Abstract
An attempt is made here to study
the conceptualization of Lord Jagannath and the ritual system associated with
his worship over centuries in terms of brahminization, localization and the resolution
of the conflict between these two. Analysing Skanda Purana and Sarala
Mahabharata and a particular ritual, anasara, in some detail, it brings
out the inclusiveness of Jagannath worship.
Key words: Jagannath, Jagannath
worship, Neela Madhava, brahminization, localization, inclusiveness, Jara
In 2014, touching the Deities on
the rathas (chariots) was not allowed to the devotees by the Jagannath
Temple administration of Puri, on the advice of the Shankaracharya of Govardhana
Peetha, Puri, whom they had approached for advice on this matter, setting aside
the circumstances under which they had done so, because that will take us far
afield. The Gajapati King of Puri, who is the first among the servitors of Mahaprabhu
Jagannath (henceforth, “Jagannath”, as he is popularly and fondly called, without
any honorific suffix or prefix) had strongly supported the Shankaracharya. Touching
the Deities is papa (sin), the Shankaracharya had declared. The devotees
were not allowed to climb on to the rathas to reach the Deities. The
only ones who opposed this were some daita (also called daitapati)
sevakas (servitors of a non-brahmin category), who said that the disallowance
was against the tradition but their opposition was to no avail. The following
year, this proscription was even more strictly followed, with the Odisha High Court’s
ruling in favour of it and criminalizing the touching the Deities. Incidentally,
in 2006, the Temple administration had arranged for ladders so that the
devotees could climb on to the rathas and everyone knew that they would
touch the Deities. Sin was in nobody’s mind; I presume that at least for most
of the devotees, it still is not. In any case, this aspect has not figured in
public discourse on the subject. It must be mentioned that the disallowance has
turned out to be hugely popular but its popularity is entirely unrelated to the
matter of sin. It has been popular because the devotees have since been having
a clear darshan of the Deities, untroubled by someone or the other
asking or bullying them for a fee for darshan. Earlier, often those who were on the rathas,
both servitors and the devotees, would surround the Deities, making it difficult
for those on the ground to see them clearly. It was often alleged that many of
the devotees on the rathas had paid money to the servitors to be there.
Still on the matter of touching the Deities, sparsa darshana (literally,
touching the Deities, while having darshan of them), as it is called, was
allowed by convention, even when the Deities were in the garva griha (sanctum
sanctorum), seated on the platform called “Ratna Sinhasana”. During paramanika
darshana (paid darshan) or sahanamela (public darshan),
devotees could touch the Deities on certain days: Dola Purnima when the Deities
were in their suna besha, (dressed with gold ornaments) or in their Padma
(lotus) besha, among similar occasions. Some believed that the Deities
could be touched when they were not on their platform in garva griha,
where they received worship in terms of the mantra-centric brahminical tradition.
In 2014, Puri Shankaracharya pronounced that the Deities must not be touched irrespective
of where they were: on the platform in the garva griha, or rathas
or anasara pindi (inside the temple, but outside the garva griha,
where the Deities remain for fifteen days) or on the ground during their pahandi
(moving step by step) while going to their rathas or snana bedi
(the designated platform inside the compound of the temple, where the Deities
are given a special “big” bath once a year). Shankaracharya’s view could be viewed
as discouraging the non-brahminical, vyabaharic tradition and providing support
to the brahminization of Jagannath and the ritual system in the Jagannath temple,
a process that started centuries ago.
This is the context for the present paper. Trying to understand Jagannath
and his worship, it constructs a narrative of the brahminization (preferring this
term to “Aryanization”) of Jagannath worship, its contestation by concepts and practices
that are contrary to it, which is called here “localization”, rather tentatively
and of the resolution of the contradiction between brahminization and localization
in this worship. Evolution of Jagannath and his worship is too rich and complex
a topic to be dealt within the familiar limitations of a paper; this paper is rather
of an indicative nature with respect to its subject and hasn’t gone beyond merely
scratching the surface of it. The terms “brahminization” and “localization” are
merely descriptive labels and have no connotations at all, either favourable or
negative. And “brahminization” subsumes the concepts underlying the terms “Vishnuization”,
“Krishnization”, etc. used in this paper. As far as the origins of Jagannath
and his worship are concerned, the paper has drawn its data from some puranic
narratives, in particular, Skanda Purana in Sanskrit and Sarala
Mahabharata in Odia. As far as the rituals performed in the temple dealt
with here, are concerned, some informative texts on this topic, my own
experience as an observer of some of these rituals and my discussion on this
subject with scholars on Jagannath culture and a few locals, including the servitors
of the temple, constitute the data.
