Vidyodaya F Arts. Sci. Lett, Vol. 9. Nos. 1 & 2, January-July 1981_pp. 37-112 THE INDRA CULT AS IDEOLOGY: A CLUE TO POWER STRUGGLE IN AN ANCIENT SOCIETY (including a discussion of the semantics of Revedic ari and its socio-political background) MauiNDA PALIHAWADANA PART ONE Contents : Abbreviations and Bibliography 8 Introductory : What lies behind Revedic ari? 41 U1 The Bharatas and their opponents 4s II Diversity of religious views 65 IV Significance of the Indra cult: An impetus to power 80 'V Indra Cult (contd.): Links forged between priest and prince 92 VI ari and sari : The cultural distinction 103 37The Indra Cultas Ideology +A Clue to Power Sirugsle nan Ancient Society ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY (Fhe abbreviated forms are those used in the Notes) ‘avont : Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research fostitute, Poona Ajai: tats: Papers on Indology and Buddhism, A Felcitation Volume presented to Oliver Hector de Alwis Wijesskera on his inGeth birthday. ed. J. Takasii; Peradeniva, Si Lanka, 1970 ‘Atharva Voda; ‘The Atharva Veda. Samhith Benveniste and Renow : Benveniste, E., Renou, L.: Vrteaet Vethragna, Paris, 1934 Bad Devats ; Brhad-Devath, (attributed to Caunaka)..ed. A. A. Macdonell, Harvard ‘Oriental Sees, Vol § (1904) CHI : The Cambridge History of India. Vol. 1 Ancient India, ed. E. J. Rapson. Second Ingiar Reprint, 8. Chand & Co., Delhi ete. 1962 CCoomaraswamy : A. K. Coomaraswamy: Spiritual Aythorty and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government, Americin Oriental Society, 1982 DED : Emenau, M. B. and Burrow, T. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961 Dowson : A Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion, Geography. History ‘nd Literature by John Dowsoa, London, 1950 FF, Paul Thieme, Der Fremdling im Raveda, eine Sue ber die Bedeatung der Worte ari ‘arya, aryaman und drya, Deutsche Morgenlandische Geselshatt, Leipzig, 1938 Geldner : Karl Friedrich Geliner: Dex Rig-Veta aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche abersett, Harvard Oriental Series, Volumes 33.35 ‘Gon; Gonda, J : Ancient Indian Kingship [tom the Religious Point of View. Numen, Inter~ ‘national Review forthe History of Religions, Vol. 3 Fase. 1 and 2, vol. 4, fase and 2 Gonds, Accst : Gonda, J : The Aspectual Function of the Rgvedic Present and Aorist Mouton & Co. 1962, S-Gravenhage GGrassmano,ubers, : Grassmann, H., Rigvoda bbersetz, Volumes I and I, Leipzig, 1876-77 CGrassmann, yb.: Grasamann, HL, Worterbuch zum Rigveda, Reprint Wiesbaden 1955 (orignal ed. Leipzig, 1873) Hoesterman : Heesterman, J.C. :‘The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration. Mouton & Co.. 1987. “S-Gravenhage Hillerandt, RL : Hillbrandt, A. : Rituab-Litteratur, vedsch Opfer und Zauber, Grundsiss ‘der indovarschen Pailologie und Altertumskuinde, 1/2, Siassburg, 1897. ilerandt, VM : Hilebrandt, A. : Vedsche Mythologie, Volumes 1-1, Breslau, 1891-1902 J. A. + Joumal Asiatique, Paris Jim. Be :Jaiminiya Brohmapa ed. Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra, Nagpur, 1954 (Saras- ‘vat Vibira Series, vol. 31) Kale; Kale, MR. Bhavabhti's Malatimadhava, withthe Commentary of Jaguddhara, 2nd ‘ed Bombay, 1928 ‘Karwe ;Irawati Karwe, Kinship Organization in India, Poona 1953 (Doosan College Mono ‘raph Series, 11) 38Mahinda Pathewadana Kramer : Kramer, Samuel Noah (ed), Mythologies of the Ancient World, Anchor Books, New York, 1961 Kunhan Rais + C-Kunhan Raja Commemoration Volume. KZ: Zeitschrift for vergechende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen. Begrundet von A. Kun Lnders; Liders, Heinrich : Varuna I/1l, G8ttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951/1959 Ludwig : Ludwig. A., Der Rigveda oder die hsiligen Hymnen der Brihmana, zum erson “Male vollstandg ins Deutsche Ubersetzt..1 = TIT Prag, 1876 - 1888, M.A: Mitra and Aryaman, by Paul Thieme : Transactions ofthe Connecticut Academy of ‘Arts and Sciences, vol. XLI (1958), New Haven. Conn. pp 1-96 Mahathasya = Mahabnasya, Nimaya -sigar Press, Bombay 1951 Mahidhara See V. S. “Manu (net) : The Manusinsi, with the Commentary...of Kulkika. Nimaya-sigar Press Bombay. 1946 (0th ed.) M.S. Maitriyapt Smith ed. Leopold von Schroeder, Leipzig, 1881-1886 [Nirukta : Lakshman Sacup + The Nighintu and the Nitukta, the Oldest Indian Treatise on "Etymology, Philology and Semantics, University of Punjab, 1927 ; Also Niruktam. With a Commentary by Bhagwat Durgacharya, Celeutla, 1952 (Gurumandal Series, Nox) Pinini : The Ashtadhyayi of Panini, edited and translated into English by Sita Chandra Vasu, 1962 Reprint, Motilal Baoarsidass, Delhi etc, Paranavitana : S. Paranavitan, Inscriptions of Ceylon, Vol. I, Department of Archaeology (Ceylon), 1970 Rau : Withelm Rau = Staat und Gesellschaft im alten Indien, Otto Harrasowite, Wiesbaden 1987 RV: Rgveda Samiti, Vaidika Saméodhaya Mapdala edition (Vedic Research Tratitute) Poona, 1933 = ‘SB : The Gatapatha - Brihmana in the Madhyandina Cakbs....eited by Albrecht Weber, Berlin = London, 1855, (indian Reprint, 1964 : Chowkamba Sanskrit Series No. 96) Seblerath: Bemfried Schierath : Das KOnigtum im Rig - und Atharva Veda, ein Beitrag ‘rut indogermanischen Kullurgeschiche, Deutsche Morgealindische Gesellschaft, Wies- aden, 1950 Schmidt : Hans Peter Schmidt : Vediseh vrata und awesttch urna, Hamburg, 1958 Sirkar: Sitkar, D.C. editor): Bharata War and Puranic Genealogss, Unversity of Caleutta rest, 1968 ‘Tait. Br. Taitiriya -brahmanam......Anandiérama Sanskrit Series, No.37 (tee vols.) 1898, Taodya Mahi Br. : Tipdya Mahibrahmaga with the commentary of Sayapa .o0.ATWO volumes). Bibliotheca Indica, Caleuta, 1870, 1874 ‘Thomas: Indian and Eastern Stadics in Honour of F.W-Thomas, Bombay, 1939The Indra Cult as Leology +A Clue to Power Siragele nan Ancient Society Tummer : Turner, R-L./A Comparative Ditionay ofthe Indo - Aryan Languages Untersuchungen...: Paul Thieme: Untersuchungen zur Wortkunde und Auslegung des ‘Rigvoda, Max Niemoyer Verlag, Halle/Suale, 1949. (Hallsche Monographien, Nr?) Vedic Index: Vedic Index of Names and Subjects by Arthur Anthony Mcdonell and Arthur ‘eriodte Keith, Indian Reprint (Motilal Banarsdast, Varanasi, 1958) Ved. Stud: Vedische Studien by Pischel, R. and Geldner, K.F., Stuttgart. 1889-1901 ‘Vidyodaya Joumal of Ars, Science and Letters - Published by the V dyodaya University of ‘Ceylon (now University of Sri Jayewardenepura) Vireu Purdoa, translated by HLH.Wilson, London, 1840. Indian Reprint VS. Bukla -yajurveda- samhite(.....Valasanesi, Midhyandina) with the ...Bhdpy of. Uvate and... Mahidhara, Nizgaya = Sigar Press, Bombay, 1912 Whitney AV: Aduarva - Veda Samhita, transated by Wiliam Dwight Whitney. Indian Reprint @ volumes) Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi etc, 1962 Zachner: R.C. Zachnes : The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, Weideafeld and ‘Nicolion, Londoo, 1961Mahinds Palikawadona I What Lies Behind Rgvedic ari? Some years ago the present writer took up a project of writing a disserta- tion on the secular leadership in the Reveda period. In the process of this work he found his attention constantly drawn to that peculiar Ravedic word «ari with its characteristically ambiguous sense. ‘The word occurred in nume- rous contexts which seemed, distinetly connected with the subject with which the writer was then concerned. The problematic nature of the word was already reflected in the oldest Indian commentarial work, the Nirukta of Yaska. This work renders ari as (@) an unfriendly person and (b) a potentate (ie., foe and lord).* In rendering the word ari, modern transtators have also found it impos ble to be consistent. Thus Geldner frequently uses the German equivalents of nobleman, rich patron, great lord, possessor of power and so on to translate ‘ri; but at other times he uses rival, mighty foe, miser, ete. —thus bringing out the double character of the meaning of the word.) In 1938 Paul Thieme, the respected German Indologist, published his famous monograph Der Fremdling im Reveda in which he attempted the task of unravelling the meanings of this word.# He argued that if the ‘prevalent’ senses of the word are so divergent (as eg. is reflected in the Nirukta comment), then its original significance could not have been either of these widely different ‘meanings but something else from which these meanings should have deve- loped in the course of time. In Thieme’s view, that original mesning was stranger? Pondering on the contexts in which ari was used, from the point of view of one studying the problems associated with leadership, the present writer became convinced that all was not yet right with the interpretation of this crucial. term, The semantic common denominator for most uses of ari in the RV is that of association with wealth.® And the regular pattern of the statements regar- ding the ari can best be summed up in the form of a “norm and exception”. L Fp. Sif esp. 8:10, Nirukta 57. Yiska's explanatory words ate amiira and vara, in that order. Yiska ‘was not commenting on the history of the semantics of ar; so the order he followed is not Imaterial to our discussion. (Nirukta 5.7 Sarup~5.22 of Caleta od., p.500) F. pps it F. and MA F.p10 Mabidhara on V.8.33.42 : arya = dhanassdmin. Cattle constituted the main dang in ‘Vedic times. See also Goldner. Ved'Stud I, 8. aThe Indea Cult as livology : A Clue to Power Strugle in an Ancient Society Norm: The ari has riches (:the source of glory), ‘They are to be won from him. Help our siris to win them.” ‘The sari is the good worshipper and the generous giver, not the ari ‘The ari’s worship is below par.? Accept our worship, byparsing the ars.” ‘The ari gives us trouble and pain, denies us our due. Give us aid to stand up to these. References to the ari are normally found in statements like the above ones, in invocations addressed to the Vedic gods, especially Indra. Exception : The few statements that associate the ari with conditions contrary {0 those evident in the above statements constitute the exception.’ Notably such exceptional statements depict the ari as a generous donor ot an acceptable worshipper or one who promotes the sari and encourages his liberal ways,!? but again always es a wealthy maa, 2 possessor of cattle. To one who reflects on these statements, it would appear that the basic premise on which Thieme built his argument is open to question, After all, if the word carries the meanings foe and lord, the latter could well have been the original sense. If the chief (:lord) turns out to be hostile for some reason or other, then in the very position of chief he may become the object of one’s displeasure and opposition. The one sense (lord) would be the word's deno- tation, while the other (: foe) would be one of its significant connotations. One does not have to go very far to look for similar words in other languages. Take, for example, a word like capitalist. Its denotative signi- ficance is the same (0 all, ie., owner of capital. But its connotations would ‘be distinctly different to communists or socialists on the one hand and to those with another political outlook on the other. To understand the distinction satisfactorily, one has tohave an acquaintance with the facts of an ideological situation, Tt would seem that ari too was such a word - whose true meaning lies hidden in the mist of our ignorance of its “social-political” context : the eatly tribal chieftainey pattern and the stresses to which it must have been exposed in the first few centuries of the Aryan presence in India, 7. SeeCh. VI. 3, below. 8 ChhVL, VIL, Vill, below 9. CHM, below. 10. Ch. Va 6. HL. 22312, 480.11, 6598, 8488, 9.793 ete 12 ChIX below. TB. Egi940. 1.1268, 14501, 4382, 8122,Mahinds Pollhawadana ‘After all, one of the first creative sociological events in Aryan history in India must have been the change from migratory trike to the settled tribal state ‘This could by no means have been such a trifling event, involving as it must hhave done vast changes in habit, ritual and values. The adaptations called for might not have been palatable ¢o all alike, In the stresses and strains of stich a situation, the tribal leadership might have been exposed to certain kinds of opposition ‘Thus, if the word ari meant ‘lord’, as the Nirukta would have it, then it would not be surprising that we may hove to answer the question, “Did the chief turn out to be a foe, and if so how?” in order to unravel the further complexities of its. semantics. ‘To put our problem in its true perspective, and in order not to overlook or under-estimate its extreme complexity, it is necessary to remember that it is from ari that the ethnic designation drya (: Aryan) is derived.! This makes it doubly difficult to think that ‘stranger’ was the original meaning of the word. And also, we cannot forget the other derivatives of ari : arya (explained by the Indian grammatical tradition as meaning master and vaiéya'?), and aryaman, a deity of the Aditya group. ‘When one studies the usages of ari, arya, arya and aryaman from the perspective of the evolution of leadership, it seen likely that ari was an ancient designation for the tribat chiet and holder of wealth and that, due to reasons that remain to be clarified, the chief at some point of time became an object of dislike to some among the Aryans themselves." It this was so, it would saiisfactorily explain much of the complexity of the semantics of the word. If we toke the meanings given by Yaska as representing the denotative and connotative senses of ari as recorded in a tradition worthy of our respect, ‘Wwe could explain the semantic development of the cluster of words concerned somewhat as. follows 14, F.pildS. CF also A. Debrunner, “Zwei altindische Probleme”, Indian and Eastera Studies in Honour of E.W-Thomas, Bombay, 1939, .71 1S. Point 12.103, 16. These ince most of the wellknown families of Vedic rx. Cf. 1.46 (Maclacchandas ‘Vaisvamitta).38.3 (Hiranyastipa Angirasa); 170.1, 1713, 1735 (Parhara SAktya; 1.81.6(9 (Gotama Rehigna); 1.84.1 (Agastya Maiteivaruad); 282, 2124/5, 225.13, (Gytsamada Angirasa); 42.12. 446, 4.1619 (Vamadeva Gotama); $2.12. (Kumara Aureya); 613.5, 6.61627, 625.7, 647.9 (Barhaspatya Bhiradvija), 721.9, 7:34.18, 756 22, 7835, 7924, 7979 (Maitrovaruni Vasa); 821.16 (Sodhaci Kova); 824.22 (Witvamani Veiyaiva) ; 839.2 (Nobhika Kava); 848.8 (Prapitha Ghaura Kava) ; 9.233 (Katyapa/Asta Deval) aThe Indra Cult deoloey + A Cle t Power Stele nan Anion Society ari: chief (as holder of wealth and power.) arya : (a) pertaining to an ari; having power; chifike; noble; hospitable (6) portainng to an ar having wealth; vaitya. firya + (a) of the community of tribes whose ehiefs were aris (®) chiefike: noble; elderly aryaman; god of chieflikeness (whence, of hospitality.) ‘The second, and in the RV commoner, connotation of ari as ‘opponent’ ‘foe’, should have evolved long after the above senses were established and should be reflecting later developments in the social, political and religious life of the Aryans which ultimately led to the passage of power from the hands of old-style tribal chiefs to other authorities. ‘Such changes did take place in fact, as we con conclude from the disuse of significant sociological terms like viépati, vidatha etc. And we must always remember that such changes necessarily betoken a turmoil of ideologies and religious views. Bur what could the prevalence of both senses, favourable and unfavourable, indicate? IL would seem that this can indicate several things: (1) The original meaning of ari was not only denotative but also carried connotations of respect and admiration, (2). The changes in tribal life due to which the word gathered unfavour- able connotations did not take place at once over all the Vedic tribes, (3) The favourable references reflect a period of old institutions lingering. ‘on until new ones were firmly established. ‘And a further point to be considered would be whether the ‘opponent’ sense of ari does not signify some of the functions of an old Aryan tribal chief an aggressive culture may have evolved institutions in which the chief by func- tioning as an opponent could aid the rise of a strong leadership in the respective tribes. ‘There thus seems to be a clear case for re-opening the investigation of the meaning of Revedic ari. It appears that the major point of attack’ should be an investigation of the political-sociel implication, which in other words is an inquiry into the evidence of ‘ideology’ in the Rgveda Sami 44Mahinda Palikawadana In the very nature of our documents, this evidence is likely to temain concealed in a mythological garb. As an example we may cite what is said about Indra’s leadership of the gods when they were threatened by the prospect of \Vptra’s rise to power: the gods conceded to Indra the rights of rulership (ksatra). through him to thwart the Dragon’s challenge.” “This seems to mythologize 1 historical experience of power passing into the hands of ‘warlords’ from other wielders of power: a shift from a patriarchal to a non-patriarchal arrangement ‘The mythologizing can be regarded 1s an attempt to legitimize the shift: in other words it moy be viewed as an ideological act. But since these trends may have arisen more early among some Aryan tribes *han among others, itis desirable that we review the Revedic evidence ‘on the mejor tribes and the conflicts and strains to which they were exposed. ‘We must take particular note of the use of ari inthe allusions to these con Acts. as also of any comments orhints on the religious (ideological) views of adversaries found in these allusions. In this way we we can open an invest action of the political and ideological situations depicted in the Samhita. Such studies could lead us on to other interesting vistas of inquiry from which per haps an approach for resolving the ari problem may eventually be envisaged. 1. The Bharatas id their Opponents a The RY refers to a large number of Aryan tribes or janas, but of these only three are mentioned frequently. ‘These are the Bharatas, the Parus and ‘the Turvagas, Naturally, they are also the three that are most important from the historical point of view ‘The evidence of the RV shows that there was a series of conflicts between ‘the Bharatas (and/or their alles) with other tribes, including the Turvasas and the Parus (who even made common cause with non-Aryans in order to fight the Bharatas). But ultimately the complex of Aryan janas that were active in the region between the rivers Parusal and Drsadvati during this period so integrated themsclves that the later Rgvedic hymns would refer to them as the Grya varea (literally, “the Aryan colour”). By carefully combining the evidence that is found scattered in various hymns of the RY, itis possible to construct a genealogy of the leading figures of the Bharata tribe that are mentioned in the Samhit8, beginoing with Deva~ vata and Devaéravas of RV 3.23. If we link the evidence found in RV 3.23, 4.15, 6.47, we get the following genealopy: 17. Ch IL. T below. 4s‘The Indra Cultas Udeology : A Clue to Power Struggle in an Ancient Society Devavata / Devasravas 1 Srijaya 1 Prastoka / Aévatha Sahadevs t Somaka ‘Some of the most famous Bharata figures are however not included in this genealogy. Among these is Suds the Bharate (7.33.36 with 7.83.6), descendant of Pijovana (7.18.22/23) and of Divodisa (7.18.25) and of Devavant (7.18.22). Another scion of this line is Vadhryasva, the father of Divodisa (6.61.1). On the basis of the evidence of their relationships, it has ‘been shown" that the genealogy of these Bharata chiefS ean be thus arranged: Devavant Vabaryata Ditodtsa Pinna sudis on the strength of the contemporanity of Prasioka ofthe fit group with Divadiee of the second. leary eden fom RV 647 ®t ispossible T'torcate these Iwo gemelopes a follows: Bharata \ Brora Devavita | Devaravas —Devavant Srijaya oo Prtoka/ Sahadera ‘Asvatha | 1 1 I Somaka Pijavana, Let us briefly review the careers of these five generations of Bharata chiefe with a view to gaining some insights relevant to the interpretation of the ari passages of the RV. 18 Bee CHET pL: Vedio Tadox, sv. Devavent In, es, 2125 1 te, 23 refers to the gifts given by Prastoka,and Divodiea at the ond Silie batt agist Sarubae ad 24 thove given by ASvuthe) to tho Bharadvija privetMakinde Palivowadona (a) Devavata and Devavant ‘The similarity of the names Devavita and Devavant is striking, but there is no way to determine their relationship or whether they refer to one and the same person. ‘The Bharatas at this time were living near the rivers Apaya, Sarasvatt and Dpradvatl. In RV 3.23 which mentions Devavata,” the emphasis is entirely oon the fire ritual conducted near these “holy rivers” (as the later tradition refers to them), and there is nothing to suggest the mattial milieu of the ‘entrance phase of Aryan prehistory, or that of the time of later Bharata lead- cers such as Srijaya, Divodisa and Sudiis. The few notices regarding this period of time do not contain any references to the ari (©) Srijaya and Vadbrya: From our correlated Bharata genealogy it would appear that Srijaya and Vadhryaéva should have been contemporaneous, and it is noteworthy that separate references to them show that they were both placed in essentially a similar state of affairs, namely Bharatas being locked in battle with Arya as well as Dasa opponents. These opponents are referred to under various ‘ames and in various ways: Panis (6.61.1), Parivatas (Which sounds like a nickname meaning “newcomers trom a distant land”) (6.61.2); “Disa and Arya foes" 2 (10.69.6) and more interestingly, in the words of 10.69.12, (enemies) who are unrelated and who are false relations”?> R.V. 6.27 refers to the enemies under their tribal as well as family or individual names (:Tur- vaéa, Vreivant, Varasikha ® and probably Pirthave); hence it is difficult ¢0 determine whether several tribal groups are indicated here. From the point of view of the study of the word ari, it is important to recognize that almost from the start Bharata or pro-Bharata groups ia Vedie India appear to have been facing hostility from other Aryan groups. The historicity of these hostilities is also oocasionally attested to in later literature; thus, for example, the Varasikha clan is considered to be only nominal ksa- ‘riyas, in the Paicavinéa Briinmana, because they did not conform to the {cology of the Brahmanistic elte:™ this agrees with the fact that it was the rijaya (Bharata) group that is favoured by the 7s in 6.27, as against the Varaikhas. 20, amanthigvim Waratd reved agnim / devadrans desasiok eudaksam |! 8.23.2 ab, 21, See Vedio Index, 42, Pinivata (2) 22) lia etrdny ryt 1060.8, ajamiar uta 98 siamin... (andhatah) - 10.6912 od, Sco Vedio Indox, 2.0, Vauivant, ering to Paticavimia Britunans, XXE 128, Bad Devata V, 126 47The Indra Cultas Ideology + A Clue to Power Strapele tn am Ancient Society ‘The war between Srijaya (son of Devavita) and the Turvaéas ete. men- tioned in 6.27 took place near Hariyapiy and is one of the two best known military events referred to in the RV. The Turvaéas certainly were an Aryan tribe. [At the end of the war, the priests who supported the Srijoya group, namely the Bharadvijas, ae richly rewarded, obviously with captured booty as is usual after a battle (ef 647.22). Since we learn from one of the stanzas of the hymn (stz. 5)?” that only a part of the enemy ranks was destroyed, it is natural to expect that the remaining part would try to regain the captured wealth. That this however was impossible owing to the strength of the Srfiayas, or of the precautions adopled by them, seems to be the meaning of the statement: “Tnaccessible is this gift to the Parthavas” (6.27.8). ‘This interpretation of RV 6.27.8 has to be emphasized. According to this, the Pirthavas were the enemies, or at least were among the enemies, of the (Bharata) Srijaya group, The only other persons who may be linked with the name Parthava in the RV are PrthijPrthu Vena and Vena Prthavana. ‘The former is referred to a8 an ariat 10.148.3. while the latter is mentioned in 10.93 in association with one who is called Rama, the asura.”® It seems probable then that the opponents of the (Bharata-) Srajayas of 6.27 were Aryans who may be associated with leaders designated os ori and ‘asura elsewhere in the Sambits, Aryans who for some reason were disagreeable to # strong section of the rvi authors of the RV hymns. The adverse reference to Vena in the Manusmrti?” and other late works is an indication of this early opposition, which is otherwise unrecorded explicitly. 27, ham parse anthe, Bhiyasd ‘pare dart - 6.27.54 28, dindseyam datyind parthavindm - 627.84 To translate the line to msan that ehe Sift was ofthe Parthavae doce not wera to make souge (CI, Geldnr + Kaum 2a orl then ist die Schonkung dor Paethava’s). 20, 10,168.30 rofors to the ar's songs (+ aryo gah) and sts. 5, (ines ab), gous on to givo ‘8 more apecifisexpremion to the tame, (Listen, @Tadra, vo tho all of Pythi...7ou ‘wll be Touded with Venya's ange” + irudht hava ina...prthydh.tavave senjas- ‘irkoih, Tn treating aryo gir, 10.48.30 — prthyah hava and venyoaye arka =, 10 M48.5ub, we are in agrooment) with Goldne) 0, pra tad prihasine weve pra rdowe voanm aoure 1098.14 ab. ‘Tho sara Prthavina Vena ES referred to ar m Parthys at 10,98.150 + eadye didiga parhynh. 31, Manu Smrti VIE, 41 and IX, 68:67, ‘This and othor later sours regned Vena. with istavour but (hisson) Vony® with favour, See Mana VIL, 43, Vignu Purina 1.18.1. Soe ‘sto Doweon, ander PRITHI and VENA snd Gonda, Namen 8, p.60 and fa 114Makincs Palhavadana ‘Turning our attention to Vadbryasva, we note that the hymn which refers to him, RV 6.61, shows that he and his people were living near the river Sarasvati, but with a noticeable sense of insecurity, owing to the presence of ‘many adversaries.”® (©) Prastoka, ASvatha and Divodisa ‘The Rgvedic evidence on Divodisa clearly establishes the complex nature of the hostilities that prevailed among the various ethnic and tribal groups of this time. On the one hand we have the clear evidence of RV 6.47 (stanzas 21-25) which speaks of the storming and destruction of the Dasa stronghold of Sambara by Divodisa, with the aid of Prastoka and Aévatha. On. the ‘other hand, there is also evidence of hostility between Divodisa and other Aryans. A close analysis of RV 6.47 in this respect reveals some intetesting facts 6.47 is the hymn which celebrates Divodiisa’s famous victory over Sambara, the Dasyu chief. That the Bharata-s were at this time hard-pressed is obvious from stanza 20: “To a pastureless dwelling have we come, O gods! Constricted has the earth become, wide though she be!"™ (And this becomes all the more ‘meaningful when we remember that Divodisa’s father was represented as imploring the Sarasvat,* killer of them that come from the far distance’, not to let the Bharata-s depart from her side to unknown dwellings.°° Obviously hhe too was feeling the threat of new enemies close at hand.) In 6.47, the poet's deep trepidation comes to light when he declares: “May not the ari’s wealth Can this reference to the ari be to Divodisa’s Dasyu opponents? Or was there also an Aryan foe with whom he had to contend in the struggle that 6.47 highlights - as may conceivably be expected in view of Bharata-Arya hos- tilities of the previous generation, and also of the succeeding generations, as we shall soon see? 82. 881 added to Sars, ho esi eave granted Dives to Vaden ‘ab 8 “edeomer of his debis",”Saraventt helps, ot her help ts sought, in erdihiag Pacis, Parivains, instars of gods (dovanidak| and hatars (iors) + aiae L310 ‘Str Te vaya: May wo not depart from thon to" usnceuslomed ‘lands: a at periny aan pane 38, 1.99.10, 2.147, 6.1813, 8.53.2 + Divodion against Tirvayana; 7.198, 9.612 + D sgaliat’ YaducTurvade,” See also Vodio Index. under Tarveyina. 4, agony kytram dganuma dvd | ures watt basimir ambrand bhit - 6.57204b, 85, pandeataghnt. 6.61.20. It in intoreting to note that the Yada / Turvasa, whos Bivodése opposed, serived frou pardeat -"045.1 ab 36, Seon, 32 above, 81, md nas drin..viyo aryah - 6.4.94, Ths baat way to ender this Tine esems to un to be "Let it not prevail over ux = the are tramares", being then a case eft ‘oluthon, a Geldner rightly observes. Contrast ‘Thisme, Fp. 57 49The Indra Cult as Ideology : A Clue t0 Power Strugple in an Anclemt Society Indeed, one stanza of 6.47 makes this seem extremely likely. This is stanza 19 which asks Indra, the Vedic god of war:"Who will for ever stay on the foeman’s side, the more so as (our) heroic princes sit in sacrificial session (to honour the gods)"** - which seems to imply that the god's favours were indeed at one time with the foes of the Bharata-s (ie. they were winning at the latter’s expense), but now their sacrificial rites could possibly not be ignored. It ig unthinkable that the poet is suggesting here that Indra’s favours were won by the Dasyu-s at any time. To us it appears that the poet in 6.47 is not thinking of a Disa opponent when he speaks of the ari in stz. 9; rather, he is referring to a specific Aryan foe of one of the tribes the Bharata-s had to reckon with from the moment of their appearance in the region around the Sarasvat ‘The hostility between these Aryan groups and Divodisa is referred toin even less ambiguous form in other allusions. Thus there are references to Divodasa’s discomfiture at the hands of Tarvayina. The later is identified by Macdonell and Keith (on the basis of RV 10.61.1 £) as a prince of the Paktha-s, whose Aryan identity is not in doubt. Besides this, there is also the important evidence of 7.9.8 which says that Indra, rendering aid to Divo- isa, struck down Yadu and Turvaéa," tribes of the Arya-s as is quite well known. It is no doubt the same tradition of Bharata-Turvasa hostility that 9.61.1 and 2 reflect when they say that Indra shattered 99 forts when aiding Divodisa, and that he destroyed Sambara, Turvaée and Yadu as welt, Indeed it is quite possible to see such statements as references to Dast-Arya collusion against the Bharata-s: this would cause us no surprise if we ponder ‘on what happened in the War of Ten Kings just two generations subsequent to these events. The 3rd and 7th books of the RV clearly indicate the con- tinued harassment of the Bharata-s by Disa and Arya foes, so much so that the tribe became decimated and had thinned “like staves that drove kine” in spite of the victories of Divodasa 8, widedha doiatoh papa daausj udeinepu argu | 647.190. 99, Vedio Index, under TOrvayinn 40, ni tureasam ni yidvam &fthy | atthigndiya dameyam harzyin 7.10.8. 4, asdhan avoir nave ~ pura... | divaddatye dambaron j~.turcadam yadum j] 961.16 find 2, Skyana adds waar dnayae ca to completo the sense. Geldner's rendering of ‘2.01.2 bs to be rejected in favour of S4yena’s, That Turvaia, sehen mentioned with ‘Yad, is always Indew' protege (Goldner, note t0. 