Rivers in Ancient India (study)

by Archana Sarma | 2019 | 49,356 words

This page relates ‘The river Sarasvati and its Present Status’ of the study on the rivers in ancient India as reflected in the Vedic and Puranic texts. These pages dicsusses the elements of nature and the importance of rivers (Nadi) in Vedic and Puranic society. Distinctive traits of rivers are investigated from descriptions found in the Vedas (Samhitas), Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads and Puranas. The research is concluded by showing changing trends of rivers from ancient to modern times.

1. The river Sarasvatī and its Present Status

< Previous

Next >

In the Saṃhitā literature, Sarasvatī is described not only as a river but also as a goddess. The earliest view of Sarasvatī was undoubtedly as a river.

In the Ṛgvedasaṃhitā, this river Sarasvatī is mentioned at several places and considered divine apparently for the sacredness of its water.^[1] In the remote age, Sarasvatī was a river held in high esteem and it was deliberated the best of all the rivers mentioned there. The other name of water is apaḥ, which represent rivers in general. The Sarasvatī being the prime of these rivers, all waters mentioned in the Veda are identified with it.^[2] Waters also create universal principle, and the Purāṇas also mention the Sarasvatī as going of its own concord and as creating waters in the clouds.^[3]

In the Vedas, waters are mentioned not merely as divine waters (divayaḥ apaḥ) or river but as the very source of the creation of the world.^[4] It is closely associated with Prajāpati and Prajāpati is identified with Brahmā^[5] in the Purāṇic literature and Sarasvatī is identified with Vāk in the Brāhmaṇas.^[6] Brahmā is supposed to be the creator of Sarasvatī.^[7] The Mountains were the source of the Sarasvatī river and it flowed into the sea after travelling a long distance.^[8] This river is always in a state of flux and that is why it never knew stagnation. Psychologically, the river Sarasvatī is a source of inspiration due to its ever affluence nature.^[9]

The river Sarasvatī disappeared long ago because it could not maintain its flow. Its disappearance is commonly presumed to have been caused by the eruption of the earth. This has captivated the attention of some intellectuals and that is why some of them have investigated the whereabouts of the river. According to Roth, the Ṛgvedic Sarasvatī can be identified with the modern Sarsūtī, the rotten name of the former. Roth described Sarasvatī as the foremost of rivers (nadītamā) as going to the ocean and as a large river, he thinks that it is the modern Indus river.^[10]

Roth’s recognition of the modern Indus river as the Ṛgvedic Sarasvatī is hardly rational. In the Ṛgvedasaṃhitā, the Sarasvatī and Sindhu rivers are referred as independent rivers,^[11] and of them, Sarasvatī it is highly acclaimed. In one of the mantras of the Ṛgvedasaṃhitā,^[12] Sarasvatī is compared to a great ocean flowing with its mighty currents. The Sarasvatī, the foremost of rivers,^[13] has been described as so large, so mighty, so strong and swift in its currents that it implores fear in one’s heart. Therefore, it has been entreated by the sages not to frighten them by its waters.^[14] According to its different forms and conceptions, the Sarasvatī has also been popular with the Brāhmaṇas, Upaniṣads, Sūtras, Epics, and Purāṇas etc. But this is not applicable with the Sindhu which hardly find any detailed description after the Saṃhitās.^[15]

The Ṛgvedasaṃhitā and the Atharvavedasaṃhitā used the word Sindhu frequently for mere stream but the word appears to have been used for the Sindhu river also.^[16] But the case of Sarasvatī has been different because Sarasvatī has been called Sindhumātā and this epithet described it as even greater than the Sindhu. There should not be any controversy in accepting the Sarasvatī as the greater river on account of its being treated as its mother,^[17] if the word Sindhu denotes the Sindhu river. Therefore, Roth’s view has no standing, the Sarasvatī and the Sindhu should be accepted as independent rivers.^[18]

Max Müller is of the view that the Ṛgvedic Sarasvatī is the same as the later Sarasvatī. According to him, the Vedic Sarasvatī was really a potent river and made its way to the sea. Max Müller compared Sarasvatī with the Sutlej in its largeness. Max Müller says that a great change has taken place in the existence of rivers so far as the disappearance of Sarasvatī is concerned. Sarasvatī is called the ‘iron citadel’ in the west against the rest of India because it was the last to have any change. Max Müller is of the opinion that Sarasvatī did not disappear in the Ṛgvedic age but later.^[19] What Max Müller takes for the Vedic Sarasvatī, is the later Sarasvatī, i.e. the modern Sarsūtī.^[20]

To Max Müller, Sutlej was as great as the Sarasvatī. But this seems to be not acceptable because in the Ṛgvedasaṃhitā, the Sarasvatī has been described as river par excellence and it is owing to this that it is variously described as ‘the best of rivers’ (nadītamā),^[21] ‘iron citadel’(daruṇamāyasī pūḥ),^[22] ‘superior to others sister-rivers’ (uttarāsakibyaḥ)^[23] As a river, Sutlej is not so big to claim such epithets. Therefore, its comparison with the Sarasvatī is also not proper. In the hymn of the Ṛgvedasaṃhitā containing praise of the rivers (nadīstutiḥ), the river Sarasvatī is highly applauded.

Max Müller could not give a definite answer whether the Sarasvatī flowed to the sea after its union with the Sindhu.^[24] It is said that both the rivers were independent and that the Sarasvatī flowed directly to the sea.^[25] The other acceptable and rather more convincing point which he himself suggests later is the identification of the later with the earlier Sarasvatī which has changed its course and declined in size.^[26]

Divaprasad Dasgupta has also expressed his views upon the problem. He refers two geologists, Pilgrim and Pascoe, who give the river Sarasvatī the names Siwalik river and Indo-Brahma river, respectively. The Indo-Brahma river was protracted at a time from Assam to the west of Punjab. It fell into a gulf of the Arabian Sea which had its source on the boundary of the Punjab. Some geological evidences such as boulder deposits alongside the foot of the Himalayas proved that there existed a very large river. It had big tributaries, and the Gaṅgā, Yamunā, Gaṇḍaka etc., of today is the offshoot of these tributaries.^{^[27]}

Dasgupta recognizes the Indo-Brahma river with the ancient Saravatī. It maintains that the ancient center of civilization and places of historic importance, Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, were situated by the Sarasvatī. Dasgupta deems Mohenjo-Daro, probably situated by the mouth of the Sarasvatī, as the principal port of India. Due to catastrophic changes the river Sarasvatī dwindled and shrank back. At the primeval stage, there stood a high-land between Chatanagpur Plateau of Bihar and Khasi hills of Assam. The Sarasvatī was flowing from Assam up to the border of Punjab and was apparently to the north of this Island, while on the opposite side, were the Meghnā, Brahmaputra, Bhāgīrathī etc. Owing to the river capture a drastic change took place in almost all the rivers–the Meghnā, Brahmaputra, Bhāgīrathī etc., these rivers turn backwards, captured the Sarasvatī and the modern Brahmaputra diverted the water of the Sarasvatī into its own course. Similarly, the river Bhāgīrathī captured the Gaṅgā, and the later captured Yamunā, Gaṇḍaka, Gomatī, Tāptī etc., and diverted their water into its own course. This catastrophic change was enhanced due to the upheaval in the Himalayas which turn the flow of the Gaṅgā. Today, there is no trace of the upper part of the Indo-Brahma river. The ancient deep and wide ditch occupied by it has been filled up and highly raised up by the rising of the Himalayas.^[28]

The lower part of the Sarasvatī flowed along the upper courses of the Śatadru, Yamunā and Ghaggar and had long tributaries. The river Yamunā diverted the water of the Vedic Sarasvatī into its own course and flows even today with the same. Thus the Vedic Sarasvatī is supposed to have formed the confluence of the three rivers, Gaṅgā, Yamunā and Sarasvatī at Prayāg.^[29] This confluence is named as yuktaveṇī. The Gaṅgā which was flowing along with the Bhāgīrathī during the middle of the sixteen century took a vital turn and diverted itself through the Padmā. Due to the great earth movements, the rivers Sarasvatī and the Yamunā dried up. Many other changes also took place in the rivers of Bengal. Now a days, the Bhāgīrathī is supposed to be flowing through the lower course of the Sarasvatī. This lower course identified with the present Hoogly river still taken to be ancient Ṛgvedic Sarasvatī.^{^[30]}

Dasgupta has revealed a good deal of striking references to the whereabouts of the Sarasvatī. His quest for the Sarasvatī is based on geological findings. It is really very important and establishes the rivers close association with the Himalayas. He recognizes its very long route and shows that it was later on divided into two parts–the upper and the lower. He identified its lower part with the modern Sarsūtī, running from southern Punjab to northern Rajasthan. He holds that Harrappa and Mohenjo-Daro were situated at the mouth of the Sarasvatī. At present, Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro fall in the valley of the Indus river, where a great civilization is said to have flourished. The Sarasvatī had many tributaries from North and South.^[31] Some of them might have flown into the Indus and serve as a water-link between the Indus and the Gangetic basin.

According to Dasgupta, it is clear that the Sarasvatī and the Sindhu were two independent rivers. They are also not identical. So far as the diversion of the flow of the Sarasvatī into that of Yamunā is concerned, Dasgupta appears to be of the same opinion as Dr D.N.Wadia. According to Dr D.N.Wadia, in course of time the Sarasvatī took a more and more easterly course and ultimately merged into the Ganges at prayāg. It then received the name of Yamunā.^[32]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Ṛgveda Saṃhitā, 1. 3. 12; 2. 41.16; 3. 23. 4; 5. 42. 12, 43. 11; 6. 52. 6; 7. 36. 6, 96. 1-2; 8.21.17 -18, 54. 4; 10. 17. 7, 64. 9, 75. 5, etc.

[2]:

Vāmana Purāṇa,40.14

[3]:

cf., Renou, Louis, Vedic India, p.71

[4]:

cf., Śrī Aurobindo, On the Veda, p.125

[5]:

cf., Renou, Louis, Vedic India, pp. 83-84

[6]:

Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 2.5.4.6; 3.1.4.9, 14, 9.1.7.9; 4.2.5.14, 6.3.3; 5.2.2.13, 14, 3.4.3, 5.4.16; 7.5.1.31; 9.3.4.17; 13.1.8.5; 14. 2.1. 12.Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, 1.3.4.5, 8.5.6; 3.8.11.2 Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, 2.24; 3.1-2,37; 6.7.Tāṇḍyamahābrāhmaṇa, 16.5.16 Gopatha Brāhmaṇa, 2.1.20 Śāṅkhhāyana Brāhmaṇa, 5.2; 12.8; 14..4

[7]:

cf., Khan, I., Sarasvatī in Sanskrit Literature, p.2

[8]:

Ṛgveda Saṃhitā, 6.61.2, 8; 7.95.2, 96.2

[9]:

cf., Śrī Aurobindo, On the Veda, p.107

[10]:

cf., Macdonell and Keith, Vedic Index of Names & Subjects, Vol.2, p.435

[11]:

Ibid., p.450

[12]:

Ṛgveda Saṃhitā,1.3.12