Jagannath appears to be unique in many respects, considered against the
background of the religious narratives and the relevant tattwik (philosophical)
deliberations of ancient and medieval India on murti worship. Many questions
arise with respect to him, especially his origins, some of which are as
follows: what explains the incompleteness of his murti (form) and the nature of
that incompleteness? What explains his colour and the colours of Balabhadra, Subhadra
and Sudarshana, along with whom he receives worship and when and why the above
three came to be worshipped with him, assuming, not without reason, which we
just cannot go into here, that in the beginning he was worshiped alone? There
is a body of literature on these and one might find answers to the above satisfactory
or inadequate and unsatisfactory. There is at least one question that has
hardly been addressed by scholars, which is about the colours of the Deities
(Jagannath is black, Balabhadra, white and Subhadra, yellow.) Although in the
recent centuries, he has come to have been generally viewed as the manifestation
of Vishnu, some have connected him to Buddhism, Jainism, Krishna-centric Vaishnavism,
Shaivism, Shaktism, Ganapatya sect, among others. For some, he is the
Purushottama of the Rig Veda, for others, Brahman of the Upanishads, the Buddha
of Buddhis; for some Shaivites, he is Shiva, the Shaktas, Mahavairava (the Great
Vairava), the Vaishnavas Krishna, for the Ganapatya followers, Ganesha and the
like. Now, no god in the pantheon of Sanatana dharma (henceforth “Hindu”) has
been as acceptable to the followers of such diverse faiths and beliefs as him. For
fifteen days a year, except for two categories of servitors, the Chaturdhamurti
(The Four-fold-Form), are inaccessible to the devotees and these two categories
of servitors, who are engaged in this secret and intimate worship of Jagannath,
are patimahapatras, one sub-category of “Jagannath-temple brahmins” (to
distinguish them from shotriya brahmins), and daitas (also called
daitapatis, non-brahmins, whose ancestors are said to be savaras, who, being
forest-dwellers and non-Aryas (Aryans), were outside of the caste-system, and did
not enter the caste-system later as high caste. Incidentally, the term “daita”
is entirely unconnected with the term “daitya (asura or demon)”. Now, no
other Hindu god is worshipped by the brahmins and the savaras, who belong to
two significantly different cultures. There are many more such aspects to the
worship of Jagannath, which are unique to it. So the question has often been
asked about Jagannath, namely, “Who is Jagannath really?” by those, as Surendra
Mohanty suggests in his celebrated novel “Neela Saila” (1979, p. 299), who
are inclined towards philosophy, religion and history of culture. This question
shows that those who ask it would like to find Jagannath related to a single, specific
religious tradition. They find the inclusiveness
of Jagannath uncomfortable. As far as the common man is concerned, as Mohanty
observes (1979, p.299), he has no interest in this question. In the spirit of Neela
Saila, we would like to articulate his perspective as follows: Jagannath is
Jagannath, not restricted to any single religious tradition. However, if one
wishes to see in him Krishna or Vishnu or Shiva or Ganesha or whosoever else, including
goddess Kali, one could do so. Every view is legitimate; no view is privileged;
so, no room for the question, who he really is. In the idiom of the tattwiks,
this perspective of the common man can, roughly, have the following form: “Being
Nothing, the Void, he absorbs everything”.
In sum, there are two contrastive perspectives on Jagannath: the brahminical,
considered educated and “sophisticated” by those who believe in the authority
of the shashtras and the puranas, composed in Sanskrit, and the
other, the people’s perspective, the “localized” one, in the sense it is used here.
The former dismisses the people’s view as
naïve and simplistic; as for the latter, the former is uninteresting and meaningless.
But neither has cancelled out the other
in course of centuries, each finding its own space in both the narratives about
Jagannath and the rituals performed in the temple. This inclusiveness constitutes the resolution
of the conflicting perspectives of brahminization and localization, with
respect to Jagannath and his worship.
