Pradip Bhattacharya

Indologist, Mahabharata scholar

IN THE NEWS

Revising the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata: An Approach through the attempt to strip Draupadī

By

Introduction

Disrobing Draupadi, CE vol. 2

The Critical Edition (CE) of the Mahabharata published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute (BORI), Pune (1933-1966) is generally regarded as the last word in arriving at the textual canon of the epic. Half a century later, however, enough justification exists for taking a hard look at its claim to provide the best manuscript version extant. The fact is, as Mehendale[1]  points out, that the oldest manuscript by far— a 12th century, Nepali palm-leaf manuscript— was not available for study. Nor, admitted Sukthankar,[2] were Kannaḍa, Oḍīya and Nandināgarī manuscripts examined. Edgerton, editor of the Sabhā Parva of the CE, refers to a complete manuscript, a continuous roll in Devanagari, in the Bharat Itihasa Sanshodhaka Mandal of Pune, which he could not obtain for study.[3] The National Mission for Manuscripts has to find and document it for the revised edition of the Mahabharata.

The CE also did not take into account the earliest version of the epic in a foreign language: Abu Saleh’s Instruction of Princes (1026), an Arabic translation from the Sanskrit. Preceding the oldest manuscripts depended upon by the CE by centuries, this is an astonishing account of the Kurus and Pāṇḍavas as viewed from Sindh with no mention of Kr̥ṣṇa.[4] Had Ruben known of it, it would have added grist to his mill in arguing that originally the epic was Kr̥ṣṇa-less.[5]

Further, the editors did not study the Razmnama (1584), the Persian version of the epic (including Harivaṁśa) that Akbar commissioned, although it was contemporaneous with the manuscripts depended upon for the CE. Sukthankar was mistaken in rejecting it as merely a “free rendering of the original.”[6] Neither is it “an abridgement” as Adluri and Hiltebeitel claim.[7] A comparison with the CE would reveal the departures in the Persian version, which would throw light on the status of the text followed under Akbar’s direction. For instance, its Aśvamedha Parva follows Jaimini’s composition, not the Vaiśampāyana recital.[8] The scholars Akbar gathered for this massive enterprise formed an editorial board that was the precursor of the CE’s and included Debi Misra (author of Bhārata artha dīpikā ?) and Chaturbhuja Misra (author of Bhārata upāya prakāsaka bhārata tātparya prakāśikā) from Bengal, Satavadana, Madhusudana Misra (editor of Mahānātakam), Rudra Bhattacaraj and Sheikh Bhawan (a Dakhini Brahmin convert). The selection shows Akbar’s awareness of the existence of the Bengal, Northern and Southern recensions. His orders were to establish exactitude so that nothing of the original would be lost. The work was often read aloud to him, followed by discussions. Badauni records that once Akbar lost his temper on hearing certain passages and accused him of inserting his own bigoted views. Thus, the fidelity of the Persian version to the original was carefully verified.[9]

What the editors of the CE have done now, Kālīprasanna Siṁha did in Calcutta by the age of 30 for his Bengali translation of the Mahabharata(excluding Harivaṁśa, which he stated was clearly a much later composition) in 17 volumes (1858-1866) omitting and adding nothing. He had a team of 7 pundits. Manuscripts from the Asiatic Society, Shobhābāzār palace, the collections of Asutosh Deb, Jatindramohan Thākur and his own great-grandfather Shāntirāma Siṁha’s collection in Benares were collated. For resolving contradictions in the texts and making out the meaning of knotty slokas he was helped by Tārānātha Tarkavācaspati of the Calcutta Sanskrit Vidyamandir. Every evening the translation, as it progressed, was read out to prominent leaders of Hindu society.[10]

Thus, like the CE, both the late 16th century Persian version and the mid-19th century Bengali translation were prepared by collating Mahabharatamanuscripts from different regions. However, issues of repetition and inconsistency were not resolved in the Bengali translation. Without studying the Razmnama we cannot say what had been done there. One would expect that 20th century scholars would try to make good these lacunae. Instead, the CE contains contradictions that are the result of the rigid[11] application of the principle that whatever appeared in the largest number of manuscripts was to be included, irrespective of intra-textual consistency, which was rejected as “the realm of higher criticism.”[12] Yet, Sukthankar himself set aside his own cardinal principle when he chose to begin the CE text with the benedictory invocation, despite its absence from the entire Southern recension. His reason: all Hindu texts invariably began thus.[13] No one has dared to criticise this departure.

Some unresolved contradictions and repetitions

Bankimchandra Chatterjee argued in his masterly Krishnacharitra (1886-1892):

“Those that contradict each other, of them one must necessarily be interpolated…No writer indulges in unnecessary repetition or creates a situation of contradiction through such repetition.”[14]

A good example of repetition is the two occasions on which Arjuna prevents Kr̥ṣṇa from killing Bhīṣma at VI.55 (the third day) and VI.102 (the ninth day). Lexical analysis suggests that the latter is added on, whereas the context suggests that the former is the addition. The CE editor sought to resolve this by proposing that originally it was the third day that was the penultimate day of Bhīṣma’s command and, therefore, he fought for only 4 not 10 days. His arguments are far from convincing.[15]

A few of the unresolved internal contradictions in the CE are enumerated below which appear to be “passages, which were composed at a very early date and hence found time to creep into all versions,” writes Mehendale, but “the transmitters of the epic tradition…did (not) deliberately omit what they had received by tradition.” He explains that the CE retained these “since such contradictory passages occur uniformly in all the versions of both (North and South) recensions.” He adds that decisions about these “will be the task of later researchers who have to take recourse to higher criticism (emphasis mine).” [16]

  • In the Ādiparvan (207.14), Arjuna visits Maṇalūra during his twelve-year long exile, while in the Āśvamedhikaparvan (77.46) it is named Maṇipūra. The former indicates southern influence as Southern manuscripts locate Maṇalūra near Madurai and make Citrāñgadā a Pānḍyan princess. One of these has to be emended as a scribal error by comparing with other references to Citrāñgadā.
  • According to the Ādiparvan (116.31), Mādrī mounted her husband’s funeral pyre in the Himalayas. This is reiterated at 117.28. However, at the beginning of section 117 we find Kuntī and her sons entering Hastināpura with sages who have brought along the bodies of Pānḍu and Mādrī. Then, section 118 provides a description of their ornamented, anointed and perfumed bodies and states that Pānḍu’s body looked as if he were alive. So, the corpses had been preserved for over 17 days (117.27)? Surely, either the corpses had been cremated in the Himalayas or they were brought to the capital for funeral, remaining un-decomposed for over a fortnight. One of these accounts is an interpolation.
  • In the Sabhāparvan (61. 35-38), Draupadī is dragged into the gaming hall and Karṇa directs Duḥśāsana, pānḍavānām ca vāsāṁsi draupadyāś cāpyupāhara, “Strip the Pānḍavas and Draupadī of their garments!” (61.38). Hearing this, the Pāṇḍavas cast off their uttarīya (upper garments). Duḥśāsana pulls at Draupadī’s single cloth in the midst of the assembly hall. However, almost nowhere subsequently is there any reference to the attempted stripping. We will examine this contradiction in depth.

The attempt to strip Draupadī

The CE omits Draupadī’s prayerto Kr̥ṣṇa for succour but not the miracle of unending garments. The Sabhāparvan editor, Edgerton, writes, ‘It is apparently implied (though not stated) that cosmic justice automatically, or “magically” if you like, prevented the chaste Draupadī from being stripped in public…later redactors felt it necessary to embroider the story.’[17] The CE text reads thus in van Buitenen’s translation[18] of II.61.40-42:-

“40. Then Duḥśāsana forcibly laid hold of Draupadī’s robe, O king, and in the midst of the assembly began to undress her.

41. But when her skirt was being stripped off, lord of the people, another similar skirt appeared every time.[19]

42. A terrible roar went up from all the kings, a shout of approval, as they watched that greatest wonder on earth.”

In the CE (II. 43-47) Bhīma vows to taste the blood of Duḥśāsana after he pulls at Draupadī’s sole cloth and a fresh one appears.

As she is dragged from the inner apartments, Draupadīappeals to Duḥśāsana to refrain (II.60.25), as she is menstruating (rajasvalāsmi) and is clad in just a single cloth (ekaṁca vāso). Duḥśāsana responds that regardless of whether she is menstruating, wearing a single cloth (ekāmbarā) or none (vivastrā), she is their prize and their slave, “And one lechers with slaves as the fancy befalls!” (van Buitenen, 60.27). As he shakes her about, there is a reference to half of her cloth slipping (patitārdhavastrā 60.28).[20] She pleads with Duḥśāsana again, “Don’t render me nude, do not debase me!” (mā māṁ vivastrāṁ kridhi mā vikārṣīḥ, 60.30). When she is dragged into the assembly hall, Bhīma notices that her upper cloth is slipping (strastottarīya, 60.47). This refers to the portion of her garment covering her torso and not to a separate cloth for the upper-half of the body since she is ekāmbarā. The painting commissioned specially for the CE shows, in the background, four Pāṇḍavas bare-bodied and Arjuna seated with his back to the scene, naked; in the foreground Duḥśāsana pulls at a single cloth wrapped around Draupadī.[21]

In the “Vulgate,”[22] Draupadī calls out to Govinda, Kr̥ṣṇa, Keśava Dvārakāvāsin, Ramānātha, Janārdana Vrajanātha and Gopījanapriya, the last two epithets indicating a post-Harivaṁśa addition by a poet familiar with Kr̥ṣṇa’s childhood dalliance with the milkmaids of Vraja as Bankimchandra Chatterjee noted back in 1886.[23] Kr̥ṣṇa springs up from his bed in Dvārakā and rushes on foot, deeply moved by Draupadī’s appeal, which reaches him telepathically.[24] This recurs when she, faced with Durvāsā’s untimely demand for food in the forest, invokes Kṛṣṇa. Referring to these two passages Sukthankar comments, “They undoubtedly represent a later phase of Kṛṣṇa worship.”[25] Some vernacular versions elaborate this further along the lines of the gopī–vastraharaṇa episode in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (X.22): so long as Draupadī clutches on to her sole covering there is no response to her outcries; it is only when she lets go and lifts her hands in total surrender that the miracle occurs.

How Draupadī’s modesty was saved is hinted at in verse 544* in the footnotes of the CE, which might be the earliest interpolation:

“Yājñasenī cried out for rescue to Kr̥ṣṇa, Viṣṇu, Hari and Nara. Then Dharma, hidden, the magnanimous, covered her with a multitude of garments.”

This is repeated in 553*:

“Thereupon hundreds of garments of many colours and whites appeared, O lord, due to the protection of Dharma.”

These refer back to II.60.13 where, when summoned to the dicing hall, Draupadī reflects, “In this world Dharma alone is supreme. Observed, he will bring peace.”

The enigmatic statement gives rise to many speculations, one of which possibly led to the interpolated passage bringing in Kr̥ṣṇa as saviour along the lines of yato dharmas tataḥ kr̥ṣṇo yataḥ kr̥ṣṇas tato jayaḥ (VI.41.55). Further, the god Dharma incarnated as Vidura who was the first to protest against the dice-game and the summoning of Draupadī before the assembly. Does he, Dharma-incarnate, clothe her? Significantly, later in the Udyogaparvan when Kr̥ṣṇa reminds Saṁjaya of her sufferings, he refers to her casting piteous glances all around the hall to find only kṣattā Vidura as her protector, nānyaṁ kṣatturnāthamadr̥ṣṭaṁ kañcit, who alone spoke in condemnation, ekaḥ kṣattā dharmyāmarthaṁ bruvāṇo (V.29.33, 34). Or shall we imagine ‘Dharma’ as referring to the outraged sensibilities of the assembly who throw off their upper garments to cover Draupadī, as narrated in Ayyanappilla Asan’s Malayali Bharatam Pattu (c.1500 CE, contemporary with the CE’s manuscripts)?[26] Ultimately, as Duḥśāsana tires, evil omens erupt—jackals howl and asses bray—whereupon Gāndhārī and Vidura succeed in persuading Dhṛtarāṣṭra to intervene.

Hiltebeitel (2001)[27] argues that Kr̥ṣṇa’s intervention to protect Draupadī’s modesty is very much envisaged in the CE, citing two verses from the Udyogaparvan in which Draupadī, exhorting Keśava (V.80.26), and Kr̥ṣṇa speaking to Saṁjaya (V.58.21), refer to her appeal, “O Govinda,” for rescue. He admits that neither Draupadī nor Kr̥ṣṇa mentions the attempted stripping. If, then, Draupadī was not being stripped, why should Kr̥ṣṇa have intervened miraculously? Moreover, when they meet for the first time after the dice-duel in the forest-exile, Draupadī specifically mentions having been manhandled, kr̥ṣyeta (III.13.60), and “dragged around in their hall with my one piece of clothing” while menstruating (stridharminī vepamānā śoṇitena samukṣitā / ekavastrā vikriṣtāsmi duḥkhitā kurusamsadi // III.13.68), being “molested,” parikliśyantīm (III.13.107) and “laid hold of by my hair” kacagrahamanuprāptā (III.13.107, 109). However, she makes no mention of any attempt to strip her. Kr̥ṣṇa responds that, had he been present, he would have prevented the fraudulent dice-game, but he was far away battling Śālva who had sacked Dvārakā (III.14.1). He mentions neither any attempt to strip her, nor any appeal from her reaching him—telepathically or otherwise. In his 1976 study on the burning of the forest, Hiltebeitel wrote that the CE is not to be followed blindly.[28] Here he is doing precisely that.

Other Evidence

  1. At the very beginning of the Mahabharata in the Anukramanikā Parvan, Dhṛtarāṣṭra laments that Draupadī was dragged into the assembly hall but does not mention any attempt to strip her:-

yadāśrauṣaṁ draupadīm aśrukaṇṭhīṁ; sabhāṁ nītāṁ duḥkhitām ekavastrām /

rajasvalāṁ nāthavatīm anāthavat; tadā nāśaṁse vijayāya saṁjaya //

“When I heard that Draupadī, tears in her throat, had been dragged into the assembly hall grieving, in a single garment, and she in her period, while her protectors stood by as though she had no one to protect her— then, Sanjaya, I lost all hope of victory.” (I.1.106, van Buitenen).

