1. The beginning of a quest
I have been talking about my guru for long. As I finished it, a thought about guru dakshina (paying fees to the guru) came to my mind and along with it, the thought about Drona. I do mean Dronacharya of Mahabharata, who is famous as ‘the teacher who got a thumb as guru dakshina‘.
My deep curiosity on Mahabharata started from my young age when I first read Rajaji’s book Vyasar Virundhu in Tamil (meaning ‘Vyasa’s feast’, which later got renamed Mahabhararam); it grew rapidly when I read Subramanya Bharati’s Tamil poetic work Panchali Sabatham and then it became a burning passion as I came across Prof. Naganandhi. He was the one who wrote the script for R S Manohar’s drama on Duryodhana in 1977-78. That drama got “Iyal Isai Nataka Virudu” (Tamil Nadu state award for creative works in fiction, music and drama). As I interacted more and more with Prof. Naganandhi, it became clear to me how most of us have a wrong understanding about Mahabharata and how by single-line critiques we tend to glorify some undeserving characters or undermine some great characters in the epic.
My age was seven or eight when I started reading Rajaji’s Chakravarthi thirumagan (Ramayanam) and Vyasar Virundu (Mahabharatam). My mother made me read those books right from the age when I was learning Tamil spelling. Rajaji’s simple yet wholesome writing style did reach my eight year old heart. The hunger that his books created in me is still alive. I should say that my interest in reading books in general and the thirst I have to delve deeper into Ramayana and Mahabharata in particular were indeed kindled by Rajaji.
I have subsequently read many books on Ramayana and Mahabharata that claimed to be ‘close to original’. Whenever I bought such a new book, hope and expectation would rise up in my mind: ‘may this book contain all the answers to my nagging questions. When I finished a book, I did get some of the answers, but they kindled more and more diverse questions afresh. I really don’t know whether my thirst for knowing deeper into the itihasas will get quenched totally one day. That’s how my inquisitiveness that started with Rajaji on Ramayana continued as I read Kamba Ramayana again and again; what Kambar kindled in me drove me towards Valmiki.
It happened similarly in the case of Mahabharatam too. Though Rajaji’s simple style was best suited for youngsters with a limited grasp of language, Rajaji’s Mahabharata, like his Ramayana, left many complex questions unanswered. It does not mean that he did not touch those sensitive questions nor leave them unanswered. His motive was to tell the story to the common man in a concise form, to convey the central theme of the Itihasa, without diminishing the role of the various characters. As his focus was on the flow of the story, he could not do full justice in the wholesome depiction of the significant characters in the story.
It was so because the format he had chosen was aimed at brevity. If we can say Rajaji had depicted only a hundredth of Ramayana, we can say he had depicted only a thousandth of Mahabharata.
It is during the course of the Kurukshetra war that the various characters in the story manifest their full and real personalities. However, in Rajaji’s Mahabharata, the war segment finds rather a measly and miserly treatment. Even though Rajaji had done full justice to his own objective of writing the Mahabharata story, the truth is that his version leaves many serious questions about the story unanswered.
Unfortunately, the present-day situation is such that readers who are just exposed to Rajaji’s version assume that it is the wholesome version of Bharata. Wherever they could not get answers to their questions, they tend to cook up answers as suited to their preconceived ideas and express them as if they are indeed the appropriate and natural explanations.
I have come across several such interpretations on the Internet. Instead of reading Vyasa Bharata and deriving the answer to their query, they concoct an answer in advance and look for appropriate quotes from Bharata for justification. There are many such instances happening on the web. Questions have become confusions long back. These exercises may demonstrate one’s capacity to debate, but the truth remains hundreds of miles away, beyond one’s reach and imagination. Unless one knows what the sourcebook or the source author says, unless the map is made in tune with the real landscape, the path to the vision of truth will never be right. This is what we learn by experience.
This is how I progressed from Rajaji’s Vyasar Virundhu to Vyasa Bharatam Tamil translation of Varthamanan Pathippagam (Publications). As I began reading it, I felt my search was almost over. But there was a problem here too. Even this version was only an abridged form of Vyasa Bharatam and not the whole. Wherever the author had felt something not strictly necessary, he had left those portions. While the flow of the story was not hindered because of it, some of the details essential for untangling crucial knots in the story were missing. It was obvious that considering the length of the story and the need to sustain the interest in the story for the readers, the author had exercised such a compromise. Unfortunately, in some details he had left out, very crucial references have been missed.
To cite an example, let us take the portion of the chapter where Susharma sets out to round up herds of cows from the kingdom of Viradha. In Vyasa Bharata source, it has been stated that it was the seventh day after the full moon (krishna paksha sapthami) that he started. It is on the next day (ashtami) that Duryodhana and others left Hastinapuram on the same mission. This detail has been left out in the above translated book. Arjuna, who was leading a life of incognito (Ajnyata vasa) at the Kingdom of Viradha came out to fight with Duryodhana and others. There was an argument in the story about whether Arjuna had exposed himself before the one-year due date. However, as per the original story, the Ajnyata vasa ended on the ashtami day (i.e. on the day Duryodhana and company left their country to travel to Viradha’s country). Several such nuances essential in the story had been left out in the said book.
As I found the book of Varthamanan Publications too to be inadequate for my quest, I bought Mahabharata Saram (Essense of Mahabharata) published by Sri Ramakrishna Mutt, which contained the original slokas of Vyasa Bharatam and their direct Tamil translation in the right order. It was from this publication I came to know that a popular bit in the story related to the killing of Jarasandha is not in the source. As per this popular bit, it is said that Lord Krishna signaled to Bhima a hint on how to kill Jarasandha without giving him an opportunity to come back alive, by tearing the leaf of a grass and turning one half of it upside down. No such mention exists in the sourcebook. However, even this translation is at the best an abridged version of Vyasa Bharata and hence I was still hunting around for answers to my several questions.
Next, I bought the Translated work of Kamala Subramanyam from Bhavans Publications. This was indeed a very nice exposition of the Bharata story. The narration was so beautiful and enchanting that the reader will get so engrossed in reading it on and on without an urge to put the book down. But only later I found out that some of the explanations available in the book of Kamala Subramaniam don’t exist in Vyasa’s source. It is quite natural that when a story is narrated by any person, it is bound to happen. Certain things get added; certain things get dropped out.
If one does not shed tears while reading Kamala Subramanian’s description of the scene where Karna and Kunti meet, one must be stone-hearted indeed! However, I came to know later that the scenario did not match with what is found in the sourcebook of Vyasa.
The experience I gained in my quest on reading Ramayana in its entirety taught me the lesson that unless one reads the sourcebook or a book that contains word by word translation of the sourcebook and compares it with its Sanskrit original, one is most unlikely to get all the questions answered. Based on this knowledge, I decided, in the case of Mahabharata, to go for Sri Kisari Mohan Ganguli’s Translation of Vyasa Bharata. This English publication is available both in print as well as in downloadable pdf format on the Internet. Original Sanskrit Vyasa Bharata too is available. By reading both by comparing with each other, I found the total picture gradually emerging with clarity.
As I had earlier read Villi Bharatam (Centuries-old Tamil poetic work on Mahabharatam by Sri Villiputhurar), I could now grasp the differences in the versions of Vyasa and Villiputhurar. Villiputhurar had intended to expand on what Vyasa had depicted in certain scenes and situations. When it comes to the dramatization of the story or in portraying the characters, there is a difference between Poet Kamba (in his Ramayana) and poet Villiputhurar. In my humble opinion as a literary person, Villiputhurar seems to have made some errors (particularly in the depiction of the character of Draupadi).
For a person delving into Itihasas, the motive need not be and should not be entirely to find clarifications to nagging questions. If one gets a clarification from some source, he is duty-bound to put it forth with authenticity only if the following conditions are satisfied:
A reader with a researcher’s mindset should be honest enough to place his findings without yielding to subjectivity in such matters.
There is a reason why I rely so much on the translation of Kisary Mohan Ganguly. In his elaborate translation work, Shri Ganguly had done a laborious job of comparing various versions of Vyasabharata from different sources. Wherever he found contradictions between versions, he had provided footnotes stating “This is what I found in the Bombay publication; this is what is found in the Calcutta publication. For such and such reasons, I have taken this particular version as authentic” etc. He had done such an honest analysis without taking sides. While recommending one version, he has also presented the alternative version for the benefit of the reader.
Then there is the publication from Kumbakonam, which is even better. This Tamil translation has rectified some minor errors existing in Ganguly’s version and is much closer to the original, as acknowledged by many.
Come. Let us begin our Bharata journey. If readers have questions, they can send them to me. I will try to consolidate the answers and present it at appropriate places. I pray for divine grace and your blessings in this endeavor.
After going through many publications, my thirst got considerably quenched by Kisari Mohan Ganguly’s English translation; finally, it has been fully quenched by the Kumbakonam Publication of Mahabharata.
Author Profile:
Shri Hari Krishnan is an independent researcher in Mahābhārata based in Bangalore.
Disclaimer: This article belongs to the author in full, including opinions and insights. Amrita University is not responsible or liable for the information contained in this article, or its implications therein
