There are at least two kinds of inconsistency
in “Sarala Mahabharata”. The narrative operates at two levels; at one level, sage
Agasti (Agastya) narrates the Mahabharata story to Vaibasuta Manu, the lord of
the aeon. At another, sudramuni Sarala Das narrates that story to his audience.
The second enters into the first when the poet Sarala makes observations about
himself or on some matter in the narration, or offers prayers, etc. When there
are inconsistencies in the sage Agasti’s narration, Vaibasuta Manu interrupts
the sage and seeks clarification, which the sage offers. This is how
inconsistencies are resolved in that narrative. We say nothing about this kind
of inconsistency here. Now, there are inconsistencies in Sarala’s narrative,
which the audience, distanced from him in time, notes. Obviously such
inconsistencies cannot be resolved through the poet’s intervention. Let us call
the former inconsistency “narrative-internal inconsistency” and the latter kind
of inconsistency the “external inconsistency”.
In the Kaurava court, where he had gone as
Yudhisthira’s emissary of peace, Krishna told King Duryodhana that since the
Pandavas were his brothers, they had a share in the Kuru kingdom (pandave
sodara tohara jugate bhaga lagun). But all they wanted was just five villages.
He was pleading with him to give them five villages and he said that the sages
in the court were his witness: munimananta sakshakari grama ambhe magun. Duryodhana
upbraided him for supporting a wrong claim. He said that the Pandava brothers,
every one of them, whether Kunti’s sons or Madri’s, were outsiders to the Kuru
family, being born of those who did not belong to the family. Dharma, Pavana,
Indra, Ashwini Kumar were the fathers of Yudhisthira, Bhima, Arjuna and Nakula
respectively and as for Sahadeva, he Kumara’s (Ashwini Kumara’s) son. He told
Krishna that none of them was Pandu’s son and only Pandu’s son had a right on
the kingdom of the Kurus: jugate pandu virjye huante jebe jata/ nichaye bhaga
tanku laganta jagannatha – If they were born from the seeds of Pandu / right of
share would have accrued to them) (Udyoga Parva, couplets 21-26, p. 1990).
In the Draupadi vasta harana (disrobing of
Draupadi) episode, Dussasana told Bhima, in the court of King Duryodhana that
Sahadeva apart, they all were born illegitimate and that only he was their
brother: yeka matra sahadeva ate ambha bhrata. They would give him half the
kingdom and make him the King: ardha rajya dei taku karibu nrupasain. (Sabha
Parva II, couplets129-130, p. 1287). It is true that he was not entitled to
make such an observation, he was not the king, Duryodhana was. But Duryodhana
did not contradict him nor did he show any displeasure with respect to what his
brother had said. Therefore it would not be unreasonable to infer that he
agreed with his brother.
This is one instance of the inconsistencies in “Sarala
Mahabharata”. Consider another.
The Avatara had given up his mortal body and
after sometime, Dwaraka was submerged in water. A devastated Arjuna was
returning to Indrapratha and with him were the sixteen thousand women of
Krishna. On the way, they ran into some cowherds who were grazing their cattle.
They grabbed the women. They were theirs, they told Arjuna. He attacked them
with arrows. They were unafraid and they stopped those arrows with which the
great Pandava had won many battles with their umbrellas. They mocked at him and
told him that they were not like Bhishma and Drona. Arjuna felt weak and
helpless and couldn’t even lift his bow, Gandiva. He could not protect
Krishna’s women and returned to Indraprastha utterly dejected and defeated
(Mushali Parva, couplets 20-42, pp.
2624-2625).
In Swargarohana Parva, there is the story of
Yudhisthira marrying an Odia girl named Suhani. After handing over his kingdom
to Parikshita, Yudhisthira, along with his brothers and Draupadi, left Indraprastha
on vanaprastha. They were on the last pilgrimage of their life. They came to
Jajpur on the bank of the sacred river Baitarani. Several people came to pay
their respects to them and one day came Hari Sahu, a vaishya by caste, with his
fifteen year old daughter Suhani. Yudhisthira told him that it was not right
that he hadn’t yet given his daughter in marriage. Hari Sahu said that the girl
was destined to die during the wedding and he did not want to see that happen.
Then he pleaded with the eldest Pandava to marry her. He told him that that
relationship would bring glory to his entire community and for that, he was
willing to sacrifice his daughter. Yudhithira was shocked and tried to convince
Hari Sahu about the unreasonableness of his proposal. But his brothers advised
him that it would not be an act of dharma to reject the proposal. And Arjuna
assured him that the girl would not die. He said he had pleased god Yama on an
earlier occasion and would pray to him to save the girl. He was confident that
the god would grant his prayer.
As the family priest Dhaumya was conducting the
wedding in the presence of the venerable sage Vyasa and many sages who had come
with him, Kala and Vikala, the messengers of the god of death, approached the
girl. With one arrow, Arjuna tied them up. Chitragupta, who is god Yama’s
associate, fled in fear and reported the matter to Yama. The god of death came
himself. Arjuna prayed to him to spare the girl but the angry god refused. So
with two arrows he tied him up and dispatched him to the distant Sumeru Mountains.
Later, at Hari Sahu’s behest, he set the god free.
It is the same Arjuna, who had lost his fight
against the cowherds and unable to hold it in his hand, had carried his bow,
Gandiva, on his shoulders, all the way to Indraprastha.
Now the question is how to resolve the
inconsistencies mentioned above. To deal
with the first, we have to consider the facts about Sahadeva’s birth, which
were known to everyone in the world of “Sarala Mahabharata”. He was the
biological son of Pandu and Madri. As the curse on Pandu materialized, he died
and with him died his wife, Madrii, after giving birth to the baby who came to
be known as Sahadeva. Soon after his birth, the baby died for lack of
nourishment. The god Ashwini Kumara was directed by god Surya to look after the
newly born. When Ashwini Kumara found the child dead, he shared his life with
him and the baby breathed again: apana tanuru se kadhile ardha atma // se mruta
pandare prabesha karaile jiba/ ( Adi Parva, couplets 59-60, p. 102). So,
“sharing” meant that he extracted part of the “livingness” (“life energy”) from
himself and placed it in the dead body (of the baby). In “Sarala Mahabharata”,
Sahadeva was not the only one who was restored to life (Parikshita was, for one
example) but in no case, there was this kind of “sharing”. When Dussasana said
Sahadeva belonged to the Kuru family, his assertion was not without logic.
Similarly, when Duryodhana said that he did not belong to the family, he wasn’t
wrong, either. But the argument against Dussasana’s assertion is that the
Sahadeva who was Pandu’s son, had died and the argument against Duryodhana’s
was that the body in which god Ashwini Kumara placed part of his life energy
was of Pandu’s son. So both Dussasana and Duryodhana were right and wrong. It
was the circumstance of utterance that mattered. The sharing of the kingdom was
the issue when Duryodhana made his assertion. It was not, when Dussasana did.
This in our view is a reasonable resolution of the inconsistency.
To turn to the other inconsistency. In order to
resolve it, it may be said that Arjuna was utterly devastated when he had to
fight the cowherds. He had hardly been able to come to terms with Krishna’
passing away. His loss of strength was a reflection of the state of his mind,
in fact, of his entire being. He had recovered when he dealt with the god of
death. Other interpretations of Arjuna’s defeat are not ruled out but the one
given is sufficiently persuasive in our opinion. So we leave the matter at
that.
One might raise the question as to why such
inconsistencies are worth resolving at all. Hundreds of years after, the way an
editor compiles an acceptable text - from his point of view - from a host of
manuscripts, all copies and re- and re-copies of the original, which can never
be found (at least in the present case), such contradictions, interpolations,
minor modifications, etc., which do not affect the narrative in any significant
way, are only to be expected. They are part of the process of the making of
such texts. Viewed thus, resolving contradictions turns out to be a pseudo
issue.
The merit of this position is undeniable. But
at the same time, we wish to suggest that looking for coherence when confronted
with the unexpected, the unintelligible and the contradictory is part of human
nature. That is why we look for underlying meanings when the literal meaning of
an utterance is incoherent, as in “The stick is coming.” As for scientific
work, where “science” means “rational”, Noam Chomsky observes, as do some
philosophers of science, that it aims to offer intelligible theories of the
universe. One could observe that the same is true, in other ways, of the poetry
of the Vedas, the spiritual contemplations of the Upanishads and the
philosophical explorations in various cultures about human nature and the world
we live in.
(published in margAsia: Summer 2022. pp. 7-9.
No comments:
Post a Comment