At the very root of our nation’s name sits a conflict in tradition.

The Bhāgavat Purāṇa declares that Bhāratavarṣa received its name from Bharata, son of Ṛṣabhadeva, and agrees with Jain tradition- which refers to him as cakravartin.

But the Mahābhārata says that Bhārata came from Bharata, the son of Duṣyanta (a much later personality). What are we to do with such ambiguity?

The answer lies in using the insider-lens, not the outsider-lens. The answer lies in asking- how does it matter? What is the message being given?

Whether the son of Ṛṣabha or the son of Duṣyanta, what did our ancestors want us to learn? What were they trying to tell us?

Both Bharatas are models of resolve, piety, imperialism and equanimity- all and more. Both are called cakravartins, and both are said to have conquered vast territories. But both are shown to be men who conducted themselves in accordance with dharma.

Both Bharatas were men who used their power and position not for personal glory but for collective prosperity. Most importantly- both knew when to retire and to move on to the next phase of their lives.

That’s the difference between history as India remembers it, and history as the West would have it described. It is true- Indians are ahistorical. This is why we did not care for the ambiguity between Bharatas, nor for a certain date for either of them.

But equally is it true- Indians are deeply historical. We cared what examples our luminaries set. We cared for who we should remember and why we should remember them.

Whichever Bharata we prefer, we laud him not for Alexander-esque conquests, not for Timur-ian invasions and bloodshed, nor even for ‘spreading Hinduism’ beyond the borders of his native lands.

We laud him for upholding dharma, for embodying in himself the conduct, resolve and temperance that is required not just of humans in general but of leaders in specific. This is how we understand a civilisation’s self-description, its organic will to form a unified whole.

This unresolvable ambiguity between the two Bharatas gains another dimension when we realise that both the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata are attributed to one man- Veda Vyāsa. Why would Vyāsa confuse us suchly?

The case of two Bharatas is a way for our ancestors to sharpen our focus more on the lessons of history than on the descriptions of events. It’s a way for Veda Vyāsa to reiterate the ancient, continuing and sanātana nature of our civilisation.

Before every ‘first king’ is another, before every propounder of yoga and dharma was a prior guru, and before all the wisdom we may muster today stands the collective wisdom of our ancestors.

You wanna fight over which Bharata?

(This article has been compiled from the tweet thread posted by @saamaanyafreaky on September 07, 2023, with minor edits to improve readability and conform to HinduPost style guide)