Ramayana and Mahabharata are two of the most important epics in Indian literature. Both are considered sacred texts by many and they continue to have a profound influence on India’s culture, society, and religion. To a religious Hindu, it doesn’t matter whether the events in these epics are historical or mythical. The stories and characters in them continue to be a source of moral guidance and inspiration. However, a historian views these epics as a reflection of a real society and culture, leaving aside the question of whether these events actually happened or not.
Both epics have numerous versions but historians generally rely on Valmiki’s Ramayana and Vyasa’s Mahabharata as the most authentic ones. While the general belief is that the events in Ramayana happened before the events in Mahabharata, some scholars opine that it might well be the other way round. Let’s see how historians analyse these epics to work out which of these worlds came first.
People who hold that Ramayana happened before Mahabharata argue that Ramayana is set in the Treta Yuga while Mahabharata is set in the Dvapara Yuga. Yugas are essentially cyclic epochs of time in Vedic cosmology and since Dvapara Yuga comes after Treta Yuga, it is logical to conclude that Ramayana happened before Mahabharata. Moreover, there are references in Mahabharata to people and events from Ramayana. For example, Sage Markandeya, in the Vana Parva (Book of the Forest) of Mahabharata, narrates the story of Rama and Sita to the exiled Pandavas to comfort them during their time in the forest. Also, Krishna mentions King Janaka, Sita’s father, in the Bhagavad Gita. On these grounds, it is generally accepted by common people that Ramayana came first.
Historians, however, have a different perspective. They believe that the texts of these epics that we find today have undergone numerous revisions and interpolations over time. Thus, the didactic elements are thought to have been added later to the original texts, which would have contained just the core narrative.
Mahabharata’s story is that of the Kuru clan set in Hastinapura. The epic revolves around the internal conflicts within the clan leading to the great war of Kurukshetra. It also contains numerous subplots and stories of other clans like the Yadus, to which Krishna belonged. We find references to the Kuru and Yadu clans in various sources including both Brahmanical and Buddhist texts, which leads historians to conclude that these clans did exist during the later Vedic Age and post-Vedic times. In fact, one of the 16 large territorial political kingdoms, the Mahajanapadas, shares its name with Krishna’s grandfather, King Surasena, and another one is named Kuru Mahajanapada. The Surasena kingdom lay around Mathura, the same region where King Surasena is said to have ruled. Mahajanapadas are thought to have arisen in the Indian subcontinent around 600 BCE. The genealogies presented in Mahabharata reference Bharata as one of the ancestors of the Kuru clan and, notably, the Bharata clan is mentioned in the Rigveda as well, which is dated to around 1500-1000 BCE.
The core story of Mahabharata is centred around the Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh region of India. Even when the Pandavas set out to establish their own kingdom separate from Hastinapura, the area they choose is that of Indraprastha, which is about 100 km away from Hastinapura. The story of Surasena and the Yadus is set around Mathura and the kingdom of Panchala is located in the same Ganga Yamuna doab region. There are no references to the central and southern parts of India, at least in the core story.
The core story of Ramayana is not about a clan conflict but about a conflict between two kings, one of Ayodhya and the other of Lanka. To begin with, Ayodhya is located in eastern Uttar Pradesh, which seems to be outside the region explored, at least in the core story of Mahabharata. While some take Lanka to be modern-day Sri Lanka, there are others like Romila Thapar who hold that Lanka refers to a region in central India near the Vindhya range. Scholar H.D. Sankalia noted that the saal trees mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana’s Lanka grow east of the Vindhyas and not in Sri Lanka, supporting a central-eastern regional context. This makes Lanka a riverine delta or lake-bound land in central India, rather than an ocean-surrounded southern island. Whether you believe Lanka to be in Sri Lanka or central India, it lies far away from the focal region of Mahabharata.
Now, the migration pattern of the Indo-Aryans, speakers of the Indo-Aryan group of languages, in the Indian subcontinent is thought to have been from the north-western region of India towards the Ganga Yamuna doab region and then towards the eastern and central parts of India. These three regions were the main areas of settlement of the Indo-Aryans during the early Vedic Age, the later Vedic Age, and the Mahajanapada period respectively. Given that Mahabharata is set in the Ganga Yamuna doab region and Ramayana’s geography is set in the middle Ganga plain and central India, scholars have argued that the world of Mahabharata belongs to an earlier stage of this movement than the world of Ramayana.
In this migration of the Indo-Aryans, the society and polity of these regions also evolved. In the early Vedic Age, society was organised around clans (janas) and kinship ties since the Indo-Aryans were pastoral nomads. They were not tied to any fixed territory. This changed in the later Vedic Age when the Indo-Aryans started adopting agriculture. This led to the emergence of janapadas, which were small territorial settlement units. Some of these janapadas gained a lot of political power and territorial control and became mahajanapadas. This marked the emergence of state-level political organisation such as monarchies and oligarchies in the Indian subcontinent.
Since Mahabharata is based on an intra-clan conflict while Ramayana is centred around a conflict between two kings, it is inferred that Mahabharata reflects an earlier stage of society and polity than Ramayana.
Another interesting aspect to compare in both epics is what happens after the main conflict is resolved. In Ramayana, after Rama defeats Ravana and returns to Ayodhya, we find the beginning of a new utopian era, the Rama Rajya. Here, the king is just and virtuous and the people are happy and prosperous. This makes Ramayana a more forward-looking epic as it celebrates monarchy and kingship. Many scholars hold that the epic works to legitimise the monarchies through semi-divine kingship and a state of utopia.
In Mahabharata, after the great war of Kurukshetra, we see that the Kuru clan is almost wiped out and not even the Pandavas are happy with this outcome. They want to renounce the kingdom but Krishna convinces them to rule. Mahabharata is thus a more retrospective epic where the change from a kinship-based society to the new social and political order is questioned. The epic talks about the moral dilemmas and ethical challenges associated with this change.
This difference is another piece of evidence that Mahabharata’s world comes before Ramayana’s as the former reflects a society in transition while the latter reflects a more established social and political order.
We can also glean the perspectives on women in both epics. In Mahabharata, women play a more active role in the story and enjoy greater freedom and agency in their actions. Ganga is at liberty to not only kill her children but also leave her husband. Kunti has children from different men and Satyavati already has a child before she marries Shantanu. The story has elements of both polygamy and polyandry with Draupadi having five husbands.
Ramayana’s perspective on women is more conservative. Sita is the ideal wife who is expected to go through fire to prove her chastity and loyalty to her husband. Despite that, she is still exiled by Rama due to public opinion, though this episode comes from the Uttara Kanda, a later addition to the text. Ramayana also has elements of polygamy with Ravana and Dasharatha having multiple wives. However, polyandry is not a standard feature in Ramayana and even polygamy is discouraged as Rama doesn’t marry anyone else after Sita. Thus, Ramayana heavily champions monogamy through the ideal conduct of Rama and Sita. Moreover, the role of women in the story is limited. Lakshmana’s wife Urmila is only mentioned in passing and Mandodari, Ravana’s wife, should have been a more prominent character.
Another interesting point of comparison is the treatment of dharma. In Mahabharata, dharma is a complex and nuanced concept. It doesn’t present dharma as a fixed set of rules, and it grapples with the moral challenges and dilemmas faced by the characters rather than providing clear answers. The protagonists seem to be just as cunning and evil as the antagonists while the antagonists seem to be just as virtuous as the protagonists. The story is filled with moral ambiguities and the epic doesn’t shy away from describing them and leaving them unresolved.
In Ramayana, dharma is more straightforward, and good and bad are relatively clearer. The story is largely black and white with Rama and Sita being the ideal protagonists and Ravana being the ideal antagonist. The epic is about the triumph of good over evil and it seems to imply that there does indeed exist a clear definition of good and evil.
Mahabharata is therefore more progressive and liberal in its perception of women, marriage, and dharma than Ramayana. This is another reason to believe that the society depicted in Mahabharata is the earlier of the two, as it reflects a relatively egalitarian order, which is a feature of early Vedic society, while the features of Ramayana’s world are found in post-Vedic society.
Caste, however, is the one place where the two epics look remarkably alike. Caste-based duties are certainly prescribed in Mahabharata and followed to a large extent, but the hierarchy is seen breaking often enough. Karna is eventually allowed to be a king and a warrior even though he is taken to be a charioteer’s son and thus a Shudra. Drona and Kripa are Brahmins but they too participate in the Kurukshetra war and Krishna, a Kshatriya, becomes a charioteer. We also find intercaste marriages with Bhima marrying the Rakshasi Hidimbi and Arjuna marrying Ulupi, a Naga princess.
Ramayana is not very different once its later layers are set aside. Ravana himself is a Brahmin, the son of the sage Vishrava, and yet he rules a kingdom and fights wars, which is no less a crossing of caste duties than Drona taking up arms at Kurukshetra. Rama, for his part, embraces Guha, the Nishada chieftain, as a friend. The episodes usually held up to show Ramayana as the harsher of the two do not survive scrutiny either. Shambuka’s killing is in the Uttara Kanda while Trishanku’s curse and Ahalya’s punishment come from the Bala Kanda, and both these books are regarded as later additions to Valmiki’s Ramayana.
None of this settles the question, and it probably never will be settled. The stories reached us through centuries of retelling and every teller left a little of their own world behind in them, which makes it impossible to say with any confidence which portions belong to the core narrative and which were added along the way. Still, the historian’s reading is the one that keeps offering something new. Whether or not Mahabharata’s world of quarrelling clans really did precede Ramayana’s world of righteous kings, the two epics read remarkably well as snapshots of a society moving from kinship to kingship, and that is a story worth telling even if the chronology never cooperates. In the end, both epics have been generous to everyone who comes to them. The devotee finds a moral compass, the historian finds a society caught mid-transformation, and the epics, having outlasted every scholar who has tried to date them, seem perfectly content to let the argument continue.