Route to Citrakūta deciphered from the Rāghava-Yātrā inscription (Sri Rama Navami special)

 The 85th chapter from my upcoming book "Ramayana 5114 BCE" is reproduced here:

85. Route to Citrakūta deciphered from the Rāghava-Yātrā inscription

A significant archaeological discovery was made on December 18, 2024, at Garwah Fort in Prayagraj District, Uttar Pradesh. A stone slab bearing an 11th-century inscription, issued during the reign of Chaṇḍela king Kīrtivarman (1060-1100 CE), was unearthed. The 16-line inscription, written in Sanskrit and composed by the king’s minister Vatsarāja, provides a eulogy (Praśasti) of Bhagavān Rāma.

Rāghava-yātrā inscription (Image courtesy: Avatans Kumar)

Dated to 1095 CE (1152 Vikram Saṃvat), the inscription was erected on the eleventh day of the waxing half of the Caitra month (Caitra śukla ekādaśī), following a ceremonial procession (Rāghava-yātrā) in honour of Rāma. The inscription recounts the departure of Bhagavān Rāma, Lakṣmaṇa, and Sītā, and mentions the presence of an āśrama at the site, where a maṭha was later constructed.[1] The discovery of this inscription at Garwah Fort reveals the route taken by Rāma towards Citrakūta, providing valuable insights.

From Ayodhyā, Rāma journeyed to the Tamasā River, where he spent the first night of his exile on its banks. The following day, he arrived at Guha’s abode in Śṛṅgaberapura where he matted his hair. He rested under an Ingudi tree on the second night. The next morning, he crossed the Gaṅgā by boat and landed on the southern bank. From there, he began walking eastward towards the confluence of the Yamunā with the Gaṅgā. Along the way, he spent the third night under a tree near the Gaṅgā River. By the next evening, he reached Bharadvāja’s Āśrama, situated near the confluence of the Gaṅgā and Yamunā. He spent the night (his fourth night in exile) at the āśrama.

The route up to this point is illustrated below.

Rāma’s travel from Śṛṅgaberapura to Bharadvāja-Āśrama

Sage Bharadvāja described to Rāma the path to Citrakūta, which was ten krośa[2] from his āśrama (VR: 2-54-28). He instructed Rāma to reach the confluence of the Gaṅgā and Yamunā, then proceed along the Yamunā (Kālindī) River. This indicates that the confluence was at a short distance from his āśrama. From the confluence, the Yamunā River flowed westward. The sage advised Rāma to follow the Yamunā until he reached an ancient, sacred spot (tasyāstīrtham pracaritam purāṇam) frequented by many, and to cross the river at that spot (VR: 2-55-5).

After crossing the river by raft, an ancient Banyan tree named Śyāma, visited by the Siddha-s, could be spotted on the southern bank of the Yamunā. Rāma followed the path as instructed by Bharadvāja and reached the Banyan tree, where Sītā offered her prayers for a safe journey and return from exile (VR: 2-55-25). After walking a krośa from the tree, they arrived at a forest, where they collected twigs and flowers. Then they reached a level ground and spent the night. The Rāghava-Yātrā inscription appears to have been found at this location, as their next stop was Citrakūta only.

The Yamunā riverbank is now dotted with numerous bathing ghats, but identifying the exact location where Rāma, Lakṣmaṇa, and Sītā crossed the river requires careful consideration. According to Bharadvāja’s description, they had to walk a short distance along the Yamunā’s western bank to find an ancient tīrtha, a bustling bathing ghat (VR: 2-55-5). The Yamunā’s rapid flow, driven by its descent towards the Gangā, suggests that this crossing point was likely closer to their confluence.

