By
Rama and The Ramayana
Prof. Sudhindra Mohan Mishra, Darbhanga;
Published in The Indian Nation, Patna, March 8-13, 1998.
A decade and a half ago, Dr. E.S., Sharma had written in a private letter to me “Where did Rama live then?" mentioning the non-existence of any archaeological evidence of any settlement in Ayodhya beyond 7OO BC. This forms the backdrop for this write up. But the dust storm, flickering light, cacophony end lack of harmony in the background music etc. clearly shows that the stage is not set for either unraveling the story or plot. This needs a thorough probe and research..
The tragedy with this God of the Hindus is that he suffered in the past and is suffering today in the hands of (1) Ignorant traditional Hindus with heavily interpolated texts (2) The European scholars who question his historicity out of jealousy and (3) Our own so-called modern historians who neither see reason nor the obvious or apparent things.
The story of Rama Dasarathi of Ikshvaku dynasty of India has been a favourite theme of several renowned authors right from Valmiki (c.. 1700 BC) to Ramanand Sagar (c. 1980 AD). Unfortunately, either the authors themselves or their subsequent editors have been economical with facts and have taken liberty with practically every branch of knowledge viz. history, geography, etymology, geology, chemistry, mathematics, astronomy etc. As if compounding fiction, invention, fabrication and facts was not enough, they have given Satanama. and Sahastranama, confusing synonyms, thereby confounding the confusion. It is a great deterrent to research and disheartening to a worker. And Pargiter accuses Brahmins of "notorious lack of historical sense", perturbed by the galore of anachronisms.
The two very important facts that emerge from these stories of Rama and other sources are (1) that there were three Ramas in the Hindu pantheon or religion, distinguished by prefixes and suffixes viz. Parasu Rama, Bala Rama and Raja Rama Chandra; (2) that the Rama of the Ramayana or other stories of Ratna betrays a four in one Rama i.e. (1) Rama or Advaita Parama Brahma (unique one almighty God beyond definition), (2) Rama, the incarnation of the God Visnu (a prime mover of the trinity of Gods in the Vaisnavite sect of the Hindus), (3) Rama, the eldest, son of the legendary King of Ayodhya, Dasarath Ajeya and (4) Dhirodatta Nayaka (a hero par excellence) and an utopian king of the various writers. If one is able to discern these the problem becomes rather less complex, if not simple.
The author thinks it advisable to recount some of the important views about Sri Rama and his story before he discusses and analyses facts and presents his own views for scrutiny and paving the way for further probe and research in the field. Now, what others have said will be briefly recounted here.
A. L. Basham commits a blunder when he jumps to the conclusion in his book "The Wonder that Was India'' (p415) and writes "The story of Rama's adventures in exile has thus no historical basis whatever, even if we rationalize his monkey allies into aboriginal tribesmen with monkey totem."
'No wonder Dr. Sharma does not believe, in the historicity of Rama's story, after all he was the chela of the Guru Basham in U.K. Dr. B. P. Sinha was his friend and contemporary and perhaps, differed with him on this point.
In Mazumdar Raychoudhari and Datta's "An Advanced History of India" we find "One such story, that of Dasaratha and his son Rama of the Ikshvaku family, is alluded to in the Jataka gathas and illustrated in bas-reliefs of the second century B.C." And also “The last mentioned writer (Patanjali) also shows some acquaintance with the Kishkindhya episode of the Rama story. It is however, difficult to say when the ballads about Rama's adventures or the Pandavas' victory first assumed the form of a full-fledged heroic Kavya or epic. The names of Valmiki and Vyasa, sons of Parasara and the reputed authors of the Ramayana and the Pandu epic, the Mahabharata, seem to occur in certain later Vedic texts. But the first dated reference to the Ramayana as an epic is contained in the works of Buddhist and Jain writers of the earliest centuries of the Christian era. But even then it contained only 12,000 verses, i.e. only half of the present size. They write further, the age of the epic cannot be pushed much further back because the knowledge, however inadequate of southern India beyond the Godavari, and of eastern India beyond the land of the Pundras and the Vangas, betrays a geographical outlook that is distinctly wider than that of the entire Vedic canon and the early Buddhist Nikayas. Of the two ancient Sanskrit epics the Ramayana is alluded to in, and was probably completed before the Mahabharata. But while the Mahabharata was known to Asvatayana and Panini, there is no similar early reference to the Ramayana. The latter epic, moreover, mentions Janamejaya and "Vishnu who upraised a mountain with his hands," i.e. probably Krishna. The latest books refer to Vasudeva of the Yadav family and his close associate, the incarnations of Nara, i.e, Arjuna.
After writing the story of Rama in brief they conclude, "It is difficult to say if there is any kernel of historical truth under this tale of or prince's adventure in the land of cannibals and monkeys. Rama and Sita are names met with in the Vedic literature, though not always as appellations of human beings. They are, however, in no way connected in the Vedic texts with the illustrious lines of the Ikshvakus or the Videhas. The name of Ravana is absolutely unknown to Brahmanical or non-Brahmamcal literature till we come to the epics themselves or to works like Kautilya’s Arthasastra, which show acquaintance with the epics. It is however, possible that, Ikshvaku princes played a leading part in the colonisation of the far south of India, as names of Ikshvaku , kings figure prominently in the early inscriptions of southern India. Whether the name of Ikahvaku was first popularised in the south by princes from Ayodhya or by followers of the Sakya teacher of Kapilavastu. who also claimed Ikshvaku descent, must remain an open question."
What a volte face, a fine example of the "Vandhya Putra" (reductio ad absurdum?) — however, quite unlike the prince Duryodhana of the Mahabharata fame, they have conceded some pin points or rather pinpricks to the greatest and the best ruler of India and Asia, in the historical space. But another historian of repute (who shows better understanding and is one of the best writers of the world) Dr. Ramashankar Tripathi writes in his "History of India", (65) 'There is no doubt that it is thickly interwoven with mythological fiction, but to discredit the historicity of Rama altogether appears too wide an assumption. He is mentioned in the Buddhist Dasaratha Jataka, where we see him in his normal form divested of divine attributes. It is also known that Kosala was an important kingdom in Madhyadesa ever since Aryan expansion eastwards. What, therefore, may be taken as the nucleus of fact is that Rama was a real person, who belonged to the royal Ikshvaku house of Ayodhya and whose achievements, both in war and peace, left a deep impression upon the popular imagination. The epoch of Rama's beneficient rule is however, as uncertain as the contemporary political condition of northern or southern India.”
It was neither permissible nor purposeful to discuss about the book, the Ramayana and its characters without this prelude. The article is meant for everybody viz. general readers, laymen and scholars. Moreover the author would have been charged for (1) concealing facts, (2} withholding vital or important information and (3) presenting only one side of the picture.
We take up first the work, the Ramayana which is the oldest story of Rama, written by the first Indian poet Valmiki during Sita's banishment. This is disputed by the western as well as anglicised Hindu historians. They consider it to be a late work or rather a compilation of the prevailing popular legends.
It is not fair to deny Valmiki of the authorship on flimsy grounds — a changed man who gave shelter to the hapless Sita, a confidy of both Rama and Satrughna, trained Kushilab (Kusulak or Kush and Lava) and finally almost restored Sita and the sons to the suffering Raja Rama. Whether compassion or compulsion or a spontaneous reaction (due to the plight of the separated Kraunch by death or the separated couple Sita-Rama) was responsible one can only speculate and cannot come to a definite conclusion. In such matters it is better to rely on traditions. However one can refer to R. S. Tripathi and others for a plausible theory about the origin of the epic or rather epics.
The existence of a poet at that age and the composition of metrical Sloka is not improbable, if the Gayatri (Gai+Atri?) of Visvamitra and also Maithili Sharana Gupta and Michael Madhusudan Dutt and Bankim Chandra. One may say it underwent change and was edited according to the times and whims of the persons concerned or rather due to poor memory of the street singers. On the basis of Bhanu Singer Padawali we can dispute the poems that go by his name, nor the numerous Shankaracharyas and their undated works can discredit the first or Adi Sankara, the commentator etc. and divesting him of his historical character will be unjust! The same set of rules apply here also.
The orthodox Hindus believe that the Ramayana was composed in Treta, when Sri Rama was ruling in Ayodhya i.e. approx. 8,67,100 years ago — a result which is incompatible with our present knowledge and the then world. It seems that Aryabhata's computation of the Manvaatara was incorporated in the text of the Ramayana unjudiciously by an ignorant and over enthusiastic editor — no further comment is needed.
To determine the age of the Ramayana is problematic because of the subsequent alterations, interpolations, omissions and additions made by several hands. But its unique genealogical table differing from all others, reiterated clearly that even the so-called additional interpolated cantos are earlier than the final compilation of the Puranas by c. 290 A.D.
Altekar accepts c. 50 B.C. as the date of the work. E. W. Hopkins in The Great Epic of India, is wary of the synthetic method and the date of c. 500 B.C. for the composition of the epic thus arrived at and pleads for the analytical method. He accepts more or less the same date but sees the kernal of historicity. Weber, on the other hand, imagines that the work is influenced and inspired by the Dasaratha Jataka and Sita’s abduction has been borrowed from Homer's work and then feels that the Ramayana could not have been composed earlier than the second century B.C.
Jacobi assigns a date prior to 500 B.C. and Wnternitz c. 200 B.C. and both of them have thoroughly examined the text. The gist of their contentions will be enumerated later. We have taken leave of them only to enumerate quite a few other views or dates, viz. Velvalkar suggests a date upto 200 B.C., DC Sen upto 300 B.C., Upadhyay definitely before 500 B.C., C. Pandey upto 500 B.C., Rahul Sankrityayan from 200 to 150 B.C., Vardacharya before 3100 B.C., Kieth.upto 400 B.C., Father Bulke upto 600 B.C., A. Sehleigel 1000 B.C., G. Gorecio 1200 B.C.. So we see opinions vary to a great extent and it is beyond the scope of this short essay to discuss in detail all such views as there exists some merit in each case. But the views of Professor Jacobi and Wintemitz as enumerated by PL, Bhargava in his book India in the Vedic Age is being given here to give an idea or rather a taste of the nature of arguments.
A summary of Jacobi’s reasoning follows: (1) The human hero of the genuine Ramayana has in the first and last books become deified. (2) In these books alone Valmiki appears as a contemporary of Rama. (3) There are two tables of contents in the first book one of which takes no notice of the first and last books and must therefore have been made before these were added. (4) The language and style of these two books is inferior to those of the remaining books. (5) Indra is the highest god in the genuine Ramayana as against the first and the first and the last books. (6) In these books alone the thread of the narrative is frequently interrupted by numerous myths and legends of the type occurring in the Puranas and the Mahabharata. (7) The spuriousness of a large part of the first book is further proved by the fact that some of its statements are in conflict with those in the later books.
For example it is related in the first book that the brothers of Rama were married at the same time as Rama but in Book III Laksmana is said to have been still unmarried. However, it is certain that some parts of Book I are genuine and must have been brought here from the Ayodhya Kanda when the latter became Book II of the Ramayana. For example, the fifth canto of Book I certainly formed the commencement of the original poem. (8) The spuriousness of the last book is undoubtedly proved by the fact that the Ramayana has been concluded at the end of the sixth book.
Bhargava says about many other facts also about the last book. "...The ancient Vayu, Brahmanda and Visnu Puranaa give the story of Rama in their accounts of kings of olden times. but there is no mention in them of the banishment of Sita which forms the story of the last book of the Ramayana. The Ramopakhyana of the Mahabharata and the Rama dramas attributed to Bhasa which are based on the Ramayana similarly take no notice of the story of the seventh book of the Ramayana. Then Bhargava concludes, "It is thus absolutely clear that the original Ramayana consisted of only five books, though it should be remembered that some cantos and verses have been interpolated even in the genuine books of the Ramayana as we have it today".
Then he gives his own hypothesis about the origin of the Ramayana, which is nothing but an altered traditional view in the garb of modernity. Let us examine it one by one.
We have an ancient example of deification of King Trasadasyu during his life time. In an edition of the Cambridge History of India Balgangadhara Tilak has been depicted by two authors differently (the one was a Britisher and the other an Indian) and the chapters are too close to miss the point. There is absolutely no point in making Valmiki ubiquitous or omniscient in the Ramayana. Even Rishis like Visvamitra, Vasistha, Agastya, Chyavah and others appear occasionally. Why should he not be a contemporary of Rama? Has Tulsidas been mentioned by Abul Fazl? The two tables clearly indicate either the two traditions (or schools) or the two equally genuine versions according to the parameters chosen by the ancient editor or editors. Hence, these were blended together after minor corrections here or there. At one place the western scholars consider the Ramayana belonging to the later date that the Mahabharata on this very basis of the language i.e. the poor style etc. And on this basis these portions of the Ramayana be placed earlier than the classical Sanskrit age, i.e. much before Rudra Damana's 72nd. year inscription (150 A.D. with 78 A.D. reckoning). May be that it was at least contemporary to the Buddhistic period if not earlier than that.
