Mahabharat and Sangam Literature

In any case, the Poet knew the following facts:

1. The Pandavas were refused their land, which was due to them.
2. They got angry because of this and decided to fight.
3. They fought with Kauravas.
4. The Kauravas fell dying in the battlefield.
5. As the Chera, Cholas and Pandyas have been mentioned in the text of Mahabharata giving their details of participation in Rajasuya, the Great war etc.
6. Thus, in historical perspective, a Chera King might have participated in the War and he might have been given the charge of feeding the army, which the poet describes in his own way.

The Relation of Velir with “Tuvarai” and Krishna

Kapilar records certain details about Irngovel (Puram.201:8-12), which are to be scrutinized critically:

1. Irungovel was born from a Yagna Pit (Tadavu) of a Rishi living in the North.
2. He ruled a city named “Tuvarai”, which had walls made of Copper like material.
3. He used to give alms without any discrimination.
4. He descended from the “Velir dynasty”, which had in existence for 49 generations before him.

The following points are noted after critical observation:

1. If we take 15/20/25 years as the reign of each generation, then the Velir must have been ruling since 500 +735 / 500+980 / 500+1225 or since 1235 / 1480 / 1725 BCE. Incidentally, which tallies with the “Tramiradesa Sanngatham” that threatened the territories of Kharavela as recorded in the Kharavela / Hathigumpa inscription.
2. Surprisingly, the Kharavela’s inscription records that he defeated a confederacy of Dravidian Kings, which was threatening his territorial integrity. And that confederacy was 1300 years old during his reign.
3. Interestingly, scholars have hitherto been mentioning that it was 103, 113, 130 or 300 years old, but, actually, the inscription reads that it was 1300 old.
4. If we consider that “Tuvarai”¹¹ was a famous town in Mysore as revealed through inscriptions existing in 12th century CE, then, the reign of first generation comes to 1st cent.BCE / 3rd cent.CE /4th cent.CE, which contradicts the Sangam chronology.
5. If we place the first dynasty at par with Mahabharata period, then, each dynasty must have ruled for nearly 40 years (3102-1000=2102/49=42 years), which may not be accepted by the modern scholars.

Thus, the 1700-1400 BCE period appears to be reasonable. Then, the Chera King might not be offering food to the soldiers of the Great War as claimed by the Poet, if c.3100 BCE is taken as the date of Mahabharat War and he might have done so.

A Note on Kharavela Inscription

The inscription has been hitherto read differently and the date of the “Dravidian confederacy” arrived at as follows:

K. A. Nilakanta Sastri¹²: “The famous Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela (first half of the second century B.C) mentions a league of Tamil states that was 113 years old at the date of the inscription and had beem for some time a source of danger to the Kalinga kingdom”.

The rendering of the inscription by different scholars are reads as follows:

N. K. Sagu¹³: Janapada bhavanam cha tersa vasa sata katam bhidati Tramira deha samghatam| (Pali version)

Janapadha bhavanam cha trayodhasha varsha sata krutam bhinatti dhramila desha sangatam| (Sanskrit version)

(In the eleventh year….) Also (His Majesty) shattered the territorial confederacy of the Tamil States having populous villages, that was existing since thirteen hundred years (English rendering).

K. P. Jayswal¹⁴: Jana-pada-bhavanam cha terasa-vasa-sata-ketu-Bhada-tit + amara-deha-samghatam (p.457).

“His Highness Ketu who (flourished) thirteen centuries before,………which has been established by the Former Kings in the city of Prith=udaka-darbha and is pleasing to the country” (p.464).

Though, he differs with the King(s), the number of years is read as “thirteen centuries before” Kharavela.

R. Mukherji¹⁵ has dealt with the expression “Tramira daha” and its relation with Kharavela.

Thus, the important point to be noted is that the territorial confederacy of the Tamil States ….. was existing since thirteen hundred years. If the date of Kharavela is taken according to different authorities, the existence of the territorial confederacy of the Tamil States goes back to 400 + 1300 = 1700 BCE to 100 + 1300 = 1400 BCE. Therefore, the antiquity of the Tamil Kings can be historically goes back to 1700 to 1400 BCE. Hence, the scholars should consider his important aspect and research further about the antiquity of the Sangam period and the Kings of the period in question.

