Jump to content

Talk:Bharata Khanda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Errors on Map

[edit]

Firstly I would like to bring to your attention of the term, Ancient India. The name India was given by the British who adopted it from the Greek classification of Northern India and Pakistan as Indica. Indica was adopted by the Greeks from the river Indus which as called Hindu by the Persians. No where in Sanskrit, Tamil, Hindi, or any other South Asian ancient literature which mentions the word "India". The actual name for India was Bharat which consisted much of present day India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Not to sound like a sour puss, but saying there was an ancient India is like saying there was an Ancient America or an Ancient Canada.

As for the historical part of it, it is true that there was a Bharat consisting of 16 Mahajanapadas stretching as far north as parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to Bengal and ending as far south as Maharastra. The Mahabharata definitely explains that. However, Bharat did not include Southern India or Eastern India believe it or not. The Mauryans out of the 16 Mahajanapadas had ultimate control of the above description at the time accept for Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Sri Lanka. This includes the Moghuls as well. The states of Southern India and parts of Sri Lanka were formerly known as Tamilakkam which consisted of the Chola, Pandya, Chera, and parts of the Pallava kingdoms. Southern India was incorporated into the rest of India during the arrival of the British around between the 1600s to the 1700s and was called Carnatic by the British with the exception of Kerala. The 7 eastern states of India (seven sisers of India) did not become part of the British Indian Union until during the early 1900s.

As far as the names of the kingdoms are concerned on the map there are some errors listed below.

1. Kerala - In the southwestern part of the map their is a kingdom labelled as Kerala. Kerala is the name of the state and not a kingdom. The actual name for that is Chera. However, the name Kerala was derived from Cheras.

--- Kerala is NOT chera kingdom. read Vanchi Maa Nagaram, a book written in 1901 , written by diwan of sethupathi king.. it clearly states that Karur is the capital of cheras,.. kerala was NOT a kingdom.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.172.152.106 (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Sinhala - In the island of Sri Lanka there is a kingdom labelled Sinhala. Sinhala is the name of the people and language of Sri Lanka and not a kingdom. The Sinhalese kingdoms were the kingdoms of Kandy and Kotte. However, Lanka is mentioned in the Ramayana.
3. Kanchi - right above the kingdom Chola is labelled Kanchi. Kanchi is acually a name of an ancient city in Tamil Nadu and is short for Kanchipuram. Kanchipuram was the capital of the pre-Pallavas. Pallavas were in Northern Tamil Nadu and Andra Pradesh. The southern part of the Pallava kingdom spoke Tamil, while the northern part spoke Telungu which is a compostition of Old Tamil and Prakrit (old Sanskrit).
4. Dravida - right above Kanchi is Malyavat and right above Malyavat is a kingdom labelled Dravida. Dravida is a classification of ethnic groups and languages of Southern and Central India and parts of Sri Lanka. There are also two Northern Dravidian groups known as Brahui in Pakistan and Malto in an area in Bengal
5. Karanataka - To the left of the label Dravida in the Southern Central part of the map is Karanataka. Karanataka or Karnataka is the name of the state which borders Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The actual name of the kingdom there is Chalukya.

As for the Central and Northern parts of the map, I have not objections. I do see the names of the kingdoms labelled on the map correctly as it is in the Mahabharata as well as in the Indian history books. Please make the correction to the map if possible. Thank you.


I had a few problems with the article and I modified it accordingly, sorry if it appears wrong to some but one should be able to understand the legitimacy of the changes I made from below.

1) NEVER ANYWHERE in our surviving religious scriptures was or is ANY part of this whole earth, let alone 'Northern India' referred to as the 'dominion of Gods etc'. One may not be aware of their being referred to 'with great respect' and 'mystery' as well (unless some North Indians here might want to think so). Heaven is considered a totally separate realm, where Time moves at a drastically different pace (One Human Year is One Day in Devaloka or Heaven).

2) Why are only some kingdoms referred to as belonging to the 'Solar', 'Lunar' dynasties etc while the rest listed regionally? In the Mahabharata Era ALL these dynasties were supposedly belonging to one of those 'sister races'. There is no point in listing only some likewise.

3) Why are Dravida, Mahisha and Lanka Kingdoms listed here when they are not mentioned in the Mahabharata? I do not know where from Mahisha comes but Lanka was mentioned only in the Ramayana and was different from present-day Sri Lanka (or Sinhala in the Mahabharata). Also there was no separate dynasty or kingdom called Dravida. Present-day Deep South of India was in Sanskrit referred to as Dravida, and the Dravidas meant the Cheras, Pandyas and Cholas and other dynasties in the Deep South.

4) Kerala is the name of the state that came into being only in 1956 but the name for the kingdom/dynasty that ruled around that region was Chera. Others included the Pandyas, Cholas, Mushikas, Satyaputras and Tulu.

I have made the changes according to the above, please let me know if anybody might think otherwise.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Article title

[edit]

So, what's a good title for this article. I've done some research and

  • Epic India is never used to describe India during ancient times
  • Bharata Khanda appears to be used by numerous English language sources (e.g. [1], [2]
  • Would a descriptive English name be better?
  • Is there an alternative well used term (Bharata Ksetra?)?

Thoughts? --regentspark (comment) 15:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with Bharat Khanda? Its referred to by major scriptures according to the article. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think an English title of some sort would be better (as per WP:EN) and it should be recognizable (as per WP:Title). Something like "Epic India", "Vedic India", "India during the Mahabharata", etc. Paris1127 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use "Epic India" or "Vedic India" because these are not used as English language terms for Bharata Khanda. If the title is to be in English, it'll have to be something descriptive like "India during the time of the Mahabharata" or "Geography of India during Ancient Times". Though, of course, these titles are not accurate because the article is describing the geography of India as described in the Puranas, Vedas, and the Mahabharata. What constituted India might not be the same thing. (Note that WP:UE permits using the foreign name if there is no established term in English.) --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some unifying term for all ancient Hindu (or otherwise) literature? Sanskrit epics? Geography of the Mahabharata and Vedas? Wiki has a Geography of the Odyssey already, so perhaps the title of the article should be along the lines of that... Geography of Sanskrit epics? Geography of Indian epics? Paris1127 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Epic" is a western word. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 05:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Mahabharata and Ramayana are known as epics in English. What is the literal translation of "Khanda"? I know Bharata has something to do with India... By the way, if you want to split hairs, all Romantic, Germanic, Slavic and Greek languages of Europe are Indo-European, so epic could originally be from India... Paris1127 (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's not the point here. "Khanda" literally means "continent", so "Bharata Khanda" means the "Indian continent", or as is roughly equivalent in modern days, the "Indian subcontinent". I looked, and even regentspark looked for an equivalent term used by scholars to refer to Bharata Khanda, and didn't find any. So, in absence of any accepted English term, I would Support the usage of "Bharata Khanda". Also, I've been blabbering this many times now: Bharata Khanda isn't directly related to the Ramayana or Mahabharata. The Rigveda mentions Bharata Khanda, and this indicates that the term was in use much before the "Epic" era (The vedic age was before the epics happened/were written). So to say that Bharata Khanda refers to the continent during the Mahabharata would be wrong.
In any case, I think we are all sorta lost here, because we don't really know much. I know a couple of experts in this field, and I'll try and get them to comment here. Lynch7 16:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I am no expert. How about "Bharata Bhumi" or "Bharata Desha". "Akhanda Bharata" 'd be contentious, already an issue and its → "Greater India". -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 18:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bharata Khanda is a term that has been historically in use to refer to the Indian subcontinent. We'd rather not have a general term shall we. Lynch7 19:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dating of Maurya Empire

[edit]

There is an error of 1,200 years in Indian history as its read or known today. The basis of confusion is the Megasthenes's accounts whose Chandra Gupta of Gupta dynasty was erroneously taken as Chandragupta Maurya by the Western, chiefly, the British historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.23.87 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed from what I have read we are talking about a different dynasty here I think people have real problem in grasping the fact that Indian history goes back much more further than what is perceived by western historians in my view provide accurate academic sources and change the articles accordingly.--Navops47 (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of 36 royal races into Bharata Khanda

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge as proposed (withdrawn by proposer), but to consider an alternative target: Rajput clans.

Contextual presentation. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, please. Let this be a geography article, no kingdoms, no races etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that needs to be merged somewhere - probably to Rajputs? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page on Rajput clans, which is also in bad shape. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with @Kautilya3, Bharata Khanda is totally different topic. If it should be merged than Rajput clans is better and relevant option than Rajput. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Starting new proposal for the alternative target; see Talk:Rajput clans. Klbrain (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Texts- erroneous!

[edit]

Reference that "Bhaarat Varshe Bharata khande" is found in "Hindu Texts" is absolutely erroneous and appears to be with malintentions or distorted! "Nomenclatures Hindu, Hinduism, India and so on came into existence thousands of years after Vedas, BhagwatGita, Upanishads and so on came into existence! They are at the most misnomer! It would only be appropriate to state Sanatana Dharma texts and NOT Hindu texts! 103.235.120.54 (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bharata_Khanda&oldid=1233720654"