Indira and Upendra equation is somewhat complex and has undergone change with time, place and circumstances and as stated earlier they represent the two shades of opinion and versions which were merged together. One is as good as the other. This again underlines the two traditions and accommodates the Pauranic view and style to some extent but retains its .own genealogical table. This should not make it spurious. Ignorance and forgetfulness are there. It has only to be assumed to be spurious and then justifications are sought. The example of an unmarried Lakshmana is acceptable if and only if we know for certain that either Lakshmana remained a bachelor throughout his life or that he was at least 10 years younger than Rama and therefore, married after coming to Ayodhya from Lanka. So this point does not stand up to scrutiny.
The name Uttarakand, meaning later addition, clarifies it and need not be spurious. This term should not have been used at all. Moreover, this very chapter gives you insight, appears based on genuine tradition and we will see its usefulness in solving the knotty problems of ancient Indian history. A scholar like Bhargava should have realised that the banishment of Sita ought to have been true otherwise the story is too pathetic and shameful to deserve inclusion in the Ramayana. Is it laudatory? One can understand and explain the absence of this sad story from other texts like Vayu Purana etc. Its incorporation was just because it was genuine.
The story of the Sudra mendicant Shambuka must detain us here as it is a typical example of Vandhyaputra logic i.e. the very persons who consider the whole canto spurious, consider this very episode to be true — and to cap it all the story is quoted often as an example of Kshatriya tyranny, under a Brahmanic system, by such persons who do not believe in the historicity of Sri Rama even, what to talk of the Ramayana. Whether it is a part of the true story or not or an interpolation (or rather a deliberate insertion) is not worth discussion. When we see the name is in Sanskrit and that too in archaic Sanskrit meaning either snail or conch and more probably the former equivalent to "Harasankha", a derogatory word but 'Ghongha’ should have been his name if he belonged to the non-Aryan tribe or backward. It is a case of personification of a simile and symbolic act by Rama of the washerman episode.
Now let us see how he dates the Ramayana. (1) The genuine Ramayana was composed before the kernel of the Mahabharata assumed a definite shape because:
(a) While the heroes of the Mahabharata are not mentioned in the Ramayana, the story of Rama is often referred to in the Mahabharata. (b) In a passage, Book VII of the Mahabharata which cannot be regarded as a later addition, two lines are quoted as Valmiki's that occur in Book VI of the Ramayana.
(2) The genuine Ramayana was composed before the advent of the Greeks in India because: (a) An examination of the poem shows that Yadavas are mentioned only twice, once it Book I and once in a canto of Book IV which Jacobi shows to be an interpolation, (b) Professor Weber's assumption of Greek influence on the Ramayana lacks foundation.
(3) The Ramayana was composed before the rise of Buddhism because: (a) The author of the Dasaratha Jataka, which gives the story of Rama in a somewhat altered form, knew the Ramayana as shown by the fact that a verse from the old part of the Ramayana (Book VI) actually occurs in Pali form embedded in the prose of the Jatakas; (b) The Pali works on the whole observe the laws of the classical sloka, their metrical irregularities being most probably caused by the recent-application of Pali to literary purposes as well as by the inferior preservation of Pali works; (c) The only mention of Buddha in the Ramayana occurs in a passage which is evidently interpolated as the genuine Ramayana does not mention Buddha at all; (d) The capital of Kosala is in the original Ramayana regularly called Ayodhya while the Buddhists, Jains, Greeks and Patanjali always give it the name of Saketa. The original Ramayana therefore must have been composed when Ayodhya's new name Saketa was still unknown. Winternitz puts his case in the following manner: (1)Allusions to Vasudeva, Arjuna, and Yudhisthira already occur in Panini's grammar, whereas Rama is not mentioned either by Panini or Patanjali nor in inscriptions of pre-Christian era. (2) It is likely that the theory of incarnation arose out of the Krishna cult and that the transformation of the hero Rama into an incarnation of Vishnu resulted only later by analogy to the Krishna incarnation. (3) A few scholars declared the Ramayana to be the earlier of the two epics because the burning of widows does not occur in it, whilst it is mentioned at the Mahabharata. The fact of the matter, however, is that in the old genuine Mahabharata the burning of widows is just as much absent as in the genuine Ramayana. (4) In the Mahabharata we still have a distinct remnant of the ancient ballad form in the prose formulae such as Yudhisthira spoke, Kunti spoke, Duryodhana spoke and so on, introducing the speeches of the various characters, while in the Ramayana the speakers throughout are introduced in verses.
(5) Throughout the Mahabharata we encounter rougher manners and a more war like spirit than in the Ramayana. There is not that embittered hatred, that fierce resentment between Rama and Ravana, Laksmana and Indrajit as in the Mahabharata when we read of the battles between Arjuna and Karna or Bhima and Duryodhana. The Sita of the Ramayana, where she is stolen, abducted and persecuted by Ravana or when she is rejected by Rama, always maintains a certain calmness and meekness in her accusations and lamentations, and in her speeches there is not a trace of the wild passion which we so often find in Draupadi in the Mahabharata. Kunti and Gandhari too, are true hero mothers of a war like race, while Kausalya and Kaikeyi in the Ramayana can rather be compared with the stereotyped queens of the classical dramas. This seems to indicate that the Mahabharata belongs to a ruder, more warlike age, while the Ramayana shows traces of a more refined civilization.
(6) The fact that only one of the twelve gathas of the Dasaratha Jataka appears in our Ramayana proves that our epic cannot be the source of these verses but that the Jataka is based upon an ancient Rama ballad. (7) It is striking too that in the whole of the Jataka which tells so many tales of demons and fabulous animals, we have not a word of Rakshasa Ravana or Hanumat and the monkeys. All this makes it seem likely that at the time when the Tripataka came into being, in the fourth and third century B.C. there were ballads dealing with Rama, perhaps a cycle of such ballads, but no Rama epic as yet.
(8) The idea of explaining the exceeding mildness, gentleness, and tranquility which are ascribed to Rama by Buddhistic under currents should perhaps not be rejected. (9) The metre of the Ramayana appears to represent a later stage of development than that of the Buddhistic Pali poetry and that it approximates more nearly to the metre of the later portions of the Mahabharata. (10) As an epic the Ramayana is very far removed from the Vedas. Neither is there any thing to indicate that the songs of Rama and Sita already existed in Vedic times.