Direct and Indirect References

As pointed out, the Tamil Poets used the incidences directly and indirectly as simile, metaphor or allegory in their poetic description. The Sangam literature mostly describes nature in “Five Tinais” with extravagant narratives and superlative comparisons. In such allegories, they use the Epic and Purana references freely to drive out the point. Thus, it is amply evident that common people know very well about the background about such narrative recorded by the poets purposely.

The references found in the Sangam literature are tabulated as follows for easy comparative study:

The indirect references include many social, ethical, moral, political concepts and issues.

Paripadal and Mahabharata

Paripadal gives many details of Mahabharata directly with specific terminology. The complete deification of Krishna is noted in the work. Though, it is dated to 9th century with its higher limit, definitely, the content matter had been incorporated during the Sangam period consistent with the other references vouchsafed by the culture, tradition and heritage reflected by the ancient Tamils.

Dasavatara – Mahabharata and Sangam Literature

The references about different avataras / reincarnations as found in the Sangam literature are tabulated as follows:

It is evident that such metaphor is used only to imply the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent nature of Godhead scientifically in accordance with the evolution long ago. Later theologically, such representation might have been converted to “Dasavatara concept” for easy remembrance and broad classification.

In Mahabharata, only certain recensions mention about different reincarnations of Vishnu. They are mentioned as – the Fish, the Tortoise, the Boar, the Lion, the Dwarf, Hari (?), Sadhya (?), Narayana (?) son of Kasyapa (?), Rama (Bhargava), Rama (Dsarathi), Rama (Balarama), Vasudeva, the Yadava, and Kalki the future one (VII.1442*D6). In aranyakaparvan (Book.III), only, the Boar, the Man-Lion, the Dwarf and Krishna incarnations are mentioned [III27|BD(except D1) G3].

From the table, it may be noted that –

1. Macca and Kalki avataras are not mentioned in the Sangam literature.
2. Paripadal does not mention Parasurama and Rama avataras, though mention about Mohini, Swan and other avataras.
3. Narasimha and Varaha avataras are mentioned only in Paripadal.

Thus, the following conclusions may be drawn:

1. The concept of Dasavatara has not been well developed in the Sangam literature.
2. As similar feature is found in Paripadal, all works of Sangam literature has to be placed before the development of Dasavatatra.
3. As Mahabharat contains such development, the date of Sangam period before 3rd cent.CE is well established.

Mahabharata and Tamil Sangam Kings

The Southern recensions mention Arjuna marrying a Pandyan princess. Specifically, he marries Chitrangathai daughter of Chitrvahanan, King of Manalur and begets Papruvahanan through her. She is considered as a daughter of Pandyan King. During Aswametha Digvijaya, Sahadeva comes to South and meets Papruvahanan in Manalur (Sabaparvan). Here, the name of the Pandyan King is mentioned as Malaytdwajan. These details are also mentioned in Vishnu Purana (IV.20), Bhagavatam (10) and Sakandam (86).

A Pandya king was present in the Swayamvaram of Draupati at Viratapuram (I.189.7020). Yudhisthira describes how Krishna broke the gates of Pandyan King and defeated him (VII.11.398, VII.23.1016). Krishna defeated Cholas (VII.11.321). In Digvijaya, Sahadeva defeated Dravidas, Cholas, Keralas and Pandyas. The Cholas, Dravidas and Andhras were present at the Rajasuya (II.34.1988). Sarangadvaja, the Pandyaraja joined Pandavas in the Great War (V.19.576, VI.50.2084) and was slain by Aswattama (VI.23.1019, VIII.21.81). Some manuscripts mention his name as Sagaradhvaja. Keralas and Cholas also fought on the side of Pandyas (VII.455.1893).