Probably the first detailed account of Jagannath’s origin in the brahminical
tradition occurs in “Utkala Khanda”, which is a part of the twelfth
century composition, Skanda Purana, cited here as Das (2016). A sketchy
but entirely adequate summary for our present purpose is the following: The
first worshipper of Neela Madhava, taken to be the ancestral form of Jagannath,
was a savara named Viswabasu. King Indradyumna, a great devotee of Vishnu, was
advised that Vishnu was manifest in his fullest divine glory in the forests of
Utkala and was being worshipped by a savara. At the king’s behest, the brahmin Vidyapati,
the younger brother of the minister of the king came in search of the Deity. Afraid
of the brahimn’s curse, Viswabasu showed him the Deity, an idol who had the
familiar human form of the Hindu deities. When on the following day he came to
worship Neela Madhava, he had disappeared. The king was inconsolable. The Divine
Voice told him not to worry. He would manifest himself in the form of a log of wood.
The following day, the king’s men found a splendid log of wood on the shores of
the sea nearby. No one knew where it had come floating from. The brahmins took
the sacred wood and placed it on the chosen platform. No one knew how to make
the murti (idol) of Vishnu. The Divine Voice told the king that an old
carpenter would come to him and he would make the murti in fifteen days. The
carpenter worked all alone and in complete secrecy and in the appointed time,
he made the murtis of Jagannath, Balabhadra, Subhadra and Sudarshana. The job
done, he disappeared; he had actually absorbed into the murti of Jagannath,
which no one knew. Only Vishnu could make his own murti; no human could. The Deities
had hands and feet, etc. unlike their incomplete counterparts today, who have
been receiving worship for centuries now. Indradyumna was advised by the Divine Voice to
designate the savara Viswabasu’s descendants and the brahmin Vidypati’s
descendants as the servitors of Jagannath. This system of worship, not
initiated by a human agent but by the divine decree, made Jagannath worship un-brahminical,
or at least, only weakly brahminical, right from the beginning. By including the savara in the worship, the
divine voice had set limits on the brahminization of Jagannath worship.
There are variations of this narrative in several puranas and puranic
texts, some of which have dealt with how the incomplete Deities came to be
worshipped, in contravention of the brahminical system. One extremely popular
account, which can be said to have become part of the Odia consciousness, is
the following: The Creator god himself, assuming the form of a very old and
frail carpenter, told king Indradyumna that he needed twenty-one days to make
the murtis and that he would be alone inside the temple, making the murtis and that
no one must have access to him under any circumstances. Every day, for fourteen
days, the king and his queen, Gundicha, would hear, from outside, the sounds of
the making of the murtis but on the fifteenth day, they could hear nothing. Persuaded
by his queen, who was extremely worried that the carpenter had died inside, Indradyumna
opened the door of the temple and found the incomplete Forms. The carpenter had
disappeared. The Divine Voice said that Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma would receive
worship in their incomplete Forms. The rest of the story is of no concern to us.
This account is similar to Sarala’s, as we shall see.
The following are of interest to us in the Skanda Purana narrative:
(a) the names Neela Madhava and Viswabasu, (b) The murti of Neela Madhava having
the form a supra-human, of Vishnu, as in the puranic depictions of him, with
four hands, etc. (c) the shifting of the divine wood from the sea shore to the platform
by the brahmins and (d) the making of the murtis by the carpenter. Now, the names above are not tribal names and tribal
communities are not known to have worshipped murtis having a graceful, human form.
This shows that the brahminization of
the object of Viswabasu’s worship had already taken place and inevitably, the
narrative of the origin of Jagannath as well. The god of “no-tradition” (what
else would describe him better, when he had just one human worshipper - of course,
the great gods worshipped him, but they are not part of any articulation of the
Little and the Great traditions - who had hidden him from everyone’s view till Vidyapati’s
arrival) had been assimilated into the Great tradition.
We now turn to Sarala’s narrative of the making of the murtis. Sarala Das,
the aadi kavi of Odia literature, who belonged to the fifteenth century
and who is the first non-brahmin to retell the great classical narrative in a
regional language, composed the story of the origins of Jagannath in his Mahabharata
in “Musali Parva”. Despite similarities, his narrative shows some
fundamental differences from Skanda Purana. In brief, in Sarala
Mahabharata, the equivalent of Viswabasu is Jara, and of Vidyapati is Vasu
and between the personal names, Jara and Viswabasu, the former sounds less brahminical
than the latter. The Divine wood manifested itself at the Rohini Kunda (pond),
and not on the shores of the sea. That wood
was the form of Krishna himself, the complete manifestation of Vishnu. In
Sarala’s account, Shiva wanted to be with Vishnu and so did Brahma, when they
knew that Vishnu had decided to receive worship in Neelachala (Puri of today). The
brahmins, the royals and the ministers of Indradyumna tried their best to move the
Divine wood into the majestic temple King Indradyumna had built for Vishnu but it
would not move. Krishna told the king in a dream that night that only the savara
Jara and the brahmin Vasu together would be able to move the Wood. The
following morning, Jara and Vasu moved the wood into the temple. Now the murti
had to be made and Indradyumna did not know who to engage for that. He meditated
on Krishna and he told him in a dream that Jara would be the one to make the
murtis. The king told Jara that Krishna himself had chosen him as the one to
make the murti; how he would do it, was up to him, he told him: kemanta
kaributi tuhi janasi bhale / pratima nirmana kara tote sri Krishna agyan
dele (How to make the murti you know / Krishna has ordered you to make the
murti ( Musali Parva, p. 2643).
With Jara inside the temple, the king closed the door. Jara was
wondering what to do; he had never made a murti and had never even seen portraits.
As he was mulling over these things, the Creator Brahma arrived in the form of
a brahmin, made the murtis and entered the one of Subhadra. Now, with no sound
of murti-making coming from inside, king Indradumna was worried, thinking that
Jara must have fled. On the tenth day, he opened the door of the temple and
found the incomplete murtis. They were without legs and in addition, Jagannath’s
and Balabhadra’s murtis had no palms and Subhadra’s no hands. Indradyumna was
not upset; he asked the brahmin, Basu (Viswabasu) who the Deities were and he
told him that they were Jagannath, Balabhadra and Subhadra, Forms of Narayana,
Shiva and Brahma. After Brahma entered Subhadra’s murti, at Krishna’s behest,
Jara had covered the wooden murtis with the thick paste made of the bark of the
saal trees. Jagannath (the cover
term for the three Deities) had chosen to hide his feet; that would be his Form
in Kali yuga (the age of darkness), says Sarala. About two centuries later,
the poet Vipra Nilambara, in “Deula Tola”, which tells the story of the origin
of Jagannath, offered a different explanation for the incompleteness of the Deities
but it must be stressed that essentially, it is a variation of Sarala’s story,
as Mansingh remarked ( 1981, p. 100 ), a view, with which we concur.
In the episode of the making of the murtis in Sarala Mahabharata,
Krishna is Narayana, the Source of the avarata Krishna, into whom the avatara
had absorbed, after his passing away. Thus,
it was Narayana’s wish to remain incomplete and receive worship in that form. This
is interesting for our present purpose. Unless in a symbolic form, such as salagrama
or linga, the Hindu gods are worshipped in the form similar, essentially,
to the human form, complete with hands and feet. Some, like Vishnu, has four hands
and Brahma, four heads, etc., but the basic similarity with the human form remains.
Now, in Sarala’s creation, the murtis of Vishnu (Jagannath), Balarama (Shiva)
and Brahma (Subhadra) are in complete dissonance with the way the Trinity are
represented as forms in the shashtras and the puranas. In their incomplete form, in which they look less
human and more abstract, they are symbolically closer to the objects of tribal worship,
where the same are not forms which resemble a human. It would not be unreasonable
to suggest that Sarala had tried to restore, although partially, Jara’s god for
him from Skanda Purana’s brahminized Neela Madhava – “partially”,
because the Deities that Jara was involved with in their making had non-tribal
names. Jagannath, Balabhadra, Subhadra are not tribal names. This said, still
remaining within the framework of the brahminical narrative of the origin of
Jagannath and his worship in Skanda Purana, Sarala introduced
innovations that are unmistakably non-brahminical - local, in our terminology.
Now, we find that in Sarala’s narrative, the cooperation of the savaras
and the brahmins has been highlighted far more strongly than in Skanda
Purana. Unlike in the latter, in Sarala’s, the Divine Wood could move only
when Jara was involved in it; the earlier attempts to do so with the brahmins and
the royals alone had failed. More importantly, Jara, was involved in the making
of the murtis. He was the chosen one. Thus, Sarala’s narrative of the origin of
Jagannath counterposes the puranic or shashtric (scriptural) account
with a distinct non-brahminical or local flavour. His narrative can be viewed as
an effort to reclaim Jagannath for the savaras.
Incidentally, at the conceptual level as well, Sarala can be said to
have brought about a paradigm change in the thinking on man’s relationship with
God. According to tradition, it is through bhakti (devotion) that man connects best
with God. Now, in the puranic literature, be it Savari or Hanuman of the Ramayana, the gopis of Srimad
Bhagavata, Radha of Vaishnava literature or Prahlad of Vishnu Purana,
it is the bhakta (devotee) who seeks Bhagawana (God) and needs his companionship,
longs to be his servitor, etc. but in the Jara-Krishna relationship, it is the opposite:
it is Bhagawana who needs man and his chosen one may not be his bhakta, in the accepted
sense of the term, based on the idea of navadha bhakti (nine forms of
bhakti) of Srimad Bhagavata and of the Ramayana.