  • Nor does he refer to Bhīma’s vow to drink Duḥśāsana’s blood. Arguing that the vow is a subsequent addition, Bhatt writes that this is “wonderfully supported by the omission of the event from the summary of the Karṇa Parvan given in the well-known Parva-saṅgraha Parvan.”[29]
  • In the Virāṭaparvan, Draupadī, while lamenting her condition before Bhīma, refers only to a prātikāmin (servant/messenger) dragging her into the hall by her hair and being called a dāsī (IV.17.2).
  • Aśvatthāmā refers to the incident (IV.45.11-12) while reprimanding Karṇa for boasting: “Likewise, where was the battle in which you won Kṛṣṇā? In her single garment she was dragged into the hall, miscreant, when she was in her month, ekavastrā sabhāyām nītā duṣṭakarmaṇā rajasvalā” (van Buitenen).
  • Arjuna upbraids Karṇa: “You watched how evil men molested(kliśyamānāṁ) the Princess of Pāñcāla in the assembly hall” (IV.55.4), but he does not mention the ultimate outrage of his command that she be stripped, or even to his abusing her as a prostitute.
  • In the Udyogaparvan (V.29.31, 33) when Kr̥ṣṇa mentions to Saṁjaya the atrocities suffered, he refers only to Duḥśāsana dragging menstruating Draupadī into the hall before elders.
  • Whenever Yudhiṣṭhira recounts the sufferings they have undergone, he always mentions Draupadī having been dragged by her hair, but never to any attempt to strip her. In his message to Duryodhana through Saṁjaya, he refers only to her hair being violated in the hall, keśeṣva dharṣayat (V.31.16).
  • When Kr̥ṣṇa and the Pāṇḍavas consult before the peace-embassy (V.70-79) they do not mention avenging any attempted stripping. Of them, Arjuna alone speaks of Draupadī’s trials and this is limited to “how that fiend molested Draupadī in the middle of the hall” parikliṣṭā sabhāmadhye (V.76.18).
  • Even when Draupadī herself, furious with everyone favouring peace, lists her sufferings (V.80. 24, 26), “grabbed by the hair and molested in a men’s hall” (sāham keśagraham prāptā parikliṣtā sabhām gatā) and states how she invoked Govinda mentally for succour (trāhi māmiti govinda manasā kaṁkṣito’si me), she does not mention any attempt to strip her, although that would have been the sharpest goad to spur them into battle.
  • In his embassy to the Hastināpura court when Kr̥ṣṇa tells Dhṛtarāṣṭra all the suffering Duryodhana has imposed on the Pāṇḍavas, including dragging Draupadī into the court (V.93.58), he makes no mention of the attempt to strip her, which would have been the greatest crime.
  • When Kr̥ṣṇa rebukes Duryodhana during the peace embassy, enumerating all his ill deeds, he refers to his abusing and maltreating (vinikr̥tā) the queen of the Pāṇḍavas (V.126.8-9), but makes no mention of the supreme outrage of attempting to strip her.
  • Kuntī, listing her sorrows to Kr̥ṣṇa several times over, laments that her greatest sorrow is Draupadī being abused verbally and molested (parikliṣṭā), dragged into the assembly hall draped in a single cloth while menstruating, but does not mention any attempt at stripping her daughter-in-law, which would surely have been the greatest torment by far (V.88.50, 56; 85-86; 135.15-18, 21).
  • Ghaṭotkaca, assailing Duryodhana, charges him for dragging and insulting Draupadī in her period in a single garment in the assembly-hall, with no mention of attempted stripping (VI.87.26).
  • The Karṇaparvan begins with the Kauravas musing over how they dragged and demeaned Draupadī. Dhṛtarāṣṭra tells Saṁjaya how his son had the wife of the Pāṇḍavas violently brought into the assembly where Karṇa abused her as “Wife of slaves” (dāsabhāryeti VIII.5.79). Although at different stages in the battle Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Bhīma, Duḥśāsana and Kr̥ṣṇa all recall the dragging and insulting of Draupadī, none refers to any attempt to strip her.
  • In the Karṇaparvan verses relegated in the CE to footnotes (VIII.61.934* and 935*), when Bhīma rips off the arm with which Duḥśāsana boasts he had dragged Draupadī by her hair, neither refers to the grosser outrage of attempting to strip her.
  • When Kr̥ṣṇa recounts Karṇa’s misdeeds to goad Arjuna into killing him, he refers to single-cloth-clad, menstruating Draupadī being summoned to the sabhā and mocked (VIII.67.2-3), but does not refer to Karṇa instigating any stripping, which would have surely been the sharpest goad to spur him on.
  • Bhīma enumerates Draupadī being dragged by her hair among the sufferings imposed by Shakuni, Duryodhana and Karṇa but not any attempted disrobing (Vulgate, VIII.83.46).
  • At the end of the war, when Yudhiṣṭhira provokes Duryodhana to emerge from Dvaipāyana lake, he mentions Draupadī being verbally abused and dragged, but says nothing about any attempted disrobing (IX.30.187*).
  • Bhīma, while kicking Duryodhana’s head, refers only to single-garment-draped Draupadī being mocked in the hall, not to any attempted stripping (IX.58.4).
  • Even at the very end, in the Svargārohaṇaparvan, Yudhiṣṭhira, outraged on seeing Duryodhana in heaven, refers to his having caused Pāñcālī to be afflicted, parikliṣṭā (XVIII.1.9) in the sabhā, but nothing more.

Adluri and Hiltebeitel peremptorily dismiss the evidence of the passages involving Duryodhana as “karmically irrelevant” because of a philosophical proposition “that blame-casting must necessarily be agent-specific in a karmic universe.” This is resorting to the same “higher criticism” which they frown upon instead of tackling the contradictory evidence. They also feel that some of the others are “broadly worded enough to include an allusion to the disrobing,” though they do not explain this.[30]

Textual disconnect

Satya Chaitanya’s study of the sequence of events brings to light a major hiatus in the text.[31] A similar disconnect can be found in the Bhīṣmaparvan where the text-block VI.95.4-23 repeats the portion at 16.11-20+42.2, indicating an adding-on of verses 16.21 to 42.1.[32] In Draupadī’s case, after Duḥśāsana failed in his attempt, ‘The people shouted, “The Kauravyas refuse to answer the question,” and condemned Dhṛtarāṣṭra’ (II.61.50). This refers to Draupadī’s question to the assembly (II.60.44), repeated at II.62.13, which remains unanswered in the epic. Strangely enough, the audience neither censures the king for allowing the attempted stripping, nor criticises Duḥśāsana for making the attempt. Even more puzzling is everyone’s silence about the unending stream of cloth, whether emanating from Dharma or Kṛṣṇa. Instead, Vidura’s speech, which follows, states that Draupadī is awaiting a reply to her question, weeping like an orphan (II.61.52). Surely, Vidura would have been the first to protest against any attempt to disrobe Draupadī publicly and to extol her miraculous escape in response to her appeal to Kr̥ṣṇa? It is significant that he refers neither to Vikarṇa’s response in support of Draupadī nor to Karṇa rebuking him and directing that she should be stripped. It is as though these speeches have not happened at all. We have noted above that even Kr̥ṣṇa, while listing Karṇa’s misdeeds, does not mention his having ordered the disrobing (VIII.67.2-3). The sequence of events indicates that originally there was no hiatus between Draupadī’s query and Vidura’s exhortation to the assembly to provide an answer. Whatever we find now, in-between, is a subsequent addition.

There are three parallel accounts of Draupadī’s coming to the dicing hall in chapter 60, which need to be reconciled.[33]

  1. Duryodhana sends the prātikāmin to fetch her but she sends him back with a question to Yudhiṣṭhira.
  2. Duryodhana sends him again to tell her to come and state her case in person. She, thereupon, expresses her faith in Dharma.
  3. Now in slokas 14-15 Yudhiṣṭhira sends his trusted attendant to her, whereupon she appears in the hall.
  4. But in sloka 16 onwards Duryodhana asks the prātikāmin to fetch her and, on his hesitating, orders Duḥśāsana to do so. He, then, drags her by her hair into the hall.

The accounts at 3 and 4 are contradictory and the latter has possibly been added subsequently along with Bhīma’s blood-drinking vow for greater dramatic effect.[34]

What happens thereafter?

  1. When Draupadī herself speaks, after Karṇa bids Duḥśāsana take her away to the Kaurava apartments, she voices her bewilderment at being dragged into the assembly but utters not a word about any attempt to strip her, which is most unnatural. Nor does she refer to Kṛṣṇa’s response to her prayer and the abject failure of the attempt to disrobe her (II.62.1-14), about which Hiltebeitel is insistent.
  2. Subsequently, disturbed by the ominous howling of beasts, when Vidura and Gāndhārī press Dhṛtarāṣṭra to intervene, neither refers to any attempted disrobing (II.63.24).
  3. Dhṛtarāṣṭra rebukes his son for his wicked speech to dharmapatni Draupadī, but not for any heinous attempt to strip her.
  4. Even the vow that Bhīma makes refers to her hair having been touched, parāmr̥śya (II.62.34), while Nakula’s vow mentions her being verbally abused, yairvācaḥ śrāvitā rukṣāḥ (II.68.43). Neither refers to any attempt to disrobe her, which would surely have been the gravest provocation for swearing vengeance.
  5. When Draupadī proceeds on exile, she is described as wearing a bloodstained cloth (II.70.9). If Kṛṣṇa or Dharma had continuously replaced what Duḥśāsana kept pulling away, how could she still be wearing this cloth stained with menstrual blood?
  6. In the last chapter of the Sabhāparvan Dhṛtarāṣṭra laments that they “dragged the wretched Draupadī to the middle of the hall…clothed in her single garment, stained with blood…Duryodhana and Karṇa threw biting insults at the suffering Kr̥ṣṇa” (van Buitenen II.72.12-18). There is no mention of what should have been the greatest crime: the attempted disrobing and its miraculous failure.
  7. Dhṛtarāṣṭra also tells Saṁjaya (II.72.19-20) that the Bharata women and Gāndhārī cried out in anguish and Brahmins did not perform the sandhyā rituals on the day of the dice game, furious with the dragging of Draupadī. Again, there is no reference to disrobing.[35]
  8. In the Vanaparvan, Saṁjaya repeats his master’s word parikarṣaṇe to describe the outrage but makes no mention of disrobing.
  9. P. L. Vaidya, editor of the CE’s Karnaparvan, held that a verse referring to her being stripped (VIII.85.15) was an interpolation and left it out of the CE text.[36]

Hiltebeitel has overlooked two confirmations of stancein the Śalyaparvan. J. D. Smith[37] pointed out to me that as “Bhīma is gloating after fulfilling his vow to overthrow Duryodhana and tread on his head,” he says,

“Those who brought the menstruating Draupadī and who made her naked (avastrām) in the assembly—see those Dhārtarāṣṭras slain in battle by the Pāṇḍavas because of the torture on Yājñasenī.” (IX.58.10)

Yet, in an earlier verse (IX.58.4), while kicking Duryodhana’s head, Bhīma refers only to Draupadī clad in a single garment being mocked in the hall, not to any attempted stripping. Smith acknowledges that a contradiction exists, but is helpless because of the principle followed by the CE: “…it is strange that Bhīma says this at this point and does not say anything similar after fulfilling the more relevant vow against Duḥśāsana. But again, this is what the text actually says.”[38]

Secondly, earlier on in the same parvan (IX.4.16-17) Duryodhana tells Kr̥pācārya that there is no point in seeking peace because,

duḥśāsanena yat kr̥ṣṇā ekavastrā rajasvalā

parikliṣṭā sabhāmadhye sarvalokasya paśyataḥ

tathā vivasanāṁ dīnāṁ smaranty adyāpi pāṇḍavāḥ

na nivārayituṁ śakyāḥ saṁgrāmāt te paraṁtapāḥ

“Wearing a single cloth and covered in dust, dark Draupadī was wronged by Duḥśāsana in the middle of the assembly hall under the eyes of the entire world. Even today the Pāṇḍavas still remember how she was naked (vivasanām) and wretched (dīnām); those enemy-destroyers cannot be turned from war.”[39]

This is the solitary reference retained in the CE to Draupadī having been stripped naked (not to an attempt to strip her), but it is devoid of any mention of re-clothing. That implies that she remained naked thereafter and there was no miracle of endless garments. On the other hand, all recensions of the text agree that she proceeds on exile wearing a bloodstained garment.

This prompts examination of the annotations, which reveals that some manuscripts have vimanasā (dejected, bewildered) instead of vivasanā. Vimanasā is textually more consistent with Duryodhana’s description of her condition in the earlier line(parikliṣṭā), but the editors of the CE did not accept this reading that is more consistent with what has gone before and comes after. Thus, they ended up with a text that renders Draupadī naked without any re-clothing.

There has been no attempt to reconcile these contradictions although the overwhelming evidence is weighted against any incident of trying to disrobe Draupadī.

Collateral Evidence

  1. The earliest post-Mahabharata evidence is in the plays of the first Sanskrit dramatist Bhāsa: Dūtavākyam, Dūtaghaṭotkacam and Ūrubhangam (c. 4th century BC-1st century CE?).
  2. In the first, Duryodhana displays to Kr̥ṣṇa a vivid painting of the dice-game showing draupadī keśāmbarākarṣaṇam, “Draupadīdragged by the hair and garment” (prose passage following sloka 6) and duḥśāsano draupadīm keśa haste grihītavān, “Duḥśāsana seizing Draupadī’s hair in his hand” (prose passage preceding sloka 7). Kr̥ṣṇa exclaims, draupadī keśadharṣaṇam “Draupadī’s hair being violated!” In 1916 Winternitz, comparing Bhāsa’s Dūtavākyam with the Mahabharata, demonstrated that Kr̥ṣṇa’s reclothing of Draupadī was an interpolation introduced after the 4th century CE.[40]
  3. In the second play, Ghaṭotkaca upbraids Duryodhana saying, śirasi na tathā bhrātuḥ patniṁ spriśanti niśācarāḥ, “nor do night-wanderers (Rākṣasas) ever touch the brother’s wife on the head” (sloka 47), referring to her having been dragged by her hair. This is an echo of what he says in the Bhīṣmaparvan VI.87.26.
  4. In the third play, Duryodhana says, yat kriṣṭa karanigrahāncitakacā dyūte tadā draupadī, “How Draupadī was dragged by the hair in the dicing” (sloka 63).[41]
  5. Rājaśekhara’s Bālabhārata (c. 10th century CE) is unaware of the re-clothing of Draupadī by Kṛṣṇa.[42]
  6. Neither the Vaishnava Bhakticult’s Bhāgavata,nor the appendix to the epic, Harivaṁṣa, mentions any attempted stripping, despite their focus on the miraculous deeds of Kṛṣṇa. The former refers only to the heinous act of the Kuru lady being dragged by her hair (keśabhimarśam) in the assembly hall but not to Kṛṣṇa rescuing her miraculously from being stripped (I. 86; I. 15.10; III.1.7; XI.1.2.).
  7. In the Devi Bhāgavata Purāṇa Janamejaya refers twice only to Draupadī being dragged by her hair (IV.1.36 and 17.38), using the word dharṣitā (IV.1.38), which also means “violated”, for what Kīcaka did to her. Yudhiṣṭhira uses the same word while giving Saṁjaya his message, keśeṣvadharṣayat (Mahabharata, V.31.16).
  8. It is later, in the Śiva Purāṇa (c. 11th century CE) that we find a reference to the incident (III.19.63-66). Here the stream of garments is the result of Durvāsā’s boon to Draupadī for having torn off part of her dress to protect the sage’s modesty when his loincloth was swept away in the Ganga.[43] Kr̥ṣṇa plays no role in this. There is also the popular tale of Draupadi binding up his bleeding finger with a strip of her garment because of which he provides her an endless stream of cloth in the dicing hall.[44]
  9. Satya Chaitanya[45] has pointed out that the Jaiminīya Aśvamedhaparvan again a late work (c. 10th-12th century AD), carries a reference to the disrobing (2.62). Here Kr̥ṣṇa pays the Pāṇḍavas a surprise visit as they are wondering how to go about the horse-sacrifice. Draupadī says that they ought not to be surprised because earlier Kr̥ṣṇa had appeared to save them from Durvāsā and, “Before that, Hari appeared in the form of clothes in the assembly(vastrarūpī sabhāmadhye) to save me from shame.”[46] We have noted above Sukthankar’s rejection of both incidents as interpolations.

