GmzVrsQaEAAVFOP.jpg

On March 24, the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) organized a panel discussion on ‘Dating the Kurukshetra War.' Dr Vedveer Arya, Joint Secy, Ministry of Defence (Finance), and Dr Yadubir Singh Rawat, DG Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), were the panelists in the discussion. Dr Arvind Gupta, Director, VIF, delivered the opening remarks in which he briefly talked about the relevance of the Kurukshetra War in Indian history. He stressed that more research needs to be done in the field of dating Indian epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.

Ms Neera Misra, Chairperson of the Draupadi Dream Trust, talked about identifying overlooked aspects of Indian history which are not adequately represented in our school textbooks. This endeavour of reaching out to the youth cannot be fulfilled without establishing an accurate and unified chronology of historical events, meaningful discussions and education on history. Ms Misra talked about delving deeper into the civilisational timeline, with a particular emphasis on India's ancient heritage, like the Ramayana and Mahabharata. In order to build these timelines, we need to explore various methods of dating, such as astronomical dating, Panchang-based dating (a traditional lunar system), and archaeological dating. Furthermore, inscription-based dating, as compiled by scholars like Dr M. L. Raja, offers precise chronological markers. Combining these approaches—archaeological, textual, astronomical, and inscriptional—offers a more holistic and accurate view of India’s civilisational antiquity.

Dr Yadubir Singh Rawat, DG ASI, shared significant insights into how the historical timeline and cultural legacy of ancient India are reconstructed through archaeological evidence. He stated that India’s past is preserved largely through material remains—structures, tools, pottery, and cultural deposits—which serve as crucial chronological markers. Therefore, one of the key challenges in this process is dating and contextualising these remnants accurately. Without a sustained literary tradition during prehistoric and early historic times, researchers must correlate physical artifacts with evolving cultural practices—a task that demands both rigorous fieldwork and interpretive nuance.

Dr Rawat said that India's archaeological record is immensely rich. Massive earthen mounds across the subcontinent mark the remains of once-thriving ancient settlements. These mounds preserve a stratigraphy (a branch of geological study, that focuses on the scientific study of layered materials, focusing on their arrangement, succession, and characteristics) of material culture, forming a temporal sequence that stretches across centuries and often millennia. Yet, deciphering the chronology of these layers remains a major challenge. While archaeologists recover artifacts—tools, pottery, architecture, burial sites—connecting these to a historical timeline or textual tradition demands nuanced interpretation. The task is not only about uncovering relics but also about relating culture with chronology.

Archaeological studies in India trace the evolution from early subsistence practices to the rise of urban civilisations. The domestication of plants and animals led to sedentary agricultural life, which eventually culminated in complex urban cultures such as the Harappan civilisation (also known as the Indus-Sarasvati civilisation). At its peak, the Harappan civilisation spanned nearly 1.3 million square kilometers, extending from Baluchistan in the west to the Ganga plains in the east.

Major sites like Dholavira in Gujarat and Rakhigarhi in Haryana have been instrumental in reconstructing the civilisation's social, economic, and urban fabric. Geological and archaeological studies in regions like the Rann of Kutch suggest that rivers such as a tributary of the ancient Sarasvati once flowed into this area, supporting extensive settlement. This civilisation thrived for roughly 1,500 years, from 3000 BCE to 1500 BCE. However, signs of decline begin to appear thereafter, marking a transformative phase in India's civilisational history.

Dr Rawat stated that at several Harappan sites, particularly in eastern zones such as western Uttar Pradesh and eastern Haryana, a transitional cultural phase is evident. Known as Late or Post-Harappan, this phase does not suggest a complete rupture with the past but a localised evolution of the culture. Discussing his own extensive fieldwork since 1982, particularly in the region east of the Yamuna, Dr Rawat highlighted the emergence of a unique cultural phase that reflects continuity with earlier traditions while adapting to new contexts. At sites like Sinauli, archaeological remains suggest a strong link between ancient practices and those still observed in rural communities today. Sinauli revealed elaborate burial chambers and memorial structures, many devoid of skeletons, suggesting that these were not simply graves but ritual sites where ancestors were annually venerated.

Dr Rawat said that these memorial structures bore striking similarities to modern elevated field memorials found in the same region today. Some chambers contained three niches likely used for oil lamps or offerings, while others were lined with copper sheets or featured copper artifacts—plates, rings, and weapons—indicating ritual offerings. One chamber measured about 12 by 12 feet, showcasing sophisticated design and metallurgical craftsmanship. The copper items found included miniature swords, spears, and arrowheads, all suggesting a community that possessed advanced metallurgical skills. These items were likely symbolic, used in rituals rather than warfare. He also observed a diversity in memorial types—ranging from family-specific to village and community-wide structures—indicating complex social and religious belief systems. Even in the absence of human remains, the design and offerings provided valuable insights into how identity and remembrance were articulated in the past.

