[085.91]. Singh, Rana P.B. 1991 a. Rāma’s route after banishment: a geographical viewpoint....

Singh, Rana P.B. 1991. Rāma’s route after banishment. Jl. of Sc. Res., 41 (B): 39-46. 39

[085.91]. Singh, Rana P.B. 1991 a. Rāma’s route after banishment: a geographical viewpoint.

Journal of Scientific Research (Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, ISSN: 0447-

9483), <BHU Platinum Jubilee Year>, Special Volume, 41 (B): pp. 39-46.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rāma’s Route after Banishment: A Geographic Viewpoint

Rana P.B. Singh Professor of Cultural Geography, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, UP 221005, India.

Searching Rāma’s route of exile, there are three types of interpretation based on different

sources, i.e., Vālmiki’s Rāmāyana, folk literature, and critical examination of literary sources

along with archaeological and field studies. There exists controversy among the scholars to

finally accept the route. A systematic account of the three proposals are presented and illustrated

with three maps here in the geographic context, which clearly refer to close relationships among

natural landscape, sense of sacrality and the ancient route of pilgrimages.

Key words: Vālmiki’s Rāmāyana, alternative route and reconstruction.

Introduction

In tracing the history of emergence of space and time in regional context, the use of

routes is a necessary tool as they show the migration of people, acculturation and the human

quest to understand the expanding territory. In India’s cultural history routes have played an

important role in integrating the different cultures. While moving and following the routes, man

had visualized the landscape and its perception by the people. Since the Vedic period, routes

have been serving as the pathways along the rivers. Among the most ancient routes, the route

followed by Rāma, Sītā and Lakshmana after their banishment had been one of the major issues

of debate among the scholars of ancient Indian history. The Rāmāyana (VR) is the original source

that describes the route and the nearby landscape and people; but the identification is still

uncertain as it varies according to the interpretations. It is believed that the VR is the Ādikāvya

(the first written Sanskrit epic) of Indian culture. Of course, it is based on mythology, it provides

the then existing situation. Many scholars still opine that the epical <end of page 39> description

is imaginary, while others believe that it was a reality. Here, nothing has been said about this

controversy, rather emphasis has been laid on the major contributions.

Rāma’s Route as described by Vālmiki

Rāma, Sītā and Lakşmaņa after banishment had followed a systematic route as described by

Vālmiki (refer to VR; cf. Dc 1976: pp. 102-104, 110-114, and 126-130) <end of page 40>:

1. They crossed the Tamasā (Toǹs) river; south of Ayodhyā in a chariot (VR II. XLVI. 28).

2. Crossed the Vedaśruti river, a tributary of the Tamasā (II. XLIX. 8 and 9); then crossed the

Gomati, and afterwards the Syandikā (the Sai) rivers.

3. Reached Sringaverapura (modern Singraur), where Nishāda chief Guhā was living (II. L. 33),

followed with crossing the Gangā river (II. LII. 62).

4. Reached at the junction of the Gangā and the Yamunā rivers and visited the hermitage of

Bhāradvāja (II. LIV. 2, 8 and 9).

5. Crossed the Yamunā and reached Chitrakuta (II. LV. 14); and visited Vālmiki’s hermitage

(āshrāma ; II. LVI. 4, 16 and 20).

6. Reached the hermitage of Atri and Anusuyā, situated at the border of Dandākaranya (II.

CXVII. 5).


7. Just after entering Dandākararya, Virādha (a demon) was killed (II. CXIX. 19).

8. Visited the hermitage of Sharabhanga (III. V. 2, 3).

9. Reached Sutīkshna’s hermitage along the Mandākinī, a tributary of the Godāvarīriver (III. V.

36 and III. VII. 5).

10. Travelled to Panchāpsara Sarovara (III. XI. 5), and returned to Sutīkshna’s hermitage and

thus completed ten years of their exile (III. XI. 27 and 28).

Fig. 1.

11. Reached Agastya’s āshrama (III. XI. 37, 40 and 41).

12. Arrived to Panchavatī (close to modem Nāsika), at the bank of Godāvarī(III. XV. 12);

Lakshmana disfigured nose of Suparnakhā, Rāvana’s sister (III. XVII. 18).

