas and Mahabharata
[626]Altekar, op. cit
[627]Einthoven, Reginald Edward, The Tribes and Castes of Bombay, Bombay: Government Central Press, three volumes, published between 1920–1922; Campbell, Sir James M., Einthoven, Reginald Edward. Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Bombay, 1922-23. J.N. Singh Yadav, Yadav's Through The Ages (From ancient period to date), VOL I, P-236, , 1992, Sarada publishing House, Delhi-110052; Raychoudhary, Social, Cultural and Economic History of India: Earliest times to present times, Surjeet publications, seventh reprint 2002, p102, Atlekar, ibid
[628]Thapar, op. cit
[629]Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian, Translated and edited by J. W. MacCrindle, Calcutta, Bombay: Thacker, Spink, 1877, 30-174
[630] See Bhagavat, VishnuPurna and Yugnadhar: Shalv episode who had invited Kalyavan, a foreigner for the attack on Mathura and Dwaraka
[631]See history books and text books of ancient India as to how the protracted battles stretching to almost two or three generation of Mauryans had obliterated the republics, putting state formation in the retrogressive direction and dimension.
[632]K.P Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, 1924
[633] Altekar, op. cit
[634]P.N Banerjee, Public Administration in Ancient India, 924
[635]R. C. Majumdar, Corporate Life in Ancient India, 1918
[636]Shamasastry,Evolution of Indian Polity, 1920
[637]N. N Law, Aspects of ancient Indian Polity, 1921
[638]B. K Sarkar, Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindu, 1922
[639]N. C Bandyopadhay ,Development of Hindu Polity and Political Theories, 1927.
[640]U. N. Ghoshal, A History of Hindu Political Theories, 1923
[641]D. R. Bhandarkar, Some Aspects of Ancient Hindu Polity, 1925
[642]Thapar, op. cit
[643]P. N Banerjee, International Law and Custom in Ancient India, 1920
[644]S. V Vishwanath, International Law in Ancient India, 1929
[645]U. N Ghoshal, Contributions to the History of the Hindu Revenue System, 1929
[646]Basham, op. cit. pp. 78
[647]ibid
[648]ibid, 87
[649]ibid, 94
[650] See Mahabharata; See Yugandhar
[651]J. Gonda, Ancient Indian Kingship from the religious point of, Leiden, 1969
[652]Altekar, State and Government in Ancient India, 1958, p. 36.
[653]J. C. Heesterman, The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration, The Hague, 1957
[654]Sharma, op cit
[655]J. S Heesterman, Inner Conflict of Tradition in India, Delhi, 1985, p. 176
[656]Sharma, op. cit
[657]Basham, pp.34
[658]ibid
[659] Romila Thapar, ‘The Early History of Mathura’, in Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History, OUP, New Delhi, 2002, p 407
[660]VishnuPurana, IV.4.11
[661]Bhagavata Purana, IX.23.30; Brahmnda Purana, III.63.186; 71.145-60; Vayu Purana, 88.105; 96.143-59; Harivansha, 35
[662]Bhagavata Purana, X.1.27-34; X.50 to 54
[663]Jataka No 454
[664]Romila Thapar, ‘Genealogy as a Source of Social history’, in Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations, New Delhi, 1978, pp326
[665]ibid
[666]Ibid, ‘Puranic Lineages and Archaeological Cultures’, pp.240
[667]Karve, op. cit; Mahabharata, Mosul Parva
[668]Bingley, op cit; Bhatia, op. cit
[669]Panini, VI.2.34; Arthashastra, XI.1.4
[670]Robert Lingat, The classical Law of India, translated from French with addition by J. Duncan, M. Derrett, University of California, 1973, p. xi
[671]Sharma, op. cit
[672]Vayu Puran, VIII, 128-61; Mahavastu, I, 342; Markendeya Puran, 49, 74
[673]Rig Veda, VIII, 35, 86; Aitareya Brahmin, 1. 14; Satapatha Brahmin, III.4.2.1-3
[674]Kautilya, Arthashastra, III.1; Manu, VII. 17-35; Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, 75.10
[675]Baudhayana Dharam Sutra, 1.10.6
[676]Digha Nikaya, III, 84-96; Mahavastu, I.338-48
[677]C. Rufus, ix.4; cf. Mahabharata, Sabha Parva, 48.14; Panini, II. 4.10
[678]Thapar, op. cit
[679]M. Fried, The Evolution of Political Society, pp. 185.
[680]K. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism,1957, New Heaven
[681]M. Webber, The Sociology of Religion, London, 1965, pp. 46
[682]Unlike the earlier period when invasion by invitation was to consolidate the superior and hegemonic position of one caste or class in particular and two castes (degenerate Kshatriya) or class in general, this invitational invasion is more in cultural, social and political sphere. This is so because the rule of game has changed.
[683] Rao, op. cit. ; Indian Archeology 1954-55: A Review, edited by A. Ghosh, ASI: New Delhi, 1993 (Reprint, first edition 1955), Excavation Report, pp.11
[684]Kosambi, op. cit
[685]It is no coincidence that in the history, society and culture of Gujarat he is termed as ‘warlords of Dawaraka’
[686]Bingley, op. cit
[687]Bhatia, op. cit
[688]Anthropological Survey Report, 1997-98; The Times of India, ’30 yrs. on, fossil sites in danger’, dated 05.12.12
[689] Rao, op. cit
[690]J. W. MacCrindle, op. cit
[691]Rao, op.cit