P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar^15a mentioning these details notes that there is evidence that there were political relations between north and southern India. M. Raghava Iyengar too gives strong arguments in favour this^15b. Considering the connection, the influence of Mahabharat on the Sangam literature could be noted in historical perspective.

The Critical Edition of Mahabharat

There is a verse in Mahabharata itself, which says that there have been three ways of interpretation of the text for theological, philosophical and ethical purposes²⁰. This is wrongly taken by the scholars that there have been three authors and texts and thus, the present work has been enlargement of the original work and so on. The hypothesis that Mahabharata as “Jaya” contained 8,000 verses composed by Vyasa, Vaisampayana enlarged it to 20,000 and then finally it attained 1,00,000 verses through Sauti has been perhaps propounded by C. V. Vaidya²¹ and then picked up by the western scholars. The scholars know very well that a sloka contains only two lines and in 16,000 lines, the entire history cannot be told. They also know that some versions claim that Vyasa prepared another composition of 60,00,000 verses, of which 30,00,000 verses were meant, for the gods, 15,00,000 for the manes, 14,00,000 for demons and 1,00,000 for human beings²².

The only point of their doubt is that a single human being could not have composed or written 1,00, 000 verses or 2,00,000 lines in his lifetime. This is definitely their own reflection of reality and not that of the Poet or Composer or Writer. There have been many examples, where Poets have composed lacs of verses. In Tanjavur Saraswati Mahal library, a “Mahabharata” written by Madhvswami, an ardent disciple of Ramdas Swami, in Ovi-meter, Marathi language to the extent of 1,20,000 verses is available²³. Besides, there have been four hand-written copies of the volume. Recently, Sir Isaac Newton has been credited with writing of 50,00,000 words on different subjects²⁴. Then, he should have written 5,00,000 lines, if each sentence contains 10 words. Then, he should have composed 2,50,000 verses, had his writings been of poem of two lines! Why then one should doubt writing one lakh verses / 2,00,000 lines? Therefore, this argument is not sustainable.

The Buddhists and Jains dominated the Indian society politically governing the educational curriculum of India during their respective periods. They imitated the epics just to attract the common people, but distorted the narratives to disparage Hindu religion theologically. This is exploited and interpreted differently by the western scholars, as if, the Original Works were written based on such meddled texts to suit their interpretation. The same confusion prevails in the context of Sangam literature also, as both Buddhists and Jains interfered with the texts. That is why, the Tamil scholars themselves question the veracity of the existence of the Sangams expounding that it is nothing but the imitation of Jaina Sangam of Naganandi of 450 CE in Madurai and so on.

The critical edition of Mahabharata was prepared only recently by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. But, such an attempt has already been undertaken by Madwacharya (1238-1317 CE), which he has recorded in his work “Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnayam” = The Determination of the Meaning of Mahabharata²⁵. He visited many places to locate the texts and read them critically. He claims that he had read the text with the blessings of Vyasa in the same way as he would have composed. Though, he pointed out that attempts had been made to distort Mahabharata (implying Jains and Buddhists), he never denied that it did not have 1,00,000 slokas. He proceeded to give a philosophical interpretation to the work to expound the hidden meanings in the slokas.

Critical Edition of Sangam Literature

Bharatam Padiya Perundevanar – Perundevanar, a Poet who Sang Bharatam i.e, Mahabharata has been credited with compiling Sangam literature – Ettutogai (Natrinai, Kuruntogai, Ingurunuru, Padituppattu, Paripadal, Kalittogai, Agam and Puram), as he has reportedly added a God Invoking song to every poetic collection. However, it is not known as to why he has not added anything to Patttuppattu (Tirumurugatruppadai, Porunatruppadai, Sirupanatruppadai, Perumpanatruppadai, Mullaippattu, Maduraikanchi, Nedunalvadai, Kurinchippattu, Pattinappalai and Malaipadukadam). After that, U. V. Swaminatha Iyer had done a yeoman service by collecting manuscripts from many places, edited and printed the Sangam and other Tamil works. Generally, they are considered as critical edition and accepted by the world scholars.

Which is the Earliest – Ramayana or Mahabharat? 

That Mahabharata precedes Ramayana had been a brainchild of some Western scholars, who had not properly studied the source materials²⁶. Internal (literary), archaeological (epigraphical), and other evidences clearly show that Ramayana precedes Mahabharata. Two incidences of Ramayana as depicted in Sangam literature – Rama ordering the chirping and tweeting birds like the roaring ocean to be silent, as he wanted to have a meeting with his army for strategy (Agam.70) and the attempt of wearing the ornaments thrown from the Ravana’s chariot fell on the hills by monkeys topsy-turvy manner (Puram.378) - are not found in the Valmiki Ramayana, but the Mahabharata and other Puranic details are available. Tamil tradition places Ramayana earlier to Mahabharata²⁷.

Archaeology, Mahabharat and Sangam Literature

Archaeological evidences for Tamil culture and civilization do not go beyond 1000 BCE. The Iron in South India is also placed around that date. Moreover, the script used in India, the Asokan Brahmi and Tamil Brahmi, is dated to 3rd cent.BCE. Archaeologists assert that before that there was no script. Therefore, the historical period of Tamils cannot go beyond 300 BCE. Therefore, they do not recognize the existence of Sangams, participation of Tamil Kings in the Great War etc.

As for as Mahabharata is concerned, the traditional sites excavated at Indraprastha, Kurukshetra, Dwaraka and other places yielded evidences dated to 1700-1400 BCE only. No evidences to the effect of a Great War fought – weapons, missiles, chariot wheels, axles, axle pins, turrets, horse-shoes, etc., or the Palaces built and Kings lived have been found. Therefore, they do not recognize the astronomical dating of the Great War around 3100 BCE.

However, the tradition coincides with the astronomical dating of the War around 3100 BCE. As for as the ancient period of India is concerned, the gap between Indus Valley Civilization – IVC (2500-1950 BCE) and Mauryan period (3rd cent.BCE) has not been explained historically in spite of the availability of archaeological evidences. Even the new controversy started to the effect as to whether the Vedas are pre-Harappan / IVC or post-Harappan / IVC has been undecided like the undeciphered Indus script.

Is it not strange that Sangam Poets sang such classical poems without the knowledge of writing? Equally, is it not strange that the language of Indus people was not known to other contemporary civilizations, as the latter used interpreter²⁸ to speak and bargain with Indus people and traders as has been depicted in Sumerian sculpture and inscriptions – Sargon of Akkad (2334-2279 BCE)? A Meluha village / colony was there near Lagash that existed for 35 years (2105-2071 BCE) I the time of Third Dynasty of Ur²⁹. For 35 years, they were speaking only unknown language without any interaction with the surrounding peoples? Asko Parpola suggests that the word “meluhha” can be read as Meluha / Meluhha / Melahha / Melakam and even (Ta)milakam. Gadd has already related it to mleccha (Sanskrit). In cognate Pali “milakkha” means barbarian. In Akkadian, Meluhha denotes to Indo-Iranian borderlands and Indus Civilization. The Meluhha high lands had also been associated with Copper. S. Kalyanaraman³⁰ has recently given an interpretation that Vidura conversed with Yudhisthira in mleccha, a dialect language, as he did not want others to know. “Mlecchita vikalpa” has been characteristically mentioned as one of the 64 arts it is interpreted as cipher writing or writing in picture by Katyayana. In Mullaippattu, Sangam poets record that certain people employed as bodyguards are referred to as mlecchar (Mullai.65-66). Actually, the poet conveys that their bodies spoke but their tongues did not. It does not mean that they were dumb but others did not know their language. In any case, both the Sanskrit and Tamil literary evidences show that the respective people called themselves as mlecchar.

In a treaty³¹ between Mittanians and Hittites dated to 15th – 14th cent.BCE, the gods Mitrasil, Arunasil, Indar and Nasattyana side by side with Teshup and Hepa have been mentioned. They are nothing but Indian gods - Mithra, Varuna, Indra and the Nasatyas. Teshup and Hepa are local gods. Their kings too had names like Mattiwaza, Tushratta, Mariannu and so on and they are typically Indian. Not only kings have Sanskrit names, their records have many such words denoting day to day to things, goods etc. Few examples are –

1. A text by a Mitannian named Kikkuli uses words such as aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, round).

2. Another text has babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita, grey) and pinkara (pingala, red).

3. Their chief festival was the celebration of vishuva (solstice) very much like India.

The prersence of large body of Indian troops ion the Persian army in Greece in 480 BCE shows how far west the Indian connections were carried and the discovery of modelled heads of Indians at Memphis, of about the 5th cent.BCE shows that Indians were living thee for trade [Flinders Petrie (1853-1942) Egypt and Isreal (1911)].

Lotus appearing in many Egyptian paintings – the earliest wall paintings of the VI Dynasty at the pyramids of Saqqara and in all funerary stelae; among the funerary treasures from the tomb of Ttakhamen; the god of Nile holds a pair of blue lotus stalks in his hands at the tenple of Rameses II;

The Mittani who worshipped Vedic gods, belonged to an Indic kingdom that was connected by marriage across several generations to the Egyptian 18th dynastry to which Akhneten (1352-1336 BCE) belonged. The first Mittani King was Sutarna I (good sun). The mames of the successors are Indian as listed below:

How an Indic kingdom could exist with Indian names far away from India in 14th cent. BCE?

These evidences clearly prove that India had been in active during those days with flourishing trade and commerce. Such conditions could not have prevailed without established society and conditioned polity in India. Therefore, just because, there are no archaeological evidences, such facts can be ignored? How is that archaeological evidences are available about Indians outside India, but not inside India for the same period? Is it anything wrong with the methodology of archaeology or dating of archaeological evidences? Only archaeologists have to answer or solve these archaeological riddles archaeologically and they cannot go on argue that Indians were not in India, but Indians were outside India, but still people of other civilizations were getting Indian goods used for their palaces, foods, dress and so in.

Mahabharat War, Indian Royal Genealogies and Historical Reckoning

The Mahabharat war, whether it is myth or reality, its impact on Indian history, historical dynasties and rulers has been well felt and recorded. Something must have happened after the War, that is why perhaps, it has earned the name of “Mahabharat”, so that the Kingdoms must have been disturbed, disintegrated and even disappeared.

Suggested Further Reading

Notes and References

1. Donald A. Mackanzie, Myths of Pre-Columbian America, Blackie & Sons Ltd, UK, p.222, 381, 382, 476, 500 etc.

………………………, Buddhism in Pre-Christrian Britain, Blackie & Sons Ltd, UK, 1922, p.46, 54, 92-93, 101, etc.

Chamanlal, Hindu America, Hosiapur V. V. Research Institute, 1956., pp.233-255.

Mahabharat Critical Edition.

India’s Contribution to World Culture and Thought, Vivekananda Kendra, Madars.

2. Suppression and destruction of archaeological evidences and misinterpretation of such evidences have been orchestrated work of the interested groups working at national and international levels.

Destruction of Bamiyan Buddha statues.

Looting of Kabul musuem and destruction of Kanishka stature etc.

Looting of sites of Mohanjadaro and sealing of them.

Looting of Bagdad musuem and disappearance of 5000 years old artifacts.

3. R. C. Majumdar, Hindu Colonies, Firmas K. L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta, 1974.

Reginald Le May, The Culture of South-East Asia, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1962.

Sangam Literature.

4. Rajendra Chola with his naval fleet and army reached many countries in 12^th century and conquered the lands – Jave, Sumatra, Borneo, Ilamuridesam etc., He left their representatives and returned. The Chinese too acknowledged their suzertainty and in fact, mentioned the Eastern Ocean as “Chola’s Ocean” in their records.