13. Rāma and Lakshmana traversed the whole of Dandakāranya wilderness in quest of Sītā (III. LXI. 23).

14. Entered the dense Kraunch forest, close to Janasthāna (III. LXIX. 5).

15. Visited the hermitage of Mātanga (III. LXIX. 8).

16. Arrived at Pampā river (III. LXXIII. 2 and III. LXXIV. 1), a small tributary of the Krishnā river.


17. Paid visit to Shavarī’s hermitage (III. LXXIII. 26 - 28); and also Sapta-Sāgara tirtha (III.

LXXV. 4).

18. Met Hanumān (monkey commander) at the foothill of Rishyamuka (IV. III. 1); nearby was

Malayagiri and Kishkindhā (IV. XII. 13, and 14). <end of page 41>

19. Retired to Prasravana-giri (spring hill), called as Malayavana (IV. XXVII. 1 and IV. XXVIII.

1).

20. From Kishkindhā, Rāma and Lakshmana while proceeding to Lankā, marked towards the

Sahyagiri (Sahayādri), i.e., northern part of the Western Ghats (VI. IV. 37).

21. Reached Malayagiri, the southern part of the Western Ghats (VI. IV. 70, and 71).

22. Ascended the Mahendragiri and saw the Southern Sea (VI. IV. 92); after descending reached

to the shore (VI. IV. 99).

23. Made bridge on the shallow snip of the sea (Setubandha) with trees and stones (VI. XXII.

56).

24. Crossed the sea and encamped before Lanka (VI. XXII. 75, & 83).

After killing Rāvana and installation of Vibhishana as the king of Lankā, Rāma, Sītā and

Lakhamana had returned to Ayodhyā following the same route, except leaving Sutīshna’s

hermitage, Panchapsara-sarovara (VI. CXXV. 3 to 52), and before reaching Ayodhyā they

stopped at Nandigrāma to meet Bharata (VI. CXXIX), and finally arrived Ayodhya (VI.CXXX.

33).

The reconstruction of Rāma’s route of Exile’ as described by Vālmiki is done while

believing that Rāma, in fact did undertaken an extended journey from Ayodhyā to Lankā (modern Sri Lanka). Of course, well accepted route could not be easily identified, but the

generalized path is suggested (see Figure 1).

Alternative Reconstruction of Rāma’s Route

While reconstructing Rāma’s route after banishment, two basic assumptions are implicitly

followed: first, that Rāma did in fact exist in the prehistoric period, and second, that he actually

did undertaken an extended journey as described in the Valmiki’s Rāmāyana, probably

composed in the ca. 2nd century BCE. Most of the scholars have accepted the first assumption,

but the second assumption is a subject of controversy. The main problem related to the

controversy arose due to existence of many identical names of sites those mentioned in the text at

different locations.

Another problem related to controversy is the identification of Lanka, the capital of the

villain Rāvana, the abductor of Rāma’s consort. The text (VR) describes that the abduction held

in the Vindhyan forests, beyond Rāma’s reach. This has been interpreted by scholars in two

different ways, i.e., (i) Lankā was where the modern Sri Lanka exists, believing that Rāma took

march across the ocean to Lankā, and (ii) Lankā was in the Vindhyan region, about 20 miles (32

km) north of Jabalpur. Both of the views need further interpretation and confirmation (cf.

Schwartzberg 1978: p. 164). <end of page 42>

(Late) V.S. Vakankar (1983) has proposed a different route (Figure 2) passing through

eastern part moving towards south and then turn northwards up to Patasar along the Betwā river,

followed with its march towards south reaching up to Lankā (modern Sri Lanka). From

Lonārsara it follows the traditional route with some changes in the southern part (compare Figs. 1

and 2). He opines that there existed two Panchavatī, the one at the junction of the Varada, the

Indrāvati and the Godāvarīrivers, and another at Nasika. Similarly there also existed two <end of

page 43> Chitrakuta, one at the bank of Mandākinī about 70 miles southwest from Prayāga

where was Vālmiki’s Āshrama; and the other site lying at the source of the Indrāvatī river,

tributary of the Godāvarī, in modern Orissa. He also suggests two probable interlinking routes

between Chitrakuta and Panchavatī, and between Panchavatī and Shavarī’s Āshrama (cf. Fig. 2).