Adluri and Hiltebeitel have sought to bolster their argument in favour of the disrobing episode by citing a painting of the incident possibly by Nainsukh (c. 1760/65). On the other hand, the much older sculpture in the Hoysaleshwar temple in Halebidu (c. 12th century) reproduced below only depicts Draupadī being held by her hair, one woman approaching her while another restrains the male tormentor.[47]

We do not find any depiction of the dice game in sculpture or painting after this until we come to Akbar’s Razmnama (1598-99). It is here that, for the first time, the stripping of Draupadi is portrayed. That is why comparing its text with the Sanskrit manuscripts is so important.

Conclusion

            To sum up, intra-textual evidence supporting the attempt to strip Draupadī is available in only two passages in the Śalyaparvan (IX.4.16-17 and IX.58.10), of which the former has a more consistent variant reading available. Even these do not refer to her being re-clothed, whether by Kr̥ṣṇa or otherwise. The passages upon which Hiltebeitel depends refer only to her having invoked Govinda in her distress, but not to any disrobing-and-re-robing. With overwhelming consistency (at least 27 times), the text refers only to her being dragged by her hair into the royal assembly-hall while in her period, wearing a single bloodstained cloth and being insulted. She leaves on exile wearing the same bloody garment. Further, there is no mention of the attempted disrobing in early Sanskrit literature. It is only a couple of late texts that mention the attempt and how it was aborted miraculously.

Both the internal and the external evidence, therefore, indicate that the incident of attempted stripping that has ruled the popular imagination so powerfully, featuring on stage, in paintings, films and television as the fuse that detonated the explosion destroying the Kshatriya clans, is a later addition by one or more highly competent redactors.[48] That would imply that the three verses (II.61.40-42) retained in the CE, quoted at the beginning of this paper, are part of the interpolation that the editors rejected.

Janamejaya, who is listening to the recital, is familiar with only one version in which Draupadī was dragged, not stripped (cf. the Devi Bhāgavata Purāṇa above). That is why he never questions Vaiśampāyana about the contradictory accounts about how Draupadī was outraged.[49] How is this “the kind of ideologically motivated, idiosyncratic” approach that Adluri and Hiltebeitel condemn so vehemently?[50]

Revising the Critical Edition

The first scholar to have expressed serious reservations about the CE was Sylvain Levi, the doyen of French Indologists, who argued in favour of using the Nīlakaṇṭha text showing all other variants alongside.[51] Madeleine Biardeau, the leading French scholar, questions Sukthankar’s basic premise that the Śārada version is the genuine product just because it is the shortest and apparently earliest. She writes, “I do not give much heuristic value to the reconstituted text of the critical edition of Poona.”[52] She felt the editors were blindly devoted to an outdated German philological approach. She is the first to ask bluntly why the text should be dated between 4th c. BC and the end of the 4th c. AD, as maintained by so many. Georges Dumezil preferred the Calcutta edition to the CE.[53]

Wendy Doniger, calling the CE “no text at all,”[54] urges that “any structural analysis of the epic would of course demand all available variants of the text.”[55] Mincing no words she writes, “The critical edition…is like Frankenstein’s monster, pieced together from various scraps of different bodies; its only community is that of the Pune scholars, the Frankensteins.”[56]

Julius Lipner criticizes the imposition of the Western paradigm of a “critical edition” based upon a supposed “original version” since “popular oral tradition…which is the very lifeblood of Hinduism, does not work in this way…the text itself transcends the critical edition both as sacred narrative…and as a seed-bed for the literary imagination.”[57]

Arvind Sharma comments, “…it is clear that, at every step, the idea of a critical text seems to go against the grain of the tradition— it is an example of pratiloma Indology.”[58]

Simon Brodbeck has pointed out the basic flaw in the assumption of the CE, viz. that scribes only add to and do not subtract from texts they copy. There is a case for re-examining the decisions of the CE’s editors about both including as well as leaving out passages.[59]

Alf Hiltebeitel has argued strenuously that Belvalkar, editor of the CE’s Shanti Parva, made a mistake in following the Malayalam manuscripts to alter the frame narrative as well as splitting a section into two, changing the Nārāyaṇīya portion’s 18 sections (an epitome of the MB’s structure, like the Gita) to 19.[60]

Instead of regarding the CE as sacrosanct and arguing that we ought to accept that the epic knows of two versions of the outrage Draupadī suffered, we surely need to weigh the comparative evidence delineated above and then decide which way the scales dip. It is time to re-examine the CE adopting the “higher criticism” route. Even Brockington, who has subjected both epics to minute analysis under the lexical microscope, has come to a conclusion that echoes the “higher criticism” approach.[61]

Use has not been made of the valuable guidance available in Sri Aurobindo’s notes written in 1902. He approached the epic “from the point of view mainly of style and literary personality, partly of substance” deferring “questions of philosophy, allusion and verbal evidence” and ignoring “the question of minute metrical details on which they (Western scholars) base far-reaching conclusions.”[62] Submitting everything to the ultimate test of style, he identified that the Sabhāparvan carries “the hand of the original poet…that great and severe style which is the stamp of the personality of Vyāsa” and stated that, except for certain passages, the Virātaparvan and Udyogaparvan were also Vyāsa’s work.[63] As an example he quotes from the former (IV.16.9) Draupadī’s outcry to the sleeping Bhīma,

uttiṣṭhottiṣṭha kiṁ śeṣe bhīmasena yathā mr̥taḥ /

nāmr̥tasya hi pāpīyān bhāryām ālabhya jīvati //

He writes, “The whole personality of Draupadie breaks out in that cry, her chastity, her pride, her passionate and unforgiving temper, but it flashes out not in an expression of pure feeling, but in a fiery and pregnant apophthegm. It is this temperament, this dynamic force of intellectualism blended with heroic fire and a strong personality that gives its peculiar stamp to Vyasa’s writing and distinguishes it from that of all other epic poets.”[64] Similar is Kr̥ṣṇa’s exhortation in the Udyogaparvan (V.73) for shaking Bhīma out of his pacifist mood.

It is remarkable that this selection of verses on stylistic criteria as pristine Vyāsa is matched by their inclusion in the CE many decades later on the basis of manuscript evidence. Surely, where two approaches agree, there is adequate justification for giving equal weight to each. Brockington has urged the need for “a coordinated approach to a particular text. This is where in particular the future lies…different approaches can be combined in order to provide greater illumination.”[65]

Sri Aurobindo pointed out that there is also the hand of an inferior poet clearly visible who delights in the miraculous and whose style is highly coloured.[66] This stylistic difference is apparent in the Sabhāparvan in the portion beginning with Vikarṇa’s speech and ending with the miraculous re-clothing of Draupadī. In addition, we have to take into account Kr̥ṣṇa’s assertion —consistently borne out in the epic—that he can do all that a man can, but the miraculous is beyond him:-[67]

ahaṁ hi tat kariṣyāmi paraṁ puruṣakārataḥ /

daivaṁ tu na mayā śakyaṁ karma kartuṁ kathaṁ cana //  V.77.5

Incidents like those involving Durvāsā in the forest and the re-robing of Draupadī are inconsistent with this. “If we find grave inconsistencies of character…we are justified in supposing two hands at work.”[68] Therefore, on the grounds of both style, content and textual consistency, the incident is liable to be considered as the work of a different, later, poet. In 1916 Winternitz showed that Kr̥ṣṇa’s re-clothing of Draupadī was an interpolation.[69] In 1949, in a different way, G.H. Bhatt argued for the same conclusion at the 15th All-India Oriental Conference, Bombay.[70]

L. M. Singhvi,[71] writing in 2008, recommended “another encyclopedic project of preparing a comprehensive Mahabharata Bibliography in all the Indian languages as well as other European and Asian languages.” Strongly endorsing the views of Bankimchandra and Sri Aurobindo regarding the stylistic layers in the Mahabharata, he urged:-

The rigid exclusion and abandonment of the Ugrasrava recension and some of the later additions and accretions would be ruinous. What we need is a continuous discourse of scholarship and a host of scholarly guides to tell us of the architectonics of the Mahabharata and the historical and literary background of different accretions, additions and interpolations…. (that) represent the history as well as legend and myth of India and the confluence of the so called classical and the folk. The interwoven tapestry of MB made it a veritable people’s Epic reflecting the social and cultural reality of different periods of Indian history and different perceptions of the Indian people at different stages.”

An example of the need for this is seen in Hiltebeitel’s comment in Dharma (2011) that Ashvaghosha’s reference in Buddhacharita to Karalajanaka is “unknown and uncertain,”[72] whereas a discourse with this king exists in the Mokshadharma Parva of the MB in the Haridāsa Siddhāntavāgīśa edition[73] which the CE has not covered. In his recent book on nonviolence in the MB Hiltebeitel (2016) uses the story of rishi Parnada in deer form and the gleaner Satya which is not in the CE, taking it from “the northern Vulgate of the seventeenth-century compiler Nilakantha.” He even suggests that the tale was inserted by Nilakantha, concluding that with such “improvisations” the MB “both as text and tradition…puts both ahimsa and gleaning into the consciousness and unconscious of Hindus.”[74] That reminds us of Sukthankar’s insertion of the invocatory benediction into the CE violating his own editorial principles.

Surely, the CE is not beyond all question! Even with the Bible, after the Authorised Version (1604-11) there was the Revised Version (1881-94) followed by further revised editions. It is the German philological approach to the Bible that was adopted in preparing the CE, labelling the others as “Vulgate” as in the case of the Biblical project. The central problem lies in mapping the inter-relationships among manuscripts. Wendy Phillips-Rodriguez has put forward a fascinating schema called “uprooted trees” like the Gita’s cosmic tree whose roots are upwards and branches downwards. Through this paradigm she finds that the southern manuscripts are more widely dispersed than the northern, indicating their independent evolution. This upside-down tree model opens up the study of the epic’s variations as having “an independent cultural value”. Very pertinently she asks, “Why privilege one version over the others?”[75] The variations are separate interpretations, and the study of how each evolved will enable greater understanding of the cultural roots of the epic.

The Revised Edition announced by the BORI, however, raises concerns.[76] Their website states:-

“Revisions to the edition will be limited to incorporating the addenda and corrigenda for each volume into the text and either correcting or pointing out minor errors in the editor’s apparatus or comments (e.g., misprints, dittographies, confusion of manuscript sigla, etc.). The edition will not undertake to revise the constituted text nor will it emend the form of the edition.”[77]

However, it is time to take another look at the CE taking into account not only the many manuscripts left out, but also the contents of the adaptations in Arabic and Persian that pre-date or are contemporary with the manuscripts, as well as ancient commentaries that have much to reveal regarding the state of the text. The findings of Mehendale, Dhavalikar, Bhatt and Brockington should not be ignored. The Mahabharata is the national epic of India and the largest in the world. National resources must be made available for this challenging and critical project.

This paper was published in Indologica Taurinensia, Vol. 43-44, 2017-18

Bibliography

Primary

Asan, Ayyanappilla. 1988. Bharatham Pattu (A Mahabharata retelling in Malayalam before Ezhuttacchan, with commentary by Dr. P.K. Narayana Pillai). Kottayam: National Book Stall. Extracts at http://mahabharata-resources.org/variations/vastraharana_BP.html

Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra. 1991. Kr̥ṣṇa Charitra. P. Bhattacharya (trans.). Calcutta: M.P. Birla Foundation.

Jaiminīya Aśvamedha Parva. 2008. S.K.Sen (trans., ed. P. Bhattacharya). Kolkata: Writers Workshop.

Mahabharata, Book Two, The Great Hall. 2006. Paul Wilmot (trans.). New York: Clay Sanskrit Library & New York University Press.

Mahabharata, Book Nine, Shalya, Volume One. 2005. Justin Meiland (trans.). New York: Clay Sanskrit Library & New York University Press.

Mahabharata: The Book of the Assembly Hall. 1975. J.A.B. van Buitenen (trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The Mahabharata, Volume 2. 2010. Bibek DebRoy (trans.). New Delhi: Penguin Books.

The Sabhāparvan. 1944. Franklin Edgerton (ed.). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Secondary

Adluri. Vishwa ed. 2013. Ways and Reasons for thinking about the Mahabharata as a Whole. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Adluri, V. and Hiltebeitel, A. 2017 in press. “Redressing the Undisrobing of Draupadī,” in Indology’s Pulse: Arts in Context: Essays Presented to Doris Meth Srinivasan Felicitation in Admiration of Her Scholarly Research. Edited by Gerd J. R. Mevissen, Arundhati Banerji, Vinay Kumar Gupta, Corinna Wessels-Mevissen. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.

Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit. 2013. “Mahabharata: Draupadi’s Single Garment, and Disrobing in Dice Game Sabha,” http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=14497 accessed on 22.06.2017.

Bhattacharya, P. 2003. “Was Draupadī ever disrobed?” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, LXXXVI: 149-152

Bhatt, G.H. 1951. “The Draupadīvastraharaṇa Episode: An interpolation in the Mahabharata.” 15th All-India Oriental Conference, Bombay, 1949. Journal of Oriental Research XVIII, Part III, pp. 170-178.

Biardeau, Madeleine. 1997. “Some remarks on the links between the Epics, the Puranas and their Vedic sources,” in Studies in Hinduism, ed. G. Oberhammer. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Brockington, J.L. 1998. The Sanskrit Epics. Leiden: E.J.Brill.

_________   2000. Epic Threads. G. Bailey & M. Brockington (eds.). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

__________(ed.) 2012. Battle, Bards and Brahmins. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Brodbeck, Simon. 2013. “Some textological observations on the analytic and synthetic modes,” in Adluri 2013. 