9.6.20) ia not correct, me oven Geldaer's own traueation of 7.198 shows, $2, anda ived goajanduoh - 7.38.60,Mahinda Patbawedana (@) Somaka and Pijavana That Divodisa’s victory over Sambara did not stabilize tha Bharata-s’ Position for a very long time is also proved by the comparative insignificance of the Bharata princes of the generation that immediately followed. The paucity of references to these princes and especially the lack of evidence of their patroncy of celebrated priestly clans gives added significance to what we have already mentioned : the Bharata tribe was steadily growing thin ‘like Staves that drove kine’. © Sudas And so at the beginning of his career, we find Suds, the next Bharata prince, as a nomadic plunderer leading a life of incursions and forays aided by ‘an Indra-worshipping fei who takes him across rivers far to the west of what was once the favourite habitat of the Bharata tribe. In other words the reference to Sudis’ early wanderings shows that Vadhryaéva’s worst fears for the Bharata tribe had indeed been confirmed: they have been forced out of the hospitable lands around the Sarasvatt But Suds appears to have chosen a new purohita mn place of the Indra- worshipping fei of far-flung fame. This in itself must have been a erucial decision and its significance is worth pondering over - both to Sudas and to Vasistha, the new purohita, Says the text: “Vasistha became the (King’s new) purohita, and then did the Trtsu tribe spread (far and wide). The Bharata-s, whose movements had so far been obstructed now gain “free space”.** Obviously the short epics of Vasistha’s chaplaincy'* lay much store on Sudis’ wise decision to use the services of so able a priest (and, as'it turned out, of so able a strategist, we may say.) Vasistha himself has not the slightest doubt that it was his chaplaincy that turned the tide for the Bha- rata tribe. At 7.18.15 he declares that the tribe, “vitalized by Indra, poured forth like released waters" - a simile that draws heavily on the experiences from the Aryans’ riverine life and is suggestive of victorious freedom gained after the frustrations of obstructed living. These descriptions which seem to depict the victory of the Bharata-s as an unexpected miracle help us to un- derstand 7.18.17 which says that (in this war) “Indra killed a lioness by means of a ram"st 48, 3.33 refers to Vitvimitra taking the Bharatas across VipiéSutuds, 8.59.0 shows ‘has the event is to be relatod to Sud’ time, So also Geldaer, preamble to tane lation of 8.38. S60 aleo Ch. IV 8 below, 44. abasae ea purald vaya | 8d it ttn vido oprothents - 7:33, ed, 45, rum. wokam ~ 7.38.4, 46, ie, 748, 7.9, 17.89, M7, indreva vevigind po na eit... - 7.18.15 ab, 48. simtyam eit peteend jaghina » 7.18.17, 3The Indra Cultas Ideology + A Clue to Power Sirneple in am Ancient Soviets Let us now turn our attention to some of the important aspects of the Ten Kings’ War in which Sudis emerged as the victor, and which is the highlight of the career of this Bharata prince, one of the few secular chiefs whose fame outlived the Revedic age {An important aspect of the War of Ten Kings according to RV 7.18 is, the clearly unequal distribution of forees in the war. Of one side there is the single Tytsu (=Bhorata) group, while against them stand on the other side the following: Simyu, Turvaéa, Yaksu, Matsyas, Bhrpu, Druhyu, Paktha, Bha- lina, Alina, Viginin, Pyénigu, Anu, Paru, Ajs and Sigru. ‘There are also Vaikarpa, Kavasa and Bheda which appear to be personal names. Its indeed impossible to know exactly how many tribal groups are here involved and so there is no way to say who are the major ‘Ten’ om account of whom the war gained its famous name. ‘Why did so many tribes feel impelled to array themselves on one side in ‘opposition to Sudas and the Bharata-s? We mutt certainly learn the unswer to this query if we are to make sense of much that we find obscure in regard to early Vedic tribal life and the struggles that must have prevailed therein. Whatever that answer is, it is obvious that the Bharata isolation was in great measure due to their violent and plundering habits of which a hint is found in the way they are described in RV 3.33: “‘cattle-hunters moving in hor- des”, “whose source of strength was Indra” - expressions which gain in mea~ ning only when we place them in the context of the views of the Indra cult.”:° In any case, the Bharata-s found themselves badly “besieged” and “they looked to heaven, like thirsting men, distressed’. Suds was ‘obstructed’? and ‘surrounded’. The chaplain complains: “the ill-will of (other Aryan?) peoples has arisen against me”** Another significant feature of the war is the characterization of the enemies of the Bharata-s as opponents of (the sacrificial) cult or as men whose fidelity to that cult was suspect. One of the best instances of such depictions 49. geman grimah... ite indrajGlah - 9:3,11b, Aa to what Tndra and is dovotecs” id to their opponcnta, sce balow Ch. IV. 6, Other rourencns to Indea's character (el. eg, poripanchin-1 103.60; mupiyan-10.99.d, muse 3.36.78) throw a flood of Ught fon How his devotess would have treated their adversaries 10, fee Ch, IV. below, 51, us dydm vet spmajo nates - 7.33.00, ‘5, badhtem = 7.88.60 (9, poriyaua + 783.80, 54, auhur jandnam ypa mam ordiayah - 7.88.5, 8Mahinde: Patihawadana is 7.83.7 where the enemies of Sudas are called “ten kings who do not perform sacrificial rites”.5* Another is 7.18.16 where they are described as “the party that is without Indra, that drinks the cooked libation” (ie. who are not Soma: drinkers=Soma_offeress). These expressions help us somewhat in understanding the remarkable statement at 7.18.19. which says that (the river) Yamuna and the Tptsu-s (=Bharata-s) rendered aid (in this war) to Indra‘? -which seems t0 be an inversion of the usual Rgvedic assertion that it is Indra who gives aid and protection to his devotees in war. It looks as though the poet's feling was that on this occasion the very worship of Indra was at stake, that the river and the god's devotees insured the defeat of those at whose hands there was actually a threat to the faith, These unequivocal indications of non (or slendet) adherence of the foes of Sudis to the Indra cult are supported by several other references in tbese hymns which depict them as distinctly of an unacceptable condition in matters of cult and worship. Thus the Piru chief at 7.18.13 is described as one “who ‘uses mis-spoken (7) utterances in the vidatha”.** It would seem that it is at Teast this very quality of ritual ineffectiveness that other expressions of a simiar nature in 7.18 highlight (e.g. “vain utterances”......“evil thoughts”... “futile words” - in stanzas 5,8, and 9)*. A not insignificant epithet in 7.18, applied to a foe of Sudis, is “measuring out meanly"® in stanza 15 - one that seems to emphasize the enemies’ rejection of the ethie of liberality: always a cherished quality in a true prince who follows the dictates of the cult as port rayed by the Vedic seers. But it must be emphasized that the hymns in question do not portray the enemies of Sudas vs irrevocably outside the boundaries of Vedic worsbip, in spite of their being called non-sucrificers in 7.83. This subtle distinction seems to us to be of vital significance. The evidence is that this distinction was in- deed intended. We get this impression basically through the strange but ‘unequivocal statement found at RV 6.83.6 where Vasistha says that when the gods aided Sudas who was besieged by the ten kings, “men of both sides” ine vVoked the aid of Indra and Varuna We view this of course in conjunction With the other statements discussed above. What those other statements say may actually be not that the enemies of Suidis did not perform sacrifice, but that in the eyes of Vasistha their ritual for some reason was not acceplable 55 dala vijanah ayeyavah - 7.88.70, 88, aniham..iftopim. anindram 7.16.60, {1, ead india yamundttanoad ca» 718 i0e, 58, idathe mrdhrandcam - 7-1.13d, Patatjalliniste that one should pronounce ono! ‘words extetly in ritual acts (Mabtbhanrs, p28), Urom Raapatha Be 88.19 Joarn that the Asures did not do just Us, and Satapathn ©8114 calls the Bis ‘agua. raas 89, ffaath - 7-18.00 ; durddhyah 8 ; eadhrivdoah » 04, 0, ratalain minanah-T-181se, on which ef. Geldner's translation ; “io ileal ‘Pomesten” and his note thereto: "Dh, aio gegen otter und Sanger gezig sad G1, indoe havonta ubhaydad.yura...udavam’ aeatom = 7.88.6, 3The Indra Cult as Wdeology : A Clue 1 Power Struggle in an Ancient Society as a true form of worship of the gods. These aspects of the minutiae of reli ious differences discernible in these statements should properly be the subject of a study in themselves. At this juncture they only serve to highlight to us that a large segment of the adversaries of the Bharata-s were Aryans of a religious persuasion that was dissimilar yet not wholly different from that which the great ysis espoused: it may be that other factors (political? sociologi- cal?) tended to show up these differences in an exaggerated form. That Sudas’ foes were both Arya and Dasa is explicitly declared. RV 7.83.1 says: “Slay the Arya foes and also the Disa; aid Sudas, O Indra, Varuna!” And at 7.18.7 the treasures the Tytsu-s (= Bharata-s) won ae said to be the Arya's (possessions): “He who is our companion a the Sonia draught brought the Arya’s (possessions) of cattle to the Trisu-s. With war has he come unto men.”