When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?: The Mystery of Arundhati

by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak

In a drastic re-evaluation of astronomy observations from Mahabharata, using high-tech tool of modern astronomy and low-tech tool of the logic of scientific discovery, Nilesh Oak's extraordinary book presents ordinary theory of astronomy observations that would lead to a quantum jump in our understanding of the Mahabharata War:

-How a theory based on single unifying idea corroborates 100+ astronomy observations -Where to search for the year of the Mahabharata War - Epoch of 6500 years & Compact time interval of 3000 years -How a single observation, previously known but unexplained, falsifies 96% of all proposals for the year of the Mahabharata War -Why does it matter how long Bhishma was lying on the bed of arrows -How ancient is the tradition of meticulous astronomy observations.

Acceptance of his theory leads to surprising conclusions about our current understanding of world civilizations, domestication of horses, dating of Ramayana or Vedas and antiquity of meticulous astronomy observations. Rejection of his theory would compel us to search for the likes of Newton and Lagrange, among the Sages of India, at least thousand years before Sir Isaac Newton & Joseph-Louis Lagrange.

Praise for 'When did the Mahabharata War Happen?: The Mystery of Arundhati'

"You have done a great job. I requested astronomers to consider if Arundhati had gone ahead of Vasisth in 1971, when I published 'Swayambhu' . But nobody cared. You are the first to do the great job!"

- P V Vartak (Author of 'Swayambhu' & 'Wastav Ramayana')

---"Grueling and unfaltering logic"

---I have to thank you for being the cause for a quantum leap in my own knowledge of general astronomy as well as Hindu astronomy / calendrical systems over a very short span of time. In some ways the effect of your book has some parallels with Rajiv Malhotra's 'Being Different', though in a very different context. RM never intended his book as a primer on Dharma / Hinduism - but nevertheless it introduced many aspects of Dharma in a light which would be new even to a practitioner. Similarly, even though I am sure you never intended your book to act as an exploration of key astronomical principles and Vedic astronomy - that has definitely been a key side benefit, at least from my perspective.

---"Indology" has been populated by linguists and my respect for their work has gone down by several notches when I look at the shoddy assumptions many are prone to make. Science and rigor the way Nilesh Oak has used seems to be unknown to these Indologists. I bet that not one of those horse bone chewers can understand what Archeo-astronomy means. Their awareness extends to looking at Archeo-asses and saying it was not Equus caballus.

---I am simply 'natmastak' to Shri Oak for the amazing piece of deductive reasoning applied by him in interpreting the 'Arundhati is leading Vasistha' remark. I think Shri Oak is not only on sound footing but also has clearly exhibited every 'lakshan' of a true seeker of knowledge in the finest Indian traditions. I cannot recall if he mentioned whether anybody else (other than him) thought of the EOA approach. If he is the first one, he deserves billions of thanks from all the Bharatiyas in the last 7000+ years. Oak saheb, aamcha maanacha mujra sweekar karava hee vinanti.

---It is interesting how all Indologists the world over talk about linguistics and horse, but never mentions archaeoastronomy! Perhaps the focus of the national and international debate on Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory needs to change.

---I do not want to sound obsequious, but the work you have done is nothing less than tremendous. Thank you, and keep it up.

---I have verified Nilesh Oak's elimination of "errors." A bow! Excellent!

---Your rigorous methodology was simply a pleasure to read and that got me started off on my efforts to dabble in archeoastro

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Mythology, Indian Literature, India

268 pages, Paperback

First published June 4, 2011

About the author

Nilesh Nilkanth Oak is an author, original researcher, TEDx speaker, UAA-ICT Distinguished Alumnus, and sought after keynote speaker. He holds BS and MS in Chemical Engineering and Executive MBA.

He has published 3 revolutionary books: 1. When did the Mahabharata War Happen, 2. The Historic Rama, 3. Bhishma Nirvana. His books have been and are being translated into various other languages. He travels extensively around the world speaking to university and college students and to mainstream audiences. His work has inspired novels, novelettes, documentaries and movies.

Nilesh helps individuals become aware of the deep wisdom and antiquity of Indian civilization so that they truly comprehend, present, or defend the grand narrative of this civilization unlike most other Indic researchers because he builds it through scientific acumen and logical reasoning.

He is a researcher and adjunct faculty at Institute of Advanced Sciences, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA.

Reviews

[Abhishek · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's not often that you read a book outside of academia, which provides you a wealth of information and value, while building your curiosity. Nilesh Nilkanth Oak has done just that, with his rigorous and scientific method of approach in ascertaining the date and time period of the Mahabharata war.

The author, like many previous Mahabharata researchers, has taken the astronomical references provided within the Mahabharata text itself, to determine this. The book reads like a research paper, focusing on various aspects - his approach and methodology, assumptions, corroboration of star and planetary movements obtained through software simulations, with the actual scriptures, dissecting various other proposals, conducting falsifiability tests, and fitting a timeline which does not ignore or explain away any of the references.

It becomes clear very early on that this is an extremely tedious process and requires expertise in various fields. The author does his best to give us a primer on different astronomy basics, timelines and translations of all the references he has used. Even without his conclusions and assertions, the book stands out as an excellent reference to the events which happened during the war.

The crux of the book, as the title suggests, is "The Mystery of Arundathi", which is the motion of star Arundathi ahead of Vasistha, something which wasn't explained by any other researchers so far. The author, by good fortune, diligence and with the help of technology, has proven this occurrence did indeed happen, thus giving him an upper and lower bound on the time period of the war, from which he built his case.

As I read the book, I had the nagging feeling that the date proposed by the author, while extremely accurate in terms of corroborating references within the text, goes against almost all of traditional scholarship in terms of civilizational development of humans. The author does address this at the end of the book, as a reason to explore our traditional methods of archaeological studies. However, that explanation seemed a bit unsatisfactory to me.

It was fascinating to read about the extent of detail recorded before, during and after these events, by ancient astronomers. No doubt, it has piqued my interest to learn and explore the Mahabharata further. And I feel, as stated by the author, his success lies in piquing that interest among the readers of this book.

[Panna Pawar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing book .. it’s a genre which is completely different from what I’ve read before .. found it very difficult to follow in the beginning..
but hatsoff to the detailed explanations and deep study that has gone into writing this book ..
and thanx to this book I’ve already ordered for a copy of Mahabharata ..
I wish more Indians would read it and respect the advanced level of astronomical knowledge that the ancient Indians had .. this book is definitely an eye opener

[Gaurav Anekar · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a groundbreaking work done my Mr. Nilesh on dating the Mahabharata events in the basis of astronomical observations made in the Mahabharata text.
The sky as seen by the people during the Mahabharata is described in the text of the epic. when could we observe the positions and movements of stars, planets, moon and comet as described?
This question is answered by the author. Author openly invites factual criticism and I've not found anyone capable of doing that till now.

[Ramesh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read...

Highly plausible dating based on modern scientific analysis. Easy to read and understand, however a basic understanding of astronomy would enhance one's understanding.

[Parag Prasad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful read.

Erudite and lucidly explained astronomical observations for dating the Mahabharat war. Would've liked him to date some new pre war and post war events.

[Harish Musarakallu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read... you learn a lot

Perfect introduction to the basics of astronomy and Indian terminologies. As you progress, you get convinced with the date of Mahabharata and more importantly that it actually happened. It is not a epic but the ancient history of India.

[Dr.J.G. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oak’s thesis here involves use of astronomical phenomenon mentioned in Mahabharata to date the event, and he's certainly found a very plausible boundary of timeline post which it couldn't have been, using an observation about circumpolar stars that had been ignored until he didn't.

But, as is his usual overreach, he insists he's found a precise date, without explaining why previous cycles of 26,000 years are to be discarded as possibilities, or why his own discarding of various, traditionally established considerations is to be ignored without any rationale from him, except that of his own attitude.

So he ignores a most critical objection to his reasoning, presses on with his arguments, and as his usual, confuses poetic descriptions with astronomical observations, because it suits his convenience.

Worst of all, it's his habit to mix up the original text with his own, unproven, Assertions, to further claim support for his build-up of contentions, expecting a badgers reader to give up due to confusion. If this isn't deliberate dishonesty, it's a convoluted reasoning of a mind not yet clear about assertion, evidence, reasoning and proof, despite the long discourses he includes habitually battering a reader further.

Inexplicably, Oak refuses to even mention Jayadratha Vadha, the one definite indication of an exact visual observation of astronomical nature, while taking poetic allegories galore as astronomical observations instead, just because they suit his whimsical choice of date and an egotistical opposition to the Indian traditional understanding of the date that the war began, as per Indian calendar.

He continues this, even when research of his own shows a gap of almost a month in his calculations, so it becomes clear that the traditional Tithi is correct after all, as is the modern interpretation of Sun bring visible after having set on 14th day.

This makes the work, from the heights of a very promising beginning of the Arundhati and Abhijit observations, slip down to downright shoddy.

"• My theory proceeds from a simple, almost trivial, unifying idea that all astronomy observations around the time of Mahabharata War are visual observations of the sky.

"• My theory is independently testable. Anyone can access astronomy software such as Voyager 4.5™, follow through my book and test each Mahabharata observation.

"• I sought explanation for Arundhati observation, based on my theory, an observation otherwise considered absurd by entire research community (albeit with one exception), as visual observation at the time of Mahabharata War."

So far, true. But he still hasn't explained as to why he discarded all possible past timings modulo 26,000 years cycles, asserting that this interval he picked is the only possibility for Mahabharata having taken place.

Further, he has only tested more specific timelines proposed by previous researchers, and picked one that fitted more number of events as per his selection. But discarding the event of most vital importance by any criteria, and instead parading a basketful of poetic allegories as visual observations of astronomical nature, makes the whole effort by Oak not only worthless but supremely ridiculous.

"• My theory corroborates not only positions of the planets but also their movements as described in the Mahabharata text, specifically unique movements of Mars, Jupiter and Venus.

"• My theory corroborated descriptions of planets and rationale for them shining brightly at times, e.g. Jupiter and Saturn shining brightly or Mars turning in ‘apasavya’ direction while shining brightly with fearsome appearance.

"• My theory predicted ‘potential observations’ referring to the phases and the positions of the moon, which would corroborate or falsify a proposed timeline for the 18 days of War. I searched for these potential observations within the Mahabharata text, and by luck, found numerous observations.

"• My theory corroborated 100+ astronomical observations from the Mahabharata text. More importantly my theory passed numerous critical tests, which in turn provided consistent explanations for Mahabharata astronomical observations. ... "

Did he never realise he's failed, or was merely dishonest?

" ... Some of these critical tests are,

"1. Fall of Abhijit

"2. The Epoch of Arundhati ..."

These two were of importance in determining the possible intervals when Mahabharata could have taken place, modulo 26,000 years cycles before; he has still not explained, not only zeroing in on the very first possibility, but asserting there can be no other.

Rest of what he counts is of comparatively far less importance than the one event he has neither been able to fit nor explain, Jayadratha Vadha, and he chose instead to be dishonest by pretending that he hasn't noticed it.

Oak stuffs his work's bare skeleton with verbosity, expecting to exhaust his readers.

"It is always possible to introduce ad hoc hypothesis in any theory in order to save the theory from introducing contradictions. For this reason alone, a simple theory is preferred over a complicated one, where simplicity refers to testability. If ad hoc hypothesis leads to explaining away observations, rather than explain them, such a theory becomes inferior, especially when an alternate theory can corroborate ‘observations’ without an introduction of ad hoc hypothesis. Introduction of ad hoc hypothesis is a common phenomenon and is legitimate as long as ad hoc hypothesis does not turn the theory into a metaphysical program. In addition, introduction of ad hoc hypothesis should lead to growth of knowledge and at the same time should not introduce inconsistencies."

But he's done just that, and worse. He's ignored, or stuck with declaration of disdain, important parts of the works he's dated - Ramayana and Mahabharata - and avoided working to find better timeline in each case to fit what's known, and written in, the epics.

In case of Ramayana he's got entangled in a self made logical contraction by insisting that all details of celestial nature are visual observations, that he eouldnt get into astrological interpretations, and that exalted planets were merely those above horizon. This leads to absurdity about timeline of birth of Rama, which is at noon on a sunny day without an eclipse, do visual observation of five planets above horizon is absurd.

In case of Mahabharata he's merely ignored, after the insistence about all celestial descriptions bring visual observation of astronomical nature, the one key event that is undeniably such a description, and can only be explained as an eclipse very close to Sunset, getting over just before Sun actuslly set; the only other possibility is of declaration of acceptance of poet's version, a Divine Action of an intervention by Krishna using his Chakra to hide Sun.

Oak denies all of the latter by declaration of disdain for "traditional beliefs", not even giving a thought to possibility that there's traditional knowledge; former, he ignores, due to his laziness concerning finding a better timeline than one proposed by someone else.

Instead he spins a web out of the very thin material, not being content having found a good criterion or two to define possibilities of when Mahabharata did and could or could not have occurred, by testing other proposals and insisting he going the only possibility, claiming it fits a huge number of descriptions of astronomical observations. It's nothing of the sort.

And the one key, vital, visual observation that is of celestial, his timeline cannot fit, so he ignores it.

"I de-mystified Mahabharata observation of ‘Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha’ and showed this to be a visual observation during the Mahabharata War. ... "

"This single observation defined higher and lower bounds for the timeline of Mahabharata War, ... "

It only defines a period of a few thousand years, closest to present presented by Oak as absolute single timeline, without justification of why he didn't check other timelines modulo 26,000 years cycles, why they are not viable, which he does state without any rationale thereof presented.

" ... and the observation had higher degree of improbability associated with it. The explanation of Arundhati observation and corresponding prediction of time interval for the plausible year of Mahabharata War falsified all existing proposals for the timing of Mahabharata War, with the exception of 4 proposals that fell within the ‘Epoch of Arundhati’. Arundhati observation acts as falsifying evidence for any year proposed after 4500 B.C."

He's only tested for timelines proposed by others before his work, but not admitted that the one he's termed successful is not so, that it fails the single greatest test of a visual description of an event of celestial nature.

" ... Set of observations describing the phases and the positions of Moon during the 18 days of War provide corroborative evidence for Amawasya as the first day of War and Kartika Amawasya as the first day of war, which also means month of Margashirsha as the month of Mahabharata War."

That's mostly a blatant lie, Oak having misinterpreted most of poetic allegories as visual observations to support his timeline, which actually does not fit the one celestial description of undeniably visual nature.
***

With any honesty, works of Oak should have been titled something to the tune of "Oak’s Proof of ... " or "How I Solved ..." series, the actual words regarding subject of the particular work in a small, unobtrusive type.

As it is, one gets them expecting a little discourse about the subject itself; instead, there's a little about the problem of dating, but actual key words not explained for a long while, for a few chapters, until one's exhausted and given up; meanwhile he's gone one with his favorite theme of how he ..., what he ...., and so on.

"Once I started critically discussing work of others, I feared that my book would fill only with the criticism of others and my original work would get lost. I was also disappointed by the cocksure attitude of number of researchers, especially those who made their proposal based on only those Mahabharata observations that they presumed supported their timeline. Many of them did not bother to discuss numerous Mahabharata observations, which directly contradicted their timeline. ... "

As exemplified by Oak, who declares disdain for traditional position, due to his timeline of Mahabharata not being consistent with Gita Jayanti, or his date for birth of Rama showing not exalted planets, completely avoiding and not discussing the one indisputably visual astronomical observation in Mahabharata, Jayadratha Vadha? Because he'd have to either admit Divine Action, or admit complete failure of his choice of timeline?

" ... I began writing criticism, i.e. criticism of the theories and corresponding proposals for the year of Mahabharata War as propounded by 20+ researchers. They all had predicted the first day and the year of Mahabharata War. I realized that these researchers, with the exceptions of Vartak and Kane, have been selective in quoting Mahabharata astronomical observations. Many of them ignored vast number of Mahabharata astronomical observations. Still others claimed to have included certain observations in building their timeline they thought critical, and I could demonstrate how their theories were contradicted by these so called ‘critical’ observations. These researchers appeared to be blissfully unaware of this fact. I decided, only with great reluctance, to exclude the discussion of the works of other researchers, i.e. the criticisms of their theories and timelines for the Mahabharata War, with the exception of Vartak, from this book."

Oak wouldn't knowingly be writing there about himself, would he?

"What follows is summary of my theory and my proposed timeline of the Mahabharata war and why it should be considered a better theory, i.e. better than all existing theories (and proposed timelines)."

Oak saying that? What a surprise!

Imagine how long works of any scientist - or even a Mills and Boon sort of writer for that matter, at opposite extreme - would be, if they were to use this style. Imagine G.B. Shaw going on about his correspondence with, say, Isadora Duncan, in midst of his Pygmalion!

Well, actually those could be interesting. This is merely tiring. And more exasperating when one realises there's a promising beginning, which is good, not a solution, which is not a crime, but an attitude of disdain towards what Oak is afraid his colleagues and neighbours would question or ridicule him about, with a passing off of that lack of solution as not only a solution but the best solution possible, with the said attitude and disdain patching over the gaps - well, the exasperation is overwhelming. And as if that's not enough, Oak hammers it several times over!

Also exasperating is his habit of stating, hand-waving, asserting, and then presuming proof done, while it's nothing of the sort.

" ... forced to invoke other explanations such as either ‘astrological drishti’ or ‘descriptions of impossible events by Mahabharata author’. The problem with the latter two approaches is that once one decides to employ them, anything anywhere can be explained! ... "

Not true.

" ... The problem with ‘Astrological Drishti’ is that once one decides to employ it, anything anywhere can be explained! As soon as this happens, although theory may still retain its empirical character, is no longer falsifiable and scientific."

Not true.

"The Mahabharata War timeline begins with Krishna leaving Upaplavya to visit Hastinapur before the War and ends with the passing away of Bhishma, when the Sun turned north, after the War."

What follows is Oak’s list of his matching of events of Mahabharata with the single timeline he's picked, but there are three major faults.

One, he doesn't point out that the dates are his conclusions. Two, having gone on and emphasised over and over that he treats all celestial descriptions as visual observations of astronomical nature, he resorts to calling them poetic only if he can't date them or if they go against his thesis, but otherwise forces a visual correspondence if he finds farfetched justifications.

Three, he completely ignores the one event of humongous importance which cannot but be admitted as a visual observation of astronomical nature corresponding to an event on the battlefield. If he did mention it, he'd have to admit either that his timeline and all rest of his work here failed, and look independently for another timeline not given by previous authors, or admit Divine Action.

Dating Mahabharata by counting days, between events such as discussions prior to War and subsequent Bhishma Nirvana on or past winter solstice, is only a primary bit.

But not dating the one event of vital importance that must be fitted into timeline, makes this whole effort worthless as anything but work.

This event, ignored by Oak for most part except a barest mention, is the day Arjuna almost died, but for Krishna, who either knew about an impending solar eclipse while others obviously did not, and knew how people would react, or he used his Chakra as author of Mahabharata explicitly states, to hide the Sun just before sunset, and revealed it before it set, just as Jayadratha the murderer came out of hiding to see Arjuna climb onto his own funeral pyre.

Despite all tomtomming Oak dies about treating all celestial descriptions as visual observation of astronomical nature, he ignores the one description that is nothing but visual observation of astronomical nature, ignores the vital importance of correlation of this observation with events unfolding on battlefield, ignores vital importance of consequences of alternative, and pretends it's non-existence by not even mentioning it.

Oak couldn't be more dishonest if he vowed to do so.
***

Oak begins not by introducing the subject but by talking about himself, and goes on and on, speaking of Arundhati observation, without explaining what he's talking about.

"Fifteen years ago, I stumbled on ‘Arundhati’1 observation, recorded in Bhishma Parva of Mahabharata. I liked this observation for two reasons. The observation had very high improbability associated with it. The only rational I could imagine on the part of Mahabharata author, to include such an improbable observation, was due to this being a factual observation at the time of Mahabharata War. If I could somehow test it, the observation held the key to falsification of ‘astronomical’ observations within the Mahabharata text. I could comprehend this observation, unlike numerous other astronomical observations within Mahabharata. I wanted to convince myself of the authenticity (or absurdity) of astronomical observations from the Mahabharata text, and ‘Arundhati’ observation was the most suitable for my purpose and abilities."

"It was not until 1997 A. D. when I began testing ‘Arundhati’ observation and it was not until 2009 A. D. when I succeeded in solving the mystery of Arundhati. My tests of ‘Arundhati’ observation not only resisted my falsification attempts, but also provided higher and lower bounds for plausible year of the Mahabharata War. The discovery of mine, as far as I am aware, is the first instance of such a precise prediction, albeit an interval bounded by higher and lower limits, for the plausible year of an ancient event, based on astronomical observations."

" ... Only 4 of these researchers had proposed years for the Mahabharata War that fell within the Epoch of Arundhati. ... "

If he's trying to be mysterious and pique interest, he's failing spectacularly - serious readers are highly irritated with this behaviour suitable more to a hindi film heroine of black and white era.

"Many researchers in last two centuries working on Mahabharata have precisely made this mistake. Some have used commonly accepted norms of astrology (and not astronomy), e.g. ‘Astrological drishti’ in describing Mahabharata references of a specific planet afflicting specific nakshatra. The problem with this approach is that once one starts using astrological interpretations, there is no stopping and thus anything anywhere can be explained!"

Isn't that the problem also with earning, cooking, feeding an infant, bathing, clothing, even eating?

Besides, if one's read anything by Oak, this attitude is not only familiar, but reminding one of the ridiculous ditches he digs himself into as a consequence. For example he asserts he assumes all astronomical observations of Valmiki Ramayana are visual, and interprets five exalted planets at birth of Rama as above horizon at the moment of birth! He doesn't dispute the birth ...

[Shivatva Beniwal · Rating 1 out of 5]

कुछ दिन पहले मैंने यूट्यूब पर एक विडियो देखा, जिसमें हिंदुत्ववादी विचारधारा के कुछ लोग यह दावा कर रहे थे कि महाभारत की प्रसिद्घ लड़ाई किसी भी परिस्थिति में 4508 BCE के एक दिन पश्चात भी घटित नहीं हुई थी. यह बड़ा ही चौंकाने वाला दावा था, क्योंकि धार्मिक परंपरावादी हिन्दू भी यह ही मानते हैं कि महाभारत की घटना कलयुग के शुरू होने से 36 वर्ष पहले अर्थात् वर्ष 3138 BCE में घटित हुई.

उनके एक अनुसंधानकर्ता जिसका नाम नीलेश ओक है ने इस विषय पर एक पुस्तक भी लिखी, जिसका शीर्षक है When Did The Mahabharata War Happen. इस पुस्तक में उन्होंने यह दावा किया कि उन्होंने महाभारत में दी गई ज्योतिषी और खगोलीय घटनाओं के अध्ययन के आधार पर यह सुदृढ़ वैज्ञानिक निष्कर्ष निकाला है कि महाभारत की लड़ाई वर्ष 5561 BCE के आसपास घटित हुई, पर किसी परिस्थिति में यह घटना वर्ष 4508 BCE के एक दिन पश्चात भी घटित नहीं हुई.

श्री नीलेश ने अपने इस उपरोक्त दावे के संदर्भ में कुछ अन्य तथाकथित वैज्ञानिक तर्क भी दिए जैसे महासागर विज्ञान, जलवायु विज्ञान, जल विज्ञान, आदि. और, उनके अनुसार, उनके इन सभी अध्ययनों से भी यह ही निष्कर्ष निकलता है कि महाभारत की घटना 5561 BCE के आसपास ही घटित हुई. इसके साथ ही, उन्होंने सभी इतिहासकारों की खिल्ली उड़ाते हुए कहा कि कोई भी इतिहासकार इन जटिल विज्ञानों को नहीं समझ सकते, जिनके आधार पर उन्होंने महाभारत युद्ध की तिथि निश्चित की.

