Sunday, 16 August 2026

What is “Raja Dharma”?

 

What is “Raja Dharma”?

Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

I know this will seem to some people as if I am stalking or trolling Jijith Nadumuri Ravi. Let me start out by pointing out that this is not so. This is just a follow-up to my article yesterday about his location of the Lanka of the Ramayana in Gujarat of all places. But it pertains to a totally different issue, but equally important in a different sense: the issue of changes and interpolations in the Ramayana completely perverted in the name of “Raja Dharma”.

Someone sent me this tweet by him in reply to someone else’s comment to his earlier tweet:

No. Core history has no change!

Rama goes to forest to keep word of father. Bharata reject kingdom offered wrongly to him. Sita abducted by Ravana and Rama regains her. Abandons her later for Raja Dharma. Valmiki saw all of this. Dharma & core philosophy is attached to this core history and not on the poetics which are like special effects in a movie.

Not even all locations changed. Only three locations stretched from Central India to South India. Panchavati, Kishkindha and Lanka.

The only other additions are poetic exaggerations - the special effects. A normal horse chariot rendered as flying Vimāna. A normal swimming expedition by Hanuman to Lanka as an ape flying above the sky. Tribes beyond Ganga plains depicted as monkeys, birds etc And so on.

6:25 PM · Aug 14 2026

 

Again, unbelievable from a person who is supposed to be a scientist and in fact (at least for his work in Space Science or whatever) actually been presented an award at the hands of one of India’s most revered Presidents, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam!

To pursue his “everything-originally-located-on-the-Sarasvati-in-Haryana-to-Gujarat” agenda, Jijith shows an absolute willingness to completely reject the traditionally accepted geographical locations of three core Ramayana sites, going so far as to assert that Lanka was located in Gujarat and not in the present-day Sri Lanka.

No scholar to this day has proposed such a weird location for Ravana’s Lanka. However, his “scientific” temper which makes him freely reject traditional understanding of the geography of the Ramayana (whenever convenient for him to do so) seems to go into a coma when he wants to indulge in misogynistic interpretations or glorify misogynistic traditional beliefs: Jijith claims that Rāma’s alleged “abandonment” of Sita is “Core history [which] has no change”, even when most serious scholars who have studied the Ramayana from the point of view of “original” versus “interpolated” parts have outright declared the entire Uttara Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana (which contains this misogynistic episode) to be late and interpolated. And he calls it “Raja Dharma”!

I have written on this subject before. But there it was buried under a mass of other issues. Here let me deal only with this story:


What is “Raja Dharma”? Is a king following “Raja Dharma when he:

1. Punishes a person for a “crime” even when:

a) No evidence has been produced proving that the accused committed the “crime”, and furthermore

b) He has earlier actually received full proof of the “innocence” of the accused in respect of the particular “crime”?

Note that the “crime” committed in this case is supposed to be that Sita has become “impure” after remaining in the captivity of Ravana for many months. Any person making this accusation is not shown as producing any evidence to show that Sita is “impure”. Furthermore, as per an earlier episode in the same text, Sita has “proved” to Rama that she is “pure”, by undergoing an “agni-pariksha”, so it is clear that the king already has proof that she is “innocent” rather than that she is “guilty”

2. Punishes the alleged victim of a crime rather than the actual perpetrator of the crime.

Here no-one has accused Sita of having kidnapped Ravana and made him “impure”. The accusation is that Sita was kidnapped by Ravana and made “impure” by him. So she is here the victim rather than the perpetrator of this crime. Please, readers, don’t go off at a tangent at this point by telling me that Rama has already punished the perpetrator of this crime by killing him!

3. What does this entire episode show about Rama as a decent human being?

When Rama is sent into the forest for 14 years, Sita leaves all the luxuries of the palace and accompanies him into the forest and shares all his privations. In return, when Rama feels (on the basis of any kind of twisted, misogynistic, sadistic and perverted “logic” or sense of “justice”) that Sita has to be sent into the forest, he does not decide to leave his palace and accompany her. He sends her alone into the deep forest (even Jijith uses the word “abandons”), even when she is in an advanced stage of pregnancy.

For those who would (just out of a sense of perversion) want to argue that he remained in the palace because he felt that the people of Ayodhya required to be ruled by him for their own good, it may be pointed out that the people of Ayodhya are not reported in the text to have suffered unhappily under an oppressive regime for the 14 years when they are supposed to have been ruled by Bharata in the name of Rama during the period of Rama’s exile in the forest. Rama could very well have placed the kingdom in the able hands of Bharata or Lakshmana, and accompanied Sita into the forest, if he were a decent human being. Clearly Rama’s character (as depicted in this story) did not involve respect for. or gratitude towards, his brothers any more than for and towards his wife.

 

Moreover, everyone has read and seen the sanitized versions of this “Raja Dharma” episode in books, films, serials and discourses. Here is what the actual Valmiki Ramayana says (about the “agni-pariksha” in the Yuddha Kanda as well as the “abandonment” of Sita in the Uttara Kanda). The English translations are by Hari Prasad Shastri, but skeptical readers can check other translations or the Sanskrit original:

Yuddha Kanda, Chapter 117:

Rama repudiates Sita

Beholding Maithili standing humbly beside him, Rama gave expression to the feelings he had concealed in his heart, saying:

“O Illustrious Princess, I have re-won thee and mine enemy has been defeated on the battlefield; I have accomplished all that fortitude could do; my wrath is appeased; the insult and the one who offered it have both been obliterated by me. To-day my prowess has been manifested, to-day mine exertions have been crowned with success, to-day I have fulfilled my vow and am free. As ordained by destiny the stain of thy separation and thine abduction by that fickle-minded titan has been expunged by me, a mortal. Of what use is great strength to the vacillating, who do not with resolution avenge the insult offered to them?

"To-day Hanuman is plucking the fruit of his glorious exploits, and Sugriva, who is valiant in war and wise in counsel, with his army is reaping the harvest of his exertions! Bibishana too is cutting the fruits of his labours, he who cast off a brother, who was devoid of virtue, to come to me."

When Sita heard Rama speak in this wise, her large doe-like eyes filled with tears and, beholding the beloved of his heart standing close to him, Rama, who was apprehensive of public rumour, was torn within himself. Then, in the presence of the  monkeys and the titans, he said to Sita, whose eyes were as large as lotus petals, her dark hair plaited, and who was endowed with faultless limbs:

"What a man should do in order to wipe out an insult, I have done by slaying Ravana for I guard mine honour jealously! Thou wert re-won as the southern region, inaccessible to man, was re-gained by the pure-souled Agastya through his austerities. Be happy and let it be known that this arduous campaign, so gloriously terminated through the support of my friends, was

not undertaken wholly for thy sake. I was careful to wipe out the affront paid to me completely and to avenge the insult offered to mine illustrious House. "A suspicion has arisen, however, with regard to thy conduct, and thy presence is as painful to me as a lamp to one whose eye is diseased! Henceforth go where it best pleaseth thee, I give thee leave, O Daughter of Janaka. O Lovely One, the ten regions are at thy disposal; I can have nothing more to do with thee! What man of honour would give rein to his passion so far as to permit himself to take back a woman who has dwelt in the house of another? Thou hast been taken into Ravana's lap and he has cast lustful glances on thee; how can I reclaim thee, I who boast of belonging to an illustrious House? The end which I sought in re-conquering thee has been gained; I no longer have any attachment for thee; go where thou desirest! This is the outcome of my reflections, O Lovely One! Turn to Lakshmana or Bharata, Shatrughna, Sugriva or the Titan Bibishana, make thy choice, O Sita, as pleases thee best. Assuredly Ravana, beholding thy ravishing and celestial beauty, will not have respected thy person during the time that thou didst dwell in his abode."

On this, that noble lady, worthy of being addressed in sweet words, hearing that harsh speech from her beloved lord, who for long had surrounded her with every homage, wept bitterly, and she resembled a creeper that has been torn away by the trunk of a great elephant.

 

Uttara Kanda, Chapters 43-45:

Chapter 43:

Rama informs himself concerning current Rumours from his Friends

Having entered there, the King was surrounded by entertaining companions accustomed to the exchange of humorous experiences, Vijaya, Madhumatta, Kashyapa, Mangala, Kula, Suraji, Kaliya, Bhadra, Dantavakra and Sumagadha, and they beguiled the magnanimous Raghava with amusing tales of every kind amidst great merriment.

Raghava, however, during some narrative, enquired of Bhadra, saying:

“O Bhadra, what do they say of me in the town and country ? What do they say of Sita, Bharata and Lakshmana? What do they say of Shatrughna and Kaikeyi our mother? Kings are always the subject of criticism whether they are in the forest or on the throne."

