The modern Hindi speaker uses the words Manava and Purusha somewhat interchangeably- both mean ‘man’ or ‘human’ to us. Yet this was not always so. The Rig Veda and other Hindu scriptures talk of two distinct tribes- the tribe of Manu and the tribe of Puru (or Pururava, who was Puru’s ancestor). It is a common Sanskrit rule to assign patronymics to tribes, places and individuals. Thus, the children of Pandu were Pandavas and the descendants of Kuru were Kauravas. Those descended from Yadu were called Yadavas, those from Bhrigu were called Bhargavas and so on. Similarly- the words Manava and Purusha are but the patronymics of two different tribes. The sons of Vaivasvat Manu chose to called themselves Manava or Manushyas. The sons of Puru, or possibly Pururava, called themselves Purushas. Neither side used the other term for themselves.
Thus we have an example of how two words that are more or less synonymic today carried vastly different meanings in an ancient era. This in turn points us to the many differences that existed between ancient Vedic tribes, especially in their rituals and dialects. We must note the fact that tribes such as the Bharatas never used the title of Manava or Purusha- indicating that they were a completely separate people. This gives us an ancient canvas where India was not populated by a united citizenry, but divided into dozens of clans that drew vital distinctions between each other.The Suryavanshi prayed primarily to their patron deity- Surya, and the Rig Veda (which is the Bharata tribe’s composition) contains only eight prayers to Surya. Eight among the 900+ prayers! It can thus be said that Surya-worship was not an important ritual among those of Bharata blood, though it was vital to the Manavas and Aikshvakus that claimed descent from Surya himself. Is Surya-namaskara really a part of Indian culture then, when India’s most prominent ancient tribe (Bharata) never indulged in it?
This is the sort of syncretic world the Rig Veda suggests to us, and there are substantial hints to the fact that the ‘people of the book’ for the Rig Veda are the Bharatas- not the Suryavanshi or the Pancha Gana tribes- Yadu, Puru, Druhyu, Anu and Turvasa. But a reading of the genealogies appended to all major Puranas indicates that these other tribes too had important strongholds in ancient India. What are we to make of the five Anu brothers- Pundra, Suhma, Odhra, Anga and Vanga- whose names later became the names of places and cities? What are we to make of the Druhyu ruler- Gandhara- whose name survives to the modern age as Kandahar, Afghanistan?Is it mere coincidence that there was a ruler in the Yadu tribe named Mathu, and that Mathura was a Yadava town? Should we ignore the fact that there existed a Suryavanshi king named Ayuddha, and the patronymic derived from him is Ayodhya? With so many different tribes occupying different parts of ancient India’s geography and cultural legacy, how are we to say anything about our ancestors that may hold true for all of them? Can I even consider the Rig Veda representative of ancient Indian times when it was composed almost exclusively by a single tribe?
Enthusiastic Indian nationalists that proclaim the glory of an ancient past are, for the most part, ignorant of these nuances to the very texts they take as their cultural inheritance.This is not to say that Western historians have done justice to the period either, for they too have not delved into the tribal portrait painted by the Rig Veda and other ancient Sanskrit texts. How many of us are aware of the fact that the Rig Veda lists close to fifty different tribes? Or are the nationalists aware of it, but chose to, like the ancient Bharatas, side-line every tribe but the most prominent? Is it not possible that the many indigenous tribes extant in modern India are descended from the people mentioned in this ancient text? Thus while the nationalists speak of a golden past the truth is that ancient India may very well have been the equivalent of a medieval Arabia! Realisation of this could help us better accept India’s vast cultural diversity, and prevent us from engaging in acts such as the ban on beef-production simply because it offends the culture of a select group. The truth is that there could have been several ancient Indian tribes that relished beef, while others abstained from its consumption. Which of them represent the real India, and who are we truly descended from?
As a last note to help us understand this, take a look at the word- Ashvamedha. Most of us know its direct translation- horse sacrifice. And the Rig Veda speaks of another ritual- the Purushamedha. Instinct might direct us to translate this as human sacrifice, but since the first paragraph of this article, we are aware that Purusha was a name for the people of the Puru tribe. What do we gather from the fact that there existed an entire ritual prescribing the sacrifice of a member of an enemy tribe- here in ancient India (a ritual in the Rig Veda- text of the Bharata tribe). There are two ways to react to this. We can, like the ancient Bharata tribe, be their insular and intolerant descendants and design the cultural sacrifice of all those who do not fit in with us. Or- we can understand the diverse, syncretic nature of our ancient nation and learn from it, thus evolving into a progressive society that must come naturally to a country with a history that provides such profound learnings.
About Author: Amritanshu Pandey is a writer and author of the novel The Seal of Surya. He lives in Gurgaon and works for one of the many corporations that dot the city’s landscape. His interests lie in the fields of history, rationalism, skepticism, religion and the politics of religious institutions. He is on Twitter @amritanshu_soa.
Source: CounterCurrents.Org