Harking back: Like the old, new ‘Battle of the Ten Kings’ unfolds

Of recent there has been a renewed interest in the epic ‘Mahabharata’, especially given its new interpretation by GN Devy. Scholars all over the world, especially India, are discussing notions that radicalised its interpretation. But then it has major lessons for Lahore scholars and students.

The major epic in this ageless Vedic classic pertains to a battle that was fought on the banks of the River Ravi surrounding Lahore. It is known as Dasanrajana, or ‘The Battle of the Ten Kings’. As one goes through the new interpretation one is astounded by how similar today’s political life of Lahore, broadly, is what happened then. The diverse forces that had collected to beat and defeat the Prince Bharata of Lahore are described in great detail. They sound exactly like the political clash, peaceful so far, that is unfolding before us.

In this piece my attempt will be to compare events past – over 3,200 years ago – to current events. The question really is that do we ever learn from history? Mind you that battle determined the future of the sub-continent as it was then. The proposition now is that will the unfolding battle, by ballot alone, determine the future of the land that Prince Bharata eventually ruled over. It makes one ponder whether ‘does history repeat itself?’

Let me, briefly, describe the battle and its components. On one side you had the ruler of Lahore, the Prince Bharata of the Trtsu-Bharata clan, and on the other side you had an amazing mixture of flags blue, black, yellow, pink and purple. I use colours to describe the variation of the components. In reality they were the rulers of Alina, Bhalanas and Bhrigus, all three of Caucasian origin but then conquerors of today’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Then they were the Dasas and the Matsya, both Indo-Aryan and rulers of Multan and Hyderabad of today. Then there were the Druhyus, or Gandharis, of the Potohar and lower semi-mountainous regions of the Punjab, including DI Khan. Add to these seven the Purus of Sindh and the Panis of middle Punjab and you have a collection of the most diverse armed groups.

Facing them across the Ravi was Bharata, the Prince of Lahore. Let us assume that he represents the current fallen king, while the other collection of nine represent the victor. Promises of shared loot played a part in both scenarios. Initially, the nine had chased Bharata towards Lahore, only for him to consolidate and take over all the business that flowed out of the port of Khziri Gate of ancient Lahore. All businesses flowing up and down the Ravi towards or from Kolachi (Karachi) and Multan were under his control, and one presumes they provided him with ample revenue. Now the nine all wanted a share of the spoil. Bharata would not allow this, naturally, for it was his domain. Hence the reason such a diverse lot got together to enjoy the spoils together.

The few details available from the research of a few top academics like Kanad Sinha, Joel Brerton and Michael Witzel tell us that a decisive victory over the 6,600 soldiers of the combined nine armies led to the Trtsu-Bharata victory and thus all tribal territory was conquered. But before such a change, what is amazing is that Bharata got the Sindh tribes to join hand and conquer the remaining eight. Thus we have in history the emergence of the Kuru Kingdom, in which the Sudas occupied the entire of western Punjab. This seems like a possibility for the near future of which indications are now emerging.

But with the Purus and the Bharatas agreeing to co-operate, this new tribal union led to the Kuru kingdom spreading far and wide over the sub-continent. Their popularity was such that the entire land was joyous. For interested readers one can only recommend them reading the Vedic texts first, naturally in a language they understand. The situation is amazingly similar to what is happening today, or is unfolding.

Naturally, no two situations are exactly the same, and neither is the outcome, but then time does teach us to learn from past experiences. The art of co-operation is what good battle strategy is really all about. The question is will the nine tribal groups keep their co-operation intact? Which of the nine wants the biggest cake to eat? This is where history comes into play.

A competent Cambridge academic tells me history teaches us that people living on the coast are invariable more interested in economic gains than those living in agricultural belts, for whom prestige also matters. Makes sense. At least in the Rigveda we see that the tribes of Sindh broke away first though they had to feed the smaller fishing vessel owners to allow them to dominate the fruits of trade. Amazing similarity with those who want to bag shipping and ports. One needs not describe their unquenchable thirst for ‘fish’. Fish does make one hungry.

The last battle against these tribes after they had returned home to regroup, was played out between the two top forces of Lahore and Sindh on the one hand and the remaining ‘forces’ on the other side. It was a one-sided contest that saw slaughter unlimited. Thus we see that in the end the brave ruler from Lahore ruled and his new kingdom emerged. Also in the process the emerging religion consolidated.

But what will happen now in Pakistan? Naturally this is a valid question. The point is that does history repeat itself? Who is Prince Bharata in this case, for ironically the two main components both belong to Lahore. Which of the two is Prince Bharata? In our case one is part of a tribal group of nine, while the other is alone and also opposed by other forces foreign. Will a new realignment take place or will our Prince remain arrogant about his ‘rightful’ throne being usurped.

For starters one should not believe in the proposition that ‘history repeats itself’. The forces at work are very different in every situation, and time period. There is no doubt that there is an amazing similarity, but we must learn from what the wise have said.

As I researched for this piece I came across a saying by Warde Fowler while writing in ‘Plutarch’, in which he says: “Two things are essential for a State to have a future, they are realisation of authority and obedience to it. A sense of moral duty comes with this. Rome had it, as did Early Britain. Sadly, the Hindu kings of old did not, for they followed what the Brahmins led them for their own economic gains”.

We have him further say: “Oppressive laws resulted in the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt”. This conclusion led me to think of the Greatest Exodus in Human History, that which followed the Partition of the Indian sub-continent. In a way this was also the outcome where one set of believers of an ‘Imagined Narrative’ threw out of the land another set of believers.

Today both set of believers have their own extreme narratives. The laws have become oppressive everywhere. It will take a new battle, hopefully a peaceful battle of the ballot, to determine just who is the real Prince Bharata? Will the forces of Sindh join hands like they did over 3,200 years ago? Without doubt a most interesting time in our history is unfolding. It will again be a Battle of Ten Kings, only the configuration will be surely different.