On hearing Rama's enquiry, Bhadra, with joined palms, answered:

“Amongst the inhabitants of the city, nought but what is good is spoken of thee, O King, above all they tell of thy victory over Dashagriva, whom thou didst slay, O Dear Prince!"

At these words of Bhadra, Raghava said:

“Tell me all truthfully without reserve, what reports, good or ill, do the people of the city circulate regarding me? When I learn of them, I shall endeavour to do what is meet in the future and eschew what is evil. Tell me all in full confidence without fear. Laying aside every scruple, relate all the rumours current about me in the kingdom!"

Thus exhorted by Raghava, Bhadra, with joined palms, in profound reverence, addressed that mighty hero in measured tones, saying:

“Hear, O King, what the people are saying, be it good or ill, in the highways, markets, streets, woods and parks- Rama has achieved the impossible by throwing a bridge over the sea which to our knowledge was never done by his predecessors nor even by the Gods and Danavas together. With his foot-soldiers and cavalry, he has destroyed the invincible Ravana and has made the

monkeys, bears and Rakshasas subject to him. Having slain Ravana in the fight and recovered Sita, Raghava, having mastered his anger, has taken his spouse into his house again. What pleasure can his heart experience in possessing Sita, whom Ravana formerly held in his lap, having borne her away by force? How is it that Rama was not filled with aversion for her after she had been taken to Lanka and conducted to the Ashoka Grove, where she was left to the mercy of the titans? We shall now have to countenance the same state of affairs regarding our own wives, since what a king does, his subjects follow!

"These are the sayings current everywhere among the people of town and country, O King."

At these words, Raghava, stricken with grief, asked, “Is it thus that they speak of me?"

Then all, bowing to the ground in reverence, answered the unfortunate Raghava and said :-

"It is true, O Lord of the Earth!"

Having heard their unanimous testimony, Kakutstha, the Scourge of His Foes, dismissed his companions.


CHAPTER 44

Rama summons his Brothers

Having dismissed his companions, Raghava began to ponder within himself and thereafter said to the doorkeeper who stood near:

"Go speedily and seek out the son of Sumitra, Lakshmana of auspicious marks and the fortunate Bharata and the invincible Shatrughna."

At Rama's command, the janitor paid obeisance with joined palms and went to Lakshmana's abode which he entered unchallenged and there, having saluted the magnanimous prince, he said:

“The King desires to see thee, do thou go to him without delay!"

“It is well!" answered Saumitri and, in obedience to Raghava's command, he ascended a chariot and hastened to the palace. When he had departed, the doorkeeper approached Bharata and, saluting him in a like manner, said:

“The king respectfully requests thy presence!"

Hearing these instructions issued by Rama, Bharata, rising swiftly from his seat, started out hurriedly on foot. Beholding the virtuous Bharata going away, the messenger speedily approached Shatrughna's abode and, with joined palms, addressed him, saying:

“Go quickly, O Prince of the Raghus, the king wishes to see thee; Lakshmana has already preceded thee as also the renowned Bharata."

At these words, Shatrughna descended from his throne and, bowing to the ground, went to rejoin Raghava.

Meantime the messenger having returned, paid obeisance to Rama and made it known to him that his brothers had come.

Learning of the youthful princes' arrival, Rama, who was deeply troubled, with a downcast mien, sad at heart, said to the door-keeper:

“Make haste and usher them into my presence! Mine existence depends on them, they are my very life's breath!"

At this command from that Indra of Men, the princes, attired in white, bowed with joined palms and entered respectfully. On beholding Rama, who resembled the moon in eclipse or the sun that the dusk robs of its splendour, whose eyes were filled with tears and who looked like a lotus bereft of its brilliance, they placed their heads at his feet and then stood silent. Thereupon

the mighty Rama, shedding tears, having raised them up, clasped them in his arms and said to them:-

“Be seated ! You are my whole wealth, you are my very life ! It is with your assistance that I attained a kingdom and now rule, O Princes ! "

Thus spoke Kakutstha and all, attentive and deeply moved, wondered what words he might be about to address to them.