Chaitanya, Satya. 2005. “Was Draupadī disrobed in the dice hall of Hastinapura?” www.boloji.com/hinduism/094.htm, accessed 22.10.2013.

Dange, S.A. 2001. Myths from the Mahabharata, vol. 2. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.

Deb Roy, Bibek. 2010. The Mahabharata vol. 2. New Delhi: Penguin Books.

Dhavalikar, M.K. 1992. “Draupadī’s Garment,” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, Amr̥tamahotsava volume, LXXII & LXXIII (1991 &1992): 523-526.

Doniger, Wendy. “How to escape from the Curse.” London Review of Books 32/19:17-18.

Harindranath, A. http://mahabharata-resources.org/variations/vastraharana_BP.html

Hiltebeitel, A. 1988. The Cult of Draupadī. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

____________2001. Rethinking the Mahabharata. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

____________2011. Reading the Fifth Veda. Leiden: Brill

____________2011. Dharma. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

____________2016. Nonviolence in the Mahabharata. Oxford: Routledge.

Lipner, J.J. 2010. Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. 2nd edn. London: Routledge: 148-149.

Mehendale, M.A. 1986. “Draupadī’s Question.” JOIB. XXXV. Nos 3-4. Mar-June: 179-194.

_______________2001. “Urubhanga and the critical edition of the Mahabharata,” in Madhu-vidya. L.D. Institute of Indology. Ahmedabad: 91-97.

_______________2005. “Did Bhima vow to drink Duḥśāṣana’s blood?” ABORI. 86: 93-97.

_______________2009. “The Critical Edition of the Mahabharata: its constitution, achievements and limitations.” In K.K. Chakravarty(ed.), Text and Variations of the Mahabharata. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre of Arts & Munshiram Manoharlal.

Meiland, Justin. 2005. Mahabharata, Book Nine, Shalya, Volume One. New York: Clay Sanskrit Library, New York University Press.

Menon, K.P.A. 1996. Complete Plays of Bhāsa, vol. I. Delhi: Nag Publishers.

O’Flaherty, W.D. and J. Duncan M. Derrett, eds., 1978. The Concept of Duty in South Asia, New Delhi: Vikas.

Phillips-Rodriguez, Wendy 2012. “Uprooted Trees: a way around the dilemma of recension,” in Brockington, J.L. Battle, Bards and Brahmins, pp. 217-229.

Sen, S.K. 2008. Jaiminiya Ashvamedha Parva (ed. Pradip Bhattacharya). Calcutta: Writers Workshop.

Sharma, Arvind. 2008. http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/25-against-the-critical-edition-of-the-mahabharata/#_ftn25_1 accessed 22.10.2013.

Singhvi, L.M. 2008: “Mahabharata: texts and contexts in a perspective”. In Neo Indika, Bharatayan, essays in honour of P.D. and S.S. Halvasiya, vol. 1. Ed. Dr Vasudev Poddar. Kolkata: Rai Bahadur Vishweshwarlal Motilal Halwasiya Trust, 15 India Exchange Place, 700001.

Sri Aurobindo. 2007. The Mahabharata: essays and translations. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.

Sukthankar, V.S. 1933. “Prolegomena,” Ādi Parva. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

______________1957. On the meaning of the Mahabharata. Bombay:Asiatic Society.

[1] Retired from the Indian Administrative Service as Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal. Author and Editor of 33 books. PhD on “Narrative Art in the Mahabharata.” International HRD Fellow (Manchester). Member, Board of Governors, IIM Calcutta. An earlier version of this paper was presented in the 15th World Sanskrit Conference, New Delhi, 2012, which the editors did not include in the papers awaiting publication as it questioned the CE.

References

[1] Mehendale 2009: 5; 21 note 5. Adluri and Hiltebeitel (2017) assert, “Sukthankar did examine the Nepali manuscript and found that it confirmed his reconstruction,” but do not cite any evidence to controvert Mehendale’s statement.

[2] Sukthankar 1933: vi.

[3] Edgerton, “Introduction,” p. xxii quoted by Mahadevan T.P. “The Southern recension,” p. 105, in Adluri, Vishwa ed. 2013. Ways and Reasons for thinking about the Mahabharata as a Whole. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

[4] Bhattacharya 2009.

[5] Brockington 1998: 55.

[6] Sukthankar 1933: xxviii. Quoted in Adluri and Hiltebeitel. 2017.

[7] Adluri and Hiltebeitel 2017 ibid.

[8] Sen, S.K. 2008.

[9] Jaiminiya Aśvamedhaparva 2008: 69; Bhattacharya ibid.

[10] Bhattacharya 2010.

[11] Adluri and Hiltebeitel, op.cit. plead for the word, “rigorous” instead

[12] Edgerton 1944: xxxiii.

[13] Sukthankar 1930: 268-69 quoted by Adluri and Hiltebeitel 2017 in press.

[14] Chatterjee 1991: 61-62.

[15] Brockington 1998: 146.

[16] Mehendale 2009: 15.

[17] Edgerton 1944: xxix.

[18] van Buitenen 1975: 146.

[19] Why “skirt”? The Sanskrit is vasana and vastram. Deb Roy’s “garment” (2010, p. 235) is accurate.

[20] van Buitenen mistranslates this as “her half skirt drooping.”

[21] It is not a skirt-cum-stole ensemble as van Buitenen’s translation has it, but a single cloth whose upper part covers the torso, as the sari does today.

[22] Imported from Biblical scholarship referring to the popular Sanskrit text.

[23] Chatterjee 1991:113, 247.

[24] Wilmot 2006: 68.45. p. 449.

[25] Sukthankar 1942: xiii note 1.

[26] Asan 1988: 222

[27] Hiltebeitel 2001: 246-259.

[28] Brockington 1998: 139.

[29] Bhatt 1951: 172.

[30] Adluri and Hiltebeitel op.cit.

[31] Satya Chaitanya 2005. 

[32] Brockington 1998: 147

[33] Bhatt 1951: 176-177

[34] Mehendale 2005 shows the vow is an interpolation.

[35] Satya Chaitanya, ibid.

[36] Bhatt 1951: 174

[37] Professor of Sanskrit at Cambridge and author of the abridged Penguin translation of the Mahabharata. He maintains the online digital text of the CE.

[38] J.D. Smith, personal communication.

[39] Meiland 2005: 77.

[40] Brockington 1998: 258 note 53; Dhavalikar 1992: 523.

[41] Menon 1996: 266-677, 274, 332, 411.

[42] Brockington 1998: 490

[43]Dange 2001:231.

[44] Hiltebeitel 1988: 226-27.

[45]Satya Chaitanya op.cit.

[46] Jaiminīya Aśvamedha Parva 2008: 90.

[47] Indrajit Bandyopadhyay 2013.

[48] Bhatt 1951: p. 178: “The examination of the whole evidence available…leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the Dv. (Draupadīvastraharaṇa) episode did not form part of the original epic…”

[49] I am indebted to Simon Brodbeck for this insight.

[50] They write, referring to me: ‘uses the self-designation “mythographer,”’ “ideologically motivated, idiosyncratic… unphilosophical and unthinking approaches,” “vapid arguments,” “most senseless examples” in Adluri & Hiltebeitel op.cit.

[51] Levi, Sylvain. 1929. Review of the CE in Journal Asiatique 215: 345-48, quoted in Hiltebeitel 2011, p. 17.

[52] Biardeau 1997: 85-86.

[53] Hiltebeitel op.cit. p. 17.

[54] O’Flaherty, W. D. 1978:22 quoted in Hiltebeitel 2011: 16.

[55] O’Flaherty, W.D. 1978 ibid.

[56] Doniger, Wendy. “How to escape from the Curse.” London Review of Books 32/19:17-18 quoted in Hiltebeitel 2011 ibid.

[57] Lipner 2010: 148-149.

[58] Sharma 2008

[59] Brodbeck 2013.

[60] Hiltebeitel 2011: 192-4

[61] Bhattacharya 2003 on Brockington 2000.

[62] Sri Aurobindo 2007:11-13, 68. Western Indologists have even dated the epic from the single occurrence of words like suranga (from the Greek suringks?), antakhim (Antioch?) and roma (Rome?) cf. CE 02028049a antākhīṁ caiva romāṁ ca yavanānāṁ puraṁ tathā.

[63] Sri Aurobindo 2007: 28. He brings out the features distinguishing Vyāsa’s style at length with examples.

[64] ibid. p.47.

[65] Brockington 1998: 525.

[66] Sri Aurobindo 2007: 13.

[67] Chatterjee 1991: 210

[68] Sri Aurobindo 2007: 12.

[69] Note 30 above.

[70] Note 23 above.

[71] Singhvi 2008: “Mahabharata: texts and contexts in a perspective”. Neo Indika, Bharatayan, essays in honour of P.D. and S.S. Halvasiya, vol. 1. Ed. Dr Vasudev Poddar. Rai Bahadur Vishweshwarlal Motilal Halwasiya Trust, 15 India Exchange Place, Kolkata-700001.

[72] Hiltebeitel 2011: 636 n. 34.

[73] Bhattacharya 2016.

[74] Hiltebeitel 2016: 31.

[75] Phillips-Rodriguez, Wendy 2012: 228

[76] The editors are V. Adluri of Hunter College USA and J. Bagchee of Freie Universität Berlin.

[77] http://www.bori.ac.in/Mahabharata-Project-Revised-Second-Edition.html accessed on 19th June 2017.

EYELESS IN HASTINAPURA[1]

By

Sanjaya narrating the war to blind Dhritarashtra, painted by Daud, Razmnama 1599.

nārāyaṇaṃ namaskr̥tya naraṃ caiva narottamam

devīṃ sarasvatīṃ caiva tato jayam udīrayet

“Namaskar-ing Nārāyaṇa and Nara, best of men

and devi Sarasvatī, then is Jaya uttered.”

So exhorts Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyāsa, dark island-born editor and master raconteur, who weaves a bewildering skein of threads creating the many-splendoured web of the Mahabharata from which there is no escape for the audience then and the reader now. The millennia separating us have not, surprisingly enough, dimmed the magic of his art that had entranced Janamejaya and later Śaunaka. Here is stunning evidence of the power it exerts:-

“Shells were exploding over Leningrad. Enemy bombs were falling on the streets stirring up clouds of dust. On one of those spring days during the siege, Sanscrit language was being heard in the building of the Academy of Sciences on the Neva River embankment, in a room overlooking the side that was safer during the artillery strikes. First, in the original, and then in translation, Vladimir Kalyanov, a specialist on India, was reading Mahabharata, a wonderful monument of Indian literature, to his colleagues, who remained in the besieged city. He had started the translation before the war. He translated during the hard winter of 1941, with no light, no fuel and no bread in the city. Two volumes of books—one published in Bombay and the other in Calcutta—were lying on the table in the room. In the dim light of a wick lamp, he was comparing these two editions of Mahabharata, trying to find the best and the most accurate translation of the Sanscrit into Russian.

“When, after the war the first book of Mahabharata—Adi Parva was published in Leningrad, Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, noted with great satisfaction that, even during the hardest times, the translation of the Indian epic into Russian was never interrupted.”[2]

What is it in this epic-of-epics, eight times larger than the Iliad and the Odyssey combined—denounced as “a literary monster” by Winternitz and as “monstrous chaos” by Oldenberg—that appeals so irresistibly to the modern man in search of his soul, when the audience for which it was composed—the enthroned monarch and the forest-dwelling sage—has long since sunk into the dark backward and abysm of time?

Here we find a storyteller par excellence laying bare, at times quite pitilessly, the existential predicament of man in the universe. Passions do, indeed, spin the plot and we are betrayed by what is false within. Then, as now, there is no need to look for a villain manoeuvring without.[3]

If we resonate in empathy with sunt lacrimae rerum, the sense of tears in human things, we also thrill with joy on meeting the indomitable spirit of woman in an epic that is misconceived as celebrating male chauvinism. Whether it is Śakuntalā or Draupadī proudly asserting their integrity and berating cowardly husbands and elders in open court; or Devayānī demanding that Kaca return her love, forcing a bewildered monarch to wed her and then imperiously brushing aside a lust-crazed husband; or Kuntī refusing to pervert herself into a mindless son-producing machine to gratify the twisted desires of a frustrated husband—time and again it is woman standing forth in all the splendour of her spirited autonomy as a complete human being that rivets our attention and evokes our admiration.

The Mahabharata resembles a Russian doll, or a Chinese box. Stories pop up one after another, one tale nested within another…and yet another. We find not only layers of narrative frameworks but also leitmotifs, archetypes and underlying themes that weave together the seemingly disparate conglomerate of folk-tales, heroic legends, genealogies, myths, parables, mantric invocations and philosophical discourses. The structure is reminiscent of a bricoleur’s bricolage, a patchwork quilt, a kāṁthā.

The primary invocation that does not mention Vyāsa could well be his. The second version that the Vulgate and Jaimini’s version provide add Vyāsa to the three to be namaskar-ed, which is precisely what Vaiśampāyana does before starting his narration. Later, he explicitly glorifies his guru as Nārāyaṇa on earth.[4] Immediately thereafter (sloka 10)[5] he mentions that Janamejaya has resolved on holding a horse-sacrifice following the mahayajña, which would be the sarpasattra. This mention of the aśvamedha is the link to the Harivaṁśa, the appendix to the Mahabharata.

The first point to realise is that while Vyāsa is the composer, he is not the narrator, nor is Sauti. The outermost framework is an omniscient narrator’s who sets the stage with the entrance of Ugraśravā Sauti, the rhapsode, into the forest of Naimiṣa where Śaunaka, the Bhārgava sage, is performing a twelve-year-long sacrifice. It is this anonymous teller-of-tales who recounts the exchanges between Sauti, Śaunaka and his entourage of priests. Sauti himself is conflating two sources: what he heard Vaiśampāyana narrate to Janamejaya in the presence of Vyāsa; and what he has learnt from his father Lomaharṣaṇa, whom Vyāsa taught the Purana. But who utters the last sloka of the Svargārohaṇa Parva? Is it Sauti, or the nameless inheritor of the tradition? And, in the very first chapter, who has composed the riveting plangent lament of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, eyeless in Hastināpura?

