The D¡¿ar¡jµa Yuddha is a war of ten kings or ten tribes with

one king, Sud¡sa of Vedic age. Etymology of the word D¡¿ar¡jµa is,

‘nù¶ÉÉxÉÉÆ ®úÉYÉɨÉ <nù¨É – nùɶɮúÉVɨÉÂ, nù¶ÉʦÉ& ®úÉVÉʦÉ& |É´ÉÞkɨÉ - ¶ÉèʹÉEò& +hÉ |ÉiªÉªÉ&, ºÉ´Éæ

Ê´ÉvɪÉ& UôxnùÊºÉ Ê´ÉEò±{ÉÉ& nùɶɮúÉYɨÉÂ*’ In this war victory of Sud¡sa with the help

of Indra is eulogized. But this victory is the result of betrayal and tactics

of the Sud¡sa’s army or VasiÀ¶ha. In this war the role of rivers is of

utmost importance. The war of Ten Kings with Sud¡sa has been

mentioned in the RV with some details as a very well known

occurrence. In the Vedic age and also in the historical references this

war is very important. The hints of this war is scattered in the different

Ma¸·alas of RV. There are hints in the third Ma¸·ala of Vi¿v¡mitra

and seventh Ma¸·ala of VasiÀ¶ha. Based on these hints a number of

historians and scholars had discussed this war. It is famous in history.

This war can be understood as the feud of two seers. Some scholars

argue that this war also is the result of conflict between Vi¿v¡mitra and

Vasi˦ha their interest in this war may be for the position or title of

royal priest.

Vi¿v¡mitra and VasiÀ¶ha are being the Purohita of the same king,

Sud¡sa, at different times. This gives the hints of D¡¿ar¡jµa Yuddha. It

is remembered by many even in the latter part of Îgvedic times. During

210

this age several tribes were living in Sapta-Sindhu.1 There was a king

Sud¡sa, son of Pijavana, who was a conqueror of nearby countries.

Once there occurred a battle between confederacies of Ten Kings with

Sud¡sa. In this war Sud¡sa became victorious and established his

kingdom to a vast area. These hints are given by S£ktas of Vi¿v¡mitra

Ma¸·ala and VasiÀ¶ha Ma¸·ala. The data from other historical studies

regarding this war are also noteworthy. For understanding the war the

Gotras of that time and their interrelations are to be analyzed.

T¤tsus and Bharatas

The Purus, the T¤tsus and the Bharatas appear to have greatly

distinguished themselves. The most famous kings of the T¤tsus were

Divod¡sa and his grandson, Sud¡sa. T¤tsus appear to have lived on the

banks of the ParuÀ¸i, the modern Ravi. The Bharatas lived on the banks

of the Sarasvati. The T¤tsus and the Bharatas should not, therefore, be

regarded as one tribe. They might have originally belonged to one clan,

called the T¤tsus, but in Îgvedic times the two branches appear to have

been distinct.

1 Krumu, Gomati, Vitasta (Jhelum), Asikni (Chenab), ParuÀ¸i (Ravi), áutudri (Sutlej) andVip¡¿a (Beas).

211

Some western scholars2 are of the opinion that the T¤tsus and the

Bharatas were one people i.e., belonged to one clan or tribe, in support

of which they quote certain verses.3 But Bharata, mentioned in the

fourth verse had no connection with Divod¡sa, mentioned in the fifth

and nineteenth verses. There is evidence of the existence of tribal feuds,

which led Vi¿v¡mitra to make a united and determined effort for the

formation of a strong alliance of Ten Kings. This was for curbing the

growing aggressive power of the T¤tsu - king, Sud¡sa, grandson of

Divod¡sa. In the opinion of Shruti Pradhan, the T¤tsus and the Bharatas

were not people of same clan. Based on two reasons he argues that

‘First, while the Bharatas are known to the RV as being associated with

different regions like the W. Sarasvati (6.6.19 and 61.1), the Vip¡¿a, the

áutudri (3.33.11-12) and the Sarasvati (3.53.9-12), the T¤tsus, on other

hand, are associated with the Sarasvati only. This is clear from the fact

that the latter are mentioned only in the seventh Ma¸·ala (18.7,

13.15,19, 33.5,6,14 and 83.4, 6) of the Vasi˦has, who belong to the

Sarasvati. 7.18.19 mentions them as being on the Yamuna. Secondly,

while the Bharatas, as they moved on, patronized different families of

the priests such as the Bharadv¡jas on the W. Sarasvati, and

2 Vedic index of names and subjects, Macdonell and Keith, Vol. I , John Murray, Albemarlestreet, London,1912, P.363.3 RV, VI. 16.

212

Vi¿v¡mitras in the regions of Vip¡¿a, áutudri and Sarasvati, the T¤tsus

on other hand, had the Vasi˦has alone as the priest. This is clear from

the 7.83.7 where VasiÀ¶ha thanks Indra for protecting Sud¡sa though,

significantly, he goes on to refer to himself as a priest of the T¤tsus

rather than the Bharatas. This suggest that he was originally the priest of

the T¤tsus. This distinction between the Bharatas and T¤tsus indicate

that they were different peoples.’4 He bases his argument on the

priesthood difference.

According to Kosambi, like sticks used to drive oxen were the

Bharatas split and enfeebled; then Vasi˦ha became their chief priest

(Purohita) and from the T¤tsus developed progeny (Vi¿as) (VII.33.6).

T¤tsus were a branch of Bharatas – though the name is taken by some

as synonymous for all the Bharatas, which looks unlikely unless it is

from some other language5. Here the identity of two groups of T¤tsus

being a subdivision of Bharatas is attested. Any how one can safely

assume that both these tribes were related. It is clear from many

instances and Kosambi’s view becomes acceptable.

Vi¿v¡mitra and Sud¡sa

Great ÎÀi Vi¿v¡mitra had been for sometime the priest of

Sud¡sa, the king of the T¤tsus. He had received many gifts from

4 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol.85 (2004), P.8.5 Kosambi: Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings, P.113.

213

Sud¡sa. He had performed sacrifices for Sud¡sa. By these sacrifices

Sud¡sa won the favour of Indra.6 ‘Come forward, Ku¿ikas’, says

Vi¿v¡mitra addressing his sons, ‘and be attentive; let loose Sud¡sa’s

horse to win him riches; east, west and north, let the king slay his

foemen, then at earth’s choicest place perform his worship.’7 The verse

clearly indicates that Sud¡sa was about to embark on an extensive

conquest of the territories lying in the east, west and north of Sapta-

Sindhu. Sud¡sa must have been eminently successful in his conquests.

But Vi¿v¡mitra had a very powerful rival in Sud¡sa’s court in the

person of Vasi˦ha, with whom he had a difference. What was the

nature of the difference, it is very difficult to ascertain from the RV, and

various scholars have variously speculated on the subject.8 It seems that

the Vasi˦has were pioneers in adopting the rule that priest should act as

Brahman priests at the sacrifice: the áatapatha Br¡hma¸a9 states that the

VasiÀ¶has were once the only priests to act as Br¡hma¸as, but that later

any priest could serve as such. Vasi˦ha became the principal priest of

the royal family. He acted as Brahman priest. This was probably refused

to Vi¿v¡mitra. This led to a dispute which ended in Vi¿v¡mitra leaving

Sud¡sa’s court with all the Ku¿ikas.

6 RV, III.53. 9.7 Ibid., III.53.11.8 Îgvedic Culture, Abinas Chandra Das, Bharatiya Publishing House, 1925, P. 357.9 áatapathabr¡hma¸a, Nag Publishers, Delhi, 1660, XII. 6.1.41.

