Mahabharata War – A Backdrop

Events in the last 20 years tell us that a Third World War is entirely possible.

We Bharatiya and Hindus across the world must come out of colonial mentality and learn history from scholars from Bharata, e.g Ramesh Chandra (R.C.) Mazumdar (who was perhaps the only historian with depth of knowledge and objective mind at the time of partioned independence ). It has become a fashion, we perrot what western white-skin people writes and take them as words of Veda.

Krishna’s birthday falls on the ashtami or eighth day of the dark half of the month of Bhadrapada (August-September). 04 September 2007 was the 5234 th birthday.

Krishna stayed for 125 years (3227BCE to 3102 BCE, before common era) and left this mortal world in 3102 BCE, 35 years (or 36 years, depends on the method of calculation) after the Kurukshetra War. The Kali Yoga (present Iron Age) started with the disappearance of Krishna.

These dates are calculated based on the new data from archaeology, astronomical data contained in the Mahabharata, Puranas, and Surya-Siddhanta; and are accepted by the Bharatiya/Indian as well as western scholars. Krishna is a historial personality, and not a mythological figure, as colonial and marxist historians used to depict.

I think Bharat is right and that Mr Yardi’s analysis follows outdated and inaccurate notions and ideas fostered by western historians. The mahabharata mentions a significantly reduced Sarasvati River that had stopped going to the sea. Geological studies of extinct river channels in northern india indicate that the Sarasvati stopped being an ocean going river in the early to middle fourth millenium before current era ie around 3600-3200 BC. It also shows that the river Sarasvati completely dried up around 1900 BC. So how is it that Mahabharata could have occurred around 1400 BC or 1100 BC – approximately 500-800 years after the drying up of Saraswati ?

Puranas ( which western historians have done all and some more to discredit and distort ) support the 3102 BC date of Kaliyuga – and it is this that has served as sheet anchor for traditional Hindu history. There is remarkable internal consistency in the fitting the traditional king-lists when derived from this date. On the other hand using Alexander as sheet anchor has led to not only to wrong and mangled chronologies – which find no support in traditional accounts (for eg Shankara in 600 AD – as against puranic 500 BC, or the Buddha in 500 BC instead of the puranic 1800 BC) but also to the dismissal of many kings and dynasties as mythological (Vikramaditya and Shalivahana of Ujjaini). Such is the violence done to traditional accounts is to construct our history.

It is time we returned to traditional narratives to understand what they had to say about our ancestors – instead of being blindly led up the garden path by colonial historians.