Narrators in the epic are legion. It is not only the professional bards, Sauti et al, who recite the epic, but also Brahmins like Lomaṣa, Mārkaṇḍeya and, of course, Vaiśampāyana. It is not, as Van Buitenen argues, that “baronial-bardic lore” was giving way to a tradition of wandering reciters of Brahminic lore. Vaiśampāyana, a Brahmin, recited the epic before it was picked up by Sauti the sūta. Sauti’s narration is only the second Russian doll or Chinese box housing within it a series. Each layer alternates between direct narration in response to a query, often incorporating a question-and-answer encounter, and a dialogue. The impact, therefore, is varied and, in the dialogue-encounters, even dramatic. The most voluminous of these narrations is Bhīṣma’s, incorporating a host of subsidiary narrators in the Udyoga, Śānti and Anuśāsana Parvas, with Duryodhana and Yudhiṣṭhira asking the questions. The other major tellers-of-tales are Lomaṣa and Mārkaṇḍeya in the Vana Parva responding to Yudhiṣṭhira.Nārada appears as a common narrator in many parvas. In the midst of it all, Vyāsa pops in-and-out of the narrative, shaping the course of events at critical junctures. He is the only epic poet who kills off a huge number of his own characters—the war-widows—by motivating them to drown themselves to rejoin their dead husbands.

I propose to restrict myself to the first book, the Ādi Parva. If, later in the epic, Vyāsa shows us what man has made of man, here, in the very first book, he plumbs the depths of the humiliatingly petty pre-occupations of the Creator’s noblest creation. Indeed, the dilemmas the characters find themselves enmeshed in cannot even be glorified as “tragic.” Perhaps, that is why we find the epic so fascinating—for, how many of us are cast in the heroic mould? We do not have to strain the imagination to reach out and identify with lust-driven Yayāti or Śāntanu mesmerised by riverside nymphs. We need no willing suspension of disbelief to understand why the Brahmin Droṇa should sell his knowledge to the highest bidder, or why Drupada does not protest too much when his daughter is parcelled out among five brothers who had routed him in a skirmish.

The first two sections introduce Sauti who, in response to specific queries of the sages gathered at Naimiṣa, provides a list of contents, Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s lament, the figuring forth of the epic as an organic tree image, the Puranic touch about creation and genealogy, the epic’s composition, the benefits of listening to it, the origin of samantapancaka and the definition of akṣauhiṇī. Abruptly, section 3 introduces Janamejaya, the canine motif and the leitmotif of a curse. Janamejaya then leaves to annex Takṣaśilā where he will institute the snake-holocaust. The stories about three disciples, replete with Vedic echoes, are slipped in adroitly by Sauti. Is he pandering to the audience of sages eager for Brahminical wonders? Perhaps; but not just that. After the story of Upamanyu, he re-introduces Janamejaya along with Pauṣya who make Veda their acharya. Pauṣya is the link to the next tale, that of Uttaṅka. Cunningly, Sauti weaves in the thread of revenge that, like Śeṣa penetrating and upholding the globe, wraps round the massive epic corpus. Uttaṅka, seeking vengeance against Takṣaka, motivates Janamejaya to institute the snake-holocaust. That becomes the setting for the recital of the Mahabharata in the presence of its composer, the king’s great-great-grandfather.

Reaching section 4, we find that it is a new beginning altogether! Here is Sauti appearing before the rishis and Śaunaka for the first time. It is as though the previous three sections have been stitched on top of this. Here, then, we have yet another anonymous narrator who gives pride of place to Śaunaka as a parallel to Janamejaya the original “onlie true begetter” of the epic.[6] One of these anonymous rhapsodes forming the successive outer frames modified the second sloka of the invocation to glorify Vyāsa that occurs in the Vulgate, which is also the version found in Jaimini’s Aśvamedha Parva: devīṃ sarasvatīṃ vyāsaṃ tato jayam udīrayet.

The Pauloma and Āstīka parvas that follow are Sauti’s composition of Brahminical stories in response to Śaunaka’s specific request for Bhārgava genealogy, drawing upon Puranic lore learnt from his father Lomaharṣaṇa (13.6-8 CE). Yet, he shrewdly brings his audience back to his main interest, the epic, by weaving in the story of Ruru who hears the tale of Janamejaya’s snake sacrifice from his father Pramati. Note the thematic brilliance of introducing the concept of ahimsa and making it the peg upon which to hang the epic of maha-carnage.

The anonymous narrator tells us that by the time of Sauti’s visit Vyāsa had already arranged the Vedas (1.55) and composed the Purana and the Mahabharata (1.17-20). He is drawing upon Sauti’s statement to Śaunaka embedded 53 sections later introducing Vyāsa, born on an island in the Yamunā to Kālī and Śakti’s son Parāśara, being the first arranger of the Vedas in four divisions and a seer-poet (kavi) who continued Śāntanu’s line (54.2-6). Sauti, true to his heritage as son of the Purana reciter Lomaharṣaṇa, begins with a majestic account of creation that echoes the Rig Veda, followed by a genealogy (1.29-50):

“At first, there was no light,

no radiance, only darkness;

then was born the Egg of Brahma,

exhaustless and mighty seed of life.”

Sauti provides basic information regarding the varied traditions of narrating the epic (1.53): beginning with Manu; or from the story of Āstīka; or from the episode of Uparicara; or all the way through. Further, the composition had both condensed and detailed editions in response to audience requirements (1.52).

Very realistically, he proceeds to recount the problem faced by Vyāsa when he wanted to teach the epic to his pupils and how it was solved. To help him out, Brahmā pays a visit and there is a delightful touch of sly humour as Vyāsa sets about thoroughly convincing the Pitāmaha of the encyclopaedic nature of his work. By the time he has finished, Brahmā hastily declares, “It shall be a kāvya no poet in this world will equal” (1.73) and vanishes. An extremely significant clue is lost when kāvya is rendered as “poem”. The word comes from kavi which, like the Celtic-Teutonic “vates,” means “seer,” one who pierces through appea­rance to the reality, the truth hidden behind. To render this as “poem” deprives Brahmā’s statement of its implication and ruins the logical correlation with the previous statement (1.72): “I am aware that you have revealed the Word of Brahman in the language of truth.” The Mahabharata, therefore, is “revealed truth” and it reveals the Divine Word. “The mystery of the Vedas, and other mysteries, I have explained”, says Vyāsa (1.62). Towards the end of this parva, in sloka 265, Sauti states why Vyāsa chose this particular form: “But the Veda fears men of small learning, for they distort it.” Hence, Vyāsa couched the secrets of the Veda in the guise of stories in the Mahabharatato be passed on in easily memo­rable fashion to everyone, even the uninitiated, who could thus gain access to some of the esoteric spiritual truths hidden in the forgotten symbolic language of the Vedas. This is well exemplified in the stories in the Pauṣya Parva and in the stories of the quest for amṛta, the nectar of immortality.[7]

To overcome the problem of teaching the vast epic to his pupils, Vyāsa calls on Gaṇeṣa, the remover of obstacles. This Gaṇeṣa-Vyāsa encounter, omitted in the Bhandarkar edition, is an excellent instance of Sauti’s delicate wit. Gaṇeṣa agrees to act as Vyāsa’s amanuensis on one condition: his pen must not stop even for a second. And a very sensible proviso it is, otherwise he could well be stranded with Vyāsa through much of eternity! Vyāsa agrees, but with a stipulation of his own: “Stop wherever you don’t understand” (1.79). To gain breathing space, Vyāsa dictated some profoundly abstruse verses numbering 8800 that became notorious as the Vyāsa-kūṭa puzzling even the all-knowing gods. Several scholars mistakenly cite this as the original length of the composition.

Sauti is quite a poet. He describes the contents of the epic in terms of a vivid tree-image which deserves closer reading because of the sections he picks out for mention. Sauti omits much of the Ādi Parva,and the Sauptika, Anuśāsana, Mahāprasthānika and Svargārohaṇa Parvas. Out of the sprawling Ādi Parva, Sauti picks out the Pauloma and the Āstīka sections, calling them the roots, and very rightly so. The former satisfies Śaunaka’s query about the Bhṛgu-genealogy while leading on to the snake-sacrifice that constitutes the subs­tance of the latter and is the occasion for the recital of the epic by Vaiśampāyana. The third section of the Ādi Parva that Sauti mentions is the Sambhava, described as the trunk of the epic, for it contains the entire history of the Kuru race starting from Duṣyanta, going right up to the return of the Pāṇḍavas to Indraprastha and the amorous exploits of Arjuna during his voluntary exile, thus fairly establishing them as the centre of interest. The Sabhā and the Āraṇya (Vana) Parvas are termed perches for birds in this epic-tree. Both deal with the forest. Then, from the latter, Sauti perceptively picks out the Araṇi section for particular mention as the “organic knot” with the memorable confrontation of Yudhiṣṭhira with Death. Sauti goes on to describe the Virāṭa and the Udyoga Parvas as the pith, where the Pāṇḍavas gather their forces for war. The Bhīṣma and Droṇa parvas, concerned with the Kuru patriarch and the guru common to both parties, are the main branch and the leaves. One contains the Gītā; the other has the killing of Abhimanyu and Yudhiṣṭhira’s sole lie. What is arresting is the curious descrip­tion of the Karṇa Parva as the lovely flowers of the tree, which indicates the regard Sauti has for this most tragic of heroes, deprived of birthright, mother’s love and his brothers, compelled to fight them because of his dedication to the honour of his word. Why call the Śalya Parva the fragrance of these flowers? Because here is the tragic death of Duryodhana. The Strī and the Aiṣīka Parvas, the cool shade of the tree, provide the catharsis after the holo­caust with lamentation in extenso. The Śānti Parva is the great fruit, bringing the closure of “calm of mind, all passion spent.” The Āśvamedhika Parva, with the Anugitā and the half-golden mongoose who subverts all conquests of the Pāṇḍavas, is the ichor flowing through the tree. The Āśramavāsika Parva, where the old generation passes away in the forest, is the site where the tree grows. That is not just another poetic metaphor just for the sake of extending the tree-image, but hints at the environment in which Puranic civilization was cultured, a profound exposition of which is given by Rabindranath Tagore in his essay, “Tapobhumi”.[8] The curious description of the Mausala Parva is difficult to understand. The Sanskrit is mausalaḥ śrutisaṃkṣepaḥ, i.e. “the Mausala is the quintessence of śruti (the Vedas)”. It narrates the self-destruction of the mighty Yādavas with the participation of their protector Krishna, together with his passing and that of Balarāma and Arjuna’s realisation that in the absence of Krishna he cannot fight even ordinary dacoits wielding clubs. Without contact with the Divine, man by himself is nothing. With that realisation, the Pāṇḍavas are told by Vyāsa that it is time to leave the world behind and seek the Divine. Perhaps it is for this philosophic insight that Sauti describes this parva as so very important.

Completing this image, Sauti adds a remark that is yet another indication of his profession. This epic, he says, is a source of livelihood to illustrious poets (1.92). He is referring to wandering rhapsodes like himself who, like the medieval minstrels and troubadours of Europe, the tale-tellers of Baghdad and the bards of Rajputana, literally lived off such tales of great heroes, savants, gods and nymphs.

By way of relating the major features of the epic in the Anukramanikā Sauti picks out the glory of the house of Kuru, the virtue of Gāndhārī, the wisdom of Vidura, the constancy of Kuntī, the divinity of Krishna, the rectitude of the Pāṇḍavas and the wickedness of the Dhārtarāṣṭras. That is how the epic appeared to the narrator and the millennia have not brought about much change in audience-perception, except that the efforts of Rabindranath Tagore, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, Buddhadeb Bose, Shivaji Sawant, Dipak Chandra, P.K. Balakrishnan, Gurudutt and Narendra Kohli have created an exaggerated impression concerning the role of Karṇa, investing him with the halo of a superman which the text of the Mahabharata does not support.

Sauti now tells us a very important fact (1.101-107): Vyāsa brought the epic before the world only after the deaths of his three sons—Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Pāṇḍu and Vidura (1.96). Thus, we are made aware that Vyāsa is actually presenting before us the biography of his family. Further, originally, the Mahabharataconsisted of 24,000 slokas, leaving aside the fringe episodes, which Vyāsa composed after arranging the Vedas. He added a list of contents running to 150 slokas. This he taught his son Śuka and four disciples (Vaiśampāyana, Sumanta, Paila and Jaimini), directing each to publish his own rendition. Vaiśampāyana’s, meant for humanity, is the only one recited in the presence of the composer himself. The other editions are lost, but for Jaimini’s Aśvamedha Parva which is very different from Vaiśampāyana’s composition in both matter and form.[9] Later, Vyāsa composed another version running to 60 lakh slokas of which 1 lakh are known in the mortal world while 30 lakh are in the world of gods, 15 lakh in the sphere of the ancestors and 14 lakh in the abode of Gandharvas, each with its distinct narrator. Nārada recites it to gods, Asita-Devala to ancestors, Śuka to Yakṣas, Rakshasas and Gandharvas and Vaiśampāyana to humanity. In other words, the extent of the composition is adjusted to the demands of the audience. At the close of this, we find another delightful touch individualising Sauti, who, after mentioning that Vaiśampāyana recited one lakh slokas to the world of men, adds, “I might add that I, Sauti, have also recited one lakh slokas” (sloka 107), of which he is quite justifiably proud.

At the end of the Mahabharata, Sauti tells us that Vyāsa composed this jayo nametihaso, “history named Victory, Jaya,” to celebrate the glory of the Pāṇḍavas and other Kshatriyas and because he desired to establish dharma (Svargārohaṇa, 5.39, 41). Further, that its composition took three years (Vulgate sloka 48), repeating what Vaiśampāyana stated when he began his detailed narration (Ādi section 56 CE). This “publication” must have taken place after the death of the Pāṇḍavas, which is the subject matter of the last parva. The text closes after Janamejaya’s snake-sacrifice has been wrapped up and he returns from Takṣaśilā to Hastināpura. Sauti provides two meanings of the title in sloka 271: it is about the “maha” birth of the Bharata dynasty; it is “maha”- profound, “maha”-heavy (“bhāra”), encyclopaedic.

Slokas 108 and 109 are crucial because they define Sauti’s moral perspective. Once again he uses the organic tree image. The Dhārtarāṣṭras and Pāṇḍavas are described in terms of giant trees, one born of passion, the other of Dharma; the root of the one is the weak-minded Dhṛtarāṣṭra, that of the other Krishna, Brahmā and Brahmins.

Now, in just twenty-eight verses (1.110-138) Sauti provides a succinct resume of the Kuru-Pāṇḍava story unrivalled for its brevity. He is possibly following the model provided by Vaiśampāyana (section 55 CE, 61 Vulg.) as his initial response to Janamejaya’s request. There it is Vaiśampāyana, not Vyāsa, who makes that extraordinary claim which many a scholar has erroneously cited as an instance of Vyāsa’s bloated ego (55.33):-

O Bharata-Bull, on Dharma, Artha,

Kama and Moksha

what is here may be elsewhere; what is not here

is nowhere else.

Sauti repeats this verse in the Svargārohaṇa Parva (18.5.38) and tells us that Vyāsa taught it to his son along with four fatalistic verses about the constant flux inherent in worldly life.

Sauti’s resume is followed by the exquisite self-excul­patory lament of Dhṛtarāṣṭra with its haunting refrain tadā nāśaṃse vijayāya saṃjaya, “Then I no longer prophesied victory, O Saṃjaya”. This lovely passage does not recur where it logically should, after the victory of Pāṇḍavas in the Śalya Parva, or thereafter. In a master stroke of narrative art, Sauti appears to have taken it out and placed it here. Who is its composer? Presumably, it is Vyāsa, but it could well be Sauti’s own.

Notice how unerringly the keynote is struck early in the first section itself. After a bird’s eye view of the plot, the two major characters are featured: the narrator Saṃjaya and the audience Dhṛtarāṣṭra. The device of the blind king is surely a master-stroke. Unlike Priam who is able to see each of the Greek heroes Helen identifies from the ramparts of Troy, Dhṛtarāṣṭra, eyeless in Hastinapura, is dependant entirely on Saṃjaya—as are we—for the sights and sounds of the apocalyptic war. Unlike Sauti and Vaiśampāyana, Saṃjaya is an active participant-cum-reporter, as is Vyāsa. The four war books are in Saṃjaya’s voice which Vyāsa appears to have “recorded”, including the Gītā. Moreover, up till the Strī Parva, these are said to constitute the Bhārata, a term not used thereafter for the other parvas. Would this be the Kshatriya epic Jaya that became Mahabharata with Brahminical additions of the subsequent parvas?[10]

Saṃjaya’s omnipresence, seeing all, hearing all, including the unspoken thoughts, is shared by our anonymous narrator of the outermost frame. It is that narrator who has to be the explanation for that intriguing passage at the end of the Udyoga Parva where Krishna takes Karṇa away for a talk in secret. At this stage Saṃjaya has no superhuman faculty, yet he describes the secret discussion to Dhṛtarāṣṭra. What is more, despite coming to know of Karṇa’s true identity, Dhṛtarāṣṭra does not inform Duryodhana about it. What more evidence do we require of the hand of the anonymous narrator having left its mark?

The lament consists of a record of the chief achievements of the Pāṇḍavas following their escape from the house-of-lac, but the chronology is garbled, as would be natural in someone whose entire kin has been slaughtered. Thus, instead of beginning with the house-of-lacquer episode, Dhṛtarāṣṭra begins with Arjuna’s winning of Draupadī, an episode that disturbed him profoundly, as is shown when he repeats it after four slokas. After all, it secured for the exiled Pāṇḍavas the alliance of the powerful Pāñcālas—traditional rivals of Hastināpura—and immediately led to their being welcomed back by Dhṛtarāṣṭra. He mentions two other matrimonial alliances: that of Arjuna with Subhadrā, forging an alliance with the Yādavas, and that of Arjuna’s son with Virāṭa’s daughter, thus providing the Pāṇḍavas with yet another major ally in the Matsyas, who are related through their grandmother Satyavatī. One would have expected a reference to Bhīma’s rakshasan affair with Hiḍimbā, since Dhṛtarāṣṭra gives Ghaṭotkaca two whole slokas. Another event repeated twice is the slaying of Jayadratha (1.191, 196) despite the presence of Droṇa and Karṇa and other mighty warriors.

Some of the verses in this lament offer revealing insights into the secret of the Pāṇḍavas’ success. The fact that kingdom-bereft Yudhiṣṭhira continued to receive the support of his brothers and that they faithfully followed him into exile is one of these. What a master-stroke of strategy it was on the part of Vyāsa and Kuntī to insist, defying social norms, that Draupadī should be the common wife of all five brothers. This forged a nexus of unbreakable unity that their opponents sought in vain to break and which formed the foundation of their ultimate victory. The other factor is that holy men followed the Pāṇḍavas into exile in the forest, thereby ensuring that thirteen years of exile did not result in a regression to brutish instincts but rather led to a refinement of the spirit through this constant association with ascetics.

As Buddhadeb Bose points out, Yudhiṣṭhira turns this entire period of forest-exile into a quest for the secret of inner peace and the key to prevent destructive conflicts in life. This pointer is reinforced in sloka 166 where Dhṛtarāṣṭra refers to the questioning of Yudhiṣṭhira by the Dharma-yakṣa over the corpses of his four brothers. Another important insight is offered by slokas 151 (Vidura arranging the escape of the Pāṇḍavas from the lacquer house) and 176 (Krishna and Bhīṣma advising the Pāṇḍavas and Droṇa blessing them), showing the internal weakness of the Dhārtarāṣṭras with their main pillars of strength, Bhīṣma and Droṇa emo­tionally ranged with their enemies, culminating in revealing the manner of their deaths to the Pāṇḍavas and not killing a single one of them despite slaughtering thousands. Sloka 186 reveals the bitterness of the blind monarch that neither Droṇa nor Bhīṣma could kill one of the Pāṇḍavas despite all their prowess. Sloka 165 betrays his deep-seated hatred of Bhīma, as he laments that Karṇa had him in his power and let him escape with a few insults. Another interesting feature is that the only references Dhṛtarāṣṭra makes to unjust fighting are the killings of Droṇa and Duryodhana but not that of Karṇa, despite the indignation that this usually arouses in readers, including Tagore, Dinkar and Sawant. On two occasions, in slokas 198 and 201, Dhṛtarāṣṭra bewails the fruitless misdirection of infallible weapons (Karṇa uses India’s śakti missileagainst Ghaṭotkaca instead of Arjuna and Aśvatthāmā misuses the Nārāyaṇa weapon) not because they were misused but because thereby none of the Pāṇḍavas was killed.

Dhṛtarāṣṭra is quite obviously astonished and not a little piqued that so insignificant a warrior as Nakula should have worsted Aśvatthāmā in battle, making his chariot run around in circles (sloka 200), and that the innocuous Yudhiṣṭhira  should have defeated Duḥśāsana, Kṛtavarmā and Aśvatthāmā and finally slain the redoubtable Śalya (slokas 204-205). There is no expression of horror or even regret over the planned burning-alive of the Pāṇḍavas in the lacquer-house despite the assertion “I made no distinction between my sons and the sons of Pāṇḍu” (sloka 142). Rather is he full of sorrow that they escaped because of Vidura, his step-brother and chief advisor.

Only thrice, in slokas 155, 180 and 210, do we find Dhṛtarāṣṭra voicing sentiments of horror or sorrow regarding the sufferings of Pāṇḍavas. Of these, the first is the attempted disrobing of Draupadī, menstruating husbanded-yet-unprotected (rajasvalam nāthavatim anāthavat) in public by Duḥśāsana. This remarkable epithet is a unique summing-up of Draupadī’s plight, which has been explored inimitably by Shaoli Mitra in her riveting one-woman performances, Nathavati Anathavat and Katha Amrita Saman.[11] However, there is a curious twist to it because the next sloka, 156, expresses the king’s sorrow that Duḥśāsana “was foiled in his efforts to strip Draupadī,” whereupon, “what was there for me to look forward to, Saṃjaya?” In other words, Duḥśāsana’s reprehensible act would have been redeemed in his father’s eyes if it had not been a failure! [12] From these outbursts, it is clear that even after the decimation of his entire progeny, the prajñā chakṣu, prophetic-visioned, monarch has not learnt anything.

The second voicing of regret is for the killing of Abhimanyu, but it is also qualified by sloka 190 where he laments that this led to Arjuna’s vow of saindhava to kill Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s son-in-law Jayadratha. The only unqualified expression of sorrow for the Pāṇḍavas occurs in sloka 210 concerning the slaughter of the sleeping Pāñcālas and the sons of Draupadī, which Dhṛtarāṣṭra describes as “horrible” (vibhatsa). Sloka 211 could also be construed similarly, concerning Aśvatthāmā killing the child in Uttarā’s womb.

It is, indeed, a remarkably self-revealing lament of the blind monarch’s true feelings: blinded by love for his sons, hypocritically always trying to appear fair in his treat­ment of the Pāṇḍavas (sloka 142), but all along longing for their annihilation and going on hoping against hope until the bitter end when Vyāsa and Krishna curse Aśvatthāmā.

The lament is also supremely ironic, for the drama includes an astounding peripeteia. The man who had given up all hope of victory is the one who is the ultimate victor. Yuyutsu, Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s sole surviving son by a Vaiśya maid, becomes regent of the empire. The wheel has turned full circle.

This, however, is not the only ironical feature. Dhṛtarāṣṭra starts narrating these incidents to Saṃjaya in order to show him that “I am indeed a man with prophetic vision”. Yet this blind king, who claims to be a Teirisias, having ostensibly given up hope of success as early as the escape of the Pāṇḍavas from the lacquer-house, persists in chasing a will-o’-the-wisp right till the killing of Uttarā’s unborn child. Is there a hint that he was hoping for Aśvatthāmā success so that his son Yuyutsu could become emperor when the progeny-less Pāṇḍavas left? Unlike another blind king Dyumatsena, who lost his kingdom and got it back as his daughter-in-law Sāvitri’s boon, it is the burden of Sisyphus that weighs down the blind king, who compulsively goes on hoping for ultimate success, struggling against what he knows to be inevitable: the annihilation of all his dreams.

The lament is important not only for its rich irony and its poetic cadences. It is the only place in the epic where we are given the entire struggle as seen through the blind eyes of the defeated king. Hence, it is worthwhile to enumerate the incidents that stand out in Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s memory as key events in the long drawn struggle for supremacy. Though not chronologically in sequence, the verisimilitude of the narrative art cannot be questioned as events flash before the inner eye disparately:

The vows of Duryodhana, Karṇa, and Śakuni; Duryodhana mocked by the Pāṇḍavas in Indraprastha; the game of dice; Arjuna winning Draupadī  and the Pāñcālas joining the Pāṇḍavas; Arjuna abducting and marrying Subhadrā; Arjuna gratifying Agni and defeating Indra in the burning of Khāṇḍava forest; the escape from the house of lacquer; Bhīma killing Jarāsandha bare-handed; Rājasūya  celebrated by Pāṇḍavas; Duḥśāsana outraging Draupadī’s modesty in public and failing to disrobe her; Yudhiṣṭhira  losing his kingdom in the dice game but not being abandoned by his brothers; holy men following Yudhiṣṭhira  into exile; Arjuna obtaining the Pāśupata weapon from Śiva, other weapons from Indra and routing the Kālakeyas and Paulomas; Arjuna visiting Indra’s abode and defeating the Asuras;Bhīma leading the Pāṇḍavas unscathed into the forbidden land of Kubera; Arjuna rescuing the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra from the Gandharvas; Dharma-yakṣa questioning Yudhiṣṭhira (like the protagonist playing chess with Death in Ingmar Bergman’s “The Seventh Seal”); the Dhārtarāṣṭras failing to track down the disguised Pāṇḍavas in Virāṭa’s court; Arjuna routing the Kaurava heroes single-handed in Virāṭa’s kingdom; Kīcaka slain by Bhīma; Uttarā’s marriage with Abhimanyu;Yudhiṣṭhira , though exiled, able to raise seven armies; Krishna  seeking the welfare of the Pāṇḍavas; Nārada declaring Krishna and Arjuna to be Nara and Nārāyaṇa of Brahmā’s realm; Krishna  coming on a peace-mission and returning disappointed; Duryodhana’s failure to imprison Krishna who revealed to them all creation in himself; Kuntī consoled by Krishna; Bhīma, Droṇa and Krishna  advising and blessing the Pāṇḍavas; Karṇa refusing to fight as long as Bhīṣma remained in the fray; Krishna, Arjuna and the Gāṇḍīva together;Krishna revealing his universal form to Arjuna; Bhīṣma not killing a single Pāṇḍava and revealing the manner of his death to the Pāṇḍavas; Arjuna cutting down Bhīṣma, using Śikhaṇḍī as a shield;Arjuna slaking Bhīṣma’s thirst;Vāyu, Indra and Sūrya helping the Pāṇḍavas and wild beasts terrorising the Kauravas;Droṇa unable to kill the Pāṇḍavas; Arjuna slaying the suicide-warriors; Abhimanyu’s prowess and his slaying; Arjuna’s successful implementation of the saindhava vow; Krishna watering Arjuna’s horses while he fought-off all opponents single-handed; Sātyakī cutting through Droṇa’s elephant army to join Arjuna and Krishna; Karṇa releasing Bhīma despite having him at his mercy; Karṇa using Indra’s weapon against Ghaṭotkaca; the slaying of Droṇa; Nakula defeating Aśvatthāmā; Aśvatthāmā misus­ing his weapon and failing to kill the Pāṇḍavas; Bhīma drinking Duḥśāsana’s blood; Karṇa slain by Arjuna; Yudhiṣṭhira  defeating Duḥśāsana, Kṛtavarmā and Aśvatthāmā and killing Śalya; Sahadeva slaying Śakuni; Duryodhana hiding in the lake and his unjust killing; the slaughtering of the Pāñcālas and Draupadī’s sons; Aśvatthāmā wounding the child in Uttarā’s womb, being cursed for it, and his weapon being repulsed by Arjuna.

It is significant that Arjuna is mentioned most often (28 times in the 68 slokas of the lament), Krishna following close behind (18 times). Yudhiṣṭhira occurs 7 times and Bhīma 5 times. It is Arjuna, not Bhīma, whom Dhṛtarāṣṭra sees as the nemesis, having acquired celestial weapons and the help of Krishna. On his own side, Dhṛtarāṣṭra mentions Bhīṣma the most (8 times) and then Karṇa (7 times). These figures reveal who dominated the blind monarch’s imagination. His own heroes do not even reach double figures in his own estimation!

Saṃjaya’s concluding advice to console the king is the conventional observation that Fate and Time are ruthless destroyers, so why should the wise man sorrow? But this trite sentiment is expressed in lovely cadences and looks forward to the apotheosis of Krishna  in the Gītā:

Cosmic Time Kala brings everything.
Being and non-being,
Pleasure and pain.

Kala creates and Kala destroys,
Kala is the fire and Kala the extinguisher,
Kala is the god of good and evil.
Kala cuts us down and Kala creates anew,
Kala is awake when all things sleep.
Kala stands straight when all things fall.
Kala shuts in all and will not be shut.
Is, was, and shall be are Kala’s children.
O Reason! Be witness! Be stable!” (Slokas 244-248)

We recall the calm resigna­tion of The Wanderer, where the Anglo-Saxon bard muses,

“Everything is full of hardship in the kingdom of earth; the decree of fate changes the world under the heavens—So spoke the wise man in his heart and sat apart in thought. Good is he who holds his faith.”

Time becomes a leitmotif in the epic, reaching its shattering climax in the awesome vision Arjuna is granted in the Gītā.