मैंने एक टिप्पणी के माध्यम से उनके द्वारा महाभारत युद्ध की निश्चित की गई तिथि को अस्वीकार करते हुए कहा कि वर्ष 5561 BCE का अर्थ यह हुआ कि यह घटना भारतीय उपमहाद्वीप में नव-पाषाण युग के शुरू होने के साथ ही घटित हो गई होगी जो कि अतार्किक है. चूँकि महाभारत ग्रंथ के अध्ययन से यह ही लगता है कि महाभारत काल में लोग बड़े सभ्य थे, परन्तु भारतीय उपमहाद्वीप में हड़प्पा सभ्यता से पहले कोई अन्य सभ्यता नहीं थी और पुरातत्व भी इस बात की पुष्टि करता है.

मैंने आगे एक और टिप्पणी करते हुए कहा कि महाभारत एक ऐतिहासिक ग्रंथ नहीं बल्कि एक मिथोलॉजी श्रेणी का ग्रंथ है और इसका इसी दृष्टिकोण से अध्ययन करना चाहिए. तो उसने मेरे उत्तर में लिखा कि क्या वेदव्यास जी ने महाभारत ग्रंथ में कहीं ऐसा लिखा कि यह एक ऐतिहासिक ग्रंथ नहीं बल्कि मिथोलॉजी का ग्रंथ है? जब मैंने पलटकर यह पूछा कि वो यह मानता है कि संपूर्ण महाभारत को किसी एक ही व्यक्ति ने लिखा, तो उसने कहा कि इसमें मानने के लिए क्या है, यह तो प्रमाणित है.

मेरा निष्कर्ष यह है कि महाभारत की लड़ाई 1100 BCE से 900 BCE के मध्य घटित हुई, और इसकी मुख्य कथा लगभग 500 वर्ष तक भाटों एवं चारणों के माध्यम से मौखिक रूप से चलती रही. सबसे पहले 450 BCE के आसपास (प्रो. मेघनाद साह के अनुसार), महाभारत की कथाओं को लिखित रूप में संकलित करके “जय संहिता” का नाम दिया और तब उसमें 8,800 श्लोक थे. फिर इसके श्लोकों की संख्या 24,000 तक बढ़ाकर इसको भारत संहिता का नाम दिया. और अंत में इसके कुल श्लोकों की संख्या एक लाख करके इसको महाभारत का नाम दिया.

धार के प्रसिध्द राजा भोज ने भी लिखा कि उनके पिताश्री के काल में महाभारत में कुल 25,000 श्लोक थे जिनकी संख्या उनके काल में बढ़कर 30,000 हो गई. इसी तरह से आर्य समाज के संस्थापक दयानन्द सरस्वती ने भी अपने प्रसिद्ध ग्रंथ सत्यार्थ प्रकाश के 11वे अध्याय में यह उल्लेख किया है कि महाभारत को एक साहित्यिक प्रतिस्पर्द्धा के तहत कई बार लिखा गया और इसका वर्तमान रूप वर्ष 1200 ई. के आसपास अस्तित्व में आया.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

With Nilesh Oak – the man who changed my idea of Indian History (इतिहास: "thus it happened")

This is not just a book; it’s a provocation, a challenge lobbed straight at centuries of academic hesitation, colonial hangovers, and our own casual acceptance of “mythic time.” Oak doesn’t whisper his thesis. He declares it, sharp and unapologetic: the Mahabharata War is a ‘‘datable, astronomically verifiable historical event,’’ and Indian civilization remembered it with terrifying precision.

The book operates at the intersection of “Itihasa, astronomy, textual criticism, and modern astrophysics,” and Oak’s central move is deceptively simple: if the Mahabharata contains detailed astronomical references, and if those references can be cross-verified using modern tools like planetarium software, then history must follow evidence—not discomfort.

And yes, this is where Arundhati enters, serene, faithful, and quietly revolutionary.

From the very beginning, Oak frames the Mahabharata not as a floating allegory but as a ‘‘time-stamped civilizational memory.’’ The text, he insists, was composed in a culture obsessed with cosmic order (‘ṛta’), where celestial movements were not decorative metaphors but ‘‘chronological anchors.’’

This instinct goes all the way back to the Vedas. The ‘Ṛg Veda’ speaks of the cosmos not as chaos but as rhythm:

‘ṛtaṃ ca satyaṃ cābhīddhāt tapaso’dhyajāyata’—‘Ṛg Veda’ 10.190.1 -- Truth and cosmic order are born together.

Oak’s work is, at heart, an attempt to restore that union.

The Mahabharata itself is saturated with sky-watchers’ consciousness. Comets, eclipses, planetary retrogrades, lunar mansions (‘nakṣatras’)—they aren’t poetic filler. They are “data points.”

