History Of Andhra Pradesh

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-"RamaY"+-->QUOTE("RamaY")<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Book Summary: Sri Kota Venkatachalam garu's ANDHRULEVARU? (Who are Andhras?)</b>

In his book “Andhrulevaru?” Sri Kota Venkatachalam garu explores the Indic roots of Andhra race (people) and highlights the factual and logical errors in the historical presentation of the same by colonial historians and later day Indian historians.

Modern historians lead by the British historians who colonized India for more than 200 years associated the “əndrə” word mentioned in “Aitareya Brahaana” with the “a:ndrə” race as both the words appear to be having phonetic similarities. In Aiteraya Brahmana, the “əndrə” jaati (race) is a dasya jati (non-arya race). One must not confuse the word arya with the fascist Aryan representation as coined by western world. Here the word aryan means that the specific family/root is originated from sapta-rishis (seven root rishis of Bharatiya civilization) and the observance of chatur-varna system (not caste) within the society.

The word “əndrə” is mentioned in the Aiteraya Brahmana and the story goes as below

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Long time ago a king named Harischandra prayed Varuna-deva (lord of water) to be blessed with a son. After a long penance; Harischandra got a boon from Varuna-deva to have a son on a condition that Harischandra would offer the same son as a human-sacrifice to Varuna.

Harischandra got the son but did not want to fulfill his promise of human-sacrifice. Varuna got angry and cursed Harischandra with a despicable descease. Harischandra realized his mistake and made the necessary arrangements for the human-sacrifice of his son.

His son did not want to be sacrificed for his father’s word. So he escaped from the yagna-sala and ran away from the kingdom. As an alternative, guru Vashista advised king Harischandra, to offer a substantial bounty to the person who is willing to replace Harischandra’s son as the human-sacrifice.

A poor brahmin-family with three sons came to know about this offer. The father did not want to offer his elder son as elder son is expected to do the after-life rituals to the parents. The mother did not want offer the younger one out of affection. The middle-son, Sunassepa, understood his parents predicament and offered to go as the human sacrifice.

At the yagna, Vishwamitra took extreme pity on Sunassepa and admonished King Harischandra for his selfish motives; of sacrificing an innocent Brahmin boy, to save his old body. King Harischandra did not heed the advice and continues with the Yagna. Sunassepa requests Viswamitra to let the yagna continue so that he can keep his word to the king, and his parents.

Viswamitra gives Varuna-mantra to Sunassepa and asks him to read it loud to gain the blessings of Varuna-deva. Upon reciting it, Varuna comes to the yagna-sala and relieves Sunassepa and Harischandra’s from the sacrificial obligation.

Impressed by Sunassepa’s honesty and humility, Viswamitra brings the boy to his home and introduces him to his 100 sons and commands them to accept Sunassepa as their elder brother. The 50 brothers do not agree to father’s command and are cursed by Viswamitra to abandon dharma and join the non-aryan tribes of Andhra, Pundra, Sabara, Pulimba, Mootiba, etc.

Relevant sloka from Aitareya Brahmana seventh panchaka, third chapter
“tasyah viswamitrasyai kasatam putraa asuh pamchasa devajyam somadhuchachamdanah panchasatkaniyamsa stadyejyayam sonate kusalam menire, tananuvyajaharaomtanvah praja bhakshisteti tayete Andrah Pundrah Sabarah Pulinda Mootibaa Ityudantaan”

The remaining 50 brothers starting Madhuchanda obayed their father’s command and accepted Sunassepa as their elder brother and received their father’s lineage.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
British historians and later modern Indian historians were hurry to call a:ndrə-race as a dasya race to hide their own prejudices and to show Indic civilization in negative light.

The author analyses the origins of a:ndrə-race from historical, social perspectives logically and offers more factual and Indic perspective.

1. Phonetic resemblence: If a:ndrə word has to be associated with the əndrə-race mentioned in Aitareya Brahmana for its phonetic resemblance, then there is another similar race exists in the chandra-vamsa (moon). Yadu’s son “Kroshtu”s lineage has “Vrishni, Andha, Bhoja” and the children of Andha are called “Andhakas”. Then why can’t these Andhaka’s become the originators of Andhra-race? (Andhaka’s couldn’t have been the originators of the modern Andhra-race because Andhakas belong to only Kshatriya-varna, thus couldn’t have been the originators of a chatur-varna race that the modern Andhras are)

2. While the əndrə-race (as cursed by Viswamitra) are non-aryas and uncivilized, the modern a:ndrə-race has been following the chatur-varna system and studying vedas for thousands of years. If the chatur-varna system is able to flourish for millennia even under the current (sic) secularist governments, how can uncivilized are allowed to reenter the chatur-varna system and learn vedas in the times where the Raja-dharma was to protect chatur-varna system and protect vedas?

3. The origins of Andhra race can be found in Vyasa Bhagavata in 9:23 slokas 5 and 6

Anga vanga kalingaadyah Sumhma Pumdraamdhra Samjnitah
Jajnire deergha tamaso baleh kshetre mahekshitah ||5||

Chakruspvanamnaa vishayan shadimaan praachya kamschate ||6||

King Bali has six sons 1. Anga, 2. Vanga, 3. Kalinga, 4. Sumhma, 5. Pumdra, and 6. Aandhra with the blessings of rishi Dheergatama. These six sons got the six parts of the eastern kingdom and named those kingdoms under their names and ruled them

4. Timing of Andhra Nrupati (King Aandhra). Aandhra belongs to the 16th lineage of Yayati. Romapada, friend of King Dasaradha, is a contemporary of Andhra king. This Dasaradha is the father of Rama, who gave his daughter Santa to Romapada (adoption) and shanta later got married to Rishi Rishyasrunga. Dasaradha ruled Arya-vrata approx 14,000,000 years ago. So Andhra race existed since then.