 

CHAPTER 45

Rama commands Lakshmana to take Sita to the Hermitage

All having taken their places full of sadness, Kakutstha, his features stricken, said to them:

"Hear me all of you, may good betide you! Do not let your attention wander! This is what people are saying about me concerning Sita! The inhabitants of the city as also those of the country censure me severely and their criticism pierces my heart! I am born in the Race of the illustrious Ikshvakus and Sita belongs to the family of the great-souled Janaka. My Dear Lakshmana, thou knowest how, in the lonely forest, Ravana bore Sita away and that I destroyed him. It was then that the thought came to me regarding the daughter of Janaka, ‘How can I bring Sita back to Ayodhya from this place?' Thereupon, in order to re-assure me, Sita entered the fire in my presence and that of the Gods, O Saumitri! Agni, the Bearer of sacrificial offerings, witnessed to Maithili's innocence and Vayu also, who was then journeying through space, and Chandra and Aditya proclaimed it formerly before the Gods and all the Rishis, that the daughter of Janaka was without fault. The Gods and Gandharvas testified to her pure conduct in Lanka, where Mahendra placed the proofs in my hand, further I knew from my own inner being that the illustrious Sita was innocent. It was then that I took her back and returned to Ayodhya. Since then a great sadness, on bearing the censure of the people of

town and country, has filled my bean. Whoever it may be, if his ill fame be current in the world, he falls to a lower state, so long as the defamatory rumours exist. Dishonour is condemned by the Gods; honour is revered in the world and, it is on account of fair repute, that great souls act. As for me, so gready do I fear dishonour that I would renounce my life and you yourselves

on its account, O Bulls among Men, how much more therefore is it incumbent on me to separate myself from the daughter of Janaka. See therefore in what an ocean of grief I have fallen! There is no misfortune greater than this! To-morrow, at dawn, o Saumitri, take my chariot with Sumantra as thy charioteer and, causing Sita to ascend it, leave her beyond the confines of the kingdom.

On the further side of the Ganges, the magnanimous Valmiki has his hermitage of celestial aspect situated by the Tamasa; it is in a solitary spot that thou shouldst leave her, O Thou who art the Joy of the House of Raghu. Go quickly, O Saumitri, and carry out my behest. Do not discuss it in any way; go therefore, O Saumitri, it is not the time for observations. Any resistence on thy part will cause me extreme displeasure. Yea, I swear to thee by my two feet, by my life, that those who seek to make me alter my resolve in any way or oppose my desire, I shall deem to be mine enemies. If you are subject to me and hold me in reverence, then obey me and take Sita away from here this very day. Formerly she appealed to me saying, ‘I wish to visit the sacred retreats of the banks of the Ganges’. Let her wish be fulfilled ! "

Having spoken thus, the virtuous Kakutstha, his eyes filled with tears, reentered his apartments escorted by his brothers, his heart riven with grief, sighing like an elephant.

 

Is this “Raja Dharma”?

It would be understandable if an extremely illiterate or ultra-orthodox person in short the kind of person who has no ability to think rationally, honestly and in terms of ethics, morality, justice or truth were to glorify the act of Rāma abandoning Sita in the forest as in the above episode. That a person supposed to be a scientist, and who writes tomes in which he rejects traditional beliefs with a heavy hand (for example transposing Lanka from the traditionally accepted location in present-day Sri Lanka to some obscure and unknown site in Gujarat) and reduces the “core history” in the Valmiki Ramayana to a short paragraph of four lines, feels no compunction in treating a misogynistic story which most serious scholars (Indian and western) have recognized as an interpolation as true, and concluding that Rāma did indeed “abandonSita, and calls this “Raja Dharma” is unbelievable. I agree there may be millions of Hindus who feel like him. But with Hindus of this kind all around us, does Hinduism really require external enemies?  


Saturday, 15 August 2026

The Geographical Location of Lanka of the Ramayana

 

The Geographical Location of Lanka of the Ramayana

 Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

Analysis of the Rigveda is my forte, not analysis of the Epics. But a scholar named Anthony Vondoom on academia.edu sent me a copy of his following article:

https://www.academia.edu/171221375/Dakshina_Samudra_Reconsidered_Textual_and_Chronological_Problems_in_the_Bhagatrav_Identification_of_R%C4%81m%C4%81ya%E1%B9%87as_La%E1%B9%85k%C4%81?rhid=42028006209&swp=rr-rw-wc-171343292&nav_from=9b0ee2a5-c326-4721-bbf2-ec926ea446c1

Following this, he also invited me (along with, naturally, many other scholars and researchers on related subjects) for a general discussion on this paper on academia.edu. The main object of his paper seems to be to support the traditional geographical understanding of the place-names associated with the Ramayana events, especially in the context of Jijith Nadumuri Ravi’s location of the Sri Lanka of Ravana (and the Ramayana), in his books on the geography of the Epics, at the Harappan site of Bhagatrav (in Bharuch district of Gujarat) . 

