The events of Shri Krishna’s life described the Harivamsa, take place before the Mahabharata war. The same can also be gauged from the chronology of events given in the tenth skandha of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Two such events are, the killing of Rukmi by Balarama (henceforth referred to as the Rukmi incident), and the killing of Narakasura.

It is clear from the Harivamsa, that the killing of Narakasura takes place after the Rukmi incident; when Janamejaya asks Vaishampayana:

On his return to Dvaraka, after the killing of Rukmi, what did the valiant Vishnu with great arms do? O great sage! Please tell me.-
Harivamsa Vishnu Parva 63.1

After which, Vaishampayana goes on to narrate the atrocities of Narakasura. Using the reference described here, it is also certain that the killing of Narakasura and obviously therefore, the Rukmi incident, took place before the Mahabharata war, since Vidura refers to the same, in the Udyoga Parva (before the war), as follows:

Slaying that Naraka in battle, he brought away (from his city) a thousand damsels and married them all, according to the ordinance.
-Mahabharata Udyoga Parva Chapter 130

As discussed here, Rukmi, coming to offer his help, is rejected by both sides in the Mahabharata war, and hence remains neutral.

This creates a confusion, as Balarama is said to have killed Rukmi in the Rukmi incident, before the war, yet, during the war we see Rukmi alive and offering his aid to both sides.

Additionally if one reads the killing of Rukmi by Balarama may seem a bit harsh instead of him just hitting Rukmi, and hence I ask:

Question: How do we reconcile the apparent contradiction of Balarama killing Rukmi and him being alive at the time of the Mahabharata war?

Is it that he only hit Rukmi, but didn’t kill him, in some older manuscripts? (Current versions clearly mention a killing)

Note: The incident being mentioned in the Harivamsa and Srimad Bhagavatam cannot be brushed off as mere interpolation, also, more so because the verses in both have variation among them and don’t show a single text copied to both.

  • 1
    Very interesting reference to Narakasura episode happening after Rukmi's death.. which also means means married 16100 damsels after his grandson's marriage... x_x
    – Surya
    Commented Jun 18, 2021 at 19:45
  • 1
    @zero it did cross the mind however it wouldn’t be absolutely accurate. The verse is: pratyetya dvArakAM viShNurhate rukmiNi vIryavAn akarot; meaning hate Rukmini - when Rukmi was killed, Vishnuh akarod yat- what did Vishnu do?. The line isn’t vishnuhate (killed by Vishnu), it’s vishnurhate (showing they’re two separate words). Anyway it is mentioned that Rukmini cried and she was consoled and Krishna didn’t give an reaction (happy or sad) to avoid losing ties with either Balarama or Rukmini - this is possible only for a killing. Hence I rejected it in favour of a killing.
    – Adiyarkku
    Commented Jun 19, 2021 at 3:10
  • 1
    I think that kalpa bhedha can be a reconciliation in this case. I Mahabharatha belongs to Varaha kalpa and the Srimad Baghavatham is of Sarasvata kalpa. I think that HariVamsha also is of same kalpa as aMahabharatha. And hence the both are in disagreement with Srimad Bhagavatham. Useful links Related: hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/29643/…, hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/11080/…,
    – hanugm
    Commented Jun 19, 2021 at 6:21
  • 1
    @Archit Oh! I will go through. Thanks for information.
    – hanugm
    Commented Jun 19, 2021 at 13:07
  • 1
    @hanugm yes because Harivamsa is a part of the Mahabharata itself as per first chapter of Adi Parva. Mahabharata khila bhaga. It’s not a separate Purana but in fact Itihasa like Mahabharata
    – Adiyarkku
    Commented Jun 20, 2021 at 3:37


You must log in to answer this question.