5

Commenting on Manusmṛti 2.23, Medhātithi says:

In fact, the name ‘mlecchadeśa’ is to be taken literally, in the sense that it is ‘the country of mlecchas’; so that if mlecchas happen to conquer a part of Āryāvarta itself and take their habitation there, that also would become ‘mlecchadeśa.

Does this mean after the British and European occupation of the Indian subcontinent, bharatavarṣa has become a mlecchadeśa? Therefore, was temporarily unfit for sacrifices?

He adds:

Similarly, if a certain well-behaved king of the Kṣatriya-caste should happen to defeat the mlecchas and make that land inhabited by people of the four castes, relegating the indigenous, mlecchas to the category of ‘Chāṇḍāla,’ as they are in Āryāvarta, then that which was a ‘country of the mlecchas’ would become a ‘land fit for sacrifices.’ And this for the simple reason that no laud is by itself defective; it is only by association that it becomes defective, just as it is when soiled by impure things. Hence, even apart from the countries designated here as ‘fit for sacrifices,’ if, in a certain place, all the necessary conditions are available, one should perform his sacrifices, even though it be a place where the spotted deer does not roam.

Does this mean after India gained its independence from the British it had become Āryāvarta again or should the Indian Prime Minister (assuming he's equivalent of a Hindu king) also belong to the kṣatriya caste for India/bharatavarṣa to again become fit for sacrifices?

  • 1
    Interesting question. Would the peaceful emigration to Āryāvarta, as opposed to forceful occupation of Āryāvarta, by mlecchas such as Parsis have rendered Āryāvarta a mlecchadeśa? – Vidyut Feb 24 at 23:02
  • @sv. reuters.com/article/us-foundation-india-caste/… I am sure there are purification rituals to remove the polluting touch of "mlecchas" – S K Feb 25 at 1:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .