The Mahabharatas
in question are Sarala’s Mahabharata
of the fifteenth century and Mahabharata
by the sixteenth century poet, Jagannatha Dasa, known and revered as the author
of Odia Bhagabata, which is a sacred
text. Incidentally, there are at least three retellings of the Mahabharata in Odia. The third is the Mahabharata which seems to have been
written in the early eighteenth century by Krushna Singha.
Not many in Odisha, including those who,
because of their profession are expected to know, are aware that Jagannatha
Dasa wrote the Mahabharata. Some of
the few who do, tend to believe that it was really composed by someone else and
came to be known much later as Jagannatha Dasa’s work. By then Dasa had
acquired fame and this work was ascribed to him - when, one would probably never
know - so that it did not suffer
oblivion. When I asked him over phone whether there is any Odia Mahabharata other than Sarala’s and
Krushna Singha’s, Asit Mohanty, journalist, editor and writer, told me that there
is one that goes in the name of Jagannatha Dasa. In any case, from our present
point of view, who the author of this text is matters little. What does, is
that there is yet another retelling of Mahabharata
in Odia.
Suryanarayan Das, in his authoritative history
of Odia literature, says of this retelling that it is indeed a summary – a “summary”
that runs into about nine hundred pages in print! - of Sarala Mahabharata, written in nabakshari
brutta, the metre where each line of a couplet contains nine (naba) letters (akshara). Sarala Mahabharata
was written in a different metre, known as dandi
brutta, details of which are of no concern to us here. What is worth noting
is that this (i.e., Jagannatha Dasa’s) retelling is a retelling, not of the
canonical text, but of a prior retelling (i.e., Sarala Mahabharata) in the same language composed just a few
decades ago. One would wonder why Jagannatha Dasa, a major poet, who knew
Sanskrit, chose to do so, instead of retelling Vyasa Mahabharata. Was it to establish nabakhsari brutta as the metre of puranic narrative in Odia? Or were
there other considerations as well? In any case, I do not know if, in any other
regional language, there are such full-length retellings of a prior retelling of
the Mahabharata in the same language.
Turning to the episode in question in Sarala Mahabharata, namely whether or
not the Great Kurukshetra War would take place, I have presented Sarala’s
version earlier, so here a summary should do. The following morning the rituals
for the start of the war were to be performed. The night was deep when Krishna,
Sakuni and Sahadeva met. Krishna asked Sakuni whether there must be war and
Sakuni said that whatever he wanted would happen. If he didn’t want war and
didn’t thereby want to perform his avataric task, then he, Sakuni, his servitor
in Vaikuntha and on earth, would ensure that there would be no war. Krishna
said that he would relieve the mother earth of her burden.
In Jagannatha
Dasa Mahabharata, the story is almost the same as in Sarala Mahabharata. The context of their meeting is the same. They were
staying together that night in Indraprastha. Earlier that day, by sheer
coincidence, Sakuni had had arrived there to meet Yudhisthira. A while ago, just
before his arrival, on hearing from Krishna about his humiliation in the
Kaurava court, the eldest Pandava had asked his brothers to get ready for war
to avenge the Kauravas’ ill treatment of Hari. Sakuni had come to work out a
plan with the Pandavas for dividing the war field of Kurukshetra - who would
camp in which half and related matters. But instead, he proposed peace. He
suggested to Yudhisthira to give up his claim to the kingdom and retire to
forest with his brothers. The ignorant may prosper in this life but suffer in narka
(hell), said Sakuni, whereas the virtuous may suffer in this life but are amply
compensated in the next. His words had no impact on the eldest Pandava. He had already
made up his mind on war.
That night Sakuni spent in Indraprastha and
that was how the three met. Sakuni said, O Govinda, now war is inevitable.
However, if you order me, I will ensure that the Kauravas and the Pandavas become
friends and peace prevails.” Krishna said, “Sakuni, no. …kaurabe thile srushti kahin // pandabe
ebe panthu rajya / tu puni kara pitru
karjya (Where would the world be if the Kauravas remain alive / Let the
Pandavas get the kingdom / You do the work for your father) //” Sakuni told
Krishna that the adversaries should then start the work of dividing the war
field and that the Pandavas would win if they stayed in the eastern half. And he,
Krishna, he told the avatara, must make it happen.
Sahadeva said nothing to all this. In both
versions he was only the witness. But why did Sarala Dasa and Jagannatha Dasa
choose to have a witness at all? No answer emerges from the texts; there aren’t
even hints. One might suggest that what Sanjaya was to the Srimad Bhagavad Gita discourse, Sahadeva was to this conversation. The
narratives posited a third person listener, a potential reporter or a drasta (seer) who sees the sense of
happening at the alaukika (cosmic)
level. In any case, it this conversation indeed that settled the question of
war - not Duryodhana’s refusing to give the Pandavas anything at all of the
kingdom, not Draupadi’s humiliation or the Pandavas’ suffering during the long
years of exile, Draupadi’s untied hair or even Krishna’s humiliation, etc.
Now, the similarities between Sarala’s and
Jagannatha Dasa’s versions are many, which is to be expected, going by
Suryanarayana Das’s observations on the relation between these two texts. But
there are some nuanced differences as well.
The exchange is Sarala Mahabharata can be seen as a little lila of Krishna. When
Sakuni asked him whether there would be war or not, Krishna’s answer was what
he, Sakuni, thought about it. Humans must decide what concerns them, could be
said to be the import of Krishna’s counter question to Sakuni. But Sakuni, who
thought of himself as Krishna’s servitor, would not be caught in the maya of
Krishna that would make him see the humans as the karta (agent) of events. He knew who the karta was; so he turned the question on to Krishna; he wanted him
to make the choice and say it – for him the choices were peace or doing what he
had taken avatara for. When Krishna said explicitly that he was for the latter,
it was the victory of the bhakta over bhagawan, who had failed to delude the
bhakta and make him act as though he was the decider of things.
In Jagannatha
Dasa Mahabharata, this lila is missing. Equally or even more significantly,
here, war or no war was not going to be the decision of the humans. It would be
Krishna’s decision. There was no place for conversation in the narrative, even
for the sake of form. The Kauravas had to perish for reasons of restoration of the
cosmic balance. Jagannatha Dasa’s perspective is different from Sarala’s in a
subtle sense.
Jagannatha Dasa deviated significantly from
Sarala Dasa again when his Krishna asked his Sakuni to avenge his father’s
killing, explicitly, in so many words. With that, embodied in the second line
of the second couplet, quoted above, the poet transformed that act of revenge, rooted
in treachery, into an act of maha punya
(great virtue) for the victim of Duryodhana’s treachery.
(I am grateful to Mr. Asit Mohanty, who not
only told me about Jagannatha Dasa
Mahabharata but also went out of his way to lend me his only copy. This is
a very generous gesture in view of the fact that this book is no longer
available in the market.)