These memorial practices extended across the upper Ganga valley to regions near Ghaziabad. The construction of elaborate memorials during this period likely reflects a response to existential crises. As Harappan cities declined—possibly due to climate change or water scarcity—populations migrated to more fertile and water-rich areas like the Ganga-Yamuna Doab. This migration was not monolithic but involved diverse groups from Sindh, Central India, and southern and western India. Over time, their cultures, beliefs, and practices began to intermingle, leading to the rise of a composite rural culture. Though distinct from the urban Harappan model, it retained deep cultural and ritual continuities. The succeeding Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture, once thought to mark urban resurgence, now appears largely rural based on current archaeological data.

One enduring myth is the peaceful nature of the Harappans, inferred from the absence of overt warfare evidence. However, the presence of weapons in post-Harappan memorials suggests otherwise. Civilisational decline often involves struggle—for land, water, and survival. These conditions would have catalysed the social, religious, and philosophical developments of early Indian civilisation.

Dr Rawat also urged a re-examination of established chronological frameworks. For example, PGW, long considered a hallmark of the Vedic period, now appears to represent a rural continuity following urban decline, rather than an entirely new phase. Such reassessments are critical to refining our understanding of India's historical timeline. Dr Rawat emphasised that the post-Harappan phase should not be viewed as the end of civilisation, but rather as its transformation. The decline of cities gave rise to new forms of cultural integration across India. People from different regions—Sindh, central India, and beyond—blended their traditions to shape a composite society.

Dr Vedveer Arya’s talk infused ancient Indian wisdom with modern science and presented a comprehensive, multidisciplinary case for dating the Mahabharata war to 3162 BCE. His methodology departed from the speculative and fragmentary methods often employed in modern historiography and instead emphasised a holistic framework that integrates traditional Indian knowledge systems with astronomy, archaeology, and genetics. Dr Arya's central claim is that various independent strands of evidence—ranging from textual references to astronomical alignments—converge on a single coherent timeline, thereby challenging long-standing colonial-era distortions of Indian history.

Dr Arya began by emphasising the sophisticated scientific consciousness embedded in ancient Indian civilisation, particularly in the field of astronomy. Unlike many other ancient cultures that relied solely on lunar calendars, India developed a refined lunisolar timekeeping system rooted in nakshatras (lunar constellations) and planetary movements. This system was not only used for calendrical purposes but was deeply woven into cultural and religious life. References in the Rigveda demonstrate a high level of astronomical awareness, revealing a civilisation with deep temporal insight. Dr Arya argued that this traditional astronomical knowledge, preserved through texts and oral traditions, provides a reliable chronological framework for dating historical events such as the Mahabharata war.

Dr Arya proposed a sixfold model of evidence to validate the date of the Mahabharata war:

1. Internal literary evidence from texts like the Mahabharata.
2. External literary evidence from other Indian and foreign sources.
3. Traditional calendrical evidence, including Puranic genealogies and ancient almanacs.
4. Astronomical evidence, involving documented planetary positions and eclipses.
5. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence, based on material culture and inscriptions.
6. Scientific evidence, such as archaeogenetics and geological data.

He insisted that no single category should be treated in isolation. It is the convergence of these diverse forms of evidence, he argued, that validates a historical timeline with credibility and consistency.

One of the most compelling aspects of Dr Arya’s lecture was his focus on astronomical references embedded in the Mahabharata. These references, he noted, are unusually specific and verifiable through modern astronomical software. Dr Arya categorised the events into two types: solar eclipses and planetary configurations. The Mahabharata text provides explicit astronomical details that serve as powerful tools for dating. Six primary astronomical phenomena are referenced:
Three Solar Eclipses:

• The first occurred on the day the Pandavas left for their 13-year exile after losing in the game of dice.
• The second was part of a rare pair: a lunar eclipse followed by a solar eclipse within 14 days—an unusual but astronomically possible occurrence.
• The third solar eclipse happened in the 35th year from the coronation of King Yudhishthira.

Additionally, the rare phenomenon of a lunar eclipse followed by a solar eclipse within 14 days is significant. Such events occur only once every 400–500 years.

Three Planetary Positions:

• Mars was observed in retrograde motion between the nakshatras Chitra and Swati.
• Venus, during the same period, had just completed its retrograde motion in Purva Bhadrapada.
• Mars and Venus Conjunction: A conjunction between Mars and Venus occurred on the 18th day of the war—another date-fixed event.

All of these can be verified using modern astronomical software such as JPL Horizons and by accounting for the ΔT correction (difference between Universal Time and Terrestrial Time) provided by NASA.

When all six astronomical conditions are matched, only one date fits perfectly: 25th October 3162 BCE. This date satisfies:

• The visibility and sequence of the three eclipses.
• The exact planetary positions.
• The duration between the exile and the war.
• The traditional 13 years and 8 months between the exile and the start of hostilities.
• The 35-year solar eclipse mentioned after the coronation year.

Thus, 3162 BCE is not an arbitrary date; it emerges from a confluence of independently verifiable astronomical data.