® It would seem that itis just such_an Arya foe, an Arya chief, that is referred to at 7.83.5 under the term ari :“The evils of the avi torment me ~and the malice of his followers", And in this respect this reference to the ari is similar to other such references in 6.16, 6.47 and 9.61: they all refer to Aryan fnemies of Bharata or pro-Bharata tibes. @Q) Turvase-s We found that one of the earliest Aryan opponents of the Bharata-s was the Turvata tribe. It is noteworthy that the Turvasa-s in the RV are almost inseparably linked with the Yadu-s. (Of 25 references to the Turvasa-s and Yadu-s, 17 mention the two groups together.) tis interesting that the earliest parts ofthe RV have only a few references to the Turvaéa-Yadu tribes. 17 out of 25 references are in the Ist, 8th and 10th books of the Samhits. Conspicuously the opposite was the case in respect, of the Bhatata-s, who figure prominently only in the 3rd, 6th and 7th books. It must be stressed that this is a very noteworthy fact. ‘We found that the RV connects the Turvasa-s with the following events: 4i) Engagement against Srijaya Daivavatat Gi) Engagement against Divodisa Atith'gva®” il) Engagement against Sudas Paijavana** 2. ded co vftrd hata dyin’ ea {sudioam indrsarund "west vatam - 1.83.10, 4 yo'nayat eadhama’ ryaaya | gooyd trtubhyo ajngan yd nfm - 7.8.70, abhy & toponti md | “ghany aryo vara ardtoyoh 788.5 nb | Turvade and Yados 1.36.18, 08.6, 1088, 1749: IV.30.17: VL8; VI20I2, 45.1 VIE 18: VIE 47, 7.18, 914, 10,5, 4327; AN.OL2: 19.8, 6200, Rorvatas Va2uT ViLISG, VILLA, id; Yadus * VAIL Sis 020, 8.48 . _ 9o12 oe 4Mahinda Palikavadana | would be useful to find out what other group beside the Yadu the Tur- vata-s are associated with. RV 1.108.8 refers to Anu, Piru and Druhyu with the Yadu-Turvasa-s, 8.4.1/2 to Anu and others and 8.10.5 to Anu and Druhyu, In 7.18 we find oll of these - Anu, Paru, Druhyu, Turvaéa and Yada ranged against the Bharata tribe in the Ten Kings’ Wer. We have no evidence of any early hostility ketween the Turvaéa-s and the Dasa-s. The 9.61.2 reference to them must be understood as meaning that Divodisa defeated them as well as Sambara the Dasa chief (and not as meaning that Indra defeated Sambara for Divodiisa and aided the Yadu-Tur- vaéa-s, as Geldner assumes.) On the other hand, that the Turvata-s, like the Paru-s and others, collaborated with non-Aryans in the Ten Kings’ War is a well-established fact. The description “‘non-sacrificers” applied to the opponents of Sudas by Vasis:ha reflects that rss attitude towards the Tur- vaéa-é as well. But, and this is quite instructive, the later portions of the RV” consistently portray the Turvasa-s as regular adherents of the sacrificial cult, often under the guidance of Kanva priests. This contrasts so strikingly with the absence of even a single hymn that bears the stamp of having been composed to intercede on behalf of the Turvasa antagonists of Synjaya, (Vadhryaéva), Divodisa and Suds, It would seem that there lies behind this at least 2 conversion of attitudes if not of faith, @) Paras Although it looks as if the Turvasa-e were the earliest Aryan tribe to come ‘into conflict with the Bharata-s, itis the Paru trite that really vies with the latter for pre-eminence in Revedic India. The distribution of allusions to the Parv-s” is strikingly like that to the Torvata-s. The earliest books either ignore them or betray no knowledge of them, and the largest number of references to them is in the latest books. It is also imteresting, that, as in the case of the Turvaso-s,a distinctly hostile attitude to the Paru-s is betrayed in the pro-Bharato references such as 7.8.4 and 7.18.13 69, See note 41 above 70. 1405, 1088; VUILS1, 9.14, 1065, 4527 71, 1596, 68.7, 108.8, 1127/14, 120.5, 190.5, 191.4, 174.2; TV.21.10, 38.1.8, $92, 42/9 VAT, 27.19, 338; VI.20.10, 40. VITS3, 86, 1813, 03, $0.2, VETER, 19 32/96, 28.7, 307, 97.7, 49.10, 64.10, 65,12; X41, 32.9, 98/67, 48.5, 150.5,The Indra Cult as Ideology : A Clue to Power Struggle in an Ancient Society More, liowever, about individual leaders of the Paru tribe is known than is the case with the Turvata-s. The genealogy of Piru chiefs of the RV is as follows”? — 7 Durgaha 2 Parts 2 Tesh 4 —; ll $242 Trivran whe Miteitichi 67/52 Tryaruna ...Kuruéravana 77162. < Upamasravas Significant from our point of view is the Revedic treatment of the Piru chiefs, particularly the unnamed Paru of the Ten Kings’ War, as well as Durgaha, Purukutsa and Trasadasyu, Let us pay some attention to this treatment. ‘The Paru chief in the Ten Kings’ War is depicted as of unworthy speech (in worship) and, by implication, a non-sacrificer and one not entitled to Indra’s id. He fights against the Bharata-s in the company of Dasyu-s. Durgaha is almost a veiled and shadowy figure. We can surmise that he existed, only by virtve of the use of his name when referring to his descendancs. There is no evidence of these Paru chiefs having had the support of any of the Vedic priests of repute. Coming to Purukutsa, we se that be is not mentioned as a contemporary chief in any of the Vedic hymns.” We do not find any hymns that plead to the gods on his behalf. Yet obviously he was not a leader of minor standing. Later hymns" speak of him as @ powerful opponent of the Dasyus, a bresker of their forts, In one of the hymns describing the birth of Trasadasyw’® (his famous son), we are told that Purukutsa’s wife prayed to Indra and Varuna and obtained from them that heroic son as a very special favout to the Paru tribe. “And Trasadasyu is said to have been born while Purukutsa was in 72, CL, CHI 174, Indwig, Der RV HIL.174, 12. 78, Reforenoes to Purukutes by name: 1.08, 112,7, 194.2; VI.20.1°, Other altoions to Peid. 130.%, 13143 VILA. Referenons to B, as father of Tracadasyu. 442./9; 539.8 Tis; s:i.38 7 L037, 1742 76. 