TIC DĀśARAJÑA
(Some time ago a friend and colleague wrote to me asking me a few general questions regarding the Dāśarājña in reply, I sent him a brief note embodying in broad outline my views on the subject. In the forward n, letter ( dated August 4 1972), I wrote - There are many theories about the Dāśarājña. Besides the historical interpretation, naturalist, astronomical and symbolical interpretations of the event have also been attempted. I have set forth my own view in the enclosed note. I have derived my guidance mainly from the the Rgveda . –RND)
(1) There seem to have been two major waves of migration of the Aryans into India. The early tribes left the region of Balkh ( where their ancestors had lived for a fairly long time) and, after a long and arduous journey in the course of which they had to encounter various impediments (both natural and human), eventually reached the land of the Seven Rivers (Sapta Sindhu). The fertility of the soil the abundance of water, the regularity of seasons, the bright sun shine-these were among the many ecological factors which prompted them ultimately to settle down in that region (which roughly included parts of Afghanistan, the NWF, and Panjab). Their tribal organization then came to be gradually transformed into territorial states. Five such Aryan states became particularly prominent in the early period of the Aryan settlement in Sapta Sindhu, namely, Puru, Anu, Druhyu, Turvasa, and Yadu. It was presumably after these five states tbat the early Aryan settlers were collectively called Panica Janah (Five Peoples). Side by side with these Aryan settlements, there were in existence in and round about that region a few non Aryan (indigenous Indian) settlements as well
(2) The second wave of the Aryan immigrants was more homogeneous in character in that it was constituted of a single major tribe-the tribe of the Bharatas. Sudās, the leader of the Bharatas, who were presumably few in number, was a very ambitious man. He aimed at bringing the early Aryan settlements (collectively called Pañca Janāḥ) and the indigenous non-Aryan principalities under his control and thereby establish the sovereignty of the Bharatas throughout the Aryandom (Sapta-Sindhu). Sudās appears to have been as much an intrepid warrior as a wise statesman. He was convinced that, in order to achieve his goal, diplomacy and military strategy would both be equally necessary.
(3) To the north-west of the early Aryan settlements there was the fairly powerful state of the Tr̥tsus. It would seem that, while the Tr̥tsus were independent of the Pañca Janāḥ, they had originally been related to the Bharatas. The new comer, Sudās, realised that, with a view to overpowering the Pañca Janah and the neighbouring non-Aryan principalitics, he would have to win over the Tr̥tsus to his side. Accordingly he devised a shrewd stratagem to establish a political and military alliance with them.
(4) In the socio-political organization of the early Vedic Aryans, the Purohita played a role which was as important as - if not more important than that of the king or the tribal leader. Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power- Sacerdotium and Regnum- went hand in hand. It can be seen from the Rgveda that, in the initial stage, the Purohita of the Bharatas was Bharadvāja. However, while they were advancing into Sapta Sindhu, Bharadvāja’s place was taken by Viśvāmitra. Vasiṣṭha was the Purohita of the Tr̥tsus, and was, accordingly, the most influential person in the clan of the Tr̥tsus. Sudās knew that, if he could sway Vasiṣṭha in favour of the Bharatas, his purpose would be adequately served. By a bold stroke of diplomacy, he managed to dispense with the services of Viśvāmitra and offered to Vasistha the office of the Purohita of the victoriously progressing clan of the Bharatas. Vasiṣṭha accepted the offer, and, as the result of this, an alliance was established between the Bharatas and the Tr̥tsus, with Sudās as their military commandant and Vasistha as their Purohita—the ultimate aim of the alliance having been the Bharata sovereigoty in the Aryandom. .
(5) But Viśvāmitra was not a man to take such things lying down. Embittered by the supercilious treatment meted out to him (cf. RV III. 53 23 ), he went over to the Pañca Janāḥ, woke them up to the danger of the impending invasion by the Bharatas, and eventually manoeuvred them into forming a kind of loose military confederation for the purpose of arresting the Bharata onslaught He also hoped thereby to avenge the indignity which he had been made to suffer. It may be presumed that this con federation, which came to be known as the Ten Kings (Dasa Rājānaḥ), consisted of the five states of the early Aryan settlers and some neighbouring non-Aryan principalities. Obviously, the number ten’ in this context has to be understood as being only generally descriptive rather than definitive. The names of some of the leaders and members of the confederation– Aryan (Pūru, Turvaśa, Druhyus, Ādava, etc.) and non-Aryan (Pakthas, Bhalānases, Visānins, Śimyu, etc )-are actually mentioned in the Rgvedic hymns relating to this subject.
(6) The two sides arrayed themselves against each other the Bharatas and the Tr̥tsus led by Sudás and Vasistha on one side and the Ten Kings presumably under the leadership of Bheda and assisted by Viśvāmitra, among others, as their Purohita, on the other for the eventful war which has been described in the Veda as the Dāśarājña or the War of the Ten Kings. (The word dāśarājña itself occurs only three times in the Rgveda). The war consisted of many battles and skirmishes (though there is no evidence to suggest that it extended over several generations ), but the decisive battle seems to have been fought on the bank of the river Parusni (modern Rāvi). Under the benign aegis of the Aryan war-god Indra and with the help of Vasistha’s efficacious priestcraft (purohitī), Sudas won the final victory and thus succeeded in establishing the sovereignty of the Bharatas in the region of Sapta-Sindhu. I believe that the source of the name Bhārata-varśa by which India came to be known is to be sought in this great historical event. This event, again, is the basis of the many versions of the traditional rivalry between the families of Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra.
(7) I must hasten to add that the Dāśarajña has nowhere in the Vedic literature been described in a consistent and connected narrative. In the R̥gveda, apart from a few stray references in the third and the sixth Mandalas, fairly detailed references to it occur in hymns 18, 33, and 83 of the seventh Mandala. The Dāśarājña is also referred to, directly or indirectly, in the Maitrājani-Samhita III. 3.7, the Kathaka-Samhilā 21.10, the Jaiminiya-Brāhmana 3.244, the Tandya-Brāhmana 15.3.7, the Kausitaki-Upaniṣad 3.1, and the Great Epic. I have collated the relevant material from the various versions of the Dasarājñia, have tried to eliminate the inconsistencies and deficiencies in them as far as possible, and have reconstructed a plausible history mainly with the help of constructive imagination.
[ First published : CASS Studies, Nol, 1973, 127-129.)