A significant point of contention in the Mahabharata is whether the Pandavas fulfilled their 13-year exile. The diplomatic deadlock before the war was centered on this very issue. Duryodhana argued that the Pandavas had not completed the required duration of exile before they emerged from hiding, prompting his refusal to return their kingdom. However, Bhishma counters this claim, asserting that they had indeed completed their term, using a precise calendrical calculation.

Bhishma noted that the Pandavas completed 13 lunar years, five lunar months, and twelve nights. When converted into days—13 lunar years being approximately 4,602 days, five lunar months about 148 days, and twelve nights—these total 4,762 days. Even when using the Vedanga Jyotisha system (with 362 days per year), the calculated duration still exceeded the required time by four days. Despite this precision, Duryodhana remained obstinate, leading to the collapse of the negotiations. These calculations by Bhishma of the Pandavas’ exile reflect the mathematical precision and temporal consciousness of ancient Indian thinkers. Such calculations lend credibility to the traditional timelines, directly countering claims that they are mythological or fabricated.

Dr Arya took strong exception to the Eurocentric models of Indian history developed during the colonial period. He highlighted three core historiographical errors: the post-788 CE epochal misattribution, the synchronisation of unrelated historical figures like Vikrama and Aryabhata, and the use of Christian chronology as the primary historical anchor. These distortions, he asserted, have led to a 1,381-year misalignment in Indian history and have obscured the historical reality of events such as the Mahabharata war.

From the 18th century onwards, following William Jones and the adoption of Western historical methods, traditional Indian chronology was cast aside. Based on flawed assumptions and often selective application of evidence, a "standard" date of around 1400–1900 BCE was imposed on Indian texts like the Mahabharata and Ramayana. These dates, however, fail to align with traditional genealogical accounts, calendrical data, and even archaeological and epigraphic findings.

Dr Arya criticised the selective use of evidence in dating the Mahabharata. He pointed out that focusing on isolated astronomical events—such as Saturn’s position in Rohini or Bhishma’s death during the winter solstice—without cross-referencing them against the full corpus of data leads to wildly inconsistent dates. Dr Arya called for a standardised framework in which astronomical data is interpreted alongside textual and genealogical records to avoid such methodological chaos.

Dr Arya presented several corroborative strands of evidence. Epigraphic sources, such as copper plates and inscriptions, often reference the Mahabharata war as a real historical event. Genealogical records from the Puranas, when calculated with average reign durations, consistently point to the 4th millennium BCE. Additionally, traditional calendars like the Ujjain system mark the beginning of Kali Yuga in 3102 BCE, supporting the 3162 BCE war date.

Introducing an interdisciplinary perspective, Dr Arya discussed geological evidence in the form of the Burckle Crater near Madagascar, which is believed to have been created by a comet impact around 5,000 years ago. This event likely caused a massive tsunami affecting regions as far as Gujarat, with estimated wave heights of 10 meters, aligning closely with traditional accounts of the submergence of Dvaraka and Krishna’s death around 3126 BCE. Supporting evidence came from a cuneiform tablet from Nineveh that recorded an astronomical event dated to 29 June 3122 BCE. Such data strengthens the credibility of traditional timelines when subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Dr Arya proposed a revision of the Harappan timeline, suggesting that correcting the 1,300-year distortion would reposition the Mature Harappan Phase to fall between the eras of Rama and Krishna. He also noted cultural parallels between the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia, such as unicorn symbolism and burial rituals, suggesting Indo-Iranian cultural interactions. These include Saka and Scythian tribes, whose unicorn symbol still survives in Europe. Furthermore, Iranian genomic and burial practices may have influenced Harappan customs. He stresses that the absence of material evidence is not proof of the non-existence of historical events. In ancient times, people lived in wooden structures that left little archaeological trace. The obsession with stratigraphy and relative dating cannot compensate for errors in absolute chronology. Without integrating traditional genealogies, texts, and oral traditions, archaeology remains incomplete.

Dr Arya endorsed a broadened epistemological framework that includes literature, oral traditions, indigenous logic systems, and astronomical data. Echoing the views of archaeologist John Bintliff, he argued that history should not be reduced to artifact collection but should be understood as a reconstruction of cultural memory and civilisational identity. He illustrated this with a metaphor: if modern archaeologists excavated a contemporary village and found no artifacts from a century ago, would that imply the village did not exist? Clearly not. The same principle, he insisted, must apply to ancient Indian history.

Dr Arya's argued that the Mahabharata war occurred in 3162 BCE—not as a speculative claim but as a result of meticulous cross-disciplinary validation. He asserted that rectifying historical distortions imposed during the colonial era would not only restore India's civilisational dignity but also reframe global narratives about ancient human development. Ultimately, Dr Arya advocated that a blend of genetic, linguistic, astronomical, and archaeological evidence—anchored by traditional textual knowledge—is essential for reconstructing an accurate and coherent history of ancient India. If we allow traditional evidence and scientific tools to work together, we can rebuild India's true civilisational timeline. The Mahabharata is not mythology—it is history, preserved not just in text, but in the very stars above us. This engaging talk was followed by a question-and-answer session, and the discussion concluded with the closing remarks by Dr Arvind Gupta.