Ancient Mithila, its Boundary, Names and Area

Summary

The essay seeks to delineate the boundaries, names and extent of ancient Mithila (also known as Videha) and to trace the evolution of its designation. It opens by noting that Mithila is absent from the current political map of India, leading to uncertainty about its geographical limits. Historically, Mithila corresponded to a tract encompassing present‑day northern Bihar, the Terai and the southern part of Nepal, including the lower Himalayan ranges. Over time administrative names like Tirabhukti and Tirhut replaced Mithila but the older term has been revived due to cultural pride and the growing prominence of the Maithili language. Turning to textual evidence, the author observes that the earliest reference to Videha occurs in the Satapatha Brahmana, which dates between roughly 1000 and 600 BCE. It states that the river Sadanira (identified with the modern Gandak) separated Videha from Kosala. The epics describe Videha but do not provide precise boundaries; the Ramayana implies that the kingdoms of Mithila and Vaisali lay near the confluence of the Sona and Ganga, suggesting that they were neighbours. Travel times in the epic further indicate that the capital of Videha was several days’ journey from Ayodhya. Buddhist texts classify Videha within the Madhyadesa or midland but later Buddhist writers extended Madhyadesa eastwards to include Pundravardhana. The author notes that Yajnavalkya’s Dharmasastra regards Mithila as sacred because the sage Yajnavalkya taught dharma there, even though the region was not among the four traditional holy lands. Later Puranic sources remain vague; only the Brhad‑Visnu Purana gives a clear description, stating that Tirabhukti (later Mithila) lay between the Ganga and the Himalayas, extending from the Kosi river in the east to the Gandaki in the west, covering 24 yojanas north–south and 8 yojanas east–west. The article concludes that Mithila should be regarded as a distinct cultural region within the eastern division (Pracyadesa) rather than part of the Mid‑land. It emphasises that the name “Mithila” endured through centuries in literature and memory and that the revival of the term today reflects a conscious effort to reclaim the region’s historical identity.