A notable landmark on the opposite bank was a banyan tree. In search of the probable crossing site, an ancient and sacred ghat on the Yamuna’s northern bank, known as Akshayavata Ghat, draws attention. This ghat is named after a banyan tree (Akshayavata). Interestingly, in olden days, pilgrims thronged the banyan tree on the northern shore, which became the Akshayavata shrine. When the Allahabad Fort was built, this banyan tree was encompassed within the fort complex, prompting pilgrims to demand entry into the fort to worship the tree. “The underground shrine to the Akshayavata - an ‘immortal’ banyan tree - was and is a fundamental part of the Prayāga pilgrimage process.”[3]

Alexander Cunningham hypothesized that the Akshayavata tree was the same tree mentioned by Xuanzang in the seventh century, where Hindu pilgrims would “throw away their lives.” The sacredness and antiquity associated with this banyan tree are connected to the banyan tree of the Rāmāyaṇa period, although its location was mistakenly noted on the northern bank. It is believed that the tree was maintained over time by replanting branches from the original tree. Taking these details into account, it can be inferred that the Akṣayavaṭa Ghāṭ, located a little west of the confluence, was likely the site where Rāma crossed the river on a raft.

The probable crossing location in the Yamunā river

The probable location of the river crossing is indicated by an arrow mark on the Google satellite map. Upon crossing the river, the trio arrived at the ancient banyan tree. The satellite image reveals a lush landscape, corroborating the Rāmāyana’s account of Sītā and Lakṣmaṇa gathering flowers and twigs in this very stretch. This scenic route ultimately led them to a level ground, which likely served as their resting place.

Interestingly, this site is now occupied by Garhwa Fort, where several inscriptions, including the Rāghava-Yātrā inscription, have been discovered. The banyan tree, known as Syāma in the Vālmīki Rāmāyana, and the resting place of the three on a level land must have been retained in memory. It is likely that the branches of the original banyan tree were preserved, specifically at the northern ghaṭ where Rāma crossed the river. The resting place must have been preserved for ages, as evidenced by the numerous inscriptions found in the region, which was dotted with many temples. The entire route from Śṛṅgaberapura to Citrakūta via Garhwa Fort is meticulously mapped on Google Maps, providing a precise visual representation of the journey undertaken by Rāma, Sītā, and Lakṣmaṇa.

Google map showing the route to Garhwa Fort and Citrakūta

From the resting ground in Garhwa Fort, a straight westward route had taken them to Citrakūta.

The date given in the inscription can be simulated:

It was Yuva Varsha, Caitra Shuka Ekādaśī. The corresponding Gregorian date was March 25, 1095. Magha nakshatra started by that morning which was a Monday. The date shows that Sri Rāma Navamī was celebrated a day before on 23^rd March when Śukla Navamī coincided with Puṣya nakshatra.

Date of the Rāghava-Yātrā inscription

The procession of Śrī Rāma must have commenced on the Navamī day and culminated on Ekādaśī. It is impossible to confirm whether this combination was identical to the one during Rāma’s return to Ayodhyā from exile. Sage Vālmīki provides only two hints: Caitra Śukla Pañcamī, when Rāma arrived at Bharadvāja’s āśrama, and Puṣya nakṣatra, when he landed in Ayodhyā. The tithi of that day can only be ascertained using a simulator, after establishing Rāma’s birth date and other planetary and pañcāṅga features mentioned by Vālmīki.

However, it can be stated with certainty that the coronation could not have occurred the next day, considering verse 6-128-50, which states that the Paṭṭābhiṣeka water was brought at dawn (pratyūṣasamaye), as the next day was Āśleṣā, an inauspicious day for coronation. Since Bharata had already requested Rāma to perform the Paṭṭābhiṣeka on the same day (VR: 6-128-9), it is concluded that the Paṭṭābhiṣeka was performed on the day Rāma landed in Ayodhyā.

Moreover, his sandals, which had been ruling the country in his absence, were ceremoniously returned to him the moment he landed in Nandigrāma. The Puṣya day was preferred by Daśaratha; hence, Rāma chose that day for his coronation. The water pots arriving at dawn could have actually been on the day of his arrival, as Sugrīva had sufficient time to procure them since Rāma’s landing at Bharadvāja’s āśrama.

The systematic decipherment of the dates indicates that the day had Puṣya and Navamī together. Those raising objections about Navamī must understand that the tithi-s associated with the deities were chosen for their consecration. Moreover, the stigma against Navamī and Aṣṭamī arose after the birth of these avatāra-s, for the purpose of assigning those tithi-s for spiritual progress, not for material works.

Date of coronation of Sri Rāma

---

[1] Avatans Kumar. (2025). “A Thousand-Year-Old “Prashasti” Inscription Sheds Light On The Ramayana”. https://indiacurrents.com/a-thousand-year-old-prashasti-inscription-sheds-light-on-the-ramayana/

[2] Krośā means “the range of the voice in calling or hallooing”, a measure of distance, given as Kos= 1000 daṇḍa-s. It means a calling distance.

[3] Kama Maclean. (2008). “Pilgrimage and Power: The Kumbh Mela in Allahabad, 1765-1954” OUP USA. P. 65.

How Long Did Sītā Live?

There are numerous references in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa that help decipher Sītā's age. One of the earliest references is her age at the time of exile. In the Araṇya Kāṇḍa, Sītā recounts to Rāvaṇa that she was eighteen years old, and her husband was twenty-five when they were exiled.

mama bhartā mahātejā vayasā paṃca viṃśakaḥ || (VR: 3-47-10)

aṣṭā daśa hi varṣāṇi mama janmani gaṇyate |

Meaning: “My husband who was very bold was twenty-five years and I had completed eighteen years since my birth.”

Additionally, her age at the time of marriage can be inferred from her conversation with Hanumān in the Aśoka Vana, where she mentions spending twelve years in Rāma's household, enjoying a pleasant life.

samā dvādaśa tatra aham rāghavasya niveśane || (VR: 5-33-17)

bhunjānā mānuṣān bhogān sarva kāma samṛddhinī |

Meaning: “I enjoyed worldly pleasures in abundance for twelve years at Rama's abode.”

By subtracting twelve from eighteen, it can be deduced that she was married at the age of six.

After spending fourteen years in exile, Sītā returned to Ayodhya at the age of 32, where she became queen. However, within two years, she was sent to the forest by Rāma, at which time she was pregnant. It was during this period that she gave birth to her twin sons.

Śatrughna happened to be visiting Vālmīki's āśrama on the very night of their birth. At that time, Śatrughna was en route to Madhuvana (Mathura) to vanquish Lavanāsura, and Rāma's children were born during his brief stay at the āśrama.

Subsequently, Śatrughna returned to Ayodhyā after twelve-years. During his journey back, he spent a night at Vālmīki's āśrama, where he overheard Rāma's sons rehearsing the Rāmāyaṇa, which had been taught to them by Vālmīki. Based on Śatrughna's return timeline, it is inferred that Rāma's sons were twelve years old by then. Consequently, Sītā's age at this point would have been 32 + 2 + 12 = 46 years.

In the same year, Rāma initiated the Aśvamedha yajña, during which his sons recited the Rāmāyaṇa, which they had learned from Vālmīki. Recognizing them as his children, Rāma desired Sītā's presence. Upon her arrival, Rāma asked her to take an oath (śapatha), which she did, invoking Mother Earth. As a result, she was swallowed by the Earth, marking the end of her mortal life on earth.

The sequence of Sītā's age at different events

·       Marriage – 6 years

·       Started exile – 18 years

·       Exile – 14 years

·       Return from exile – at 32 years

·       Lived as a queen – 2 years (approximately)

·       Sent to forest – at 34 years

·       As a mother – 12 years = age (34+12 = 46 years)

·       Left the world = at 46 years (approximately)

Thus, Sītā's lifespan as a human being was approximately 46 years. Within this period, she spent time with Rāma from age 6 to 34. Excluding one year of her stay in Aśoka Vana, this translates to 28 minus 1, resulting in a maximum of 27 years spent with Rāma.

Building upon my previous article , the 27-year duration of Sītā's life with Rāma was equated to 10,000 years by ancient commentators. This equivalence matches with the Vedic principle "Ahorātraṃ saṃvatsaraḥ", which states that one day and night is equal to one year.

In the Vedic calendar, one year consists of 360 days, with the Sun moving at a rate of one degree per day, covering 360 degrees in a year. Applying the "Ahorātraṃ saṃvatsaraḥ" principle, we can convert 10,000 years to 10,000 days.

Dividing 10,000 days by 360 (days per year), i.e., 10000 ÷ 360, we arrive at approximately 27.77 years, which closely matches the 27 years that Sītā lived with Rāma.

This calculation suggests that ancient commentators employed the "Ahorātraṃ saṃvatsaraḥ" principle to justify the attribution of 10,000 years to Sītā and Rāma's time together, despite Vālmīki not explicitly stating this.

This rationale provides insight into the interpretation of verses such as "daśa varṣa sahasrāṇi daśa varṣa śatāni ca" (VR: 1-1-97 and 1-15-29), where 10,000 and 1000 years are separately mentioned. By applying the "Ahorātraṃ saṃvatsaraḥ" principle, the commentators equated 10,000 years with approximately 27.77 years, that was the duration of time spent by Sītā and Rāma together. 

According to the Upanyāsaka-s, the remaining 1000 years are said to represent the time Rāma spent without Sītā. Applying the same calculation, 1000 years is equivalent to 1000 days.

Converting these 1000 days to years, we get 1000 ÷ 360 = 2.77 years. This suggests that Rāma lived for approximately 2 years and 6-7 months after Sītā's departure from mortal life.

This information also provides a basis for calculating Rāma's age, which I leave for readers to explore. In my forthcoming book, I will present various calculations proposed by ancient scholars, offering a deeper understanding of the epic's chronology.

 

Related article: Rāma's 11,000-Year Rule According to Vālmīki

Rāma's 11,000-Year Rule According to Vālmīki

Upanyāsaka-s have traditionally glossed over the notion that Rāma ruled for 11,000 years, a detail mentioned by Vālmīki in three instances within the first six kāṇḍa-s. While some scholars have offered rationales to justify the 11,000-year timeframe, this aspect has rarely been a focal point in discourses. The literal interpretation is, of course, impossible, given Rāma's human birth and mortality. As a human avatāra, his purpose was to exploit the vulnerability of Rāvaṇa, who had inadvertently left humans out of his boon of invincibility from Brahmā. This loophole allowed Bhagavān Viṣṇu to take on human form as Rāma and vanquish Rāvaṇa.

Lately, a section of Upanyāsaka-s has been propagating the idea that Rāma lived for 11,000 years, citing the notes of the commentators of their sects. They interpret the statement of Rāma, as Viṣṇu, that he would protect the world for 10,000 and 1,000 years, in the literal sense. However, this assertion raises several questions. If Rāma, as a divine incarnation, could live for 11,000 years, how did his brothers, their wives, and other associates, such as Sugrīva and Vibhīṣaṇa, manage to live for an equally long period? What about their children who were present when Rāma left his mortal coil? The issue is that devotees attending these discourses often fail to pose these questions to the Upanyāsaka-s themselves, and ask me instead in the social media, which prompted me to write about this anomaly.

The 11,000-year duration of Rāma's rule is mentioned in three distinct contexts within the first six kāṇḍa-s. Firstly, Nārada recounts Rāma's life history to Vālmīki, mentioning this timeframe (VR 1-1-97).  Secondly, in Brahmā's realm, Viṣṇu informs the Devas that he will protect the world for 11,000 years (VR 1-15-29). Thirdly, following Rāma's coronation, Vālmīki offers a nuanced explanation of this duration. The number 11,000 is often split into 10,000 and 1,000 years, a distinction elaborated upon by Vālmīki in the Pattābhiṣeka Kāṇḍa.

According to Vālmīki, Rāma performed hundreds of Aśvamedha yajña-s for a period of 10,000 years.

rājyan daśasahasrāṇi prāpya varṣāṇi rāghavaḥ |

śatāśvamedhānājahre sadaśvānbhūridakṣiṇān || (VR: 6-128-96)

Meaning: “Raghava, in the ten thousand years of his rule performed hundred horse sacrifices with excellent horses and gave donations liberally.”

This was followed by a 1,000-year reign, during which he ruled the kingdom alongside his brothers.

sarve lakṣaṇasampannāḥ sarve dharmaparāyaṇāḥ || (VR: 6-128-106)

daśavarṣasahasrāṇi rāmo rājyamakārayat |

Meaning: “All were endowed with signs of good culture, given to righteous behaviour. Rama ruled the kingdom for ten thousand years with brothers.”

The same account is reiterated in the seventh kāṇḍa, the Uttara Kāṇḍa, which specifies that Rāma conducted Vājimedha and Vājapeya yajñas, as well as Agniṣṭoma, Atiraatra, and Goṣava yajñas, for the same 10,000-year duration. (VR: 7-99-9 and 10)

Thus, the 10,000-year timeframe is explicitly mentioned twice in connection with Rāma's performance of yajña-s. However, some Upanyāsaka-s offer a different interpretation, claiming that the 10,000 years refer to the duration of Rāma and Sītā's life together, while the additional 1,000 years represent Rāma's reign without Sītā.

But where does Vālmīki mention this? Why don't listeners ask these Upanyāsaka-s for the source and rationale behind their claim? The fact is that Vālmīki provides clear references to Rāma and Sītā's ages at various events, allowing us to reconstruct Sītā's lifetime.

The 10,000-year duration, as mentioned earlier, is associated with Rāma's performance of yajña-s. It's worth noting that some yajña-s are mentioned for 1,000 years, which is humanly impossible. Scholars like Jaimini have discussed the rationale behind such large timeframes. In my upcoming book, "Ramayana 5114 BCE", I will explore these justifications by Jaimini rishi and explanations proposed by scholars in the past.

However, the literal interpretation of Sītā living with Rāma for 10,000 years and Rāma ruling for 1,000 years is unsupported by Vālmīki's text. Instead, we should approach the mention of 11,000 years with a nuanced understanding, using the wisdom imparted by the rishis to decipher its true meaning.

Considering the claim that Sītā lived with Rāma for 10,000 years, I will present, in my next article, the specific details of Sītā's age as described by Vālmīki. This will provide a clearer understanding of her lifetime.

Next article: How Long Did Sītā Live?

Related article: Did Rama rule for 11,000 years

Review of 'Ramanuja Itihasam' (Tamil) in Thuglak magazine

 My book, "Ramanuja Itihasam" (Tamil version) was published by Swasam publications. The book review appeared in Thuglak Magazine, dated 10th March, 2025. 

Please check this link to get a copy: Ramanuja Itihasam

To get the English version of this book, check this Link

My talk on Yuga and Avatara-s in Dinamalar TV Channel

I am sharing my insightful talk on 'Yuga' aired on Dinamalar channel!

In this discussion, I delve into:

What is Yuga?
Understanding Kali Yuga
Exploring the different types of Yuga-s
The 5-year Vedanga Yuga followed by Rama and Krishna, and its calculation method
Insights into Kalki Avatar
Why Avatars manifest only in Bharat
Unveiling the spiritual significance of Bharat's triangular shape
Fascinating comparisons with the Bermuda triangle, crop circles, and more!
Unraveling the mystery of when Kali Yuga will end

Watch, share, and gain a deeper understanding of our ancient wisdom!

இதிஹாசப் பார்வையில் ஆரியப் படையெடுப்பும், ஹரப்பன் நாகரிகமும் (My talk in VoC)

 I am delighted to share the news about the A3 Conclave organized by Voice of Covai in Coimbatore. The conclave, which took place on November 30 and December 1, 2024, at Codissia, brought together 27 speakers, including myself, to discuss the significance of Bharatiya culture in shaping India's identity and future.

The A3 Conclave, which stands for "Awake, Arise, Assert," aimed to promote and celebrate Bharatiya values and Sanatana Dharma. I am glad to be part of this inaugural event, which was conceived to inspire and empower individuals to assert their cultural heritage.

As one of the speakers, I had a fantastic opportunity to share my insights and engage with like-minded individuals. The conclave was indeed a thought-provoking platform for discussion, debate, and assertion of the timeless wisdom and principles that have sustained our nation. 

The event coincided with the return of Sri Annamalai, President of TN BJP, from his 3-month research stint at Oxford University. He graced the occasion as the chief guest and delivered his first public address after his return.

The conclave faced unexpected challenges due to heavy rainfall along the east coast of India, resulting in delayed and cancelled flights. Unfortunately, Union Minister Sri L. Murugan was unable to attend and inaugurate the event as scheduled.

On November 30, I presented a talk titled "இதிஹாசப் பார்வையில் ஆரியப் படையெடுப்பும், ஹரப்பன் நாகரிகமும்" (Aryan Invasion Theory and Harappan Civilization in the light of Itihasa). My presentation delved into genetic studies on the Yamnaya culture, analyzing the movement of people from Europe preceded by an earlier movement of people from Bharat to Europe through the lens of Ramayana events. Additionally, I explored the Harappan culture from the perspective of Mahabharata, shedding new light on the ancient civilization. I also made a case for re-naming the Harappan culture as “Mahabharata Culture”.

My talk can be watched in this video:

Tipu Sultan a martyr or an offender? (My talk in Tamil Janam TV)

Was Tipu Sultan a martyr or a sinner?

In connection with Tipu Jayanti in November, I gave an interview to Tamil Janam TV on Tipu's atrocities.

I talked about many facets of Tipu, such as his rigor in  religious conversion, temple destruction, and the horrific killing of the Mandayam Iyengars. The places raided by Tipu and his father Hyder Ali had left a trail of destruction and also conversion. I pointed out evidences of temples ransacked by them and how people had to flee their home towns to escape their fury. Popular example is that of the former Chief Minister of TN, Mr. MG Ramachandran (MGR) whose ancestors fled from Pollachi to Palakkad to escape the wrath of Hyder Ali. 

I also pointed out the genetic research that shows Muslims of India, particularly in places like Tamilnadu and Kerala were converts. This is established by common ancestry between them and the Hindus in the neighborhood. Genetics show cultural change from Hinduism to Islam and no foreign component in the Muslims. 

To watch the interview click the video:

Flood at the end of a Yuga and the flood faced by Manu (Part 8 of Yuga series)

 Yuga Series in Dheivam Channel :8 (Last Part)

In this, I talk about whether there is a connection between climatic changes and the Yuga. Earlier in a movie, it was shown that people saved the essentials to escape on a ship, expecting that the world would be destroyed due to change of Time. This is how Vaivaswata Manu escaped a flood. I explained how Manu had known in advance the coming of a flood by observing the behavior of a fish.

I also explained many details about Time, the changes that occurred with Time, the first flood that brought Manu to the River Saraswati, the place where he reached after being swept away by the flood and the first rains in the Indian sub-continent. 

I concluded this series by saying that these details have no connection with Yuga. Yuga is a different genre which I explained in the previous parts of this series.

The last part can be viewed here:

Yukteshwar Giri's yuga concept differs from the Vedic concept (Part 7 of Yuga series)

 Yuga Series in Dheivam Channel: Part 7.

In this, I have talked about the 24,000-year Yuga calculation given by Yukteshwar Giri. He says that Yuga is based on the precession cycle. This concept is based on the idea that the earth's axis keeps moving backwards; it takes 24,000 years to complete one circle. This is called precession; this cycle of 24,000 years is considered to be divided into four yugas, according to Yukteshwar Giri. 

This concept is not mentioned in our scriptures. Based on the astrological texts like Surya Siddhanta, there is no precession; but the sun moves forwards and backwards. That is, the sun does not move in a straight line in the universe. It moves in a winding path like a snake. Everything in the universe moves in a spiral.

To us who travel with the sun, this curved path looks as though the sun is moving forwards and backwards.

Also, the earth's axis does not move. If it is true that it moves, then on the days of equinox (equal day and equal night), the sun will not be visible in the middle of our temple towers. I have explained such details in this part to establish that Yukteshwar Giri's version is not correct and that the Yuga concept is not based on precession.

The talk can be watched here: 

The difference between the beginning time of Kali Maha Yuga and Kali Dharma Yuga (Part 6 of Yuga series)

Yuga Series Part 6.

In this, I explain how the calculation of the beginning of Kali Maha Yuga is different from the calculation of the beginning of Kali Dharma Yuga. The source for this is Srimad Bhagavatam.

The differences are mentioned in 12th chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam. Kali Maha Yuga began when Krishna left this world. That was 3101 B.C. We are now following that as our calendric years.

Kali Dharma Yuga began when the Sapta Rishis entered Magha Nakshatra. At that time, the Nandas were ruling. That was 575 B.C. I explained the cycle of the Sapta Rishis and also why it is said that Kali Dharma began during the time of the Nandas. I also explained how its time was discovered.

Following this, a question was asked whether Sadhguru's version of Yuga cycle is true. He says that currently we are in the Dwapara Yuga. My answer can be watched in this video. 

Why Nilesh Oak's date of Ramayana is different from mine? (Part 5 of the Yuga series)

Yuga Series: Part 5.

My replies to the following questions can be seen in this video. 

# Were people very tall in Krita Yuga and short in Kali Yuga?

# It is said that man lived for 4000 years in Krita Yuga? Is this true?

# Nilesh Oak says that the Ramayana period is 12,209 BC. Is that true? 

# He too claims to have based his derivation of the date from Valmiki Ramayana. It is different from the date I have derived. How could the same source (Valmiki Ramayana) give rise to two different dates? 

My answers to these questions can be watched here 

Watch. Share and subscribe to the channel.

Feedback from Advocate Ravi Rajagopalan on my book "Who killed Aditya Karikala"

I am sharing the feedback of Advocate Ravi Rajagopalan about my historical research book "Who Killed Aditya Karikala".

While expressing my sincere gratitude for his appreciation of my work, I am thrilled to know that it has resonated with him from his professional point of view. Such kind of feedback fuels my passion for research into historical conundrums of the past. Many thanks to him.

***

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7261053259975438336/

Ravi Rajagopalan

  

2nd degree connection

Independent Practicing Advocate | Counsel, Ravi Rajagopalan Associates | Foreign Lawyer at Marsans Gitlin Baker UK

Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 

Trivia: The Cholas did not adhere to the rule of agnatic primogeniture in their succession protocol- they adopted co-regency and selected the most accomplished, as the co-ruler from amongst the male descendants by applying the law of tanistry

I am making this post not to discuss the movie "Ponniyin Selvan" but to point out how historians wrongly applied the imperial succession rules and got the entire line of Chola Kings and their regnal years wrong. The great chroniclers and historians of the Chola history, from the last century, namely Prof Nilakanta Sastri and Sadasiva Pandarathar completely overlooked two aspects:

1.     There was no single King. There were 2 royals at the same point who ruled with equal powers, in what is called as Co-Regency.
2.     If one of them died the surviving Regent appointed another one.
3.     The selection was from the available males in the ruling clan and the person chosen was not necessarily the first born or the senior most. It was a person who in the opinion of the ruling family was most valorous and competent to preserve, protect and defend the dominion/ kingdom.

In essence the historians of the last century while putting the genealogy, the line of succession of Chola kings and their regnal years, completely overlooked these two aspects – namely one of co-regency and the other being adoption of tanistry in contrast the rule of agnatic primogeniture. So, they got the regnal years all wrong because they simply presumed that the eldest always succeeded and there was only one sovereign at any point in time.

Thus, for example Aditya Karikala who was also called as Parthivendra Varman (remember that his brother Raja Raja was Arulmozhi Varman) was an actual reigning sovereign co-regent and ruled as a King between 961-976 CE and he anointed Uttama Chola as a co-regent after his father Sundara Chola died. Popular versions and even in the film "Ponniyin Selvan", Aditya Karikala is depicted only as a Crown Prince and he died even before his father Sundara Chola, in the year 969AD.

Now this eye-popping alternate/correct version of Chola history is subject of the research and book by Dr Jayasree Saranathan who has published her findings in her book in Tamil (“ஆதித்த கரிகாலனைக் கொன்றது யார்?”) and its English translation titled “Who killed Āditya Karikāla?: The historical facts” available in print/Kindle. She has relied on solid evidence to advance her propositions.

Why this post :
From a legal perspective the supposed imperial monarchical convention followed by the Cholas which accounts for the correct assessment of the regnal years of Chola kings, the aspects of primo geniture as well as the quaint succession law of tanistry made an interesting study for me.

History certainly needs to be rewritten and lineages and succession lines redrawn. I would certainly recommend reading this book in Tamil if you can and if you cant, the English version should be the second best.

**

To get the print copy of the book in English, write to jayasreebooks@gmail.com

For Tamil version, click HERE

For Kindle version, click HERE for Tamil version.  

Click HERE for English version.