The Geographical Location of Lanka of the Ramayana
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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment