Mahabharat 1.2 – The Evolution of an Epic

We have all grown up reading or hearing some version of Mahabharata. Most of the times, our exposure to the epic is limited to condensed abridged versions like Amar Chitra Katha, TV series, famous works of literature on selected incidents or characters by stalwarts like Tagore, Ramdhari Dinkar, etc. And then, there are those wondrous stories we hear from our grandparents.

Mahabharata, in its unabridged form, however, is very different from the stories we have grown up reading. Before we know more about Mahabharat: the evolution, let’s address a few questions.

Is Mahabharata history? Is it entirely fiction? Is it fiction based on History? If it is history, then when exactly did the events take place?

Owing to lack of concrete archeological evidence of the Kurukshetra War, different scholars and academicians have given their own ideas about the Epic in their respective pieces of work. While traditionalists prefer to believe Mahabharata was our unadulterated History or itihaas (as it calls itself), Western school of thoughts inclines more towards the term “mythology” to classify our Epics. Whether or not we accept their theories, one thing seems to be clear. All these academicians follow some basic manuscripts which is considered “canon” by them. When I talk about “academicians” or “scholars”, I am referring to the great ancient commentators like Devabodha, Arjunamisra, Nilkantha Chaturdhara, or more recent Vishnu S. Sukthankar, Prof. Nrishingho Prasad Bhaduri, P.P.S. Shastri, Kevin Mcgrath, John Brockington, Alf Hiltebetel, etc. Of course, there are variations in these manuscripts across the length and breadth of the country, but the basic crux and character arcs surprisingly retain the same characteristics, as pointed out by Prof. Bhaduri in this Telegraph India article.

Regarding the history of the text:

What is the definition of “canon” for a text as old as Mahabharata?

Surely it is difficult to define, though not impossible to form a rough idea about.

Mahabharata, as we know it in the Indo-Vedic context, came down to us in two distinct categories: Northern Recension (NR) and Southern Recension (SR). NR refers to the North Indian manuscripts of the epic, and SR refers to those which were found in the Southern part of the country.  Many of these manuscripts were collated into Editions by various scholars coming from various geographical locations in the past few centuries. The most known Editions of Mahabharata, (6 belong to NR and 3 to SR) that roughly form the “canon” of Mahabharata are (quoting the main contents from http://mahabharata-resources.org/mbh_editions.html):

(1) The Calcutta Edition, created by Asiatic Society, 4 volumes, 1834-39.

(2) The Bombay edition, printed in 1863, also called Nilkantha Chaturdhara’s commentary Bharatabhavadipa. Nilkantha wrote his work in the later part of 17th Century.

(3) The Burdwan Edition, published under the auspices of the Maharajadhiraj Mahtabchand of Burdwan, in both original Sanskrit (reprinted in Bengali characters of the Asiatic Society edition) and Bengali translation by Gopaldhan Churamani and Saradaprasad Jnananidhi; around 1863; quarto. [The much-known K.M. Ganguly’s English translation was a combination of Edition (2) and (3) as mentioned by the Translator himself in his Preface. ]

(4) The Madras edition, re-edited with tika by Nilakantha Govinda, 1890.

(5) The Southern Recension, 18 volumes, critically edited by P.P.S. Shastri,and published by Ramaswamy Sastrulu & Sons, Madras, 1932.

(6) The Poona Recension (collated by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute or BORI) from 1927-65. Though this is a single Edition, it is a collation of maximum number of manuscripts of Mahabharata found in the Indian subcontinent. As a result, it is considered by many as the most authoritative and the first critical edition, completed in 1966. (This is translated in English by Bibek Debroy, and in Hindi by S.D. Sadwalekar.)

(7) Earlier edition of the Southern Recension, from the Vani Vilasa Press, Srirangam.

(8) The Gorakhpur Edition, translated in Hindi by Gita Press, 8vols.

(9) Edition in Bengali characters, Panchanan Tarkaratna, Bangabasi Press, 2 folio vols.

Southern Recension did not enjoy the same limelight as the Northern Recension. Post the medieval era, we find increasing interest in the scholarly circle to translate Mahabharata. Due to easy access, all legit English translators, viz. K.M. Ganguli, M.N. Dutt, Clay Edition, etc chose to translate the Northern Recension only. As a result of this, most of us have remained oblivious to the Southern Edition of the Epic, which, according to Sukthankar (General Editor of BORI), is far more systematic and poetically superior than its Northern counterpart (See Prolegomena to the Adi Parva, Sukthankar).

It is difficult to trace, when exactly the Mahabharata (as a poem) was composed. Traditionally it is attributed to sometime around 3000 B.C. It is also believed that the story composed by Veda Vyasa was recited to Lord Ganesha, and this composition was transferred down orally for centuries through the Smriti tradition by bards or Sutas, till it came to be written down sometime in the Gupta Period for the first time by the Brahmanical sects.

While the concept of oral tradition of the canon text is now being challenged, one thing is clear; the story has undergone various modifications. And yet, it has retained the basic components that lead some scholars to believe that all the different versions descended from one Mother Source. The preserved texts are believed to be not older than 400 BC, though we have references from Panini and Chanakya’s works to the various characters of the epic from 2^nd to 6^th Century BC, indicating that the story was much older. However, it is believed that Mahabharata received its final form sometime around 400 AD (as per Debroy’s Introduction in the English translation of the Critical Edition).

Retellings and Adaptations of Mahabharata:

In this context, it is important to talk about the various Retellings of the Epic. While the “canon” texts were being written down, and the control over the Epic passed over to the Bhargav Brahmins from the Sutas (as some opine), we see a gradual rise in various regions of the country to retell and adapt the Epic into various regional languages. This retelling culture became prominent from sometime around 10th to 12th Century AD in South India, and spread its wings till Bengal. Indologist Pradip Bhattacharya opines that the reasons for this remarkable emergence could be attributed “to the felt need to assert the indigenous identity in the context of the Muslim invasion, but this calls for further study”.

These regional retellings are not always to be taken as exact translations of the Sanskrit “canon”. These were written in simpler languages, and were filled with beautiful artistic liberties of the various poets and bards who composed them. This is because, many of these adaptations were targeted for the uneducated peasantry, and with the noble intention to introduce our Epics to the general masses in an easier format. With the passage of time, the common people began to be more accustomed to these simpler retellings, and thus, it is stories from these adaptations that got etched into the public psyche.

Some of the most popular retellings on Mahabharata are Mahabharata by Kashiram Das (Bengal, 17^th Century), Villi Bharatham by Villiputtur Alwar (Tamil Nadu, 14^th Century), Sarala Das’ Oriya Mahabharata (15^th Century), etc. These retellings are often mistaken to be verbatim translations of the Sanskrit canon, though they were mostly re-imagination of the epic, replete with original ideas of the respective regional poets. These original ideas of poets like Kashiram, etc are now mistakenly attributed to Vyasa.

Folk Traditions on Mahabharata:

Mahabharata has a rich Folk Culture in various parts of our country. These were mostly oral by nature, and developed in mainly rural or tribal areas of the Indian subcontinent. These Folk Traditions are very different from the canon stories, and beautiful through their rustic simplicity and symbolism. Some of the well-known folk traditions are those of the Bhils, Garhwal Himalayas, Gingi Cult, etc.

This, in short, is the evolution of Mahabharata in the Indo-Vedic context. (I am leaving out the Jain, Buddhist, Javanese, Indonesian variations, for now).

***

Author’s Note: This post-container was first created in 2017 but it remained blank for years. In Oct, 2018, I wrote an article on India Forums here, which I am now putting up on my blog. I have edited out the unnecessary parts and kept only the main portions for this. I have written extensively on this topic on Quora as well. Feel free to use this info for academic pursuits but a little acknowledgement to this blog (and the great researchers/bloggers who have worked hard on the great epics, cited below) would be nice and encouraging. To read more articles on Mahabharata, please go to the Archives. I do not own the image. For image source, go here: Image Source.

References, Sources and Links:
1.) The Critical Edition of Mahabharata, BORI translated in English by Bibek Debroy, Penguin India.
2.) Prolegomena to the Adi Parva by V.S. Sukthankar, General Editor of BORI.
3.) Mahabharata, Gita Press Gorakhpur (non-Critical) Edition in Hindi.
4.) Kisari Mohan Ganguli’s English translation of Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa’s Mahabharata.
5.) The Sanskrit Epic by J.L. Brockington
6.) The History of Classical Sanskrit by M. Krishnamachariar
7.) Yuganta by Irawati Karve
8.) Repositories of different versions, summaries, commentaries ever written on Mahabharata:
i.) http://www.dvaipayana.net/
ii.) http://www.mahabharata-resources.org/
9.) Blog articles of Indologists of Dr. Pradip Bhattacharya, Satya Chaitanya and Indrajit Bandyopadhyay on Boloji.com.