 

At the same time someone sent me this tweet by Jijith:

All ancient texts, like Rgveda, Ramayana, and Mahabharata, have several centuries of evolution. Talageri has studied the centuries of evolution of Rgveda. I added some details to it as part of my research. I gave you irrefutable evidence for the evolution of both the Itihasas from post Rgvedic Period upto post Mauryan Period.

When evolution happened, new geography was added as if they were contemporary to Rama and Pandavas. This created an unnatural southward stretch to the Ramayana Geography, which was originally an incremental growth from the Rigvedic geography confined to the North West India. Similarly, the Mahabharata geography, contemporary to the Pandavas, was originally an increment over Ramayana geography contemporary to Rama.

But not everything has changed. For example, only three locations in the Ramayana caused all these stretching and the resultant debates and confusion. Panchavati, Kishkindha and Lanka. These were changed from their original location in Madhya Pradesh and Southern Gujarat to southwards into Maharashtra, Telangana, Karnataka and Srilanka!

But all the locations in Ramayana from Ayodhya to Chitrakuta and Sutiksha Asrama are intact and untouched by later tradition. They are truly contemporary to Rama, who lived in 1950-1850 BCE. Not being able to grasp this textual evolution is why some researchers date Rama to 12209 BCE and 5114 BCE or Pandavas to 5561 BCE and 3200-3000 BCE.

Respect the valuable time I spent with you! Perhaps you are overwhelmed by all the evidence. Too much paradigm change in a single day can lead to such overload. Take your time to absorb this new information.

2.08 PM ·Aug 14 2026

So this article is a response to Vondoom’s article as well as Jijith’s assertions.

 

A google list of the traditional identification of the prominent Ramayana sites (in terms of present-day geography):

The main sites traditionally associated with the Ramayana span across modern-day India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Key locations include Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh (birthplace of Rama), Janakpur in Nepal and Sitamarhi in Bihar (associated with Sita), Hampi in Karnataka (ancient Kishkindha), and Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu (point of construction for Ram Setu). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Major Ramayana Sites and Current Locations

Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India: Birthplace of Lord Rama and capital of the ancient Kosala kingdom. [1]

Janakpur, Province No. 2, Nepal & Sitamarhi, Bihar, India: Traditional site of Mithila and the birthplace/wedding place of Goddess Sita. [, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Shringverpur, Uttar Pradesh, India: Located near Prayagraj; the site where Rama, Sita, and Lakshmana crossed the Ganges River with the help of King Nishadraj. [1, 3, 4]

Prayagraj (Prayag/Allahabad), Uttar Pradesh, India: The confluence (Triveni Sangam) where the trio rested at Sage Bharadwaj’s ashram. [1]

Chitrakoot, Border of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, India: The forested hill area where Rama and Sita stayed during a major part of their early exile and met Bharat. []

Dandakaranya Forest, spanning parts of Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh, India: The vast wilderness where the exiles spent years encountering various sages and demons. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Panchavati, Nashik, Maharashtra, India: Located on the Godavari River; the site of the forest dwelling and the abduction of Sita. [, 3]

Lepakshi, Andhra Pradesh, India: The spot where the wounded bird Jatayu fell after trying to stop Ravana from abducting Sita. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Kishkindha (Modern Hampi), Karnataka, India: The Vanara kingdom where Rama met Hanuman, allied with Sugriva, and organized the monkey army. [1, 3, 4, 5]

Rameswaram & Dhanushkodi, Tamil Nadu, India: The coastal departure point and base where the Ram Setu (Adam’s Bridge) to Lanka was engineered. [1]

Sri Lanka (Various Sites):

Ashoka Vatika: Widely identified with the Hakgala Botanical Garden near Nuwara Eliya.

Ravana Ella: Waterfalls and cave networks associated with Ravana's stronghold.

 

So Where was Lanka of the Ramayana geographically located?

1. According to traditional belief, it was located in present-day “Sri Lanka” (formerly also called Ceylon, and in earlier times also Simhala/Tamraparni and, in Tamil, Eelam).

2. According to eminent archaeologist, the late H.D.Sankalia, it was located in eastern India: eastern Madhya Pradesh (i.e perhaps present Chhattisgarh) and western Orissa.