4a238i9 TB. dowyate dadiyamine + 44280,Malinda Palibawadana Trasadasyu, unlike these earlier Paru chiefs, is a favourite with the Vedic iis. He is depicted as an implaccable foe of the Dasyu-s and a munificent benefactor of the rsi-s of the Gautama, Atri and Kanva clans.” The pis shower the highest praises on him and speek of him as a man who was known to them at first hand.” Now this treatment of the Poru-s contrasts sharply with that accorded to the Bharata chiefs, all of whom from the start are referred to in contempo- rary and intercessory hymns e.g. 3.23 for Devavita, 6.27 for Spijaya, 10.69 for Vadhryatva, 6.47 and 6.61 for Divodisa and 7.18 for Sudis. (Sudasis also celebrated in 3.33, 7.33, and 7.83). On the other hand the treatment accorded to the Parus is (a) hostile or indifferent at the start, (b) ambiguous in the case of Purukutsa and (c) favourable after Purukutsa. This intriguing treatment of the Piru-s raises several important questions: Why did the Parv-s, having fought with the Disa-s agoinst Sudis, turn against them subsequently? Why do the rsiss refer to Purukutsa’s role as an opponent of the Disa-s conly posthumously? How did the attitude of the rsi-s change so profoundly as to allow a descendant of a “non-sacrificer” to be hailed as a demi-god in RV 4.42, as a here granted by Indra and Varuna to the Piru tribe? These questions are naturally linked with others no less important: What happened to Sudis after the Ten Kings’ War? Was the Piru participant in that war killed by Sudis? And whot was the over-all position of the Aryans in relation to the Dasa-s at the end of this war? ‘The war sould well have assumed an internecine character for the Aryans. ‘Many of their tribal chiefs are said to have been drowned of killed. A close Scrutiny of the statements made in respect of each person” involved shows however that the Piru chief was “sought” by the Bharatas “to be subdued”! it is not said that he was subdued, killed or defeated. And for some strange reason what ve hear about him in this war is the last that is known of Sudis the Bharata in the RV Samhit#, He apparently ceases to be an effective force, while the Arjan conflict with the Dasa-s assumes a new character in that the Paru-s become involved in it against the Dasa-s. We may surmise that the 11. Gautarna: 438, 442; Atel: 389; Kanva: 810, 78, Cf, eg, sane traadayor. canta md dasa detach (8.99.9); akin me... pate ‘rasadagyur vadhandin (8.19.30) 79, ‘Theve are aun in 7.18, st Geb, 7-2, 10-14, 18:19, 80. jepma param vidathe mpdbvandeam = 7.18.18, . 37‘The Indra Cult as Ideologe > A Clue to Power Struglein an Ancent Society Dasa-s utilized the weakened porition of the Aryans to take on all comers, oF that the Paru-s, like all participants in tripartite conflicts turned on their erst- while collaborators soon after the war. In any case, the all-important fact isthat after the Ten Kings’ War, the Bharata-s no longer occupy the paramount position that we would have expec ted them to occupy. In this sutton it is easy to understand. why the qeis- proclaim Trasadasyu as a gift of Indre and Varuna to the Aryans, a demi-god comparable with Indra himself, as the text portrays." It looks so like an tempt to rally the Aryans behind him, with no exceptions whatsoever. He ustfied the Aryans’ profoundest hopes and became such a vanquisher of foes that the j-s fondly espoused his cause, Certainly he belongs to an age when the Paru-s, and not the Bharata-s, were the hope of the Aryans But not so Purukutsa, His position in the Sarphita is very anomalous. He wears neither the veil that Durgaha does, nor the halo that Trasadasyu docs. He is certainly not ignored, but he is also not contemporsneously praised and supported by the ris. Ttis asa legendaty character that his praises are sung. That his wife is shown to have prayed to Indra and Varuna and obtained a son while he was held in captivity is clearly an attempt to portray that son in glowing colours. ‘The posthumous glorification of Purukutsa ap- ears to usas a reflection on the one hand of an ettempt to glorify Trasadasyu and on the other of an opposition to Purukutsa on the part of the qsies while fhe was yet alive. ‘This inctines us to think that Purukutsa himself might have been the Paru that figured in the Ten Kings’ War. The Paru of that war could defintely not have been Trasadasyu to whom epithets such as “non-sacrifcer”and “user of misspoken words" would scarcely apply. Therefore that Paru shovld have been either Durgaha or Purukutsa. The strangely anomalousway in which the latter is depicted and the fact of his becoming an opponent of the Disa-s ‘make us think that he fought against Sudis, escaped death and lived to see the demise of the Bharata-s and to lead the Aryan forces against the Dasa-s, who probably were then trying to take advantage of the weakened position of these new-comers to their land If we assume that Purukutsa was the Piru referred to in 7.13 and that he survived the Ten Kings’ War, we may ask ourselves whether the RV offers any evidence howsoever indirect on his subsequent activites. If we accept Ludwig's suggestion" that the text of RV 1.637 ¢ is faulty and that sudise there should really read suddsam, it would appear that Puru- kkutsa not only survived the war, but that the victor in that war was himself 81, Seo below, mn, 96,07 82, Der RVIEIT4, V.22, Seo aio Vedio Index under Suds, 6 and Gelder fa to 1,687. $8Mahinda Palihawadana subsequently conquered by Purukutsa Translated in accordance with Ludwig's suggestion, RV 1.63.7 should read somewhat as follows:-— “You Indra, then shattered the seven forts, fighting for Purukutsa’s sake, When you effortlessly ‘squeezed’ Sudis, like barhis grass, then did you bring freedom from confinement to the Poru (chief)."™ This emendation of text raises an important issue. If Sudis fell in this fashion engaged against the Piru chief, why is the RV silent on this point, except for this isolated stanza, which too yields this sense only with this deli= berate change of the traditional text? That is not so big 2 problem as appears at first sight. ‘The Vedic priest- hhood had already taken a strong stand against the Piru chief in the Ten Kings’ War and it was their considered view that his position in matters of cult and worship was quite unacceptable. Of course there must have been more to this than we can as yet understand. Later Vedie singers, however, were pat- ronized by this early Paru’s descendants and they had good reason to please and glorify these patrons by referring to the might of their ancestors. In this way the body of Revedic poetry may have come to contain several references to the heroic deeds of Purakutsa in respect of the Dasa-s and only one to his heroism in respect of his Bharata foe, Suds. It may be because some strong influences in the circles of Vedic orthodoxy were uneasy at this reference to the overthrow of the prince of the Bharata-s that the single stanza that referred to Purukutsa’s conquest of Sudas suffered for its outspokenness by the early mutilation of its original text. ‘Moreover, we cannot ignore the significance of the fact there are no hhymns in the RV that mention (leave alone support) any son ot descendant of Sudis the Bharata. As far as the evidence of the RV goes, with Sudas the ‘greatness of the Bharata-s came to an end. If Sudis died with the tribe at the zenith of its power after the gains in the Ten Kings’ War, this would bbe almost inexplicable. It is interesting to note that the later Vedic tradition mentions that the descendants of Sudis did not see eye to eye with the Vasistha-s who saved the Bharata-s in the War. And a very late, but nevertheless surprising, piece of evidence suggests that Suds came by an unhappy end. This is Manusmyti VI. 41 which says that Sudis the son of Pijavana lost restraint and was destroyed in consequence thereof. 