Doordarshan is
telecasting Ramayana and Mahabharata daily. Apparently, along with other
re-runs, Doordarshan seems to regain its mojo. Yet as one watches two epics in
their serialised form, quite a few insights does emerge. At one point, they might
be reinforcing the value based system. At another level, they are classical
illustrations of societal structures and values of the period. They illustrate
the life of a royal as opposed to someone a common man. There are political
insights too. The intricacies of power play are well charted out. The role of
women does not really build on the stereotype though barriers of entry exist. Castes’
too plays certain role but not in a way that society seems to have perceived to
it exist for all over the years. In many ways. Ramayana seems to follow a
linear society with high degree of order and hierarchy. Deviations would be
frowned severely though they do exist. Mahabharata on the other hand, is a good
example of complex society full of realpolitik. Intrigue is commonplace. Yet the
current discussion is not about examining these aspects but a little different
dimension of history.
In the Ramayana,
Vanaras or the monkey tribe play a significant role along with Jambavan the
bear. There are too many Asuras at each stage led by Ravan. As one observes
Mahabharata, one finds very few of these almost on the fringe. Maybe there is
one Bakasura, a Hidimba giving birth to Ghatotkacha. Hanuman too plays an
elderly though passive role. Observing these differences makes one ponder on
the origins of these tribes. Many explanations have ranged from them being tribal
outside the mainstream to representing kingdoms that had monkey as their god, or
bear as their kingdom deity. Of late Ravana has been discussed as the leader of
Dravidians dispossessed by Aryans.
Yet in recent
times, some new discoveries are leading to a different lines of thinking. It is
well accepted that man evolved from the lineage of monkeys millions of years
ago. Humans along with primates share a common ancestor tracing through some
sources about 7 million years ago. Yet it is not something than man evolved
suddenly out of the primate species. There would have been numerous
intermediate stages perhaps lasting for thousands of years before the modern
man first begins to make his appearance. Darwinian Theory posits the survival
of fittest. There was a competition among several species and genes that led to
survival of only who could adapt to their circumstances. Those who failed to
adapt perished by the wayside.
It was widely believed
at least till recently, that those intermediate species disappeared before the
emergence of man. At best, some accounts would suggest a coexistence of few
thousand years. Yet recent discoveries suggest something interesting. Those intermediate
species perhaps co-existed for thousands of years and lived side by side. Some recent
discoveries posit co-habitation of these species and they even ‘married’ each
other. Their progeny would perhaps led to new species in themselves. In Russia,
they are being termed Denisovians.
Denisovians
perhaps represent an interesting missing links between primates and humans. It makes
one wonder whether these new intermediate species played a far more significant
role in human evolution than what one had believed so far. If this was the
case, then it becomes relatively easier to decode ‘non-human’ presence in the
Hindu epics and Puranas. It also demonstrates, these species were inherent part
of the society and played a role near equivalent to modern man. Given the
strength of Vanaras etc. it apparently seems Ramayana was earlier than
Mahabharata. It also shows in some ways, that between Ramayana and Mahabharata
these intermediate Densiovians or whoever they were disappeared which is
missing in history or mythology. It also means that Harappan civilization might
not be the first advanced civilization in modern terms. This might necessitate shifting
of history backwards. If Harappan civilization preceded the Vedic age, then one
must be prepared to date the civilization a few hundred or even thousand years
before.
To many
historians, mythology is not history as they cannot place in in time period
suiting their views and findings. As more facts emerge, the evolution of
mankind would take different turns. In India, Harappan civilization seems to
have been placed at around 3000-2000 BC. Therefore to historians, any history
cannot exist before the same at least in an advanced form. Therefore, the Vedic
age has to be linked to the migration of Aryans from Central Asia to India and
the only time period from their convenient point of view would be somewhere
between 1500 BC and 700 BC. Therefore the epics have to be placed in this
period. There were no known instances of Vanaras or Asuras in their examination
of evidence. So they could not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence. The time frames have to be reworked. To Indian historians post
Harappan to Buddhist era is virtually a dark period. Either it is so because of
their inability to decode historical periods or deliberate attempt by Marxians
to whitewash Indian history.
The discovery of
Denisovians and the references of the Vanara, Asura etc. in the Indian
mythology does point out to re-examination of history. History cannot be
stereotyped into periods as existing today. As new facts emerge, the evolution of
mankind acquires new dynamics which does merit rewriting the historical
picture. It does point out the Ramayana
and Mahabharata along with other mythological stories were not per se events of
recent history enriched through fictional accounts but somewhere in the far
past when numerous pre-human species were co-existing with Homo Sapiens.
Comments
Post a Comment