The Geography of The Battle of Ten Kings

After the mythical war of Indra with Vrutra, the most celebrated war that appears in Rig Veda is battle of ten kings, which was fought on the banks of the river Parusni. Hypothetically, it is considered that his camp was on the eastern side of the Parusni whereas his enemies, such as Shivas, Anu, Drahyu, Parshu, Pakht, Bhalanas, Puru etc., had gathered towards the western side of the river.

Parshus are identified with Persian people whereas Pakhtas are identified with the present Pakhtun tribe. Shivas may be the people from the IGVC. Bhalanas are identified with the people living in Bolan Pass region or Baluchistan. Anu tribe is identified with Parthians. Except for a few unidentified tribes, it clearly seems that the rest of the tribes inhabited the present day Afghanistan, Iran and its bordering regions. If we have a look at the geographical location of the Parusni (thought to be present Ravi), to wage a war with King Sudasa, the enemy tribes would have to travel for longer distances, about 500 miles, even had to cross the vastness of Sindhu river to reach the banks of the Parusni. In addition, even if considered that the Tritsus were settled by Parusni, present Ravi, it is quite unlikely that Sudasa could have initiated such a serious enmity amongst the faraway tribes those could have dared to travel such a vast distance to wage a devastating war against Sudasa. This makes the identification of Parusni with Ravi improbable for the geography does not fit the overall scenario.

First, let us turn to the possible cause of the war. It is assumed by scholars that the rivalry between seer Vishwamitra and Vasishtha was the major cause of this war. It is believed that Sudasa removed Vishwamitra from the post of chief priest. Hence, an anguished Vishwamitra left Sudasa to gather forces against him. However, to our surprise, we do not find any support for this assumption in Rig Veda as there is no mention of such an event taking place. In all probabilities, the war was fought over religious issues as Rig Veda describes enemy as ‘ayajju’, non-sacrificers or over the political supremacy issue. 

For waging war against a faraway enemy, traveling from Persia, Parthia, Nooristan, Pakhtunistan, Balochistan, etc., crossing the expanse of Indus and other rivers such as Jhelum, Chenab in itself is a wild thinking. In the first place, how Vishwamitra could gather forces, located in different and distant regions? If at all, he did so as some scholars tend to think, did he do that just to avenge his previous patron only because he had been fired? This is an unsupported assertion of the scholars that Vishwamitra was in any way responsible for the battle, as the Rig Veda does not speak of any such event.

Considering that even if the battle was related to religious hegemonic conflicts, how would such conflicts usurp between the tribes that are located at a distance of more than 500 miles away? There cannot be any political reason to have any rhyme or reason to make enmity with a distant tribal king. This fact alone confirms that the present Ravi was not Parusni on whose bank the devastating war took place. 

After the defeat of enemies, what is the scenario? Defeated tribes were not annihilated.  According to Rig Veda, the number of people who died in the war is 6,666. Though the figure could be speculative or exaggerated, the survivors of the war must have travelled back to their homeland after paying huge tributes.

The Rig Veda (7.33) mentions that Tritsus under Sudasa received tribute from defeated kings like Ajas, Sigrus and Yaksus. RV 7.18.13 informs us that Indra destroyed the seven fortifications of the enemy and gave treasures of Anu to Sudasa. This verse indicates that Anus after defeat could travel back to their capital and Sudasa chased them from Parusni to the Anu settlements in Parthia with an aide of Indra, destroyed their fortifications and recovered tributes from Anu’s sons. This again would be a wild guess made only to support the superficial theories! For coming to the war and chasing the defeated enemy up to his capital, one needs to be in a traversable vicinity of the enemy. Hence, Parusni cannot be equated with Ravi because pre and post-war scenario does not allow this to happen in all probabilities.

The migrationists have complicated this simple issue for their want of establishing migration of the Aryans from either direction. “Out of India Theory” (AIT) supporters, such as Talageri, boldly infer the westward expansion of the Vedic Aryans from the east after this war, whereas the AIT or AMT (Aryan Invasion and Aryan Migration Theory) theorists from the same incident conclude the eastward expansion of the Indo-European tribes. Since the basis of both the theories is wrong, they are using available proof conveniently without giving enough attention to the bare facts that whatever was the reason of the war, on whose banks, the war took place, that Parusni could not have been Ravi of Punjab!

Ravi name derives from the original river name Iravati. It is not at all derived from Parusni. We do not know for certain which river was intended by Vedic people. However, due to the lack of such an identification, we are left with no choice but to accept the fact that the river in question, Parusni, could have been any river that was located in the traversable distance of the enemy location in the vicinity of Helmand river.

Religious or socio-economical or political conflicts take place normally with the people living in neighbouring regions. Wars for political supremacy are not new. Since the locations of the other tribes such as Parshu, Pakhta, Bhalanas, etc. are almost undisputed, it would be wise to assume that the location of Tritsu tribe was, too, just about them. The upper side of the Helmand is the most likely identification of the location of the Tritsu tribe. The Parusni River could be one of the tributaries of Helmand or Aranghab on whose bank, the enemy could gather from different directions to wage the war.

