Rivers in Ancient India

Indian civilization, like all the others ancient civilizations, was developed on river banks. All ancient civilizations were dependent on a mighty river—Egyptians on Nile, Mesopotamians on Tigris–Euphrates or Chinese on Yellow river. Difference in case of ancient India is, be the inhabitants Indo-Aryans or whatever, that they mentioned many rivers in their earliest literature, instead of only Sindhu, from which the civilization is believed to have derived its name.

Determining the antiquity of the Vedas is a near-to-impossible task. Most of researchers quote the famous Nadistuti to be an evidence of ancient civilization’s acquaintance with many rivers. But Nadistuti is part of 10th Mandala which is probably the latest composition of the Rigveda, which was transmitted verbally for generations before it was finally written. Nothing to worry! Even if 10th Mandala was composed between 4th-6th centuries AD, we have reference of rivers Sarasvati (6.61.1 to 6.61.14), Hariupriya (6.27.5) and Yavyavati (6.27.6) and Ganga (6.45.31) in 6th Mandala which is one of the earliest compositions of Vedic literature.

6.27.05    

vádhīd índro varáśikhasya śéṣo
'bhyāvartíne cāyamānā^́ya śíkṣan
vr̥cī^́vato yád dhariyūpī^́yāyāṃ
hán pū^́rve árdhe bhiyásā^́paro dárt

6.27.06a    

triṃśácchataṃ varmíṇa indra sākáṃ

yavyā^́vatyām puruhūta śravasyā^́
vr̥cī^́vantaḥ śárave pátyamānāḥ
pā^́trā bhindānā^́ niarthā^́ni āyan

(Griffith’s translation:

5 In aid of Abhyavartin Cayamana, Indra destroyed the seed of Varasikha.
At Hariyupiya he smote the vanguard of the Vrcivans, and the rear fled frighted.

6 Three thousand, mailed, in quest of fame, together, on the Yavyavati, O much-sought Indra,
Vrcivan's sons, falling before the arrow, like bursting vessels went to their destruction. )

6.45.31     

ádhi br̥búḥ paṇīnã^́ṃ
várṣiṣṭhe mūrdhán asthãt
urúḥ kákṣo ná gāṅgiyáḥ

Griffith: Brbu hath set himself above the Panis, o'er their highest head, Like the wide bush on Ganga's bank)

Puranas, which are obviously later compositions have reference to many rivers. “Nayadivarnana” (description of rivers) in Markandeyapurana names ninety important rivers and also mentions the existence of many tributaries and streamlets. At the same time we find a remarkable verse in the same Purana:

“Sarvā^́ḥ punyā^́ḥ Sarasvatyaḥ, sarvā^́ḥ Gangā^́ḥ Samudragā^́ḥ…..” which means: All sacred rivers are Saraswati and all streams flowing to the sea are Ganges. All are the mothers of this earth, all save human beings from sins.

Doesn’t this make the recent claim of discovery of the river Saraswati a little dubious? Which Sarasvati is it, even if one track is rediscovered? In fact, Pehoa inscription of king Bhoja 1 (Pratihara Dynasty, 862 AD) speaks of a “Prā^́chi Sarasvati” (eastern Sarasvati) that flows past Pehoa – indicating the existence of another western Sarasvati. The Sā^́rasvatapā^́khyana in Mahabharatam Salyaparva speaks of  “Sapta Sarasvtyaḥ” Seven Sarasvati s – Suprabha in Ajmer,

Kā^́nchnā^́kshi in North West of Lucknow, Visā^́lā^́ in Gaya, Manoramā^́ in Ayodhya, Oghā^́vati in Kurukshetra, Surenu in Hardwar and Vimalodā^́ on somewhere in the Himalayas. Brihaddharma Purana speaks of one Sarasvati in Triveni near Allahabad whereas we know of another Sarasvati (now extinct) in West Bengal– which was probably a tributary of River Bhā^́girathi (Ganges). Well, in Mahabharatam and Vā^́mana Purana, we get reference to at least another Sarasvati even in Somanatha region of Kathiawad district whereas SkandaPurana refers to another in Cutch region.

Reference to so many rivers does not mean Rigveda forgot Sindhu. It clearly differentiates between Sindhu from Sarasvati in 8^th and 10^th Mandala and also names other rivers like Sarayu (either one in Herat, Afganistan or in Oudh, Uttarpradesh which is described as a sacred river in Ramayana as well). 3^rd and 10^th Mandala also names Drishadvati and Apayā^́ – two other rivers in northern India, indicating that ancient Indians did not name all their known rivers as Sarasvati.

I wanted to avoid discussing Nadistuti-hymn while that is widely discussed by scholars and many translated versions of that are already available. Let’s look at how rivers became the “mothers of this earth”.

Naimishā́ranya is the most sacred forest according to Purā́nic legends. This is where the epics Rā́mā́yana and Mahā́bhā́rata were revealed to the wisest of the wise and the great Purā́nas were created by the saints; and this forest was stretched along the banks of Gomati. The forest of Kā́mayaka, which became the shelter of the Pandavas during their exile, was situated at the banks of Saraswati. Panchavati, the famous forest of Ramayana which gave shelter to Rā́ma, Laksmana and Sitā́  was on the bank of Godavari. The sage Mā́tanga of the Purā́nas resides close to the river Pampa whereas the sage Kanva’s hermitage in Kā́lidā́sa’s Abhigyā́nSakuntalam was beside the river Mā́lini. Yamunā́ is the river associated to Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha goes to river Niranjanā́ before he attains enlightenment.

Obviously rivers were valued only due to their spiritual association; these mostly defined the boundaries of the kingdom and sometimes became the distinctive feature for most significant battlefields in Indian history. One of the many Saraswatis flowed past the Kurukshetra, the battlefield for the Kauravas and Pā́ndavas in the great epic. The bank of this Saraswati (Ghaggar?) was the place where the kingdom of Thā́neswara was developed (6th century AD). The great Ashoka is believed to have made the Daya-nadi of Kalinga red with bloodshed during his fiercely successful Kalinga war probably in 260 BC. The river Lauhitya (Brahmaputra) marks the border of the kingdom of Kamrupa while the river Narmada defines the limit of northern and southern part of India. This became the witness of the battle between king Harshavardhana and PulkeshiII same way the Vitastā́\ Jheelam\ Hydaspes became witness of the war between Alexander and Puru, being the divider between kingdom of Taxila and Paurava (Poros)*. The kingdom of Gā́ndhā́ra at the same age was located between the rivers Chenab and Ravi. The land of Asvaka (Aspasian) was related to Kunā́r, a tributary of river Kabul while Saubhuti (Sophytes) was again, on the bank of Jheelam. In fact, not only Vedic or Purā́nic references, even the accounts of historians who came with the great Alexander (326 BC), or visited Mourya, Kushā́n, and Gupta courts prove, that all the kingdoms in ancient India were grown either in river valleys or on the banks of some or other tributaries. Kautilya’s Arthashastra (4th century BC?) recommends establishing fortified capitals at the confluence of rivers or bank of rivers or large pool of water. Reason is understandable - large tract of water helped protecting a territory from enemies as well as supplied the water necessary for the settlements. The name Gangaridae (ruled by Magadha king) used by Pliny for Bengal before 79 AD suggests that not only in western part of India, river-basin was preferred for human settlements in eastern part as well; hence, he derived the name of the territory from the most significant river of this region.

River-washed territories not only offered fertile landscapes, rivers worked as main route of transport for trading activities as well. Kautilya says in his Arthashastra that river-navigation is better as it is an uninterrupted and danger-free way of transport. Accounts of Pliny, Megasthenes, Fa-hien, Xuanzang as well as Buddhist Jatakas give vivid descriptions of trading practices in different parts of the country for which river-routes were used.

Indian terrain became such an attractive habitat because of its rivers. In other words, ancient Indian civilization is gift of the rivers of this peninsula. Hence, “mother of this earth” seems to be the most suitable term for the rivers given by the old wise.

*But in the Rigveda, Kingdom of Puru was mentioned to be situated by the river Saraswati. Is the Jheelam one of the many Saraswatis of Rigveda? Or Rigvedic Puru a kingdom different than that existed in 4th century BC?

Questions difficult to answer while we have to depend a lot on myths and legends to reconstruct ancient Indian history.

Legends\ myths are not history, though they may have some distant connection to historical events. Nevertheless, they carry a strong flavor of social and political ideology of a geographical domain. Indian history, as this evolved through thousands of years, is not documented. Storytelling as medium of communication was more practiced than keeping records in written. Secondly, the geography of this region has seen immense changes in few thousand years, making it almost impossible to detect the exact locations mentioned in different texts. Rivers, which change their courses very often, cannot be tracked after thousand years. Hence we have a unique combination of belief and myth and geological knowledge in descriptions of ancient Indian geography. Readers have own discretion in understanding the content the way they want.