Oak uncomplainingly gathers these references, especially those clustered around the war years, and subjects them to astronomical simulation. What emerges is not ambiguity, but convergence. Again and again, celestial configurations align most coherently around ‘‘5561 BCE,’’ a date that radically predates the commonly taught 1500–1000 BCE window.

This is where Oak’s argument stops being merely controversial and starts being dangerous—in the best way.

One of the book’s most elegant interventions is the focus on ‘‘Arundhati,’’ the faint companion star of Mizar in the Ursa Major constellation (‘Vasiṣṭha–Arundhatī’). In Hindu marriage rituals, newlyweds are traditionally shown this star pair, symbolizing marital fidelity and harmony. Nice ritual, right? Oak says: wrong. It’s also “astronomical memory.”

The Mahabharata describes a moment when Arundhati appears to walk ahead of Vasiṣṭha—an event impossible today, but astronomically plausible due to the ‘‘proper motion of stars’’ thousands of years ago.

Modern astronomy confirms that Arundhati (Alcor) would indeed have appeared ahead of Mizar around the mid-6th millennium BCE. This is not astrology. This is “stellar kinematics,” the kind astrophysicists use to track galaxy drift.

Oak’s use of modern astronomy is methodical and, frankly, flex-worthy. He draws upon simulations that track planetary positions backward in time, accounting for precession of the equinoxes, axial tilt, and orbital mechanics.

The sky described in the Mahabharata—multiple eclipses within short spans, Mars in specific nakṣatras, Saturn’s slow ominous presence—locks into place only when pushed far earlier than conventional timelines allow.

At this point, the skeptic might say, "Coincidence." Oak replies by stacking coincidence upon coincidence until coincidence collapses under its own weight.

The ‘Bhagavad Gita’—that slim, explosive philosophical core embedded in the epic—takes on new resonance under this historical lens. Krishna does not speak in vague, dreamlike time.

He speaks on a battlefield that trembles under “specific planetary alignments.” When he says:

‘kālo’smi loka-kṣaya-kṛt pravṛddho’—‘Bhagavad Gita’ 11.32 (“I am Time, the destroyer of worlds.”)

It is not abstract metaphysics alone. Oak invites us to see Time here as ‘‘cosmic alignment,’’ as epochs turning, as yugas shifting. The war becomes not merely a moral catastrophe but a ‘‘calendrical hinge,’’ a rupture in both human and cosmic order.

And this is where Oak’s work quietly dismantles colonial historiography. For over a century, Indian chronology was squeezed to fit Biblical timelines and European comfort zones.

Anything older than Egypt or Mesopotamia was deemed suspect. Oak doesn’t rage against this bias; he simply overwhelms it with evidence. His tone is refreshingly undefensive. He trusts data.

The book also engages with modern astronomy’s respect for ancient sky traditions. Today’s astrophysicists openly acknowledge that long-term celestial records—Chinese, Babylonian, and Mayan—are invaluable for reconstructing ancient skies.

Why, Oak asks, should India’s meticulously preserved astronomical culture be the exception? The ‘Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa’ already demonstrates astonishing observational rigor, mapping solstices and lunar cycles with precision that modern science now retroactively confirms.

In that sense, Oak is not reclaiming the past from science; he is ‘‘reuniting them.’’

The literary dimension of the book is subtle but powerful. Oak understands that the Mahabharata is not a spreadsheet; it is a narrative universe. He reads Vyasa not as a fantasist but as what Shakespeare might call a “seer.”

And speaking of Shakespeare—Oak’s project echoes the Bard’s understanding of time as both human and cosmic.

When Macbeth despairs:

“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day.”

He is lamenting linear time’s cruelty.

The Mahabharata, by contrast, operates in “layered time”—‘kāla’ as cycle, spiral, and recurrence. Oak’s dating of the war does not flatten the epic into chronology; it deepens its tragedy. Knowing ‘when’ something happened does not reduce its poetry. It sharpens it.

One of the book’s greatest strengths is its refusal to separate faith from inquiry. Oak does not ask readers to “believe” him.

He asks them to ‘‘verify.’’ Screenshots of simulations, charts of planetary positions, cross-textual citations—it’s all there. This is not blind revivalism. It’s peer-reviewed energy in dhoti form.

Of course, the implications are massive. If Oak is right—and the evidence is stubbornly persuasive—then Indian civilization’s antiquity stretches far deeper than mainstream academia currently admits.

The Mahabharata ceases to be a “late oral composition” and becomes what tradition always claimed it was: ‘Itihāsa’—thus indeed it was.

There’s a quiet emotional payoff too. The book restores dignity to ritual memory. When a bride is shown Arundhati today, she is not merely participating in symbolism; she is participating in a ‘‘6,000-year-old astronomical recollection.’’ That’s not nostalgia. That’s continuity.

Critics may argue that Oak over-privileges astronomical data or underplays redactional layers. But the book never claims the Mahabharata is textually frozen. It claims that “astronomical memory survived redaction.”

And that is entirely plausible. Cultures forget kings faster than they forget skies.