Victorious kings and people do not abandon their habitat. Nor did the defeated as we find from the retaining the respective lands of the defeated tribes, like of Anus. Talageri’s suggestion that after this victory, Sudasa moved westwards of Ravi becomes ridiculous on this account. 

The essence of the war is the Tritsu tribe under Sudasa, after victory over all participant tribes, who must have attained fame in the known world of those times. Rather, after the victory in this and subsequent battles, Sudasa must have emerged as a hero of those times. The Rig Vedic compositions and the fire sacrifices must have attained respect and attraction among the neighbouring world to which he had patronised like his ancestors. The glory must have travelled as a word of mouth to even the distant world to interest them in Sudas and his religion. Sudasa, too, must have made efforts to spread his religion, as most of the patrons or prophets do.

Zarathustra, too, spread his religion with the assistance of royal patronages. The Vedic religion must have stood opposite to the Persian faith after the battle, as Parshu was another tribe to meet with the defeat. This event could have blocked the Avestan spread to the south and southeast as an opposing faith stood strong to prohibit such entry. Hence, it clearly seems from the annals of history that the Avestan faith spread westwards while the Rig Vedic faith spread eastwards, albeit after some lapse of time.

The divergence of Vedic faith from Asur Varuna to Daeva Indra could have possible roots in the transitional phase that Vedic tradition met with after this most celebrated war. In a way, the war became a real landmark in the Vedic religious history that divided the two faiths distinctly. The vedic shift was from common Asura (Ahura) worship to Daeva (Deva) worship through distinct fire sacrificial practices.

Whitney, too, seems to be surprised by this sudden shift. He states that “This most interesting side of the ancient Indian religion exhibits itself in the Vedic hymns as already fading into oblivion; the process of degradation of Varuna, its principal representative, which has later striped him off his majestic attributes, and converted him into a mere god of ocean, is commenced; Indra on the one hand, is rising to a position of greater prominence and honor above him…..” 

From Rig Vedic accounts, we understand that the clan of Sudasa, Tritsus, could not retain the same glorious position afterward and in course of the time, declined so much so that the new contributors to Rig Veda were forced to accept patronage from the people for whom they had nourished hatred in previous times. Tritsus were erased from the pages of the history, as we find no references to them in later Vedic traditions that re-flourished in India.

To sum up, Tritsu tribe resided in the vicinity of Avestan Harahvaiti (Sk. Sarasvati) where most of the Rig Veda was composed. After the decline of the Tritsu clan, new enthusiastic patrons and disciples took up the Rig Vedic tradition, may be because of political reasons or because of its disintegration. It should not come as a surprise when we find Pijvana Sudasa being condemned as a Shudra in Manusmriti because the later events that took place in Afghanistan after the war must have brought further calamities on the Vedic religion. Tritsu clan is absent from all other later Vedic literature. It is possible that the shift of the geography of the Vedic religion was an effect of it. We will see in the next chapter how this process of shifting could have taken place. 

Notes: 

1. Raj Pruthi states in this regard that “The Rig-Veda represents the battle have been fought on the banks of Parushni. This location of the conflict, however, seems to be most difficult, if not quite impossible, if we consider the territories occupied by the different members of the confederacy at the period, according to traditional history. The Durhyus were occupying Gandhara at the time, and it is difficult to see how they could be interested in or affected by the conflicts of people far away from them. The Turvasas, as already stated, did not exist at that time and if they did exist, as suggested by Pargiter, it is difficult to comprehend how they marched off over 500 miles from the Karusha country to participate in the exploits of a remote king.” (‘Vedic Civilization’ by Raj Pruthi, Pub. Discovery Publishing House, 2004, p. 85)

The information that the above paragraph provides and the questions it poses strengthen our case that the identification of Parushni with Ravi is not correct.  Rather, coming to Ravi would be far distant for the Persians, Parthians, and Turanians than that of other tribes. Hence the Parushni must have been any river in southern or central Afghanistan.

2. Parusni: There is no unanimity about the identification of the river Parusni. This river in Rig Veda is also called Mahanadi. (RV 8.74.15). Pischel suggests the word “Parus” is derived from the flocks of wool, not from bends of the river, as understood by Nirukta or from the reeds as Roth suggests. Hopkins had suggested that the Yamuna could be another name for the Parusni whereas Geldner suggests that the Parusni is merely a tributary to Yamuna. Actually, as Pischel suggests wool (urna) is connected with Parusni river, hence  “Parus”, flocks “Urna” Wool would mean flocks of the wool. (“Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, Volume 1”, By Arthur Anthony Macdonell & Arthur Berriedale Keith, Indian edition, pub. Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,1995, p. 499-500.) Pischel suggests, Parusni was named from richness of its sheep and as Gandhara ewes were famous, this would indicate that in all probabilities this was a river from Gandhara region. (Ibid, p.41.)

If this is the case, the river could be associated the people where sheep rearing for wool was a major business of the people residing across its banks. The place, again could have been in Helmand Basin or Swat valley. Equating this river with Ravi may not be correct.