214

Kosambi says that, ‘the priest who sings of victory over the Ten

Kings has the clan name VasiÀ¶ha (‘most excellent’), still one of the

traditional ‘seven’ major Br¡hmin exogamous groups. The original

priest had been Vi¿v¡mitra of the Ku¿ika (‘owl’) clan. The priestly

function was not as yet specialized to any one caste in the RV, and in

fact the only caste difference in the earliest Veda was of colour between

light – skinned Aryans and their darker enemies. Clan or tribe could be

and had to be maintained by any male member of the group called upon

for the duty, whether by seniority, election or custom. Though the

various specialized priestly offices at a fire sacrifice are listed, there is

no Br¡hmin caste as such with a monopoly of the priesthood. VasiÀ¶ha,

however, was a new type of priest.’10 Undoubted fact in Îgvedic

history is that though Vi¿v¡mitra had at first been priest of the T¤tsus,

he was ousted from the position by Vasi˦ha or the Vasi˦has. Wrathful

Vi¿v¡mitra was left from the court of Sud¡sa and joined the court of the

Bharatas who were probably Sud¡sa’s enemies.

Ten Kings

Vi¿v¡mitra initiated to the alliance of Ten Kings. The Ten Kings,

being namely, the Anus, the Druhyus, the Bharatas, the Yadus, the

10 The Culture and Civilization of Ancient Indian Historical Outline, Vikas Publishing House,New Delhi, 1994, pg, 82.

215

Turva¿as, the Purus, the áimyus, the Ajas, the áigrus and the YakÀus.11

According to Kosambi Bh¤gus are an important group who participated

in this war12. Bheda was the chief of a tribe on the Yamuna. He took a

leading part in the war. These tribes might have jealousy and rivalry

towards Sud¡sa due to his extensive conquests and his prosperity.

The war

Alliance of Ten Kings advanced under the guidance of

Vi¿v¡mitra from the east. They had to cross the áutudri and Vip¡¿a

before reaching the southern bank of the ParuÀni. But these two rivers

were found to be in high flood. So it was very difficult for the united

army to cross them without the help of boats. Then Vi¿v¡mitra offered a

prayer to the two rivers and Indra. He was beseeching them to bend low

so as to give the army an easy ford. Then they crossed the rivers and

reached the country between the Vip¡¿a and the ParuÀ¸i.

The leaders of the invading army formed the plan of creating a

breach of T¤tsus. The embankment at the higher part of the river was

open and diverts the waters and flooding the entire low- lying plains of

the T¤tsus thus secure an easy victory by embarrassing them. But this

stratagem was failure. The river ParuÀ¸i ran between the Sud¡sa’s army

and encamped army. The main army of the confederacy was encamped

11 RV, VII.18.12 Kosambi: Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings, pp.82-83.

216

on the other bank. This gave them some sure protection. But this

situation had been getting serious, critical and intolerable. Sud¡sa

detached a portion of his valiant army. They crossed the higher up part

of river. They reached the rear of the enemy’s camp and surrounded

them determined to attack them fiercely. The army of the confederacy

had not expected this type of attack. So they were not prepared for the

battle. Sud¡sa’s army surrounded the camp. There was no way for

escape in any direction excepting the river. Numbers hurled themselves

in to the ParuÀ¸i. They were either drowned or carried away by the

rapid currents. Those who safely reached the northern bank were at the

encamped army of Sud¡sa. They were either killed or captured. The

victory of Sud¡sa over the confederacy of the Ten Kings was highly

brilliant and glorious.

This story of the war between Ten Kings and Sud¡sa is taken

from the historical studies.13 Historians had discussed about the period

in which the war has occurred. Some consider it as a happening of 2350

BC. Some others consider the period as 1700-1000 BC. From the Vedic

S£ktas one can understand that this war happened in early Vedic period

when sage Vi¿v¡mitra was considered a prominent one.

13 (1)Ancient Indian, V.D. Mahajan, S Chand and Company Ltd, Ram Nagar, New Delhi,1960. (2)Îgvedic Culture (3) Gods, Sages and kings – Vedic Secrets of AncientCivilization, Davi Frawley, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, New Delhi,1993.

217

Vedic Traces

Related hints to the story of the war are given by the Îgvedic

S£ktas. These details are scattered in the fragments in several hymns

and verses. Here are some examples of mantras which hint at D¡¿ar¡jµa

war from RV. The ninth and eleventh Mantras in the fifty third S£kta of

third Ma¸·ala attest that Vi¿v¡mitra was the priest of Sud¡sa. One

Mantra hints the change of priesthood from Vi¿v¡mitra to VasiÀ¶ha:

nùhb÷É <´ÉänÂù MÉÉä+VÉxÉÉºÉ +ɺÉxÉ {ÉÊ®úÎSUôzÉÉ ¦É®úiÉÉ +¦ÉÇEòɺÉ&*

+¦É´ÉSSÉ {ÉÖ®úBiÉ ´Éʺɹ`ö +ÉÊnùiÉ iÉÞiºÉÚxÉÉÆ Ê´É¶ÉÉä +|ÉlÉxiÉ**14

‘The Bharatas, inferior (to their toes), were shorn (of their

possessions), like the staves for driving cattle. (stripped of their leaves

and branches): but Vasi˦ha became their family priest and the people

of the T¤tsus prospered.’ 33rd S£kta of 3rd Ma¸·ala is the crossing of

rivers, Vip¡¿a and áutudri by the Vi¿v¡mitra with the Bharatas. In the

ninth Mantra of this S£kta he requests the rivers, for the easy ford of

him and his followers. The enemies of Sud¡sa destroyed the banks of

ParuÀ¸i River:

nÖù®úÉvªÉÉä +ÊnùÊiÉ »Éä ɪÉxiÉÉä%SÉäiɺÉÉä Ê´É VÉMÉÞ§Éä {ɯû¹hÉÒ¨ÉÂ*

¨É½ÂþxÉÉÊ´É´ªÉEÂò {ÉÞÊlÉ´ÉÓ {ÉiªÉ¨ÉÉxÉ& {ɶÉÖ¹EòÊ´É®ú¶ÉªÉSSÉɪɨÉÉxÉ&**15

14 RV, VII.33.6.15 Ibid., VII.18.8.

218

‘The evil disposed and stupid (enemies of Sud¡sa), crossing the

humble ParuÀ¸i river, have broken down its banks; but he by his

greatness pervades the earth and Kavi, the son of Ch¡yam¡na, like a

falling victim, sleeps (in death).’ Then, ‘the waters followed their

regular course to the ParuÀ¸i, nor (wandered) beyond it; the quick

courser (of the king) came to the accessible places and Indra made the

idly - talking enemies, with their numerous progeny, subject among

men (to Sud¡sa).’16 Indra and Varu¸a protected and preceded the army

of Sud¡sa. The Mantra is as follows:

ªÉÖ ÉÉÆ xÉ®úÉ {ɶªÉ¨ÉÉxÉÉºÉ +{ªÉÆ |ÉÉSÉÉ MÉ´ªÉxiÉ& {ÉÞlÉÖ{ɶÉÇ ÉÉä ªÉªÉÖ&*

nùɺÉÉ SÉ ´ÉÞjÉÉ ¾þiɨÉɪÉÉÇÊhÉ SÉ ºÉÖnùɺÉʨÉxpùɴɯûhÉɴɺÉÉ´ÉiɨÉÂ**17

‘Indra and Varu¸a, leaders (of rites), contemplating your

affinity, and desirous of cattle, the worshippers, armed with large

sickles, have proceeded to the east (to cut the sacred grass): destroy,

Indra and Varu¸a your enemies, whether D¡sas or Ëryas and defend

Sud¡sa with your protection.’ Sud¡sa crossed the river. It is mentioned

in the Mantra:

B´ÉäzÉÖ EÆò ʺÉxvÉÖ¨ÉäʦɺiÉiÉÉ®äú ´ÉäzÉÖ EÆò ¦Éänù¨ÉäʦÉ& VÉÇPÉÉxÉ*

B´ÉäzÉÖ Eò nù¶É®úÉYÉä ºÉÖnùɺÉÆ |ÉÉ´ÉÊnùxpùÉä ¥ÉÀhÉ ´ÉÉä ´Éʺɹ`öÉ&**18

16 Ibid., VII.18.9.17 Ibid., VII.83.1.18 Ibid., VII.33.3.

219

‘In the same manner was he, (Sud¡s), enabled by them easily to

cross the Sindhu river: in the same manner, through them he easily slew

his foe: so in like manner, Vasi˦has, through your prayers, did Indra

and Sud¡sa in the war with the Ten Kings.’ The battle and glorious

victory of Sud¡sa is given in some Mantras. They are as follows:

{ÉÖ®úÉä±ÉÉ <iÉ iÉÖ ÉǶÉÉä ªÉIÉÖ®úɺÉÒnÂù ®úɪÉä ¨ÉiºªÉɺÉÉä ÊxÉʶÉiÉÉ+{ÉÉä É*

¸ÉÖϹ]õ SÉGÖò¦ÉÞÇMÉ´ÉÉä pÖùÁ´É¶SÉ ºÉJÉÉ ºÉJÉɪɨÉiÉ®únÂù ʴɹÉÚSÉÉä&**19

‘Turva¿a, who was proceeding (at solemn rites), diligent in

sacrifice, (went to Sud¡sa) for wealth, but like fishes restricted (to the

element of water), the Bh¤gus and Druhyus quickly assailed them: of

these two everywhere going the fried (of Sud¡sa, Indra) rescued his

friend’. Numbers of men were killed in the battle. i.e. ‘the hero Indra

created the Maruts (for the assistance of the R¡ja) who, ambitious of

fame, slew one - and twenty of the men on the two banks (of the

ParuÀ¸i), as a well - looking priest lops the sacred grass in the chamber

of sacrifice.’20 The warriors of the Anus and Druhyus, intending (to

curry of the) cattle, (hostile) to the pious (Sud¡sa) perished to the

number of sixty six thousand six hundred and sixty; such are all the

19 Ibid., VII.18.6.20 H.H Wilson’s Tr., VII.18.11.

220

glorious acts of Indra.21 Some were dipped in water by Indra for

Sud¡sa:

+vÉ ¸ÉÖiÉÆ Eò´É¹ÉÆ ´ÉÞrù¨É{º´ÉxÉÖ ¥ÉÖÁÖÆ ÊxÉ ´ÉÞhÉM´ÉXɤÉɽÖþ&*

´ÉÞhÉÉxÉÉ +jÉ ºÉJªÉÉªÉ ºÉJªÉÆ i´ÉɪÉxiÉÉä ªÉä +¨ÉnùzÉxÉÖ i´ÉÉ**22

‘Thou, the bearer of the thunderbolt, didst drown á¤uta, KavaÀa,

Vriddha and afterwards Druhyu, in the waters: for them, Indra who is

devoted to thee, and glorifies thee, preferring thy friendship, enjoys it’.

The seven cities are destroyed by Indra for Sud¡sa, ‘Indra, in his might,

quickly demolished all their strongholds and their seven (kinds of)

cities: he has given the dwelling of the son of Anu to T¤tsu: may we,

(by propitiating Indra), conquer in battle the ill speaking man.’23 Some

were carried away from battle place, i.e., these hostile T¤tsus, ignorantly

contending with Indra, fled routed as rapidly as rivers on a downward

course, and being discomfited, abandoned all their possessions to

Sud¡sa.24 Indra has supported Sud¡sa in various ways. ‘Indra has

scattered over the earth the hostile rival of the hero (Sud¡sa), the senior

of Indra, the appropriator of the oblation: Indra has battled the wrath of

the wrathful enemy, and the (foe) advancing on the way (against

21 Ibid., VII.18.14.22 RV, VII.18.12.23 H.H Wilson’s Tr., VII.18.13.24 Ibid., VII.18.15.

221

Sud¡sa) has taken the path of flight.’25 Indra helped him to kill the

Bheda:

¶É·ÉxiÉÉä ʽþ ¶ÉjÉ´ÉÉä ®úÉ®úvÉÖ¹]äõ ¦ÉänùºªÉ ÊSÉSUôvÉÇiÉÉä Ê´Éxnù®úÎxvɨÉÂ*

¨ÉiÉÉÇ BxÉ& ºiÉÖ ÉiÉÉä ªÉ& EÞòhÉÉäÊiÉ ÊiÉM¨ÉÆ iÉκ¨ÉxÉ ÊxÉ VÉʽþ ´ÉXÉʨÉxpù**26

‘Thy numerous enemies, Indra, have been reduced to subjection:

effect at some time or other the subjugation of the turbulent Bheda who

holds men praising thee as guilty of wickedness: hurl, Indra, thy sharp

thunder-bolt against him. He requested Indra, to humiliate Turva¿a,’

and then ‘may we, Maghavan, leaders in thy adoration, regarded as dear

friends, be happy in our homes: about to bestow felicity upon

Atithigwan, humiliate Turva¿a; (humiliate) the son of Yadu.’27 Indra

killed Bheda, Devaka the son of Manyam¡na and áambara in the

battle.28 The victory of Sud¡sa was by the power of Gods. The Mantra

says:

+ÉwÉähÉ ÊSÉiÉ iÉuäùEÆò SÉEòÉ®ú ˺ÉÁÆ ÊSÉiÉ {Éäi´ÉäxÉÉ VÉPÉÉxÉ*

+´É »ÉHòÒ´É涪ÉÉ´ÉÞ¶SÉÊnùxpù& |ÉɪÉSUônÂù Ê´É·ÉÉ ¦ÉÉäVÉxÉÉ ºÉÖnùɺÉä**29

25 Ibid., VII.18.16.26 RV, VII.18.18.27 H.H Wilson’s (Tr.), VII.19.8.28 Ibid., VII.18.20.29 RV, VII.18.17.

222

‘Indra has affected a valuable (donation) by a pauper: he has

slain an old lion by a goat: he has cut the angles of the sacrificial post

with a needle: he has given all the spoils (of the enemy) to Sud¡sa.’

Studies

There are different types of studies on D¡¿ar¡jµa Yuddha. They

include studies on Vedic texts, Studies on Indian history etc. But the

approaches of these scholars are divergent. In these the opinions of

some scholars are discussed here. The scholars on Veda like Oldenburg,

Adolf Kaegi and the historians like D.D Kosambi, R.S Sharma had

discussed this matter.

Oldenburg says that, ‘Vi¿v¡mitra, singer of the race of the

Bharatas, says to the rivers Vip¡¿a and áutudri, when the Bharatas on a

war expedition wanted to cross them.’30 Adolf Kaegi says that the king

who cannot himself prepare a proper song of praise is forced to seek the

skill of others and so we find, among the more important princes,

singers and families of singers who first through their prayers make

great deeds possible for the rulers and afterwards celebrate them. In the

foreground of these families of singers stand those of Vi¿v¡mitra and

Vasi˦ha. The former had caused the rushing stream to stand still for the

renowned T¤tsu king Sud¡sa, made the crossing possible for his patron

30 The Religion of the Veda, P.123.

223

and sent his steed forward to victory and spoils; but in course of time,

pushed forward by the rising influence of his rival VasiÀ¶ha, Vi¿v¡mitra

went over to the gens of the Bharatas. With them he sets forth and

comes to the junction of the rivers Vip¡¿a and áutudri.31 They connect

this war to the Vi¿v¡mitra Nad¢samv¡da S£kta.

The opinion of Zenaide A. Ragozin is that, ‘later period of this

war the followers of Vasi˦ha and his descendants represent the

narrowly orthodox Br¡hma¸ic School, with its petty punctiliousness in

the matter of forms, rites, observances, its intolerance of everything un-

Aryan and its rigid separatism. This school it was which stood guard

through all these ages, and up to our day, the champion - and possibly

originally the institutor of Caste; who advanced and upheld all the

exaggerated claims of the Brahman priesthood, to divinity, to the rule of

the world, and ownership of all it holds, to supernatural compelling

powers over nature and the gods themselves through sacrifice and

ascetic practices, and the like. The followers of Vi¿v¡mitra and his

descendents, on the other hand, represented the school of liberalism and

progress, of conciliation and amalgamation; it was probably through

their efforts chiefly that Aryan speech and worship and, as a

consequence, Aryan supremacy, spread among the native princes and

31 The Îgveda: The Oldest Literature of the Indians, Boston: Ginn and Company, 1886, P.79.

224

their tribes. But it must also have been owing to this their policy of

conciliation that many of the beliefs and practices of the once loathed

aborigines gradually crept into Aryan worship, and gained a footing

there, paving the way for the mixed forms of Hinduism in the future.

