Wednesday, July 9, 2014
THE MYTH OF NEHRU'S AKHAND BHARAT By Franco Fernandes
(This Research is based on Historical Facts, Epigraphic Evidence and Scholars who refutes the Brahmanist claim that King Bharat conquered the whole of Indian Subcontinent)
The Dominion of India (15th August 1947-26 January 1950) was transformed into Bharat Ganrajya (Republic of India). New Delhi considers itself the successor state to Ancient Bharat. This is the only figure that the Indian Bigots can find to justify the unity of the conglomeration of more than 570 Princely states in the Subcontinent.
Nehru’s India Doctrine came from Nehru’s belief in the Undivided India (Akhand Bharat), Mohandas Gandhi mildly called it the “Ram Rajya”. Mr Nehru wrote several letters after 1947 reassuring the Indian Bigots that the ultimate goal of India was the reintegration of Pakistan, Goa, Sikkim, Bangladesh, Hyderabad, Tibet, Sri lanka, Nagaland, Afghanistan, Junagad, Nepal, Kashmir etc into the Mythical Bharat which stretches from the Hindu Kush (Afghanistan) to Bali (Indonesia).
In recent Years Indian Bigots have claimed that Countries like China, Russia, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan & Turkmenistan were also part of Ancient Bharat. May be in future they can also claim Venus & Mars etc were part of Akhand Bharat.
“Nehru wanted a creation of a Mahabharata inclusive of Afghanistan, from Oxus to Burma, down to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) inclusive of Tibet. Mother India or Bharat Mata is a figment of the fertile Brahman mind. Historically, such a state never existed in the annals of history” Reference – Dr. Naveed Tajammal, an American Educated and trained Scholar.
“In modern times, bigoted Brahmins have projected Bharatavarsha as the ancient Sanskrit name for the whole of India. This, however, has no historical foundation. Bharatavarsha did not include the whole of India and never did, but only denoted the kingdom of the Aryan invader Bharata, who was a chieftain of one of the Aryan tribes that invaded India. This small region comprised only a small part of the upper Ganges valley”. Reference - Subbiah Alagumalaiyan, “The Myth of Bharat”.
“Don’t you think that it is a big surprise that a nation can have two official names? One given by British and the next one derived from the legendary King Bharat who was the ancestors of the legendary Pandavas and Kauravas. Their nation of Hastinapur was not bigger than that of Kathmandu but the Legendary reportedly boasted that King Bharat ruled the Universe. On this ground this British Born India’s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru, a favourite of then British viceroy to India Lord Mount Batten and also his wife Pamela went on unabated to expand the territories of his British bestowed kingdom”. Reference - Madan Regmi, Political Analyst & International Observer.
The epigraphic evidence confirms that Bharata originally did not mean the whole of India but only a small part of North India. Kharavela who lived c.63 BC - c.23 BC ( C.R.Mishra, p.114 ), was one of the most famous kings of the Kolarian-Dravidian kingdom of Kalinga. His conquests ranged far and wide. They are celebrated in the Hathigumpha inscription. The nineth and tenth lines of this inscription clearly mention that he invaded Bharata from Kalingam thereby implying that Bharata at that time did not include the whole of India - Line 9 10 : "And, in the nineth year, (His Majesty) [ Kharavela ] caused to be built the great victory place – royal residence at the cost of thirty eight hundred thousand (coins). " Then, in the 10th year (His Majesty) who embodied the principles of politics, diplomacy and peace, caused (the army) to march towards Bharatavarsha for conquest ." -- ( C.R.Mishra, p.128 )
Prof. C.R.Mishra notes that Bharata did not originally denote India : " Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the regions of northern India " (C.R.Mishra, p.121). Elaborating this, he states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India - " In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha' is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the name denoted North India at that time." -- ( C.R.Mishra, p.130, n.79 )
A.L. Basham states that Bharatas was one of the invading Aryan tribes which settled in the region between the Satlaj and Jamna, which later became known as Brahmavarta (Basham, The Wonder that was India, p.30).
Thus, the first time that we have undisputed usage of the word Bharatavarsha, it denoted only North India. There is no evidence of Bharata's kingdom extending beyond Northern India.
Historical evidence refutes the Brahmanist claim that Bharata conquered the whole of India. Bharata's ancestors lived in the region of the Caspian sea in Central Asia; they were nomadic tribesmen of Aryan stock. Bharata's legendary capital lay in the Kabul valley, ie. Yusufzai territory of modern Afghanistan: " According to local tradition, the original seat of the empire of Bharata was much further to the north-west, namely, at the site now occupied by the ruins of Takh-i-Bahi, in the country of the Yusufzais to the northward of Peshawur." -- ( Wheeler, p.48n.2 )
From this base he descended with his hordes of Aryan horsemen onto the plains of India. There he defeated Indra ( Wheeler, p.45 ), a descendant of the first Aryan invader Indra, earning himself the title "most renowned of the Lunar race" ( Wheeler, p.47 ). He then conquered the Upper Ganges valley, exceeding Indra's dominion.
After the wars of annexation, the Raj of Bharata extended over the enitre doab between the rivers Ganges and the Jumna right up to the junction of these 2 rivers ( Wheeler, p.44 ). It is thus obvious that Bharata's empire, Bharatavarsha, only included a few provinces in the Ganges Valley.
His son Hastin founded Hastinapur further down the Ganges valley, after this second wave of Aryans had pushed on from the neighbourhood of Peshawar up to the banks of the Ganges ( Wheeler, p.48.n2 ). It is thus evident that even the lower Ganges valley was beyond Bharata's control. Hence, the Brahmanist concept of `One Ancient Bharat' under perpetual dominion of the Brahmin Aryans is a fallacy. In the words of Winston Churchill, `India is as much a nation as the equator' .
( C.R.Mishra ), `Kharavela and His Times' , in ` Comprehensive History and Culture of Orissa' , ed. P.K.Mishra, Kaveri Books, New Delhi 1997, Vol.I part I, p.108-131.
( J. T. Wheeler ), `India of the Vedic Age with Reference to the Mahabharata', J. Talboys Wheeler, Vol. I of `The History of India', 1973 reprint Cosmo Publications. New Delhi 1973.
(A.L. Basham) ‘The Wonder That was India', New Delhi 1954.