Sauti speaks of the benefits obtainable from a devoted perusal of the epic. In a series of exquisite similes he extols its greatness. He stresses what Brahmā told Vyāsa: that in this epic the Supreme Truth has been revealed (slokas 253-257) and that is why to read it with the proper attitude is to be freed from sin. What this attitude should be has been described by Vasiṣṭha to Rāma in the twelfth section of the Mumūkṣa-khaṇḍa of the Yoga-Vāsiṣṭha-Rāmāyaṇa:

“Be still to attend to knowledge by keeping your mind fixed in yourself and, being freed from pride and passion, incline yourself to pure truth.”

Thereby the listener will achieve that mystic and intuitive state in which he is able to grasp the inner significance of the stories he hears in this epic.

            Vaiśampāyana, responding to Janamejaya’s request to recite the history of his ancestors, mentions that Vyāsa took three years, regularly rising early, to complete the work (56.32 CE; 62.66 Vul.) and that it is called Mahabharata as it is about the glorious birth of the Bharata dynasty (56.31 CE; 62.53 Vul). Janamejaya’s six questions are of great interest, posing as they do what puzzles the reader even today (my translation):-

For what purpose did those tigers among men,

innocent, mighty,

calmly allow themselves to be victimised

by the wicked?                                                5

How did thousand-elephants-strong mighty

wolf-waisted Bhīma,

though afflicted, control his anger

O best of Brahmins?                                       6

How that Draupadī-Kr̥ṣṇā, afflicted by

the wicked, the sati

though able, did not burn the Dhārtāṣṭras

with her terrible eyes?                                    7

How, in the perverse dice-game, the two sons

of Prithā and Mādrī

followed the tiger among men being cheated

by the wicked?                                                8

How did dharma-knowing, finest of

dharma-upholders,

the son of Dharma, Yudhiṣṭhira ,

undeservingly suffer

so many humiliations patiently?                                 9

How, with Kr̥ṣṇa as charioteer, did

Pāṇḍava Dhanañjaya

(who) alone with his arrows sent whole armies

to the next world (so suffer?)                         10

These provide us with anchoring points in the midst of the oceanic epic, the issues to ponder upon and seek answers to.

From the point of view of cultural history, slokas 268-270, which close the parva, are significant. Here occurs the apotheosis of the Mahabharataas, weighed against all the Vedas by the gods, it is found to exceed them in substance and seriousness. This, along with the statement that Vyāsa wrote the epic after he had arranged the Vedas into four parts, and the invocations to Agni by the śārñgakas in the Khāṇḍavadahana parva that occur in the Rig Veda (X.142) show the break with the Vedic period while indicat­ing that the Rigvedic age extended up to the composition of the epic. With this, the Puranic culture is firmly established and the Vedas become more and more objects of remote veneration, understood by fewer and fewer people, and considered chiefly as texts for performance of sacred rituals. Their hidden depths were plumbed anew and the inner truth brought to light only by another rishi, a seer-poet of our times, Sri Aurobindo.

Looking back at the Ādi Parva, a multitude of salient features—thematic, stylistic and eschatological—swim into one’s ken. There is the recurrent motif of Lust in Action with its attendant theme of the Quest for Immorta­lity. Initially, they emerge as two separate themes in the Churning-of-the-Ocean, Garuda, and the Kaca-Devayānī episodes, which coalesce in the existentially tragic figure of Yayāti. Inheriting the taint of lust from his father Nahuṣa, Yayāti sums up in himself the entire experience of the self-destructive poison of lust, with its initial violence and sensual orgiastic bliss, seeking in vain to gorge itself to satiation until the body is worn out. Yet, the flames of desire continue to lick the spirit into fresh agonies of torment, forcing Yayāti into the very apotheosis of lust in replacing his worn-out senses by the vibrantly youthful body of his son, only to discover that lust is insatiable. Yayāti’s life, indeed, is an interesting study in hubris that culminates in a veritable peripeteia as he is flung down from heaven in a total reversal of situation. He who prided himself on being the most generous donor (even giving away his daughter to earn unprecedented merit) is forced to accept gifts of merit from his own grandchildren and daughter to win back his place in Svarga. This blood-taint hounds his dynasty as its nemesis, virtually wiping it out. It kills Pāṇḍu. The Pāṇḍavas are his foster-children by unknown surrogates, veritable parvenus aspiring to the ancestral throne. The Yādavas, his descendants by Yadu, massacre one another in suicidal frenzy.

Yet another pattern is that of the disqualified eldest son beginning, again, with Yayāti whose elder brother Yati becomes a sage. Of Yayāti’s five sons it is the youngest, Puru, who becomes the dynast. Next it is Rikṣa, Ajamīḍha’s youngest son, who founds the Hastināpura dynasty. Of Pratīpa’s sons, the Brahmins challenge the eldest Devāpi’s right to the throne because of his skin-disease. Like Puru, the youngest son Śāntanu becomes king. Then, instead of Devavrata, his eldest son, it is the youngest, Vicitravīrya, who ascends the throne.

At this stage, the theme of the disqualified eldest is interwoven with an interesting set of parallels: Bhīṣma-Vyāsa and Satyavatī-Kuntī. Both Bhīṣma and Vyāsa are born of Ganga and Satyavatī respectively before the dynastically crucial Śāntanu-Satyavatī marriage. Both are unmarried and deeply involved with the Kurus, one as protector, the other as surrogate-dynast. Satyavatī is a Niṣāda and through her son Vyāsa she starts a dynasty with Dhṛtarāṣṭra who is mixed-caste (mother a princess, father a sage of mixed-caste). This dynasty is nipped in the bud by Kuntī’s progeny. Like her grandmother-in-law, Kuntī has a pre-marital son who is discarded after birth. Here Parallelism dovetails into Pattern, for Karṇa, the eldest Kaunteya, cannot inherit because of his illegitimacy; nor can Vyāsa, Satyavatī’s eldest. In relation to the Pāṇḍavas, he stands much in the same relationship as Bhīṣma to the Śāntvanas. The parallel is stressed deliberately in the repeated confrontations between the two, culminating in Karṇa’s sulking Achilles-like in his tent so long as Bhīṣma leads the armies. Eight Pāṇḍava sons are killed and Kuntī’s dynasty conti­nues only through Parīkṣit, Arjuna’s grandson via his junior wife Subhadrā, a Yādava, thereby restoring the throne to the line of Yadu, Yayāti’s eldest disinherited son. Moreover, Indraprastha/Khāṇḍavaprastha too goes to another Yādava, Vajra, great-grandson of Krishna.

An allied trope is the difficulty in begetting successors. Beginning with Bharata who had to adopt Bharadvāja, it recurs with Śāntanu who discards the eminently eligible Devavrata only to have his sons by Satyavatī die prematurely and childless. The engendering of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu is itself a traumatic affair and both are physically challenged. Pāṇḍu, cursed to die in intercourse, cannot beget children. Gāndhārī aborts her inordinately long pregnancy out of sheer frustration. The Pāṇḍavas lose all their sons. Their grandson Parīkṣit has to be resurrected by Krishna, just as Gāndhārī’s aborted foetus is saved by Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyāsa. 

From the stylistic view-point, there are such highlights as the all-prose Pauṣya parva and the dynastic account after Saṃvaraṇa-Tapatī; the story of Yayāti almost wholly in dialogue-form; the exquisite poetry of the Āstīka parva that evokes archetypal memories:

There is a mountain called Meru,

            a flaming heap

                        of splendour.

Sunlight falls on it

            and scatters

                        at the summit.

It is golden: it glitters:

            gods and gandharvas

                        live on it.

It cannot be measured:

            men of adharma

                        cannot come near it…

Mind cannot

            Conceive of it. (I.17.5-8)

There are the majestic Vedic chants in the Pauṣya, Pauloma and Khāṇḍavadahana parvas addressed to Agni, the mystic fire of the Rig Veda.

The Vyāsan technique—or perhaps the raconteur Sauti’s—is to present the pith of the matter first, allowing details to be drawn out gradually through answers to questions skilfully interposed at critical stages of the narrative.

“…like a knitter drowsed

Whose fingers play in skilled unmindfulness

The Will has woven with an absent heed…”[13]

This is precisely the technique that Saṃjaya—the original war-reporter-cum-warrior—employs in the war books, always beginning at the end, with the death of the commander-in-chief, and then providing details in response to the blind interlocuter’s queries.

The Ādi Parva carries Vedic mythology on to a new stage where Indra has been reduced just to being king of the gods, worsted by the bird Garuda and the men Krishna and Arjuna, powerless to protect Takṣaka who seeks sanctuary, paying the price of arrogance by being imprisoned in a cave by Śiva and forced to take birth on earth. He is no longer the mighty rescuer of the celestial herds stolen by the Paṇis, riving open Vṛtra or Vala to release the celestial streams of light. Even Viṣṇu does not play much of a role here, the accent having shifted to a new duo of divine sages: Nara and Nārāyaṇa. By identifying Krishna and Arjuna with them, beginning with the invocatory verses, the new myth is given more ‘body’ and appeals more powerfully to the popular imagination. As the epic unfolds, it reveals more and more of an infusion of a devotional strain orientated to­wards Śiva and Krishna, particularly in the discourses of Bhīṣma lying on his bed of arrows. The day of Vedic Indra, Agni and Varuṇa is past and the Puranic Śiva-Viṣṇu rivalry is implied through the strenuous attempts to make each extol the greatness of the other in the Śānti and Anuśāsana Parvas. Moreover, the presence of Śiva looms large right from the first book when he makes five Indras reincarnate as the Pāṇḍavas with Śrī as their common wife. By his boon to Ambā and Drupada the birth of Śikhaṇḍi occurs to kill Bhīṣma. He empowers both Arjuna and Aśvatthāmā. It is Rudra Kapardin, Krishna tells Arjuna (Śānti Parva, 330.69-70), who strode before him in war slaying foes.

            How does the Ādi Parva leave us where the story of the Kurukṣetra War and the Pāṇḍava-Kaurava conflict are concerned? The seeds of the fratricidal feud are sown during the childhood sports, culminating in the lacquer-house episode. In the meantime, a new figure has been introduced: Karṇa, who will figure prominently in the coming feud. The Droṇa-inspired attack on Drupada has sown a deep hatred of the Kurus in the defeated king that moves him to seek alliance with the Pāṇḍavas as a counterpoise against the Dhārtarāṣṭras and Droṇa. The interregnum—the Hiḍimb, Citraratha and Baka episodes—is the training ground for the future inheritors of Kuru renown. Simultaneously these events span the time-gap and convey the sense of the long duration of the exile. The marriage with Draupadī and the coming of Krishna provide the Pāñcāla-Yādava-Pāṇḍava triangular alliance to oppose the Kurus at Hastināpura on the Gaṅgā even more effectively with the establishment of a new kingdom at Khāṇḍavaprastha on the Yamunā, the original site of the Candravaṃśa kingdom.

            At the end, when Krishna is killed by Jarā, we realise that “ring composition” is the over-arching technique used by Vyāsa. Krishna’s chief opponent was Jarāsandha, who was made whole by the rakshasi Jarā. Krishna engineered Jarāsandha’s killing and is himself killed by the hunter Jarā. Further, the ādivamsāvataraṇa, the original descent of the generations, was set in motion because earth pleaded to be relieved of her burden. With the suicidal Yādava carnage, the lifting of that burden is completed. Saramā, the celestial bitch, and Janamejaya enter the narrative simultaneously in the first book. Janamejaya’s great grand-uncle Yudhiṣṭhira exits the world-stage followed by Dharma-as-dog. The canine curse dooming the snake-sacrifice fructifies at the end of the 18th book with Āstīka’s successful intercession on behalf of the Nāgas who had entered the narrative early in the first book. Along with the Niṣādas and Rakshasas, the Nāgas run throughout the narrative as a substratum.

Finally, Sauti addresses Śaunaka once more wrapping up his recitation (Svargārohaṇa, 5.58). The wheel has turned full circle! But he leaves us agape with Vyāsa’s astonishing exclamation, again a question that has puzzled audiences over the millennia:-

ūrdhvabāhur viraumy eṣa na ca kaś cic chr̥ṇoti me
dharmād arthaś ca kāmaś ca sa kimarthaṁ na sevyate

 “I raise my arms and I shout

            But no one listens!

From Dharma come Profit and Pleasure—

            Why is it not practised?” (5.49 CE)

In the final analysis,“The story’s the thing, catching conscience of commoner and king.”[14]

[1] Based on Pradip Bhattacharya, Narrative Art in the Mahabharata: the Ādi Parva, Dev Publishers, New Delhi, 2012.

[2] http://www.300.years.spb.ru/eng/3_spb_3.html?id=5

[3] George Meredith, “Love’s Grave”, The Oxford Book of English Verse, ed. A.T. Quiller-Couch, Clarendon, 1919.

[4] kr̥ṣṇadvaipāyanaṁ vyāsaṁ viddhi nārāyaṇaṁ prabhum

ko hy anyaḥ puruṣavyāghra mahābhāratakr̥d bhavet

dharmān nānāvidhāṁś caiva ko brūyāt tam r̥te prabhum—XII.334.9 (CE)

[5]vartatāṁ te mahāyajño yathā saṁkalpitas tvayā

saṁkalpitāśvamedhas tvaṁ śrutadharmaś ca tattvataḥ–XII.334.10 (CE)

[6] A similar textual phenomenon occurs in the Sabhā Parva where, after Duḥśāsana failed to strip Draupadī, ‘The people shouted, “The Kauravyas refuse to answer the question,” and condemned Dhṛtarāṣṭra’ (II.61.50). This refers to Draupadī’s question to the assembly at 60.44, repeated at 62.13, which remains unanswered till the end. The audience neither censures the king for countenancing the attempted stripping, nor criticises Duḥśāsana for making the attempt. Even more puzzling is everyone’s silence about the unending stream of cloth, whether emanating from Dharma or Krishna. Instead, Vidura’s speech, which follows, states that Draupadī is awaiting a reply to her question, weeping like an orphan (II.61.52). Vidura would have been the first to protest against any attempt to disrobe Draupadī publicly and to extol her miraculous escape in response to her appeal to Krishna. He refers neither to Vikarṇa’s response in support of Draupadī nor to Karṇa rebuking him and directing that she be stripped. It is as though these speeches have not happened at all. The sequence of events indicates that originally there was no hiatus between Draupadī’s query and Vidura’s exhortation to the assembly to provide an answer. The failed disrobing that we find in-between has been stitched on, not woven into the texture.

[7] P. Bhattacharya, The Secret of the Mahabharata, Parimal Prakashan, Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad, 1984.

[8] “The Forest of Ascesis”, in Human Values: The Tagorean Panorama by S.K. Chakraborty & P. Bhattacharya, New Age International, New Delhi, 1996.