3. According to Jijith Nadumuri Ravi, it was located at Bhagatrav, a Harappan site in Bharuch district of Gujarat.

Let me deal logically with this question:

I. H.D. Sankalia’s Theory.

II. Jijith’s Fairy Tales.

III. Vondoom’s Article.

 

 

I. H.D. Sankalia’s Theory 

I had first read about Sankalia’s theory when I was in high school, in the early seventies perhaps. At that time, interesting articles on controversial historical topics used to appear in various magazines of the time (like Bhavan’s Journal, Mirror, The Illustrated Weekly of India, etc.) which fired my imagination and ignited a passionate interest in ancient Indian history. Later, a combination of my self-inspired linguistic study of the Konkani language, my interest in learning different alphabets of the world, my inexplicable but now (as it turns out) very significant interest in learning the number-words in different languages of the world, etc., and, finally, news reports that Dr.S.R.Rao had deciphered the Harappan script and proved it to be “Aryan”, led to my foray into the world of Indo-European Homeland studies. [While I do not have any strong opinions on this anymore, and his decipherment is not generally accepted, I still believe that only a very deep and logical study of Dr, Rao’s methods, taken to a logical conclusion, will lead to the final decipherment. Sadly, decipherment is not a field I feel at all confident to enter into myself].

But the article which fired my imagination in the earliest days was an article (possibly in the Mirror) claiming that the Sandracottus and Xandramese (or whatever) of Greek records were Gupta kings and not Maurya kings and that the date of the Buddha was not around 600 BCE or so but a thousand years earlier. At that time I had myself done no independent research into any historical topic, and was fired by the emotional nationalist sentiments of youth; but later, after I started doing my own research, I realized that this claim had no basis and that the date of the Buddha was indeed around 600 BCE or so. Nevertheless I am everlastingly grateful to the unknown writer of that article for having ignited the spark of historical research in me.


At the same time, it was articles about H.D. Sankalia’s theories which aroused my nationalistic fervor in a negative sense actually two points made in his articles aroused my nationalist or traditionalist indignation:

1. A claim that the pādukā  episode (Bharata taking Rāma’s pādukas to be placed on the throne till his return) could not be a part of the original R ā ma story, since pādukas originated in Egypt and were introduced into India by the Greeks.

2. The claim, relevant to this article, that the Lanka of the Ramayana was located in astern Madhya Pradesh (i.e perhaps present Chhattisgarh) and western Orissa.

Strangely, while I distinctly remember reading the first of the two above articles, an extremely diligent and detailed search on google failed to produce any trace of it, or about Sankalia’s claim therein. So I have no idea whatsoever about the current state of research or debate (if any) on that point.

His claim about the Lanka of the Ramayana is very clearly still remembered and discussed at any rate by scholars dealing with the location of that fabled city.

While my initial reactions, as I wrote above, were full of youthful indignation and resentment fueled by nationalistic/traditionalistic sentiments, I later found much sense in his claims (apart from his logic that the sal trees described in the Ramayana are native to eastern India rather than to the traditionally located Ramayana sites in South India). The logic of objective research studies brought to my notice two points which seemed to confirm Sankalia’s claims:

1. Throughout the Valmiki Ramayana, not a single person (of whichever tribe or kingdom, right down to Ravana’s Lanka) has a linguistically Dravidian language name. One and all are Sanskrit names. Such a situation could be possible in MP-Orissa, but not in South India and Sri Lanka.

2. At the same time, the word Laṅkā at least seems to be of Austric origin, since there does not seem any logical Sanskrit etymological derivation for the name, but many different Austric languages of eastern mainland India (i,e, in and around Orissa) apparently have words like Laṅkā/Lagkā etc. referring to low-lying islands, deltas, river-bends and mudbanks.

Against this, citing “evidence” from the Valmiki Ramayana involving distances, directions and numerical figures (100 yojanas) etc., is not sufficient to prove anything. The Valmiki Ramayana is a text finalized in the Mauryan period, much more than a thousand years by any estimate after the date of the actual events themselves; and contains repeated references to countless things found only in Mauryan times (Yavanas and Romakas, the southern kingdoms of Chola, Chera/Kerala and Pandya, and even references to the Buddha and Charvaka, etc.); and treating such data as conclusive “evidence” is not, to my mind at least, valid.

But very little genuine research has been done on this subject, which in any case is not a subject that I have the least desire to get embroiled in, and so, whatever my personal opinions, I feel that the best option is to accept the traditional views until very definite further evidence to the contrary is produced, discussed, studied in detail, and accepted. 