Vaishnavization transformed Anantadeva of the first part of Skanda Purana
(2016, p. 307) and Balarama of Sarala Mahabharata into Krishna’ elder brother,
Balarama. In Skanda Purana, Subhadra was described at once as goddess
Lakshmi, Vishnu’s (manifest as Jagannath) consort and as Rohini’s daughter and
Balarama and Krishna’s sister, Subhadra, when Vishnu took the avatara of
Krishna. In the episode under discussion in Sarala Mahabharata, Subhadra
is not sister to Balarama and Jagannath, neither is she the manifestation of
Lakshmi. She is the creator god, Brahma. Vaishnavization had frozen Subhadra to
being the sister of Jagannath and Balabhadra, by which name Sarala’s Balarama is
known today as part of Chaturdha Murti or the Four-fold-Form.
The savara’s (be it Vishwabasu of Skanda Purana or Jara of Sarala
Mahabharata) object of worship, Neela Madhava (be it a shining gem or a murti)
had no story of his own. It was only after his Vishnuization that the stories
of the origins of Jagannath emerged (in the brahminical Skanda Purana and
some other puranas, and the partially non-brahminical Sarala Mahabharata).
However, in our view, the more accurate statement would be the following: Neela
Madhva story may be disconnected from the Jagannath story. The former ended
with his disappearance. With the Divine Wood began another story: Jagannath’s
story in both the brahminical and the non-brahminical frameworks. The Divine Voice,
Krishna’s directives, etc. connect these two different stories to tell how Jagannath
originated.
Neither in Skanda Purana nor in the Musali Parva of Sarala
Mahabharata, is Jagannath viewed as an avatara of Vishnu. He is conceptualized
as Vishnu himself. The savara’s god had been Vishnuized into Jagannath in Skanda
Purana and Sarala accepted it, although, as mentioned above, his narrative
is different from it in crucial respects. In due course, the stories of the
avataras of Vishnu got attached to Jagannath. As this happened, the ritual
system was augmented to reflect this; thus, Krishna janma (birth), Rama janma,
Vamana janma, etc., Kaliya dalana (taming), Rukmini vivaha
(wedding) and some other rituals connected with Krishna and Balarama as
children in Gopapura, Rama avisheka (coronation) and many rituals connected
with the avataras entered the ritual system of Jagannath worship. Barring one or
two rituals, related to Krishna, these find no mention in Skanda Purana.
Pushyavisheka is there but it is unrelated to Rama’s avisheka of
today. Attribution of the stories associated with Vishnu and his avataras to
Jagannath and the augmentation of the ritual system by avatara-centric rituals indicate
the increasing Vishnuization of Jagannath over centuries. The Ganapatya (a sect
that worships Ganesha as the Supreme god), connection of Jagannath is evident
in the Hati vesha (Elephant dress) of Jagannath and Balabhadra on Snana
vedi (the platform for the Great Bathing).
Now, stories, unconnected with the puranas and the shashtras, thus,
local, were composed, in which Jagannath is seen as Jagannath, not Vishnu, as
in the brahminical literature on Jagannath. These stories counterpose the brahminical
perspective. One such story describes how, granting his wish, Jagannath waited for
his devotee, Sala Bega, who was not in Puri then, to come and see him on the
ratha. Another is how, once, listening to the pleadings of Balarama Das, Jagannath
manifested himself in his sand ratha during Rath Yatra. He returned to his
ratha when Balarama Das allowed him to. There are quite a few such stories. At
least two of these, the Rai-Damodara story and the Talichha Mahapatra
story have impacted the ritual system. The former has led to a besha,
called Rai-Damodara besha and the latter, a dhupa (food-offering)
called Bala dhupa. This dhupa is held when the Deities are in
their Rai-Damodara besha. Incidentally, Rai-Damodara is now being
brahminized as Radha-Damodara. Rai
in the relevant narrative is Jagannath’s spouse and is unconnected with Krishna.