Their orthodox antagonists blamed and despised them for this laxity,

wherein they saw a danger which they strove to avert by redoubled zeal

in keeping high and strong the bulwark of Caste; and while they could

not deny the holiness and authority of one who ranks with their own ÎÀi

in the RV itself, they found a vent for their hatred and spite in the

assertion that Vi¿v¡mitra was not originally a Br¡hman but a KÀatriya,

and had obtained the highest rank only by superhuman feats of

asceticism which compelled the gods to grant him the consecration he

desired. The feud between the two bards and their respective

descendants is a favorite theme in later Br¡hma¸ic literature, where it is

invested, both in poetical and theological writings, with the usual

exuberance of fancy and extravagance of detail and incident. We find

nothing of the kind in the RV, where the beginning of the difference is

not narrated at all, and only shows from the context of the so – called

historical hymns. Very significant, in the light of these, is the line in

which Vi¿v¡mitra praises his adopted tribe, the Bharatas, calling them

225

“far – sighted people,” – probably in opposition to his former patrons,

the orthodox and narrow minded T¤tsu.’32

Here Vasi˦ha and his followers are mentioned as a group which

has strong opposition to the ‘un – Aryan’ and Vi¿v¡mitra and his group

are related to liberalism and progress, of conciliation and amalgamation.

Here author says that in later period of this war Vasi˦ha and his

descendants go up to a higher level in the society. May be because of

this war the leadership in the Br¡hma¸ic School of VasiÀ¶ha was

established. For establishing the supremacy of Br¡hma¸ic School of

VasiÀ¶ha they establish the KÀatriyatva of Vi¿v¡mitra and also that only

one Brahman priest VasiÀ¶ha existed in the Br¡hma¸ic period.

R.S Sharma says that, ‘the Bharatas and the Tritsus was the

ruling Aryan clans, and they were supported by priest Vasi˦ha. The

country Bh¡ratavarÀa was eventually named after the tribe Bharata,

which is first mentioned in the RV. The Bharata ruling clan was

opposed by a host of ten chiefs, five of whom were heads of Aryan

tribes and the remaining five of the non-Aryan people. The battle that

the Bharatas fought with the host of ten chief is known as the Battle of

Ten Kings. It was fought on the river ParuÀ¸i, coterminous with the

river Ravi, and it gave victory to Sud¡sa and established the supremacy

32 Vedic India – As Embodied Principally in the Îgveda, Zenaide A. Ragozin, CosmoPublications, New Delhi, 2005, P.320-321.

226

of the Bharatas. Of the defeated tribes, the most important was that of

the Purus. Subsequently, the Bharatas joined hands with the Purus and

formed a new ruling tribe called the Kurus. The Kurus combined with

the P¡µc¡las, and they together established their rule in the upper

Gangetic basin where they played an important role in later Vedic

times.’33 Romila Thaper says that, ‘the famous D¡¿ar¡jµa, when the

Bharatas fought against a confederacy of ten clans, the best known of

which were the group of five, the Puru, Druhyu, Anu, Turva¿a and

YakÀa / Yadhu; the Bharatas were also involved in battles against the

well – established D¡sa chief áambhara and raids against the cattle –

lifting Pa¸is. The Turva¿a and the Yadhu fought against the Bharata

Divod¡sa and were defeated by his son Sud¡s, the Sriµjayas were

victorious against the Turva¿a and V¤Àivant as also against the Bharatas

and Satvant. Such references come from the RV or refer to earlier

events in the later texts and the location of such hostilities was in areas

to the north – west of the Doab and prior to the migration in to the

Doab. There appears to have been systematic settlement on the new

lands with the indigenous population either being absorbed or being

pushed to the margins of the settlement.’34

33 India’s Ancient Past, R.S Sharma, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2005, P.109.34 History & Beyond, Romila Thaper, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000, Lineage

Society – P.27.

227

These two Indian historians focus on this war as the

establishment of the supremacy of the robust rulers upon the suppressed

people. Establishment of monarchy is the result of the war. That is the

defeated tribes joined with victorious tribes. They shift to new land and

new settlement. These scholars consider Sud¡sa as a Bharata. But this

war S£ktas in the RV considers him as a T¤tsu.

‘This war was no doubt that the form of government was

normally monarchical, the tribe as a political unit being under a single

ruler. This, of course, is to be expected from the patriarchal organization

of Aryan society and from the state of constant warfare with their

neighbours (aboriginal and not rarely Aryan), which was a normal

feature of the life of the Vedic Aryans.’35 He says that war is the

common character of the Aryans. Only aim of this war is the

establishment of the supremacy of the Aryans.

Kosambi says that, ‘The cause of this war was that the Ten tried

to divert the river ParuÀ¸i. This is a stretch of the modern Ravi which,

however, changed its course several times. Diversion of the waters of

the Indus system is still a cause for angry recriminations between India

and P¡kist¡n. The ‘greasy – voiced’ P£rus, though enemies of Sud¡s,

were not only Aryans but closely related to the Bh¡ratas. Later tradition

35 The History and Culture of the Indian People – The Vedic Age, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,Bombay, 1951, P.355.

228

even makes the Bh¡ratas a branch of the P£rus. The same clan priests in

the RV impartially call down curses and blessings upon the P£rus in

diverse hymns, which shows that the differences between them and the

Bh¡ratas were not permanent.’36 He while discussing the history of

Bh¤gu clan does this. Based on Vedas and later literature his studies the

Bh¤gus - Bh¡rgavas. Participation of Bh¤gus in the war is attested by

him. The importance of this Gotra in early Vedic period is noted by

him.

He says that the diversion of the rivers is the result of this war.

This might have happened. This war depended on the rivers. He also

states that the tribal differences were not permanent.

Thaneswar Sarmah says that he did not find any traces of

Vi¿v¡mitra’s involvement in these battles. Rather, meet one Bh¤gu,

(probably) KavaÀa AiluÀa, who died in the wake the war. Thus, Bh¤gu,

under KavaÀa in place of Vi¿v¡mitra, appears to have pitted the Ten

kings against Sud¡s.37 This argument is not seen in any other place. But

the role of Vi¿v¡mitra in this war is very clear too in the Îgvedic hints.

Shrikant G. Talageri says that D¡¿ar¡jµa Yuddha is crucial to an

understanding of early Indo – Iranian history. This scholar’s views are

36 The Culture and Civilization of Ancient Indian Historical Outline, P.82.37 Wisdom in Indian Tradition, (Ed) Shoun Hino & Lalita Deodhar, Pratibha Prakashan, Delhi,

1999, P.88.

229

not accepted by Vedic scholars or historians. According to him the

hymns clearly record that; this battle saw the defeat of the Anus, the

conquest of their territories by Sud¡s (VII.18.13) and the

commencement of their migration westwards.

In the war of Ten Kings with Sud¡sa the Aryans and non-

Aryans had participated. The sacrificing tribes and non-sacrificing

tribes lived in the Vedic age. There were a number of tribes who lived

in different parts near Saptasindhu. But it is probable that due to this

war a number of tribes came under the one rule or changed to one tribe.

Hence Romila Thaper opines that the marginalization of the conquered

occurs. Most of the celebrated battles were among the major clans and

conflicts involved claims to territorial control and right of succession to

these territories. In Vedic hymns mention of conquering tribes robbing

the wealth that is cattle and such things of the conquered tribe is found.

Usually victorious tribes are consider the defeated as enemies who are

to be destroyed. They consider victory as a matter that is to be obtained

over those enemies. Hence these victories are celebrated also. The war

indicates development of a new empire. New settlements of tribes are

formed. They are united under the emperor. The tribes of

‘Saptasindhus’ came under the rule of this emperor. Establishment of a

230

new political power and a new social style resulted by this war. Hence

this war has historical relevance.

D¡¿ar¡jµa Yuddha has another aspect also. The role of

Vi¿v¡mitra in the war is of significance. Tribal feud, development of

Var¸a conflicts, and such matters are found scattered as the background

in Vedic literature. It hints at the conflict between Vi¿v¡mitra and

Vasi˦ha. The enmity between Vargas and hierarchy of Vargas are also

hinted in this context. These aspects are discussed in the next chapter.

____________________