Let us reserve our judgement on Jacobi's contentions for the time being. One should admit that Wintemitz was a keen observer and a good research scholar but his pedantic exercise fails to disprove Jacobi's thesis. Some of his contentions have been refuted by Bhargava e.g. "The mention of the name of Rama with those of other kings viz. Duhsima, Parthavana (Prithu) and Vena makes it certain that he was also regarded as the King."
Comparisons are odious and probably Wintemitz forgot the limitations of the linguistic method and its imperfection also. Vidyapati's (14-15 century AD) three works viz "Purusha Pariksha", "Kirtilata" and "Padavalis” differ in language, tone, temper, purpose besides the style. Maybe he chose the wrong parameters and if we apply such criteria and draw similar conclusions after comparing the works of Kabir, Ramanujacharya, Guru Nanakadeva, Tulsidas, Guru Gobind Singhji, and Madhusudan Sarasvati, Bhusan and Chand Bardaj and Khusro and others, the result will be disastrous.
R. S. Tripathi is of the opinion that a consideration of all these and other points has led Dr. Macdonell to suppose that "the kernel of the Ramayana was composed before 500 B.C., while the more recent portions were probably not added till the 2nd century B.C., and later". (A History of Sanskrit Literature). I see no harm in accepting the traditional view with certain modifications which accommodates these views of the scholars also. The kernel or short poem creating a pathos and with an appeal to the greatness of Lord Ratna was composed right in C. 1650 B.C., during Satrughna's visit to Valmiki's ashrama after killing Labaha (King Labamas of Anatolia ?). This corpus or compilation pertains to the later period. No attempt was ever made to preserve the purity of the original text or language like the Vedas. It suffered under oral transmission at the hands of singers. Writing was never fashionable in India, central Asia or in distant Lithuania. We must thank god for whatever is extant in whatever form in India.
This view is not only reasonable but based on facts which will be more clear when the problem of historicity is taken up later. However a few facts as internal evidence supports the traditional view.
The story of Valmiki is neither improbable nor there is any evidence to the contrary and there is dictum of Madhusudana Sarasvati in Prasthana Bheda C. 1570+30 A.D. that such truths should be accepted on the face value.
The Visnu Purana lists him as one of the earlier Vyasas i.e. at least before 1,000 B.C. (on the bases of Pargiters’ date of the Mahabharata war in C. 950 B.C.). His other name of Riksha is also mentioned and that he belonged to the Bhargana clan made famous by Bhrigu, Jamadagni and his son Parasurama. Sahastrabahu-Arjuna's killing Jamadgni and dispersion of the Bhargavas is too well known to be repeated here.
(2) The time of Rama Dasarathi works out to C. 1,700 B.C.+10 years on the basis of the dynastic lists of the Ramayana and the Puranas and there is various other explicit and implicit evidence which supports this date, as we will see later. Therefore it may be safely assumed that Devaraja Vasistha, Visvamitra (father-in-law of Dusyanta and the grand father of Dusyanta Bharata), Trisanku and Jamdagni were dominating the scene after C. 1,750 B.C. This is the peak of the Rigvedic period, establishment of the Hitites on Anatolia, almost to beginning of the Hyksos period in Egypt, and the Kassites either dominated the scene or would soon do so. The words Rama, Sita are quite common in the Rigved, Rama Hovaratha (wind God) is mentioned in the Avesta, Rim Sin (C. 1,756 B.C.) is a Mesopotamian king with a difference. Abraham belongs to that period whose earlier name was Abram, Rhamsinihas and later Ramoja (Rameses) of Egypt. And the choice of this name for the hero by Valmiki tells its own story.
(3) Ayodhya is one of the oldest or the oldest city of India (according to the Ramayana) which is mentioned in the Atharva Veda. The Sarayu is a mighty river mentioned with the Sindhee and the Saraswati (then a mighty river with seven tributaries) but finds no mention in the famous Nadisukta "Imam me Ganga" in the Rigveda. This needs an explanation but the author names and knows Sarayu and also Ayodhya. If the Ramayana is neither historical nor the creation of Valmiki then it appears quite surprising that neither cities like Hastinapur, Kausambi, Avanti, Pataliputra or Ujjain has either been chosen or mentioned by the author, who is supposed to belong to the later period. And an imaginary plot of the story should have found a good and pleasing locale on the banks of either the Ganga or Yamuna instead of an obscure river like the Sarayu of Faizabad fame. Moreover, the name of the family (Patronym Ikshvaku) was enigmatic to the late Pauranic writers or editors. The theory of Brahma's sneeze is not only ridiculous but nonsense.
(4) Weber ought to have noted that cultural progress with time is not an elevated inclined plane, rather an undulating surface with irregular ups and down, and it cannot be either a surer guide or yardstick to measure antiquity or rather relative antiquity. If we apply this enterion then the present day teleary scrap, depicting boisterous boastful, shameless and vigorous political leaders using four lettered words frequently and displaying baser instincts will be placed earlier than 1920 A.D. to 1950 A.D. when compared with their counterparts and their culture, may be placed earlier than Akbar or Harshavardhan or even before the Guptas.
(5) The Indus-Valley civilization was unknown to them which shows elaborate town planning, prosperity, progress and cultural development in around 2,350 B.C. And there is every likelihood that Ikshvakus were responsible for this. Then the cultural development as depicted in the Ramayana appears to be true to a great extent. After Rama D.N. 65, C. 1,635 B.C., it declined.
It is now time to discuss the historicity of the Ramayana after discussing the various aspects of the work and historicity of the author in brief, which will not be complete until and unless the events are dated even approximately and tentative by not only in the Indian context but also in the context of the then known world, to be followed by locating the sites beyond any doubt i.e. the locale of the scenes. The last task is extremely difficult with our present knowledge and attitude of our own people and the world, the enormity of the task compounded with obscurity and difficulty breaks the heart and morale of even formidable researchers. One cannot expect anything tangible or fruitful without a concerted, vigorous and rigorous search.
We have already noted that A. L. Basham does not consider Rama and other characters of the Ramayana historical but R. S. Tripathy implicitly accepts them to be historical persons. It is true that the historical material of the Ramayana will not cover even a page if one tries to jot down the historical matters, much is lost in the poetical exaggerations, panegyric etc. Even then it is apparent that the epic is based on real happenings because of the following:
(1) There is nothing improbable in the story of Rama. We do not know of any poet that contradicts it.
(2) The Indian (Hindu) tradition, literary works could be taken as good evidences to establish the veracity of the Ramayana.
(3) Many historical persons like the king of Kosala, Prasenjit (C. 512 B.C.) and Gautama Buddha were given Ikshvaku or rather Rama pedigree.
The Mahabharata not only mentions the Rama story but also informs its readers that his descendant Brihadvala participated in the Mahabharata war.
The names viz. Rama, Sita, Dasarath and others appear in the Vedas also. The river Sarayu also finds mention in the Rigveda. The names mentioned above are archaic but then these have been used.
Rama as a word exists in the Vedas the Puranas. the Bible, the Avesta and other ancient works with different connotations. The word was popular and in use in the period I.C.C. 1,750 B.C. to 1,650 B.C.
(7) The sages viz. Vasistha, Visvamitra are frequently mentioned in the Ramayana.
(8) The Hyksos dynasties ruled in Egypt during the same period I.C.C. 1780 B.C. to 1650 B.C. and the author considers them to be of the Ikshvaku dynasty.
(9) The Harapans might have nor rather appear to have belonged to the Ikshvakan dynasty, and their decline coincides with the decline after Rama's departure from the world.
(10) The names of many historical persons appear in the Puranas. One should not forget that in a typical Purana like the Vishnu Purana, Chandragupta Maurya is mentioned in a sentence only with his mentor Chanakya and his grandson Asoka Maurya has been mentioned in a word only i.e. named only. That Guptas would rule is used in future tense; this covers a sentence that is very short. The legendary Vikramaditya, the mighty Guptas like Samudra Gupta, Chandragupta II, Vikramaditya, and Skandagupta do not find even a mention what to talk of any place in the Puranas or the epics. But, Dasaratha Jataka however erroneous it may be in telling the true tale, the Ramayana, the Raghuvansa, the Uttara Ramacharita, the 18 Puranas and 18 Upa puranas and the Mahabharata etc. testify that Sri Rama, the son of Dasaratha was a historical person also. The Hindu are in the doubting historical castle.
Similarly, there is absolutely no reason to reject either the contemporaneousness of Valmiki and Rikshi Vyasa or his contribution as a Guru and an author of the Ramayana on linguistic bases. We ought to remember the limitation of linguistics and the linguistic methods while applying it to judge either the age and authorship of a work. It might have undergone linguistic changes in the prevalent oral tradition with time, with no strict rules imposed for keeping the text of the Vedas unaltered. If the Puranas state that his name was Riksha and he was one of the twenty-eight (28) Vyasas of yore, we have no reason to dismiss it as an untruth. We have to accept it in the absence of any evidence. The Ramayana after all, must have been composed by somebody at some time.
The problem of dating the important episodes of the Ramayana can be solved and precise datings are possible if the controversy about the date of the Bharata war is settled. A precise date falling between B.C. 1,179 to B.C. 1,189, more probably March 27, 1,187 B.C. in the Julian calendar is accepted as the date of the Mahabharata war, as suggested by the author. This should have been checked by astronomers if and only if the story of Krisna covering the Sun has some basis and formed the part of the true Jaya Samhita, later known as the Mahabharata in its expanded form. The identifications of the then locale is ticklish and requires a lot of patience and investigations.
For dating we will use the important methods and some of the important available material we will put forward our conclusions in simple, straight forward and above all in intelligible form avoiding complex arguments and others' views to some extent.
Bentley's finding also does not give as the position of Jupiter and Mars as stated in the Ramayana reference.
(4) The Ramayana statement of Rama's horoscope is inconsistent in itself. Five planets cannot be in their places of exaltation under the circumstances mentioned therein, as the Sun cannot be assumed to have been in the sign of Aries. This ought to be clear to any astrologer of the present time.
(5) Bentley has not established a cycle for the repetition of the celestial positions, nor has he even shown that his was a unique finding. Even then, as stated before, his finding is not satisfactory, and admitted as such by himself.
(6) Further the discovery in India of the seven 'planets' could not have taken place within the true Vedic period, i.e. from 4,000 B.C. to 2,500 B.C.
We do not know if any ancient writer or astronomer ever tried to date the Ramayana period or to final the date of birth of Sri Rama Dasarathi. The purported horoscope of Sri Rama appears to be an after thought, a later interpolation as a sequel or result of poeto-religious compulsion. The exalted planets tell their own story. The problem was attacked only recently with some seriouness i.e. after the 18th century of the Christian era. Some excerpts from Ancient Indian Chronology by Prabodh Chandra Sengupta, published by the University of Calcutta 1947, are given below to illuminate the problem and for the sake of comparison.
Here is P. C. Sengupta's poser: "Is it possible to find the time of Rama astronomically?" Then he himself provide the answer i.e. a definite "no". He argues thus, "If the Puranic dynastic lists may at all be thought reliable, in the Vayu Purana (chapter 88), we have between Rama and Brihadvala, a reckoning of 28 generations till the Bharata battle, and the Matsya Purana (chapter 12) records 14 generations only, while the Visnu Purana records 33 generations between Rama and Brihardvala. If we put any faith in the Vaua list the time of Rama becomes about 700 years prior to the date of the Bharata battle, i.e. about 3150 B.C."
Then, Sengupta explains why he did not try to find the date of birth of Rama with the help of the horoscope given in the modern Ramayana. He says "The problem was dealt with before me by Bentley in the year 1823 A.D. and his finding is that Rama was born on 6th of April, 961 B.C. This is a result which is totally unreliable".
He observes in the footnote Bentley's Hindu Astronomy, page 13. L. D. Swami Kannu Pillai in his work "An Indian Ephemeris” ppe 112-120, having assumed that in Rama's horoscope, the Sun was in Aries, Moon in Taurus, Mars in Capricorn, Jupiter in Cancer and Saturn in Libra, arrived at the year 964 B.C. This is also impossible as calculations are based on S. Siddhartha. He also believes that Rama's horoscope was unreal."
Then enumerating, he further says:
(1) The 12 signs of the Zodiac spoken of in the Ramayana in this connection, were not introduced in Indian astronomy before 400 A.D.
(2) The places of exaltation of the planets were settled only when Yavan astrology came to India of which also the date can hardly be prior to 400 A.D.