5. Vedic-civilizations with chatur-varna systems existed even before these six kingdoms were given to the sons of Bali. One can use the example that even before the city “Madras” was named so by colonizers, the city existed with its own civilizational and social systems.

6. Lineage: The 50 sons cursed by Viswamitra are kicked out of Kausika gotra and lost their lineage. Sunassepa took Kaushika gotra under a new name “Devarata”. The pravara for Sunassepa’s lineage is “Vaiswamitra, Daivarata, Jaudala” under Kaushika gotra. The original Kaushika gotra has the pravara (lineage) “Vaiswamitra, Aghamarshana, Kaushika” {I belong to this gotra}

7. Andhra race is a pure arya-race: Arya means sons of Isvara = originated from aryas=Sapta Rishis. Indic civilization is originated from Sapta Rishis and accepted Veda pramana (Standard) and had a social system consisting of “Chatur-Varna” structure.

8. Manusmriti says that there exists an əndrə tribe that used to live in hills and forests with a sole occupation of killing and robbing along with other such tribes Nishada, Ayoga, Medu, Chunchu, Madgu etc. And no where is our puranas or epics we read that a mountainous tribe defeating a kingdom and accepting/absorbing the defeaters’ arya-culture and chatur-varna system. So the present chatur-varna andhra jati couldn’t have originated from a dasya tribe.

9. Similarly there exists a tribal/dasya jati named Avantyas. If we apply the same rule as above even the people from Avanti kingdom must become dasyas and it goes on and and on.

10. Even if we accept that Andhra’s are the cursed sons of Viswamitra, in present day andhra-race there exists many other brahmins and Kshatriyas belonging 300+ other gotras (lineages), 200+ gotras of vaisyas, and numerous sudra gotras. None of the people (chatur-varnas) existing to these other gotras belong to Viswamitra’s lineage. How stupid the historians must be to associate the entire andhra-race to a dasya race to hide their racial prejudices.

11. And a word on caste system. Bharatiya chatur-varna system is not a caste system. Max-Muller had this to say on the word caste.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“This term “Caste” has proved most mischievous and misleading, and the less we avail ourselves of it the better we shall be able to understand the true state of society in the ancient times of India. Caste is of course, a Portuguese word, and was applied from about the middle of the sixteenth century by rough Portuguese sailors to certain divisions of Indian society which had struck their fancy.

It has before even used in the sense of breed or stock, originally in the sense of a pure or unmixed breed. In 1613 Purchas speaks of the thirty and odd several castes of the Banians (Vanigs).

To ask what caste means in India would be like asking what caste means in England, or what fetish (Feitico) means in portugal. What we really want to know in what was implied by such Indian words as varna (color) Gati (kith), to say nothing of Sapindatva or samanodaktatva, Kula (family), Gotra (race), Pravara (lineage); otherwise we shall have once more the same confusion about the social organization of ancient India as about African fetishism or North American totemism. Each foreign word should always be kept to its own native meaning or, if generalized for scientific purposes it should be most carefully defined afresh. Otherwise every social distinction will be called “caste” every stick a “totem” every idol a “fetish”.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

12. While Indic civilization saved its cultural and char-varna system; the European civilization became savage by inter-mixing with barbarians. Their prejudice about Indic-civilization stems from this as stated by Vide Keller (The Lake Dwellings), Taylor (The Origins of the Aryans).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“The Europeans became in time many races and tribes and that they, mixing with the barbarians became themselves savages, have been clearly proved by the researches of the European scholors”
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

13. Another example of western historian’s imagination. V.A Smith writes as following in his “Early History of India – Page 431”

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“Consequently, people of most diverse races were and are lumped together as Rajputs; and that most of the great clans now in existence are descended either from foreign immigrants of the fifth or sixth century of the Christian era, or from indigenous races such as the Gonds and Bhars. This finding will, I fear, be displeasing to many families of Indian gentry, who naturally prefer to believe in orthodox Brahman made pedigrees going back to the sun, moon or fire-pit, but I am convinced that it is substantially true, although the evidence of a kind difficult to grasp, and incapable of brief presentation
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And to prove his point he quotes Dr. Bhandarkar’s paper “Guhiltos” in the foot note; which says
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“The Ranas of Mewar or Udaipur, admittedly the premier chiefs in Rajaputana and the leaders of the Rajput chivalry, are descended from Nagar Brahmans, that their ancestors, after the became chiefs, were known as Brahma-kshatris, and that they were closely associated with the kings of Vallabhi, who belonged to the Huna-Gurjara group.

Bhandarkar’s views about the descent of the Ranas are disputed at great length by Pandit Mohanlal Vishnulal Pandia, who criticizes his documents and upholds the tradition that the Ranas are descended from the Kings of Vallabhi (J.Proc A.S.B 1912 P.P 63-99)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This reminds the readers of one thief presenting another thief as alibi.

The truth is:

Vallabhi kings are Brahmins who followed Kshatra-dharma (BrahmaKshatra). Sri Harsha Vikrama gave his daughter to the Vallabhi king Dhruva Bhattu in marriage. The “Bhattu” word indicates that Dhruva Bhattu is a Brahmin. Vallabhi kingdom is in Saurashtra. Brahmakshatra king Chalukya ruled Saurashtra from Dwaraka as capital since 278 BC.

<b>In summary the mis-interpretation of Indian history would not have happened if Bharat was independent throughout the history. Better late than never and it will be Indian interests if Independent India starts writing its history based on its standards and perspectives than from some prejudiced colonizers. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->