In the end, ‘When Did the Mahabharata War Happen?’ is not just about dating a war. It is about reclaiming confidence in Indian intellectual traditions without falling into arrogance. It models a future where ancient texts and modern science talk—not shout—across millennia.

Oak leaves us with a sky that remembers, even when humans forget.

Oak’s book reminds us that sometimes, the heavens were already mapped—and we’re only just learning how to read them again.

High-key? This book is a glow-up for Indic studies.

Low-key? It asks uncomfortable questions academia can’t keep dodging.

And honestly? The stars are on Oak’s side.

Most recommended.


Most recommended.

[Nishant · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is so technical that it will require 2-3 readings. Being a fan of Astronomy for me it was easier to understand because I knew the basics of Astronomy. However, the detail in which Nilesh ji has reasearched is mind numbing and boggling.

The scientific temperament of the writer and educator comes out as prominent in his research and writings.

The way of the theory and explanations is beyond doubt the best I have read till date.

I read the Bhishma Nirvana before this one. But I believe this was to be read before Bhishma Nirvana. This made so many things clearer in that book due to the detailed astronomical data read and reread by Nilesh ji.

I would not recommend the book for people who just read books. I would recommend this book for people who enjoy the scientific way of proving a theory and are fan of Astronomy.

The book gives references to particular slokas of Mahabharat and graphs and details so well that you will be compelled to cross check them on other sources just for the enjoyment to see the details come true.

I am glad and thankful to Nilesh ji for this gem of a work. I have been his fan before the books due to his passion that I see in his videos. This book also represents the transparency of the humble being he is.

Thank you so much.

Book #22 series Indic books

[Jay Mehta · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is probably the first of its kind of book I've read. I did not anticipate the book to be this technical but that was perhaps my fault. To the author's credit, Nilesh ji hasn't left anything to the reader's secondary research. He has explained his analysis along with all the background knowledge one needs to understand that analysis which is the initial part of the book.
What I loved about the book was that the author hasn't just explained his theory, but also how to go about evaluating the theories. In addition, he also went on to explain the theories of other major historians who have attempted to determine the date/year/era of the Mahabharata War. He has also explained in detail the flaws of those estimations. He has also explained the limitations of his own theory.
While it's beyond my capability to provide any evaluation of his theory but the book is a great read, for sure. Definitely recommended.

[Prashanth Mysore · Rating 3 out of 5]

Focus of this book is to find the timeline of Mahabharata war using astonomical observations in the Mahabharata book and arriving at the dates using astronomical software like Voyager 4.5. Using it 5561 BC is derived as the date of Mahabharata war.

Out of the astronomical observations, the Arundati star moving ahead of Vasistha - this observation is demystified by the author, which has not been done by other researchers in this field.

Traditionally it is believed that Mahabharata war also was the start of Kaliyuga. This aspect is mentioned in the book, but not discussed much about start of Kaliyuga.

I feel it has scope to make it more readable for layman. Anyway, it triggered my interest back in star gazing. Added one more interest - to use astronomical software like Voyager 4.5 for astronomical observations in Mahabharata, Ramayana.

[Mayur · Rating 5 out of 5]

Any review of a book by a reader is based on his comprehension of the information given therein. To actually review this book one probably needs to have at least basic knowledge of concepts astronomy, astrology, time calculation, calendars, seasons and itihasa.

Although the author tries to briefly explain the scientific concepts but one needs to refer to many other sources to get a proper understanding of the concepts. The author in his other book by the name 'Bhishma Nirvana' has explained the concepts in a better way, along with diagrams, so one can read it too to better understand the book.

Once you under the concepts you will really enjoy the book and be amazed that ancient Bharat had such a rich knowledge of the world around us.

[Anita Gupte · Rating 5 out of 5]

Am not someone to usually pick up a non fiction.
Yet, this book has made it to my favourites list.
There are those who believe the dates of Mahabharata sit in 3137BCE and then there is a claim that the war happened in 900BC. There are more than 100 different claims, some with no rhyme or reason. The book comes as a breath of fresh air with detailed research, references and conclusions.
Thank you🙏

[Prakash Shirke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Detailed analysis showing do rigor and logic

Detailed analysis of the astronomical observations mentioned in Mahabharat. Further research through corroborating evidence from various field needed but a scientific approach. Refreshing and superior to theories based on conjecture

[J · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gives astronomical analysis that shows how ancient indian civilization truly is. Western historians have always underplayed the antiquity of India and its history. It's high time we acknowledge that india is the mother civilization of the world.

[Siddhant · Rating 5 out of 5]

When happened Mahabharata

When happened Mahabharata must read if you interested in India and believe in India , in this book you know about astronomy , sarswati civilization and many other fact with Mahabharata war time
Thank you Nilesh ji for your work and inspired us 🙏

[vishwajeet agrawal · Rating 1 out of 5]

Total crap. This guy is a blob in the name of Hindu scholarship.