Fig. 2. <printed on p. 43>

<end of page 44>

In fact, Vakankar has left to identify the Āshrama of Atri and Anusuyā, which was at the

border of Dandakāranya, towards the south of Chitrakuta (compare Figs. 1 and 2). This āshrama

was the landmark tuning point in the route. Additionally, Agastya Āshrama was also not

identified by him, while the VR mentions that with the advice of Sutikshna, Rāma had proceeded

to Agastya Āshrama, lying at the distance of 4 yojana (c. 32 miles) south-wards. It is clear from

Fig. 2 as suggested, by Vakankar, that he has accepted the folk and traditional believes along

with others in reconstructing routes between Chitrakuta (I) and Sītavāna along the Narmadā river,

and also from the latter place up to Lonarsara. This route should have been reconstructed while

interlinking Chitrakuta (I), Sītavāna and Lonarsara.

The sites identifying Pampā, Shavari Āshrama, and Sapta-Sāgara tirtha along the Pampā river, a tributary of the Tungabhadrā (which again a tributary of the Krishnā river) are the same

as described traditionally by Vālmiki and suggested by Vakankar.

T.P. Iyer (1940) has firstly tried to critically examine the reconstruction of “Rāma’s route

of Exile” as described by Vālmiki and interpreted by B.A. Pargiter (1894). Iyer has identified

Lankā along the Hirana river, a tributary of the Narmadā river, lying about 20 miles (32 km)

north of Jabalpur (Figure 3).


Fig. 3 <printed on p. 44>

Following a verse of the VR (I.III. 24), he identifies the island of Lankā at the junction of

two tributaries. His ideas are further supported by the studies carried out by Raikrishna Das and

U.P. Shah, and more strongly by H.D. Sankalia (1973: pp. 7-8, 48). Sankalia (1973: p. 48) opines

that

“the mistake started with the wrong identification of the river Godāvari, and

Dandakāranya, The Rāmayana clearly mentions that they were within easy reach of the hill

Chitrakuta (ref. VR III. 13-14). Here were Panchavatī, Rishyamuka, Pampā, Kishkindhā and Lankā. And above all these were within the Vindhya hills and forests”.

He raised the crucial issue of not having description of the Narmadā river which flows south of

the Vindhyas, except in the much later interpolated sargas in the Kishkindhā Kānda of the VR

Following Hiralal (1932: pp. 157-163), Sankalia also opines that there was a small river Godāvarī about 11 miles south of Chitrakuta, which has now disappeared. He further suggests that only

with critical reading of the Rāmāyana the reconstruction of Rāma’s route can be identified (cf.

Sankalia 1973: p. 53), which might be further compared with geographical, linguistic,

ethnographic and archaeological evidences.


Concluding Remarks

In the absence of detailed and integrated investigations from different sources like

literature, linguistics, archaeology, history, anthropology, geography, folk tradition, etc. still

confidently one can’t claim about the final reconstruction of the “Rāma’s route of Exile”.

However, the interpretation proposed by Sankalia is more plausible and fitting into the spatial

nature of <end of page 45> landscape and movement. But, ultimately no one can say the final

word. The only contribution of this paper is to provide spatial vision of the three different routes.

References

De, S.C. 1976. Historicity of Rāmayana and the Indo-Aayan Society in India and Ceylon. Delhi:

Ajanta Pubis. (India).

Hiralal, G.N. 1937. The situation of Rāvana’s Lanka; in, G. N. Jha Commemoration Volume.

Poona: 157-163.

Iyer, T. Paramasiva 1940. Rāmāyana and Lankā (Part I and II). Bangalore City.

Jacobi, Herman George 1960. The Rāmāyana. Translated by S.N. Ghosala. Baroda. Original,

(1893 ed.).

Kibe, M.V. 1928. Rāvana’s Lankā located in Central India. Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol.

IV: 694-702.

Kihe, M.V. 1939. Inhabitants of the country around Rāvana’s Lankā in Amarkantak; in, A

Volume of Eastern and Indian Studies, (ed. S.M. Katre and P.K. Code), Bombay. With

maps.

Pargiter, B.A. 1894. The geography of Rāma’s exile. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of

Great Britain and Ireland : 231-264.

Rāmadas, G. 1927-28. Rāvana and his kins. Indian Historical Quarterly.

Sankalia, H. D. 1973. Rāmayana: Myth or Reality. Delhi: People’s Publishing House, With one

map.

Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (ed.) 1978. A Historical Atlas of South Asia. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. For the Rāmayana, see Map - Plate III A. 1 (b):13; and description, page

164.

Shah, Umakant P. 1972. The geography of Rāma-vanavāsa and Lankā. Svadhyāya (in Gujarati),

Vol. 10: 1-23.

Vikankar, Vishnu Shridhar 1983. Lecture on Ayodhyā: 12-13 November, (in Hindi).

The Vālmiki’s Rāmāyana (critical ed.). Baroda: Oriental Inst.

― 1960. Vol.I. The Bālakānda, ed. G. H. Bhatt.

― 1962. Vol. II. The Ayodhyākānda, ed. P. L. Vaidya.

― 1963. Vol. HI. The Aranyakānda, ed. P. C. Divanji.

― 1965. Vol. IV. The Kishakindhākānda, ed. D. R. Mankad.

― 1966. Vol. V. The Sundarakānda, ed. G. C. Jhala.

― 1969. Vol. VI. The Yuddhakānda, ed . P. L. Yaidya; Fasl. I: 1967, and Fasl. 2: 1969.

Vyas, Shantikumar N. 1967. India in the Rāmāyana Age: A Study of the Social and Cultural

Conditions in Ancient India as described in Vālmiki’s Rāmāyana. Delhi: Atma Ram &

Sons. With maps.

Weber, A. 1872, 1875. On the Rāmāyana. Indian Antiquary, vol. I & IV.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The author

Contact & Corresponding Address: # New F - 7, Jodhpur Colony;

Banaras Hindu University,

Varanasi, UP 221005. INDIA

Tel: (+091)-542-2575-843.

Cell/ Mobile: 0-9838 119474

E-mail: [email protected]

§ Rana has been involved in studying, performing and promoting the heritage planning and

spiritual tourism in the Varanasi region for the last over three decades as promoter, collaborator

and organiser. On these topics he has given lectures and seminars at various centres in Australia,

Austria, Belgium, China PR, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Nepal,

Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,

Thailand, USA (& Hawaii), USSR. His publications include over two hundred research papers

and forty books and two regional guidebooks for cultural tourism, like Banaras (Varanasi),

Cosmic Order, Sacred City, Hindu Traditions (1993), Environmental Ethics (1993), The Spirit

and Power of Place (1994), Banaras Region: A Spiritual & Cultural Guide (2002, with P.S.

Rana), Towards pilgrimage Archetypes: Panchakroshi Yatra of Kashi (2002), Where the Buddha

Walked (2003), The Cultural Landscape and the Lifeworld: The Literary Images of Banaras

(2004), Banaras, the City Revealed (2005, with George Michell), Banaras, the Heritage City:

Geography, History, Bibliography (2009), and the eight books under ‘Planet Earth & Cultural

Understanding Series’: ‒ five from Cambridge Scholars Publishing UK: Uprooting Geographic

Thoughts in India (2009), Geographical Thoughts in India: Snapshots and Vision for the 21st

Century (2009), Cosmic Order & Cultural Astronomy (2009), Banaras, Making of India’s

Heritage City (2009), Sacred Geography of Goddesses in South Asia (2010), and ‒ three from

Shubhi Publications (New Delhi): Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes (2011),

Sacredscapes and Pilgrimage Systems (2011), and Holy Places and Pilgrimages: Essays on

India (2011).

[085.91]. Singh, Rana P.B. 1991 a. Rāma’s route after banishment: a geographical viewpoint....

Documents

Transcript of [085.91]. Singh, Rana P.B. 1991 a. Rāma’s route after banishment: a geographical viewpoint....