According to Sengupta "In the Vedic time only four of the ‘planets’ were discovered viz., the Sun, Moon Jupiter and also perhaps Venus." He argues at length in support of his contention and further states, "Thus in the truly Vedic period there is no evidence forthcoming which would show that the planets Mercury, Mars, Saturn and the Moon's nodes were discovered. Late S. B. Dikshita's finding on this point is also the same as mine and the reader is refered to his great work", Bhartiya Jyotisastra pp 63-66 (Isted). Sengupta does not believe the statement, the basis of the horo scope of Rama or of Krisna. He categorically states, "It is a mere waste of energy to try to find the date of birth of Rama or of Krisna from such a statement, which is tantamount to saying that whenever a great man is born four or five planets must be in their exalted positions." In scientific chronology such poeto-astrological effusions cannot have any place. Then stating how to find the time of Kama or of Krisna, he suddenly concludes "We have already said that if the Puranic deynastic list can be believed, the time of Rama should be about 3,150 B.C.”
The author finds this date of Rama centenable. The date of the Mahabharata war as given in the Aihole inscription is 3,102 B.C., and 2,449 B.C. is the date according to Varahmihira, accepted by Kallana C.C. 12. and substantiated by Sengupta. The author finds these dates also untenable as the date could not be earlier than 1,500 B.C. and later than 800 B.C. as the dates given by modern authors like Tilak, Jaiswal, Pradhan and Pargitor suggest. Only Pradhan is nearer the truth — it is either the date of commencement of the Kashmir! calender 1184 B.C. (?) or rather 1187 B.C. An occurrence of a total eclipse will confirm this date.
The date assigned to the Vedic period also is rather too early and it will become clear when we discuss the date of Rama later on. It seems that the Vedic period commenced from C. 2,646, peaked in C. 1,750 B.C. with the rise of Raghu, Pulastya, Saryati, Trisanku, Jyamagha, Sibi, Vasistha, Vishvamitra and other eminent persons. It was the height of the Aryan glory and expansion. The curtain falls after the Mahabharata war in C. 1,184 B.C. (+3 years). The Vedas were divided and compiled in between the Khandava forest burning (1184 + 33=1217 + 3 B.C.) and the Mahatharata war.
The Sun could have been in the first mansion (Aries) and the Moon in the fourth mansion (Cancer) i.e. in the 10th house and in the Lagna respectively. The position of other planets or Grahas can be found out and checked at around 1,708 B.C.
The author tries to date Rama with the available and accessible material after considering the various aspects of the problem, (I) using astronomical methods and observations, (II) archaeological evidence and findings, (III) statistical method applied with certain caution and (IV) comparing the results, the Puranic statement with the relatively known historical facts, particularly of the contemporaneous world. It is true India lived in comparative isolation due to geographical reasons but could never have lived in complete isolation. Some contact was always there, the contact in the Sara gonide period C.C. 2,350 B.C.?) is well established now. It is unfortunate that we have ignored the Egyptian contact which is apparent, otherwise we cannot explain the name of the river Nile i.e., blue in Sanskrit. It has been retained in Arabic as Bahr-Nile -- the Nile, the Aebyptus of the Greek is not Greek.
In such a situation it is quite natural that the archaeological question will arise first. The author assigns the authorship of Harappan civilization (previously named as the Indus Valley civilization) to the Maharas (Aryan) in general and Chakshusha Manu and Vaivasrata Manu in particular. The decline of the Harappan civilization coincides with the departure of Rama Dasarathi from this word and the desertion of Ayodhya by him and his subjects as a prelude to coming events.
S. B. Roy in his article "Chronological infrastructure of Indian protohistory (3,100 B.C. - 600 B.C.) mentions the following time spans for the MH civilization.
1. Sir John Marshall — 3,250 - 2,750 B.C.;
2. Sir Mortimore Wheeler — 3,250-1,500 B.C. Faier service and others;
3. D. P. Agarwal (Radio carbon dating):
(a) Metropolitan Harappa — 2,300 - 2,000 B.C. (b) Provincial areas — 2,250 - 1,700 B.C. "Agarwal's dating holds the field today, as it is based on radiocarbon technique. However, so far it has not been verified from any collateral material or data. It is likely to be revised upwards because of the suesse effect".
Maurizio Taddel in his book, Archaeologia Mrndi - Tr. by James Hogarh, observes, "Nor do we get much help from the discovery of earlier cultures which the stratigraphy reveals as directly preceding the Indus civilisation or in some cases as partly contemporary with it — the cultures of the hill villages (Zhob, Togau, Quetta, Nal, Amri. Kulli-Mehi), and Kot Diji," some 18 miles south of Khairpur in Pakistan. He further informs "Radiocarbon dating has given results of 2,47l B.C. Ct 141 for the first phase of Kot Diji and 1975 B.C. Ct 134 for the late pre-Harappan phase ... a layer of carbonised material seems to point to a violent conquest of Kot Diji by the Harappans, at a time when the inhabitants of the town had achieved a high standard of civilisation ... the likeliest hypothesis is that Kot Diji represents a provincial culture, partly earlier and partly contemporary (MH) .... We need recall only that no evidence has emerged at Mohanjodaro or Harappa pointing to the existence of a dynasty, or indeed of any kind of monarchic rule, such as we find at Ur ..." It is unfortunate that even in the light of the discovery of Mohanjodaro type seals in Mesopotanic during the reign of Sougon of Akkad (C. 2,380 B.C.), he sees no parallel in India!
Taddei suggests, "The end of the towns in the Indus valley, which Wheeler puts at about 1,500 B.C. is now set slightly further back on the basis of radio carbon datings of material from Kalibangan and Lottal (Kathiawar). The matter is not, however, free from doubt, as Wheeler himself has suggested. In his view it is reasonable to believe that the traditional dating is at least as likely to be right as the others.” This supports the author's hypothesis that it marks the end of the regime of Sri Rama Dasarathi. Then Taddei writes again, "One thing that is early established is that the cities of the Indus valley did not disappear in a single blow under the onslaught of an invading enemy." Readers and judges, mark this. He opines that it could be described as Dravidian only if it could be “proved that they spoke a Dravidian language. "
Bridget and Raymond Allchen's “The Birth of Indian Civilization, India and Pakistan before 300 B.C." give the following information: “The pre-Harappan occupation yielded three samples, one from near the beginning of the settlements gave a date of 2,605 B.C., and two others from nearer the top, 2,335 and 2,255 B.C. respectively. A fourth date of 2,090 B.C. corresponded with the second great conflagration." We accept it. He notes the continuity in Hinduism since then which is unique and remarkable, the bangles, the tree worship, the worship of mother goddess, the swastika symbol etc. are the numerous testimony of our conclusion! It will be interesting to note that Druids of Europe (ancient) and Dravida of India have the same spelling, similar sounding and probably the same meaning, i.e. worshipper of the tree! Moreover, the so called Aryans penetrated the South much earlier than the usually assigned date of 7th century B.C., as is self-evident from the three very important facts. The marriage tradition and customs of the South and Kerala in particular, (ii) Words like Aiyar, Nayar in India, ancient Iran and the Eire of the Ireland suggest a pre-Vedic Aryan usage and therefore a date earlier than 2,000 B.C. for the separation, (iii) The absence of Chaturvarna system in the South whereas it was followed in ancient India and Java etc. It clearly points to a date earlier than the Purush Sukta of the Vedas. Moreover we do not know if it was in vogue in any other Aryan region other than these.
