Mahabharata: Myth or History? A Compendium of Evidences

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

The scene was the annual book fair in Chennai. I saw a visitor debating with a stall representative selling the Mahabharata who alleged the Mahabharata cannot be historical. As I eavesdropped onto their conversation, I had realised that I had been impacted by the question: "Is the Mahabharata a Myth or History?" I knew that the answer to this question will have massive repercussions. But where do I start? Should I study some books? Or should I watch some videos, probably documentaries? Where will I get the answers?
As an inquisitive teenager, the history of India fascinated me. Although I worked as a software engineer, I was passionate about reading. I surveyed multiple kinds of literature to broaden my understanding of ancient India.
The Mahabharata narrates the struggle between two groups of cousins, the Pandavas, and the Kauravas, which concludes with the penultimate battle at Kurukşetra. At the onset of the war, Arjuna is bewildered by witnessing the Kaurava army. Such bewilderment arised within Arjuna, not out of fear, but due to affection for the relatives on the other side. Emotions overcome Arjuna, and he becomes despondent. Krsna reprimands him for his melancholy mood and pursues him to fight for the protection of Dharma. Thus Krsna acts as a charioteer, a friend, and eventually as a Guru for Arjuna, delivering the famous philosophical treatise known as the "Bhagavad-gita", spoken on the battlefield of Kuruksetra. It had a special significance among the vast repository of literature in ancient India. Traditional Hindu scholars regard the Bhagavad-gita as the "essence" of the Vedic philosophy. It could probably help me get a deeper understanding of ancient India, I thought.
Although the philosophical perspective of the Bhagavad-gitd was enthralling for a first-time reader like me, the very questions persisted:
I wanted to get to the bottom of this puzzle. I was looking for answers but unsure where to start my investigation."
An intriguing meeting in Sri Lanka would change my perspective forever. The year was 2016. During my travels in the country, I met a Buddhist monk in one of the largest Buddhist shrines. He understood that I was from India and wanted to explain the country's history. He informed that the Sri Lankans preserved a historical chronicle called the Mahavamsa, which according to him, had achieved a similar purpose as the Mahabharata: "National unification. I asked him if the Buddhists accepted Mahabharata as historical. He replied in the positive. I then inquired from him, "What about Krsna?" He replied, "Yes, Krsna is Historical. He is mentioned in the Buddhist Jatakas." I was amazed since the Jatakas were older than two millenniums. Why would the Buddhist religion (apparently an anti-Vedic religion, or at least, as we are told) refer to Krsna or the Mahabharata heroes? The Buddhists could have easily disregarded or discarded them and preferred to create their independent narrative without touching upon the Mahabharata. Examining several Buddhist texts (many of them older than two millenniums), I could find numerous references to Mahabharata and Krsna. I knew that I was striking gold. It was becoming evident that the Mahabharata dates to greater times in antiquity I wanted to research further. I then proceeded next with the Jain literature. The results were no different. The Jains, too, had referred to the Mahabharata heroes, and Krsna was one of the 'eminent personalities in the Jain religion.