My beef with Dr P Kamath's version of " The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita"

If from the title of this post,it should surprise anyone why a rationalist and skeptic like me should be objecting to the opinion of another skeptic like Dr. P. Kamath, whose articles were published on Nirmukta, this comment response of mine, should help in providing some perspective

If one were to alter one of Alexander Pope's aphorisms from the 'Essay on Man' to aver that "Idealists rush in where rationalists fear to tread", it would more or less aptly sum up the central thematic error of most of Dr. Kamath's articles on historical speculation on Ancient Indian theological works and celebrities.

Historical speculation is a mild term for some of these articles of Dr. Kamath, which rather represents the wild outgrowth of his idealistic nostalgia for a bygone Indian era ( probably 600 BCE to 350 BCE) of ideological and political tumult and its dramatis personae (Buddha, Mahavira, Ajita K, Charavakas etc.), where narratives and preferred ideological themes take precedence over method, research and investigation.

Dr. Kamath is very frugal on citations, chronology, timelines, references etc. to support the claims of these articles, which means we have to fall back on inferences to deduce the period he is referring to. The closest we get to a citation in these articles of his is a reference to comments by AL Bhasham in his work, 'The Wonder that was India' on the immediate post-Vedic period and that preceeding the life-time of Guatam Buddha. In the articles that keep rehashing his favorite theme of intra-group ideological strife among the Brahmins (Vaidikas, Upanishadists(sic) and Bhagavatas) and the revolts of the Sramanas(Buddhists, Jainas, Ajivakas, Tantrics) and the heretics (Charavakas), the timeline of 600 BCE to 350 BCE is what he has probably in mind.

Dr. Kamath, in these articles, does not cite his own opinion or estimation of the timeline of the composition of the Gita. While he mentions redactions, additions and interpolations made to the Gita, he refrains from any mention of his view on the estimated timeframes for the start and end of the composition of the Gita. His omission to tie the progression of his own version of the redaction of Gita to a timeline that can be submitted to chronological verification is a significant shortcoming that casts a shadow over the assessment of veracity of many of his claims.

If one assesses bulk of cited historical research on the timeline of Gita's composition, it varies from 500 BCE to 300 CE. This part of scholarly opinion discounts unreliable timing and dating methods derived from cryptic astrological and astronomical clues in the texts themselves which have the potential of pushing Gita's origin to 3200 BCE and beyond. VR Narla in his book 'The Truth of the Gita' devotes a whole chapter 'Who wrote the Gita' to the controversies and challenges involved in dating and estimating the timeline of the Gita and its authorship.

Despite the methodical rigor of this chapter and copious references to and quotes from historical research, Narla wisely refrains from any dramatic speculations or conspiracy theories of his own about either the timeline or the authorship of the Gita. He concludes with the lament that this is an exercise in futility given that Indians and their chronicles both lack a sense of time and history.


Dr. Kamath's series on Bhagavad Gita, called "The Truth about the Bhagavad Gita" is probably inspired by Narla's work. But it must be a different 'truth' that Dr. Kamath is alluding to. Also the foundation on which Dr. Kamath's truth is rested upon is very shaky and flimsy as compared to the reasonably robust and rigorous one that Narla uses to guide us to his version of the truth


As against the humility and well-founded skepticism of Narla about treading on the wet soil of Gita's authorship, is Dr. Kamath's bravado and brash adventurism about the theory of how the composition and authority of Gita evolved from the time of its initial writing to the time it landed in the hands of Adi Sankara with its 700 verses.

Dr. Kamath says that the Gita ballooned from its original '70' to its current 700 verses. There is surely some grain of truth to the claim and speculation about Gita's expansion over the lifespan of around 800 years. But the devil is in the detail. 70 to 700 sounds quite mathematically allitertive and roundly exponential. But how does Dr. Kamath derive this leap being made. No answers or clues are forthcoming from his articles. Again Narla's work in its chapter on 'Who wrote the Gita' provides a different range of 125 to 745 verses.

Dr. Kamath does not pause with this and continues with other heresies of speculation such as  that there were intrusions into the originally formulated Vedic Gita, by the Upanishadic and Bhagavata shlokas , which being reformist and revolutionary in intent and character,  were overturned and defeated by brahminical foul play of re-editing and transposition of the chapters of Gita.

Another notable speculative hypothesis of his is that there exists  Upanishadic and Bhagavata anti-brahminic diatribe in the Gita that has been obscured or obfuscated by theological doctrines and revisionist commentaries of the likes of Adi Sankara.

Diatribe is a very strong word, and though it provides the necessary polemical flourish for an argument, one must be mindful that it reasonably represents the opinion that it is descriptive of.  So questions and issues arising out of Dr. Kamath’s speculative redactions of the Gita that need a closer look are:

• Do the so-called Upanishadic and Bhagavata shlokas in the Gita really contain any meaningful anti-brahminic diatribe? 

• Were the Upanishadic and Bhagavata movements themselves really reformative and revolutionary and were their impositions or intrusions on the GIta of a similar nature?

• What tools of analysis, hypothesis and redaction has Dr. Kamath used and demonstrated to arrive at and validate the major thrust of this arguments?.

I will try to answer these questions in a subsequent post