So we see that it is meaningless for Indians whether we call it the Aryan or Indo-Aryan or Indo-Dravidian or Aryo-Dravidian or Dravidian because it is their tradition, culture, history, religion etc and what is in the name. But something is in the name if it is either loaded with problems or intended for mis chief — we must guard against this. We do not need history like the shoes that bite. The history is for us not vice versa.
Ancient icons of the blue-dancer (Nila Lohita Nataraja) have been found ,from the sites well beyond the contours of British India and in Central Asia also.
So, we see that archaeology does not come in the way of the veracity of the Rama story rather it will one day use its spade intelligently to substantiate the basic story and throw much light on the period which has been obscured under poetical liberty, panegyric and exaggeration. We have already discussed the Vivasyan Seal. The meditating priest king of Mohenjodaro has been identified by the author to be a crude image of Trayyaruna Trasadasyu, grand father of King Harishchandra, just a generation above Rama Dasarathi. In one seal we can read the name of Trisanku (three Suns but not three sins) and another depicts his story clearly. No doubt Harappa (Hariyupia of the Vedas?) was the Kosala of the Ramayana and Pakpattab (now in Pakistan) might be one more Ayodhya. The author could decipher a few more names viz. Vyusitazva, Manu-7, Svanaya Khaninetra, Visva ..... Trasadasyu Chandra Varmma etc. but it is neither conclusive nor could be substantiated because of lack of interest by other scholars and the limitations of this author.
By and large archaeology supports our contention and cannot be used against either Rama or the Ramayana.
The dynastic records of the Puranas are in a mess and even a few dates which they have mentioned have neither been faithfully recorded nor are unanimously accepted. This not only hinders but is detrimental to computation by statistical methods and hence cannot be taken as an independent testimony.
S. B. Roy gives a spectrum of dates of Rama and others. The date of Rama comes to be 200-150 years B.C. His method is all right but his conclusions are suspect because of his over reliance on the Pauranic list and acceptance of the list in toto. Fortunately he is only a century or two side of the mark as far as the date of Sri Rama Dasarathi is concerned. We will arrive at almost the right date with broad approximation and simple computations based on avail able facts.
Caveat (i) DN of Rama is taken at 64 +/- 1 from Manu Chakshusha (instead of generally accepted Vaivasvata)
(ii) Regional period 28 (British) + 5 (Mamlaka)i.e. 16 +/- 1 years/dynasty or generation?
(iii) For the present discussion, four cardinal points in dating are accepted viz. (a) that the Chakshush Manvantara commenced from 2,646 B.C.; (b) that Bharata s/o Dusyanta was annointed as Indra in 1,699 B.C.; (c) that the Bharata war took place in 1,187 B.C.; (d) Sadrocryptus or Sardrocrotos (Chandragupta Maurya) was annointed as the emperor in 321 B.C., that it is rather easy to arrive at an approximate date of Rama:
(1) Consider Chakshusha Manu (C-2646 BC) and assign him DN (Dynastic Number) - 1, and for the sake of simplicity Rama - DN-64. Then the end of the reign of Rama can he ascertained from it, thus 2,646 - 64 (16 ±1) = 1622 +/- 64 B.C.
(2) King Bharata s/o Dusyanta was almost the contemporary of Dasaratha Rama. So Rama's time is 1,699 BC + 16 x D = 1699 = C. l,699 B.C. (3) Take Rama's DN 64 and that of Brihadvala to be 94 +/- 1, who was killed during the Mahabharata war (C. 1,184 B.C. +/- 3 according to the author). Then, we get the date of Rama as follows: (1,184 +/- 3) + 30 x (16 +/- 1) = B.C. 1,664 +/- 33.
(4) Taking the 154th king as the contemporary of Alexander (C. 323 B.C.) and presuming that DN-1 was Chakshush Manu (wrongly believed to be Vaivasvat Manu - as we assign him DN - 49) (a) The time of Chakshush comes out to be B.C. 323 + 154 x 16 (+/- 1) = B.C. 2,787 +/- 154. (b) The time of Rama s/o Dasaratha comes out to be B.C. 323 + (154 - 64) x (16j +/- 1l ) =1763 +/- 90 B.C.
So we see the statistical method also gives almost the same date (period) in the Christian calendar.
Astronomical method:
Astronomical methods should give precise and accurate dates for historical events but, in the Indian case these fail miserably for earlier dates. However, an outright rejection of the astronomical findings and methods with respect to India, as suggested by Dr. R. C. Majumdar (JBRS) is unwarranted and appears to be an unwise step. It should be used where it can be used for a corroborative evidence only or rather for cross checking.
Why is such a perfect method suspect? This is so for the following reasons:
(1) The obscurity in the Vedic passages and difficulty in interpreting them for astronomical events of past; (2) We do not have any idea about the place of the observation, the method of observation and the convention followed; (3) The ancient writers took liberty with facts and believed in fanciful imagination to the extent that they found even snow capped peaks, full of springs and flowers! (4) Interpolations in the text of the Puranas and wrongly extrapolated and manipulated data was introduced in the Puranas to make it appear more authentic and suitable to the needs of the clergy and (5) application of comparatively later precision and methods to earlier ones. It needed an analytical approach. Therefore we will neither solely depend on astronomical results nor would ignore it altogether.
Various authors have tried to date the events with the help of astronomy viz. Bentley, Dikshit, Jacobi Tilak. Cunningham, Bankim Chandra, Pradhan, Playfair and others. Here it will suffice to discuss just a computation of S. B. Roy (JBRS ibid) and then to correct the mistake with the information available from other sources.
