Thus
it was or wasnt
Bibek Debroy
The writer is a noted economist
< FONT>
Dogma and blind belief are associated with religion. Science (interpreted
broadly) is about reason. So runs the perception. Dogma means
ideas or opinions, as opposed to facts. Given the distinction,
it is remarkable how dogmatic proponents of reason tend to be.
How is any proposition proved? One can try theory, in which case,
assumptions (or axioms) cant be proved. Two parallel lines
never meeting (or meeting at infinity) is an example. That is
not invariably true and is an axiom, only valid on a plane. Once
that was questioned, non-Euclidean geometry evolved. Alternatively,
one can try empiricism, in which case, one can never prove a proposition.
At best, one can disprove or falsify it. Proof is also subject
to human knowledge and standards of measurement available then.
Had that not been the case, todays scientific truth
wouldnt have been falsified tomorrow. Views on the centre
of the universe are instances, as are several hoaxes. Lets
not forget the Piltdown Man, which the scientific community believed
in for forty years. The certainty associated with Newtonian classical
physics has led to reduced arrogance of science and acceptance
of uncertainty.
Take Archbishop James Usshers (1581-1656) proposition that
the world was created on October 23, 4004 BCE. This can never
be falsified. If evidence prior to 4004 BCE is cited, one has
to reckon with the Ussher retort. Surely, God could have created
this evidence to test our faith. There is no satisfactory response
to that. As a believer in the scientific approach, I ought to
say it is possible the world was created in 4004 BCE, but it is
improbable. Ditto for the proposition, The Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI) doesnt exist. Since mass hallucinations
do occur, this is possible, but improbable. With its existence
thus questioned, ASIs certainty and arrogance (of knowledge)
are remarkable. Myths are not necessarily false, the negative
association with myths occurred because one didnt understand
other cultures. Several myths have a core in historical events,
but because of distortions and exaggerations, it becomes difficult
to distil out the core. Before Schliemann, we would have assumed
the Trojan War (and Troy) had no basis in reality. Whether it
is Iliad or King Arthur, the right question is not whether there
was historical basis, but how much?
Reading Mahabharata and Ramayana as they have come down to us,
Mahabharata seems more real. Take the description of Kripi (Kripacharyas
sister, Droncharyas wife and Ashvatthamas mother).
We are told she had thin hair and teeth that jutted out. This
is so irrelevant to the main story that it seems as if the author
was describing a real person. But this could also be because Mahabharata
is a more disparate collection by several authors, knit together.
Barring Uttara Kanda (and perhaps a little bit of Bala Kanda),
Valmiki
Ramayana is more of a unified whole. It is also shorter with 24,000
shlokas, than Mahabharatas 74,000 (excluding Harivamsha)
and has relatively more of poetry.
The compositions suggest Mahabharata was completed before Ramayana,
in their final forms. There is greater geographical knowledge
in Ramayana, Mahabharatas terrain is limited. The core dispute
(much before Kurukshetra War) in Mahabharata was over cattle,
the Ramayanas dispute was over land. Ramayana hints at a
more settled and urban civilisation (descriptions of Ayodhya and
Lanka). War descriptions (fighting with trees, drinking Duhshasanas
blood) are less crude in Ramayana. Notwithstanding a reference
to Ramayana in Mahabharata and no references the other way round,
Mahabharata was probably composed before Ramayana and both probably
attained their final forms by the 4th century BCE.
This leaves the more difficult and controversial question of when
the core incidents happened. In the ten-avatar version, Rama is
Vishnus 7th avatar, Krishna is 8th.
Ramayana happened in treta yuga, Mahabharata in dvapar yuga. There
is no reason to disbelieve this traditional chronological sequence.
Astronomical attempts (from references within the text) to date
the Kurukshetra War lead to a range of contradictory dates between
1400 BCE and 5500 BCE. Spliced with external archaeological evidence
and there is no denying this is stronger for Mahabharata
than
Ramayana a date around 1000 BCE seems plausible and ties
in even with the hypothesis that the original war (on which the
subsequent story was based) was the one between King Sudas and
the ten kings, mentioned in the Rig Veda.
Life becomes more difficult when we come to Ramayana.
Astro in. Is this the sub-conscious at work? Valmiki was told
that as long as the Himalayas and the great rivers existed, his
work would be read.