5. Colloquium on the Date of Khurukshetra War Based on Astronomical Data held in Bangalore on January 5^th and 6^th 2003. Based on planetary software, B. Narahari Achar and others prove that the traditional date about 3100 BCE tally with the stellar and planetary position as depicted in the Mahabharata when compared with the simulated figures.

6. That script was developed only after Asokan Brahmi (3^rd cent.BCE) and therefore, Indian could have leaned to write only after 3^rd cent.BCE. Moreover, as Mahabharat mentions about Buddhists and Yavanas, it could have incorporated such details only after 3^rd cent.BCE.

7. M. Winternitze, A Histrory of Indian Literatrure, University of Calcutta, 1978, Vol.I, Part.II, p.408.

The inscriptional evidences proving that already about 500 CE, the Mahabharata was no longer an actual epic, but a sacred text-book and religious discourse is given by the following authors:

R. G. Bhandarker, JBRAS, 10, 1871-2, pp.81 ff.

K. T. Telang, SDE, Vol.8, pp.28 ff

G. Buhler and J. Kirste, Indian Studies, II, SWA, 1892.

8. The authorities differ in dating the Sangam literature, as they differ about the existence of Sangam, correlation of megalithic culture with Sangam period, Aryan-Dravidian controversies, Kumarikkandam hypotheses etc.

Particularly, the western scholars – Asko Parpola (2000) - recently try to place it upto 8^th century CE and of course, this is nothing but revival and presentation of views of K. N. Sivaraja Pillai, L. D. Swamikannu Pillai etc., in different way under the guise of archaeological and linguistic evidences.

9. Only Ettuttogai and Pattuppattu have been taken for interpretation in this paper.

10. M. Raghava Iyengar, Araychi Toghuthi, Tamil University, Tanjavur, 1984, pp.177-184.

11. Turuvai.

12. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India, Oxford University Press, Madras, 1966, p.88.

13. N. K. Sahu, Kharavela, Orissa State Museuem,

14. K. P. Jayswal,

15. Mukerjee

15a. P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar, History of Tamils From the Earliest times to 650 A.D, C. Coomasawmy Naidu & Sons, Madras, 1929, pp.88-90.

15b. M. Ragava Iyengar, opt.cit, pp.70-77.

16. Mm

17. Mm

18. Mm

19. Mm

20. Mahabharata.

21. C. V. Vaidya, Mahabharata – A Criticism, Cosmos Publications, New Delhi, 1983 (1905 Reprint), pp.9-12, 22-36

22. C. R. Deshpande, Transmission of the Mahabharata Tradition, Institute of Advanced Study, Simla, 1978.

23. M. R. Joshi, Distorted Text of Mahabharata, Itihas Darpan, Vol.IX, No.2, July 2003, pp.50-53

24. K. V. Ramakrishna Rao, Sir Isaac Newton and India, Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Chennai, 2003, p.21.

25. Madhwacharya, Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnayam,

26. Sukthankar, Critical Studies in Mahabharat, V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition Committee, Pune, 1944.

27. M. Raghava Iyengar, opt.cit, Valmiki and South India, pp.1-15;

Ibid, Ramayana and Tamil Tradition, pp.16-51.

28. The impression of an Akkadian cylinder seal that, according to its inscription, belonged to “Su-lisu, Meluhha interpreter’.

29. Asko Parpola, Deciphering the Indus Script, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2000, pp.11-15, 170 etc.

30. S. Kalyanaraman, a paper presented during the National Seminar held at Pondicherry on “Indus Valley Civilization: A Review of Recent Research” on September 28, 2003. Also available in the website.

31. Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq, Penguin Books, USA, 1980, P.218

32. Mm.

33.Mm.

34. Bupaya on the river bank in at Hlaung Gyaung in Pagan (between Irawati and Salwin rivers) is the oldest temple, which contains a stone sculpture with Dasavatara, where, the 9th one is Buddha assigned to 10th cent.CE. Therefore, it is evident that Dasavatara concept had already been established in India to come to Pagan in 10th century.