S. B. Roy writes, "We shall deal with following topics:
(1) Vernal equinox at Rohini Pumima = 3,070 +/- 200 B.C.
(2) Vernal equinox at Krittika Purmma = 2,350 ± 200 B.C.
(3) Winter solstice on Magha Sukia Panchmi = 1,630 +/- 70 B.C.
(4) Vedanga Jyotisa observation = 1270 +/- 50 B.C.
The vernal equinox at Rohini Purnima was observed by Manu Vaivasvata and recorded in a hymn (R.V. x-61-5) by his son Nabhanedishtta. The computation done by us with the same data is Rohini-Aldebaran-long 69.32-ch 970 A.D. Epoch 1970-69.32 x 72 = 3021.04 AY= 3,022 B.C. It seems quite plausible with the margin of error of three tithi 64x3= +/- 192 years.
But, we forget that (1) this could not be an acceptable solution with Pauranic dynastic lists in our mind (2) then the heliacal rising of the star (Yoga taxa of Rohini) might have meant its first sighting in the east before the dawn as the morning star. (3) The role played by Vagambhrini (Sarasvati Devi?) in getting it corrected and properly understood for which she was deified and allowed to have her Richas (hymns) in the Rigveda.
So, the Aldebaran which was sighted by Manu's son must have been at least 10° away from the Sun (c or 10 +/- 3 tithi after the new moon), This means a correction 72 x l02 c 720 years in the date of Manu's son, his true date of observation is therefore, 3,022 B.C. - 720 -- C. 2302 BC +/- 192 years, (b) Krittika = Alcone-long 59.54 in 1970 AD. The epoch of obaervation therefore comes out to be 1970 - 59.54 x 72 — 2316 AY i.e. 2,317 B.C. Since, Bharata s/o Dusyanta could not have been the ruler then, hence this is also not an acceptable solution. In a similar manner we see the actual date could be around 2,317 BC — 72 x 10 — 1597 B.C. ± 192.
NB: With the position of Regulas at 9° approx after the first point warrant only a 9° correction at that epoch. (3) Winter solstice on Magha Sukla Panchami 1,630 B.C. According to the author the S. B. Roy's computation is not only cumbersome but defective also. There are ample reasons to believe that the Bharata war took place in C. 1,184 ± 3 B.C. and then if we further presume that April 4, 1,187 B.C. (in the Julian calendar) was the Magha Sukla Astami when Bhisma breathed his last, then Magha Sukla Panchami should have fallen on about 1187 +/- 216 ± x i.e. 1,393 B.C.
This is the age of the Devisukta and Vak-Ambhrini comes of age. The natural corollary of such computation leads to 1187 + 64 x 8 ± x=1699 +/- x B.C. as the date on which Indra Mahabhiseka of Bharata s/o Dusyanta was performed by Dirghatama Mamataiya. He was the Indra during Rama's time.
(4) Vedanga Jyotisa observation (Winter solstice at Dhanista). Epoch of observations = 1270 +/- 200 B.C. as computed by S. B. Roy. is also wrong, as we shall see. His table of 1970 shows that Dhanistta = Vasu (Diety) i.e. Delphinis' long. Therefore the shift is (315.88 - 270) = 45.88° and not mere 450. which means — 72 x 45.88 years i.e. 3,303.6 yrs before 1970 = 1333.36 or /335 B.C. It must be noted in this connection that S. B. Roy himself reports, "It is well known that the Vedanga Jyotisa observations were made in Circa 1,300 B.C. Different authorities have estimated the epoch of the observations within a margin of +/- 100 years, (from 1,350 B.C. to 1,180 B.C.). It is the time of Vibhu and Parasara according to the author. Mark that a total solar eclipse occurred in that year.
An examination of the horoscope of Sri Rama constructed according to the Ramayana betrays clearly an artificial extrapolation and a late interpolation also. P. C. Sengupta did not find it worth considering even but comments about the dates 6th of April 961 B.C. and March 31, 964 B.C. given by Bentley (1823) and Pillai respectively. The author thinks that it was an attempt or rather a hypothetical reconstruction by the ancient astronomers and has arrived at the date 31st. March 1709 B.C. in the Gregorian calendar. He offers two Sayaha modifications only i.e. The Moon was in the Uttaraphalguni Nakshatra then — 990 from the Sun and 108° from the first point of the Krittika (Aleyone).
Locale:
The locales of the Ramayana story cannot be visualised with certainty with our present knowledge. There existed many Ayodhyas and Kosalas in ancient times. People have carried names also other than the culture, language and nationality etc. The identification of the true place of birth, his father's capital, his own capital, Sringverapura, Kiskindha, Pampa lake and Lanka is not only difficult but problematic also. Imagine a Mithila in Sinkiang, another in Northern Afghanistan, one in N. E. Kashmira, another in Rajasthana besides the well known Mithila Rasttra of Yunan in the NE of India and the present name of Mithila assigned to Tirhuta (after Mr. Grierson perhaps!).
One Ayodhya (Ayuthia) was in Cambodia besides the Awadha or Ayodhya in or near Faizabad in UP, whereas Mr. S. N. Pandey has read a paper in the recently held Indian History Congress at Bangalore that Rama's Ayodhya was Herat on the bank of the Hari Rud or Harayu i.e. Sarayu. It could be the Harayu of the Avesta and thereby the Sarayu of the Vedas i.e. either the first or second Saryu of the Aryans. It is also alluded to in the Ramayana though it is difficult to discern it from the geographical mess witnessed in the Ramayana as well as the Puranas
These things point to one thing clearly that there is a scope of reconsidering the locale and partly or wholly reject the present setting of the story. But, one should always keep this in mind that the present Ayodhya near Faizabad nevertheless loses its importance as the 2nd home of Sri Rama.
In the author's opinion Ayodhya of Rama could be anywhere between Taxila, Ranagundai, Harappa and the one in Faizabad district. One of the Kosalas (Taxila and Pakpatta or Harappa) was his maternal grand father's realm and later his capital also. But Kiskindha was decidedly in Mesopotamia with adjoining areas and Lanka seems to have been situated on the central peak of the three peaked mountain range in the ancient Egypt, near the Suez. Therefore the Hittites. the Hyksos, the Karaites, the Hanu tribe of Iraq, the Hapiru or the Sagajas and others deserve better attention and deeper probe to reveal the true historical setting and significance of the Ramayana. Till then it will be advisable to reserve our judgement.