58, fam ha iyad indra wapta yudlyan/pure .purubutsiye dard barhir na yat ede ‘thd arg } amho...cariah pirace ok {1.69.7 (amhah : aus Not Geldnee) 84. vinaso... dah patjavanah- Mana, VILAt, 9The Indra Cult As Ideology : A Clue to Power Stregele in an Ancient Society All this favours the adoption of the textual emendation proposed by Ludwig. And there is also a further argument in support of a reappraisal of the accuracy of the accepted text in this instance: this is that the text as it stands is almost completely incapable of yielding any coherent sense Nor is this all. We must also ponder on the meaning of ‘confinement" (amhas= constriction, state of siege etc.) found in RV 1.63.7. A clear instance of the Pau chief coming by 2 state of affairs that can be so designated is prov ded in the situation depicted in the description of the Ten Kings’ War. Suds was looking for the Piru in order to vanquish him, The result of Sudis thus Pursuing the Paru would easily amount to a state of siege or confinement for the latter. And if, 5 1.63.7 seems to say, the Piru chief obtained release from this state, that could well mean the destruction of Suds his oppressor. (Is 4.21.10: “You brought freedom to Paru”® a further echo of these events?) It then does not scem very unreasonable to assume with Ludwig that RV 1.63.7. depicts Purukutsa as defeating Sudis - thus pointing at the contempo- Taneity of the two leaders and the identity of the Piiru mentioned in 7.18, ‘Trasadasya Trasadasyu is not only the first known Piru king to have patronized the regular Vedic priesthood, he is also the only leader about whom any close ersonal information is supplied by the RV Samhit&. (CF. 442: his parentage and birth; 4.38: his great standing withthe Piru-s; his war-horse Dadhikraven; 5.33: his gifts to Samvarana; 8.19: gifts to Sobhari Kanva) “His praises are sung by Gautama, Atri, Kauva and Vasistha : a fact which eloquently reflects the high regard in which the rsi-s held him. ‘Trasadasyu's very name implies that it was on account of his. subjugation of the Dasyu-s that he earned his fame. In the consecutive series of leaders figuring in the destruction of the Dasyu-s, he appears to be the last significant member. Among the later kings whose relative position can be established. the name of Dasyave Vyka may suggest hostilities with the Dasyuss, but he ‘appears to be a leader of comparatively minor stature, References to Dasyu-s in some of the late Revedic hymns indicate their peaceful subordination as opposed to their earlier spirit of resistance. In all probability therefore Trasadasyu the Piru almost completed the Aryans’ task of disahaiya and this earned him the acknowledgement of most of ihe wellknown families of Vedic rs. ‘OF great interest to us is the occurrence of the words ari and arya in some of the hymns dealing with events of Trasadasyu’s time. 88, varicah irae hah- 4.21.10 oMahinda Palhawadana Among these hymns is RV 4.38. This hymn bespeaks the tremendous importance that Trasadasyu’s war-horse and car implied to the “five peoples” (among whom the Paru-s were a particularly important group and) who according to RV 4.38.10 were brought under the unified rule of Trasadasyu'® an event which must be regarded as a landmark in the history of Vedic tribes In this hymn the warhorse Dadhikra earns a special measure of praise. He is a gift of the gods to the Paru-s¥, a delight to each and every member of the tribe,** and he is “worthy of the a7i’s praise as is a heroie prince” One wonders if ari here refers to Trasadasyu himself, for in this context we can think of him only as having the standing that confers the ability to compliment another prince. ‘The word ari occurs three times in 5.33. It is our belief that the scene Which formed the background of th’s hymn isa festival of ritual contests whose institutor is referred to as ari. Trasadasyu appears as one of the contesting princes in this hymn, which is sung on bebo of these contestants°” We would render the relevant passages of 5.33 containing the words ari/arya as follows: 5.33.2 Advance, subdue ‘the ari’s men’ 5.33.6 I shall praise the gift of him who is more liberal than the ari? 5.33.9 Cyavatana, the arya, giving me thousands, sang the anika as though for glory’s sake? Apparently,cari here refers to a tribal chief of a group closely linked or related to the (Paru) princes mentioned by name, one of whom appears to be indicated by the derivative form of ari viz. arya. ‘These statements about the ari can become fully comprebensible only with a knowledge of the salient features of 86, d..davasd posta krslihtatdna -4.8.10sb, The wabjeet ofthe verb is dadhikrh as ‘betting the hyvan whieh i to glorify this renowned wat-hors of Trasodsay, 87. pirubhyab..cidatnk - 438.tbe [8 videwh parur masts harpundiah - 4.38.b, 80. corkrtyam aryo.nrpatim na diam ~ 4.9820. 0, ‘They aro refereed to in 5.88.6 Unats enya €© ta ind ye eo marah J dando jajhind 8t0h «. @ aamiin jegamydt.: We, O Tndre, and these heroes whe, forming into ® ‘roup, havo coma (to the ritual festival : aan)... Do you come toward us fe farrive here to eid wt win the prizes offered)”. These horoea ond the gifte, they gave after obtaining victory, xo individyally refered to Teter in the hymn as ‘Treandaayu, the sir (et 8), Videtho Mirutziva (Dab), Cyavatian (lind Divan Lakeuany (10sb) 91, entyo abhi prdryah soy jandn-5, 332d, On eabyi, of Shyane: parbhave; Geldner “Wade mit. erie" p72: gee even with > rirgah tuye tavimaghsya dnam - 6.8.6, sahaarand me cyovatine dadna | Gnikam aryo sapuse nireat - 328,80. Gonda, Aor BR 61‘The Indra Cult As ldcology : A Clue to Power Struggle in an Ancient Soctety the competitive festivals which seem to have occupied a prominent position in the cultural life of the early Aryan tribes. We shall be dealing with that aspect of our problem at a later stage. In RV 8.19 arya occurs again. It may be that here too Trasadasya appears ‘on the scene as a young prince, rather than as the formal chief of the tribe. tn ‘any case, the line which contains the word may be rendered as follows : 8.19. 36 (Trasadasyu)......the most liberal arya, the chief of the(ritual) house... , It is noteworthy that all five references in these three hymns yield a consistently unitary sense when we assume that uri and arya mentioned thercin ate (1) 9 tribal chief and (2) a scion of a family of such a chief. The contexts ‘help us to decide that the families concerned are of theParu tribe andjor tribes closely linked to them. And we found above that in the pro-Bharata hymns too, the word ari seemed to have been used to refer to the antagonists of the Bharata chiefs who significantly were of Piru and pro-Puru tribal groups ‘We might observe that the result of the application of Thieme’s bypothesis to these passages was conspicuously different. °* Legend of Trasadasyo’s Birth Most interesting to a student of the history of the Vedic tribes are the allusions to the birth of Trasadasyu in RV 4.42. The events mentioned there are as follows (@ Daurgaha was in captivity (it. “being held in bondage”) () The seven great ysi-s won Trasadasyu by sacrifice, a conqueror of vrtra-s like Indsa, a demigod,”* (©) Purukutsa’s wife made offerings to Indra and Varuna and then the two gods gave her Trasadasyu, the rijan, a killer of yptra-s, a demi. god.” 4, tramadasyur / mambietho aryah satpatis «8.19.30 be 96, F., pp. 21, 16, 82, 85, Thiome's renderings do not yiold n unitary sense and he haa lmost abandoned the hope of rendering 5.98.2 and 9 in conclasie way, 86. eapta rayon yajants trasadanyum,.indeaym na sttraturam aflhadecam 4.42.8bod 87, purututsdnt ha ed adaladd | hovyethir indrivarund ... thd rjénam trisdaeyum ‘ey | yftrahanam dadathur andhadewam “4.424 : aMahinda Paltawadana We must connect these sayings with what is said in 4.38 about Trasadasyu. “He showered many gifts upon the Paru-s. Indra and Varuna had granted (them) (this) striker of the Dasyu-s."®* His fietce opposition to the Dasyu-s is certainly the chief reason for his popularity with the rei-s, just as it also gave ‘him his name: “the terror of the Dasyu-s.” At the time of his appearance, the Dasyu-s obviously wers the overpowering menace to the Vedic Aryans. We can therefore agree with Norman Brown” when he expresses the ‘opinion that it was peihaps the Dasyu-s that held Trasadasyu’s father in captic vity. According to him the official (: this should mean “sanetioned and pro- Claimed by the fis") version of the birth of Trasadasyu during the captivity of Purukutsa was that he was partly of divine parentage - i. e.,son of Indra and ‘Varuna and of Purukutsa’s wife. In keeping with this version, Norman Brown interprets stanza 3 of 4.42 as a “self-praise” by Trasadasyu: “Indra am I, and Varuna." This appears to be a very much better interpretation of this stanza than any hitherto offered. Why was it prudent on the part of the ris to ascribe partial divinity (ct.