Historicity of Lord Krishna -Dr RAJ BAHADUR YADAV

Historicity of Lord Krishna
                             

                -Dr RAJ BAHADUR YADAV

Historicity of Lord Krishna
                             

            

Prof Ram Saran Sharma[1919-2011] wrote his famous book,"Ancient India" in 1977. It was banned by the Janata Party government at Centre in 1978 for his criticism of the historicity of Lord Krishna and events of the Mahabharata epic. The eminent historian refused to budge an inch from his original stand though the ban order on the controversial book was lifted later on by the Central government. Prof RC Sharma said,"Although Krishna plays an important role in Mahabharata,inscriptions and sculptural pieces found in Mathura dating back to 200BC to 200AD do not attest to his presence. Because of this, ideas of epic age based on the Ramayana and Mahabharata have to be discarded". As a humble student of history, I feel that Mahabharata is closer to history and the research should continue on our ancient towns  which have old forts in ruins and which are said to be somehow connected with the incidents narrated in the great epic or our Puranas.. It is quite unacademic to put a full stop to further exploration and excavations needed to access the clinching evidence. We should not forget that nobody knew about  the Mohenjo- Daro and Harappa[Indus Valley civilizations now located in Pakistan] before the twenties of the last century. We ought to be thankful to a British Army engineer, Alexander Cunnigham, who having retired in 1861, laid the foundation of  the Department of Archeological Survey of India. His careful and systematic field surveys of ancient historical mounds revealed many aspects of our obscure ancient heritage. He had a keen interest in our epics,Puranas and forts in ruins. He traced countless Buddhist monasteries with the help of his men. While laying down the railway tracks in Pakistan near Sahiwal, he met the local people who told him,"There was an ancient town here spread over 12 kosa". Sometimes people's collective memory and myths also help in reaching out to distant past. What Prof Sharma said about Lord Krishna's historical presence more than forty years ago must be revisited and carefully checked in the light of solid facts. I am of the view that historical facts must be respected by all and sundry. I don't happen to be a professional historian yet I know this much that in historical context, no substantial evidence emerges all of a sudden, it is actually multi-layered. We have certainly to give  some judicious space to scriptural evidence also. In research. we have two types of sources to prove our thesis, primary and secondary. What Prof R S Sharma offered as his final opinion about the absence of Lord Krishna from historical records should be subjected to further analysis and debate. The ancient Buddhist text, Anguttara Nikaya refers to sixteen mahajanpadas which existed before Lord Buddha. The word"maha" means great and "janpada" connotes "foothold of a tribe" .Another Buddhist text,"Chulla Niddesa"[5th century BC] refers to these city states[including that of Surasenas of Mathura].Kautilya's Arthshastra[4th century BC] refers to the  Kurus,Panchalas,Madrakas and Kambojas" etc..The Valmiki Ramayana also mentions the Janapadas of Andhakas,Pundras,Cholas,Avanti

s,Bharatas, Kurus, Surasenas, Kambojas, Daradas, Yavanas and Sakas. The Vana Parva of Mahabharata  alludes to Andhas,Pulindas, Sakas, Kambojas , Yavanas and Abhiras as rulers of future in Kaliyug. Mahabharata prominently discusses the dynasty of Surasenas to which Lord Krishna belonged. This was the age of semi-nomadic tribes looking for fertile lands to settle down permanently. It was the period before the rise of first Indian empire in the fourth century BC. Panini's grammar "Asthadhyayi "[4th century BC] endorses the existence of Krishna whose father was Vasudeva. The setting of the Mahabharata is in the iron age roughly 1200 B C to 800 BC. We will have to understand the nature of rural and urban settlements of those times. The tribal oligarchy was in existence in small kingdoms. The massive forts built of stone like those of the early medieval age  or fortifications raised with the help of "lakhori"[flat small baked bricks] of the medieval period had not yet emerged. The copper age was being replaced by the iron age on a small scale depending on the area in which the tribal confederations were active. Most of the forts were made of mud with ditches or moats around them with wooden palisades. Though the "sangham mukhiya" was acknowledged as "raja" but his influence was limited to his own "janpada". Such mud  forts couldn't survive the ravages of time. These ancient towns can be located within the framework of the Panited Grey Ware[PGW] civilisation. The places mentioned in the Mahabharata like Hastinapur, Indraprastha and Mathura belong to this historical period. We have not been able to spot the forts raised by the Sakas,Kushans and Indo-Greek rulers of Mathura so far. No doubt, they have left behind a few pieces of sculptures and inscriptions for us to identify and acknowledge  them historically. My argument is that before the emergence of Mahapadam Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka the Great, the tribal people lived in deep forests or small villages and followed faithfully their tribal "rajas"[ or sangham mukhiyas] .More than three thousand years, the art of inscription  had not developed yet though some of the Puranas  had started composing tales of 'sangham mukhiyas" and "rajas" of the past. Nothing in this world appears all of sudden. Lord Krishna's complex historiography can be fully comprehended by taking into account the material basis of a tribal society which was slowly but steadily moving towards a monarchic form of rule with despotic kings in power. In fact, Lord Krishna belonged to such a "Janpada"[Republic] which was run democratically with the advice of the community elders. The technology of farming  was quite backward and Lord Krishna and his followers had the only valuable property of their cows and fertile land on the banks of Yamuna . Lord Krishna had the guts to stand up against all powerful Indra who had threatened to deluge Mathura by floods. He took all his followers to Govardhan and saved their lives from the fury of Indra. Krishna's worship had begun during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya. Even Kautilya takes note of his presence in the battle of Mahabharata. The Bhagvata Purana acknowledges him as a prominent member of Andhak-Vrishni clan of Yadavs. Manusmriti also accepts that Surasenas of Mathgura were great warriors. I have gone through the magnum opus," Ancient Indian  historical tradition"[1922] authored by a British ICS officer, Frederick Eden Pargiter, also. Mr Pargiter has been able to reach out to that distant past of Lord Krishna and his native city of Mathura city of 1000 BC through a rigorous research work of two decades.Pargiter attests the prsence of Lord Krishna in Mathura which was the largest PGW site of 375 hectares in use. Around 180 BCE, the Indo-Greek King, Agathacles of Bactaria issued some coins bearing the images of Krishna and Balarama with the symbols like conch,wheel and plough and gada[mace]. A Mora stone slab with an inscription in Brahmi script [ Ist century AD] has been located from Vrindavan[Mathura] with a list of names of five Vrishni warriors like Krishna, Balarama,Pradyuman, Aniruddha and Shambha. What are these things if not a part of solid historical evidence about the historical existence of  Krishna? I feel as an academic very strongly that Lord Krishna is an historical figure.