 

II. Jijith’s Fairy Tales

After Sankalia’s theory, we now have Jijith Nadumuri Ravi’s new theory that the Lanka of the Ramayana is located among the Harappan sites in western India, and most specifically identified with a Harappan site named Bhagatrav in Bharuch district of Gujarat.

It will be seen that, from the above list of Ramayana sites, Jijith seems to have no objections to the traditional views about the geographical locations of first few (Ayodhya, Janakpur, Shringverpur, Prayagraj, Chitrakoot, Dandakaranya Forest). He objects only to the last three: “only three locations in the Ramayana caused all these stretching and the resultant debates and confusion. Panchavati, Kishkindha and Lanka. These were changed from their original location in Madhya Pradesh and Southern Gujarat to southwards into Maharashtra, Telangana, Karnataka and Srilanka!” Note that “Gujarat” has never entered the discourse of any other writer or scholar to this date when writing about the geographical location of any of the Ramayana sites. It is a purely Jijithan invention, in line with the countless concocted fairy tales in his first book “Rivers of Ṛgveda”, the most notable ones of which have been dealt with in my review of his book and in subsequent articles.

When Jijith could concoct fairy tales about Rigvedic geography, providing, in the process, names of countless people, places and rivers which have no connection with the Rigveda at all, and even on the basis of the comparatively small historical/geographical database within the Rigveda, is it to be wondered at all that the massive and complicated historical/geographical databases in the Ramayana and Mahabharata can provide him with countless times more fodder and fuel for his fairy tales? The sky is obviously the limit.

In this case, I do not require to wade through the fairy tales. Vondoom has done a good job of pointing out the fallacies in Jijith’s theory. I would only be repeating his words, which are best read in Vondoom’s article itself.

What I will deal with (again) here is the central obsessive aspect of Jijith’s writings: his obsessive compulsion to locate everything in our ancient texts originally within the Harappan areas.

This has been the central subject of his book, my review of his book, and the various cross-talk “debates” and arguments between myself and Jijith. In this case, he manages to go around in a circle (through new locations of Panchavati and Kishkindha in Madhya Pradesh) and “locate” the Lanka of the Ramayana in a Harappan site in Gujarat.

Strangely, he does not complete his obsession with the Harappan region by locating the Ayodhya of Rāma also in the west. He correctly locates it exactly where it is in northeastern Uttar Pradesh! So, in his fairy tale, we have Rāma moving out from northeastern Uttar Pradesh southwards into Madhya Pradesh and finally westwards towards “Lanka” in Gujarat.

And nothing better exposes the fakeness and mercenary politics behind Jijith’s theories than this reluctance to place the Ayodhya of Rāma in the west. As I pointed out in my review of his book, the following is his fairy-tale bringing the Ikṣvākus from their fairy-tale homeland on the Sarasvati river eastwards into Ayodhya of northeastern Uttar Pradesh by the time of Rāma:

Jijith then has the Ikṣvākus migrating from the "Ikṣvāku Homeland" on the first Sarayu (=Sarasvati) through a series of migrations, first westwards to the second Sarayu (=Sutlej), thence to the third Sarayu (=Haro), and finally to the fourth Sarayu (=Harirud). In the opposite direction, they migrate eastwards to the Awadh region of Uttar Pradesh where they give the name to the fifth Sarayu (=Ghaghara). He also backs this by connecting the names of rivers or tribes on the migration path with the names of kings given in the Epic-Puranic lists of Ikṣvāku kings: thus he derives the name Aṁśumati (an alternate name of the Yamunā) from the name of the Epic-Puranic Ikṣvāku king Aṁśumān whom he has migrating to the Yamunā (pp. 169, 215-216, 265-267, 308, 318, 321) from the Sarasvati, and he makes an Iranian tribe, the Sagartians, "descendants" of the Epic-Puranic Ikṣvāku king Sagara (p.220). Neither of these migrations, geographical connections, or associations with the rivers or kings (who are simply picked up from the Puranic lists) is suggested anywhere in any Vedic or Epic-Puranic text”.