Snana (Bathing) and Ratha
Yatra are unique rituals because the mula vigrahas, that is, the murtis
themselves, not their representatives (chalanti pratima, as they are
called, who are taken out during festivals) leave the platform in the sanctum
sanctorum and come out, which is un-brahminical. Both the brahmin and the
non-brahmin (daita) servitors participate in the rituals, although the sevas
(what they do) are different. In Skanda Purana, the savaras were excluded
from these rituals (Part I, p.399). Their subsequent inclusion in the same can certainly
be viewed as an assertion of the non-brahminical tradition in Jagannath worship.
Two
rituals that find no mention in Skanda Purana concern the renewal or the
repair of the murtis; there is no description of the navakalevara
and the anasara rituals. The former takes place once in a few years, the
details of which we skip. It is a forty-five-day ritual. The old murtis
are given a ritual burial and in their place, new murtis are made and worshipped.
It is an elaborate and complex ritual, but details are out of place here. What
is of present relevance is the following: in the gupta (secret) seva
in these two rituals, the daita servitors of the savara origin,
have an extremely important role. This is more in tune with the Sarala
Mahabharata narrative of the making of the murtis than the Skanda
Purana narrative of the same. Recall
that it is in the former that the savara, Jara, has a crucial role; his
equivalent, the savara, Vishwabasu has no comparable in the latter. Jara does
not make the murtis; the divine carpenter, the Creator god himself, does. But Jara
covers the wooden murtis with the paste made of the barks of the saal
tree.
Anasara is observed every year. It is a fifteen-day ritual, essentially
the same as navakalevara, except that there is no replacement of the existing
murtis. The existing murtis are attended to. The role of the daitas during
the anasara ritual and the navakalevara ritual, as far as the murtis
are concerned, is essentially the same. Like Jara, the daita servitors
today put pastes on the murtis, the difference being that the materials used
today are not just the paste of the bark of the saal trees; herbs, oils,
etc. are used as well. The nature of involvement of the daitas in this
intimate ritual highlights the fact that Jagannath worship is not entirely brahmincal;
it is basically inclusive. Skanda Purana had mentioned that both the brahmins
and the savaras (descendants of Vidyapati and Vishwabasu respectively) would
be involved in the worship but what role the savara servitors would have,
it did not mention or even suggest. Going by the spirit of Skanda Purana,
it couldn’t be as central as it was in Sarala Mahabharata.
The significance of the anasara (and the navakalevara)
ritual is this: it is virtually totally un-shashtric or un-brahminical. It ensures that Jagannath worship cannot be totally brahminized; the seva
of the daitas, which, to repeat, is central to it, cannot be done away
with. If it ever happens, then it would be the origination of a different Jagannath
worship. Just as with the disappearance of Neela Madhava, his story ended, as
we have suggested above, similarly, with the elimination of the non-brahminical
seva during anasara and navakalevara, the present story of
Jagannath and his worship would end, as far as we are concerned. And just as
the Divine Voice connected the story of Neela Madhava with the story of
Jagannath, similarly, the culture historians will connect the two narratives of
Jagannath, the present one, characterized by inclusiveness and the future one, if
at all there will be one, to be characterized by exclusiveness. With this remark,
we conclude the paper.
Bibliography
Behera, Dukhi Shyam. Shreekshetra
Jujnasa. Bhubaneswar: N. C. Mahapatra
Das, Chaitanya Charan (2016). Sripurushottama-kshetra-mahatyam,
Parts I and II. (Utkala Khanda of Skanda Purana) Puri: Shree Jagannath Temple
Administration. (Second Edition)
Das, Pandit S.N. (2010). Odia
Sahityara Itihasa Part I. Cuttack: Grantha Mandir. (Fifth Edition)
Mansinha, Mayadhar (1981). Odia
Sahityara Itihasa. Cuttack: Grantha Mandir. (Third edition)
Mohanty, Artaballabva (ed.)
(2007). Sarala Mahabharata. Cuttack: Sarala Sahitya Sansad.
Mohanty, Asit (2017). “Kabi
Sri Jagannath O Kabyakara Balarama”. In Lilamaya Niladrisa. Bhubaneswar:
Bhubaneswar Bhanja Bharati.
Mohanty, Surendra (1979). Neela
Saila. Cutack: Cuttack Students’ Store. (Fourth edition)
Patnaik, B.N. (2012). Introducing
Saaralaa Mahaabhaarata. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Sarangi, Nrusingha (1999). Odia
Purana Sahitya. Cuttack: Bidya Prakashana.
Note: It has just been published
in Journal of Exclusion Studies, 9 (2), pp. 164-174.
No comments:
Post a Comment