In any case, despite all his obsessive desire to locate all the earliest and most important dynasties, kings and kingdoms of our ancient texts within the Harappan areas of the northwest, he nevertheless wangles everything so that by the time of Rāma at least, his Ikṣvākus are located in Ayodhya, even if it forces him to some more wangling to take the Ramayana events all the way back again into the Harappan area by locating Lanka on the Harappan coast of Gujarat! Even though all the earliest ancestors of Rāma, apart from his contemporary enemy Rāvaṇa, are all apparently located in the Harappan areas of the west, the kingdom of Rāma during his lifetime steadily remains in northeastern Uttar Pradesh, far from the Harappan sites!

Politically-savvy Jijith is aware that locating the kingdom of Rāma anywhere other than in Ayodhya, especially somewhere in the Harappan areas of the far west, would put him at loggerheads with the ideological/intellectual elements in the ruling political dispensation in India and the entire political narrative (correct in itself, but not fitting in with the rest of Jijith’s fairyland saga) of the Rāma Janmabhūmī movement which brought that party to power and which (correctly) locates Rāma’s birthplace in Ayodhya! Hence the whole rigmarole of locating Rāma’s kingdom in Ayodhya in northeastern Uttar Pradesh even when the whole rest of his fairy tale locates the ancestors of Rāma in the Harappan (or Sarasvati) area.

 

But apart from the blatant political expediency of the motives, there is also the question of logic. Anyone who knows about the strident “debate” between Jijith and myself about the original location of the earliest ancestral Ikṣvākus, knows the rationale behind Jijith’s refusal to accept that the earliest ancestral Ikṣvākus were in Ayodhya in northeastern Uttar Pradesh: according to him the areas of northeastern Uttar Pradesh could not be the ancestral areas because archaeologically there are no “cities” in the area (presumably “cities” culturally on the same level of urban development as seen in the Harappan sites). I have repeatedly argued against this kind of logic. But let us leave aside my arguments and simply go by Jijith’s own arguments in this respect.

Then the big question arises: since Jijith dates the events of the Ramayana around 1950 BCE or so, what exactly is there in 1950 BCE in the matter of “cities” in the areas of Ayodhya, Janakpur, Shringverpur, Prayagraj, Chitrakoot, Dandakaranya Forest which shows a magical urban transformation in these areas from earlier times (see above: Jijith undoubtedly accepts that these places are located in the east, in Uttar Pradesh, Nepal, Bihar, Orissa and eastern-Madhya-Pradesh/Chhattisgarh)? Surely every single argument (about urban sites) that Jijith makes to deny that the earliest Ikṣvākus lived in the east should also apply to the Ikṣvākus in 1950 BCE?

Clearly there is no sense in expecting common sense and factual honesty in Jijith’s theories. And, as I said, the flaws in Jijith’s location of Lanka in Gujarat have been very clearly pointed out by Vondoom, and I need not bother to point them out again.

 

III. Vondoom’s Article

I would not have bothered to write this article if Vondoom had not sent me his own article and asked me to join the discussion of his article on academia.edu. Jijith’s fairy tales will never be taken seriously for long, so while Vondoom’s article certainly provides a fitting reply to Jijith’s location of Lanka in Gujarat, I will take a few moments to talk about the references (direct and indirect) in Vondoom’s article to my own work:

One caveat belongs here for the sake of precision. Talageri's own Out-of-India migration chronology is itself a contested framework with no standing as mainstream consensus history, and citing his review is not an endorsement of that broader chronology. It is cited narrowly and specifically, for the documented methodological pattern it identifies and for the documented response it received, from a critic operating inside the same theoretical tradition as the author under review, which if anything makes the criticism harder to dismiss as external hostility rather than easier”.

I can fully understand that Vondoom’s citing of my review of Jijith’s book is not in itself an endorsement of my Out-of-India (OIT) case or of my chronology, and that, while my criticism of Jijith’s book is welcome to Vondoom since it comes “from a critic operating inside the same theoretical tradition as the author under review, which if anything makes the criticism harder to dismiss as external hostility rather than easier”, my own OIT case is also, to Vondoom, “a contested framework with no standing as mainstream consensus history”.

But Jijith’s formulations are basically ridiculous and will never be cited seriously fifty years hence while my OIT will hold its own even after a hundred years. If Vondoom really wants to show his scholarly erudition in these topics, why choose to show it by flogging a dead horse or shooting a sitting duck? Instead of, in a way, indulging in “spit-and-run” in respect of my OIT case, I would appreciate Vondoom more as a scholar if he chose to reply to my OIT case and tried to show how my OIT case is flawed with the same skill with which he dissects Jijith’s “Lanka” arguments.