[9] Its first English translation by Shekhar K. Sen, ed. P. Bhattacharya, was published by Writers Workshop, Kolkata, in 2009. Further, some parts of the Jaimini Bhārata exist in Grantha script in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Chennai, relating to his version of the Ramayana, containing material not found in the Vaiśampāyana edition.

[10] Kevin McGrath, Jaya: performance in epic Mahabharata, Harvard, 2011.

[11] Saoli Mitra, Five Lords yet none a Protector and Timeless Tales, Stree, Kolkata, 2004.

[12] This is the only reference in the epic to the attempted stripping other than in the Sabhā Parva, which raises the suspicion that the lament is an interpolation cf. P. Bhattacharya, Annals of the BORI vol.LXXXVI, 2005, pp.149-152 and in K.K. Chakravarty, ed. Text and Variation in the Mahabharata, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 2009, pp. 89-99.

[13] Thomas Hardy, The Dynasts, 1903, “Fore Scene”.

[14] P. Lal, The Complete Ādi Parva, Writers Workshop, Calcutta, 2005, p.6. Most extracts are from this translation which follows the Vulgate and not the shorter Bhandarkar Critical Edition.

MEMORY OF 15TH AUGUST 1947

By

BY LT. COL. GUNINDRA LAL BHATTACHARYA

Serendipity is ceaseless. Just the other day while re-arranging my father’s World War II papers I found an account he had typed for Deepanjali, his grand-daughter, on 15th August 1988, less than a month before he passed away on 4th September the same year. I am reproducing it below.

DEEPANJALI—MY MEMORY OF 15/8/1947

15 August 1988

0400 hrs.

It rained heavily last evening and through the night. As in earlier years I recall these days in 1947.

Then, since November 1945 I had been a Major, the Second-in-Command to the Signal Regiment (Eastern Command, “Q” L of C Signal Regt. Renamed Bengal and Assam Signal Regt) providing Signals cover to HQ Eastern Command, HQ Bengal Area and HQ Calcutta Fortress Sub Area, and their successor HQs.

In 1946 our Regiment had its HQ at 28 Theatre Road, the Officers Mess at Tivoli Park, where we had the TMO (Traffic Management Office) and the QM (Quarter Master) and his Stores also. At the entrance to Tivoli Park there were two cottages. For some time I had lived in one of them until allotted No. 1 Queens Park, First Floor, as our first home. Here we lived till October 1947. Pradip was born here on 19 June 1947.

The Transfer of Power on 14/15 August 1947 was a superb British success executed by Mountbatten. India had become a liability, and strategically unnecessary since the defeat of Japan following the American interest in South East Asia. After all it was American logistics and the Indian Army’s manpower that had ensured Japan’s defeat in Burma and South East Asia. Already the British owed India over £2000 crores of Sterling, the price of goods and services India supplied to the South East Asia Command.

As the 2IC I had served till 15 August 1947 under three Commanding Officers, Lt Col R.B. Grey, Lt Col N.E.I. Pocock, Lt Col Ellison. I had known Lt Col Ellison in Rangoon in May 1945. He had come to study our operations (in S L of C Signals) for the landing in Rangoon, as he was to command the Signal Regiment for Operation “Zipper” planned for Singapore operations. I had been the Adjutant then at Rangoon to Lt Col J F Worth and had to brief Lt Col Ellison about the Regiment’s Operations and Plans. The Old Files had been of great help.

In August 1947 Lt Col Ellison was the C.O. The Regiment was the Bengal and Assam Signal Regiment. The Area Commander Maj Gen Rankin had just left. There was an officiating British Commander.

Our Regiment had Two Companies in Fort William, one at Bally and another at Kharagpur, with Detachments in Shillong, Dacca, Chittagong etc. We had about two thousand, including about 52 Officers (40 British), some 400 British Other Ranks, 100 or so WAC(I) (Women’s Auxiliary Corps India) Officers and enlisted girls and some 1500 Indian Other Ranks.

Since 1946 Lt Col Grey and other C.O.s had accepted my advice and we had Indian Adjutant (Capt. S.N. Mehta) for the first time, and two Indian Majors. One of them, Major Trimizi, opting for Pakistan was chosen to Command the Company that we had to sent to Dacca. Our Regiment was to be split, as was the country. The Punjabi Musalman Sections of Despatch Riders, Linemen, a few Operators were very unhappy as were all of us. But it had been decided that the Operational supervision of Dacca was to continue under us. There was to remain the Supreme HQ at Delhi under Field Marshal Auchinleck, even while the new Indian Army HQ and Pak Army HQ were being set up. That was to keep the operational command intact.

On 13 August 1947 it became clear that large scale disturbance (communal) was unlikely. The Eastern Command Intelligence Centre was still functioning from its Lower Circular Road HQ, and they in their Regular Broadcasts over the Army Frequency (our SCR 299 Set) confirmed peaceful conditions. The Army could “stand down”. It was a great relief.

On 14th evening I returned from Fort William. Everything in the Regiment was normal. The Union Jack had been hauled down at dusk for the last time by the British Infantry Regiment inside.

I went to South Calcutta (Gariahat). It was pleasant to find the Rashbehari Road quite crowded with happy men and women. I purchased a small silken National Flag. Then had a haircut!

On 14th August 1947 at the Regiment’s office, in Nissen huts, outside Fort William, near the present Officers’ Institute, and just out of the Fort William Exchange, we had Lt Col Habibullah visiting us. He was to go to take over Shillong Sub Area. We sent off for him a Wireless Message to Shillong for his reception and accommodation. When I visited him after two weeks, with new Cipher Codes, flying this time to avoid Pakistan, I found the Lt Col a Brigadier. He and his wife were bitterly anti-Pak.

On 14th August 1947 I kept on wearing the uniform just in case. The Signal Office was advising me from time to time about the situation reports that normally came to the HQ at night. Everywhere the situation was peaceful. Mountbatten had returned from Pakistan, a new dominion, with Mr. Jinnah the Governor General.

There was to be a special sitting of the Constituent Assembly and Pandit Nehru was to speak to it a at midnight 14/15 Aug 1947. The sitting was to be broadcast and relayed by the All India Radio.

I switched on the radio receiver that Capt. Peter Wing had left with me for a loan of Rs.400/-. He had several, having been our Wireless Officer. He had to go suddenly to Karachi, at 4 hours notice. He had fallen in love with an Anglo-Indian lady, a widow with two children. Col Allen, the British Chief Signal Officer, had wanted me personally to ensure that Peter was put on the train to Karachi the same evening. At the time I had been officiating in command, Col. Pocock being sick.

The transmission of the AIR was perfect. At midnight the Delhi sitting came on and Punditji was about to speak. There was a song first. It was clear soon: our Jana Gana Mana. I read later that Mrs. Sucheta Kriplani had been singing too. I was deeply moved. I got up from our Drawing Room, found Pradip asleep with his mother. She was talking to her cousin Nilimadi. I picked up Pradip against protests, but I was determined that he should listen to the sounds of the midnight service, the dawning of our Freedom. I sat next to the receiver with Pradip on my lap. I was engrossed. Later I realised that my son had wet my uniform. We went to sleep late.

15th August 1947 was bright and clear. I borrowed Capt. Sinha’s car. With Pradip and Probhat I drove to Fort William first. There was the National Flag on the ramparts, put up by the British Unit. Inside, the men who were yet to go to Dacca (the Rear Party) had put up the Pakistan Flag on their hutment (the old stables). I wished them well. They shook hands, but were sad. Inside, the British Other Ranks of our Regiment were all in grins from ear to ear. Most of them had the Indian Tricolour pinned to their bushshirts/shirts.

Returning from Fort William, about 10 A.M., I was pleasantly surprised at the milling crowds at Chowringhee. Trucks with both Indian and Pakistan flags flying had their passengers shouting joyous slogans. It was all unbelievable in view of extr4eme tensions till a few days earlier. It was the same story all along Chowringhee, the Lower Circular Road and Entally. Hindus and, more so the Muslims, were joyfully and unitedly celebrating the day.

I was happy too.

We went to No.8, Beniapukur Road for greeting the sisters there. I remember Mejdi (Miss Ghosh, the eldest sister then) rebuked me as Pradip was looking exhausted—all pink due to the heat, so she said. He was fussed over by all the sisters. Then we returned home to 1, Queens Park. Dropping Pradip and his mother, I returned Capt Sinha’s car with many thanks. He used to live nearby. The RAF officer and his wife, our ground floor neighbour, had left a few days previously.

Such then was the remarkable day, 15th August 1947 in Calcutta.

Many significant points went unnoticed.

The first: Indian leaders under Gandhiji had rejected the offer of Dominion status. In the Lahore Congress Pandit Nehru had demanded “complete Independence”. 26th January 1930 was the first Independence Day. I had hoisted the Congress Flag on our gate at 24, Queen Victoria Road, New Delhi. Yet, in 1947 the Congress accepted Dominion status of a partitioned India. The British abdicated power under a British Law supervised by the British Heads of the Armed Forces, Indian Civil Services and the Police. The Transfer of Power was primarily in the UK’s national interest, both financial and political/administrative. The Indian Armed Forces used to get FREE from Britain ALL the capital equipment, about Rs.400 crores worth annually. Once Mountbatten got the outstandings of salary and pension deducted from the sterling balances due to India, Britain had nothing to lose and everything to gain, including friendship from a grateful political party. While transferring power, Britain forgot its “Trusteeship” and concern for the Indian masses. Its enemy, the Congress, became its best friend owing to political reasons just as the service to the Indian masses had been primarily for political reasons.

Secondly, the British “ditched” the India Princes. In a cynical manner Mountbatten forgot all the “sacred” treaties between the Crown and the Princes. They were “advised” to join the nearest Dominion, India or Pakistan.

A.R.Orage on The Mahabharata

By

In 1956 S.C. Nott edited a selection from the Adi and Sambhava Parvas of The Mahabharata, published by The Janus Press, London, pp.205. The selections were made “from the literal and complete edition of Pratapa Chunder Raya, which was translated from the Sanskrit verse into English prose by Pandit Kisari Mohon Ganguli 1883,” with line drawings by Kate Adamson with the help and advice of the Indian Section of the Victoria & Albert Museum; and 4 plates from the Museum. Nott saw parallels between with the Mahabharata (M) and the World Wars which inspired him to make a selection. The selections were:-

  1. Astika Parva: Sarpasattra, Jaratkaru, Churning, Garuda, Amrita, Ruru. Vaisampayana begins narration of the history of Pandavas & Kauravas. Birth of Vyasa.
  2. Sambhava: Sakuntala, Yayati, Ashtaka, birth of Dhritarashtra, Pandu, Vidura, their sons; death of Pandu; Kurus’ jealousy of Pandavas. Birth of Drona. Kanika’s discourse.
  3. Jatugriha
  4. Hidimva Parva; Chaitraratha; Swayamvara; Vaivahika (story of 5 Indras & Draupadi’s marriage); Rajya-labha parva; Arjuna vanavasa parva; Subhadra harana; Khandava dahana; Sabha; Rajasuya arambha; Sisupala; Dyuta, Anudyuta.

Nott provided a Glossary based on Dowson and Garrett’s dictionaries of Indian mythology.

It is the Appendix by Alfred Richard Orage that is of great interest. Orage had studied the M at the Gurdjieff’s Institute at Fontainebleau-Avon and his appreciation grew as he understood G’s system more. Extracts from Orage’s magazine, The New Age:

“The M is the greatest single effort of literary creation of any culture in human history…characters appear by hundreds; & episodes follow episodes with the infinite resourcefulness of Time. Nevertheless, there is no moment when the plan of the work is forgotten. At regular stages…everything is gathered together or is re-assembled for a fresh phase of the continuous history. In the interval, relationships have been established between scores of characters, each of whom, moreover, has undergone mutation by experience, yet on re-assembly, the whole innumerable caravan is marshalled and set off again without the least confusion in the mind of the reader. Never was a writer more currently aware of his reader than Vyasa the author…the most colossal work of literary art ever created, its example and inspiration are as vital and multiform as Time itself. It contains every literary form and device known to all the literary schools, every story ever enacted or narrated, every human type and circumstance ever created or encountered. Unlike the reading of derivative works of art, the reading of the M is a first-hand experience. One ends it differently, just as one emerges differently from everything real. The M towers over all subsequent literature as the pyramids look over the Memphian sands. Realism of the inexhaustible significance of the M would be the initiation of a modern Renaissance…Where but in the M shall our age find a …fresh literary source that shall be scripture to our literature—scripture being literature in pursuit of an impossible aim. It puts Homer into the shade; he is a marvellous boy in comparison with the marvellous manhood of Vyasa…The three great treasuries of stories—the Greek, the Scandinavian and the Teutonic, were all derived from the East by diverse ways and the source and container of them all is—The Mahabharata…More real Mysticism can be gathered from the M than from the whole of modern mystical writings. A walk through its table of contents is more than a Sabbath day’s journey. The Iliad and the Odyssey are episodes in it; and the celebrated Bhagavat Gita is simply the record of a single conversation on the eve of one of its many battles… The Mahabharata is a complete encyclopaedia of human nature. There is no emotion, no conflict, no situation that is not represented in it. We should read the Mahabharata as a textbook of psychology, for it describes the forces that move us more accurately than any modern work.”

Mulk Raj Anand in Malda

By

On the evening of 14 April 1972 I met the renowned novelist Dr. Mulk Raj Anand in the bungalow of the District Magistrate, Malda, Mr. S.P. De IAS (1959 batch). I was then Assistant Magistrate and Assistant Collector on training. Anand was accompanied by Miss Dolly Sahiyar, photographer of MARG magazine and Sri Ajit Neogi, President Bangla Academy of Rajshahi. MARG was publishing a feature on Muslim architecture of Bangladesh. I was asked to guide them around the historical monuments.

On 15th April from 630 AM I took them around Gour and Pandua for 6 hours. Dr. Anand was in shorts and a brick-red top; very fair, a prominent acquiline nose; white hair streaked with dyed brown. At Adina Masjid the fusion of Hindu and Musim art had created a new Bengali art joining swastika and Muslim petal work. Sudhir Babu pointed out that Muslim petals curved backwards while the Hindu curved inwards. No masjid sports such a vast open-air compound lined with cells typical of a Buddhist monastery. The doorway decorations have Hindu carved panels with faces of deities smashed. Every panel in Adina in the courtyard has a different design.

Then I took Dr. Anand to the Malda Museum which was in poor shape. Entering the museum he shouted aloud, “Arrey! This is a godown of images. Why haven’t you arranged the statues properly according to the timeline? Is there possibility to have another floor in the hall or more? Do you have space all around to expand?” With his 70 year old Jat physique he ran about finding out how much expansion was possible.

When he came to stand in front of a 14th century statue of four-handed Sarasvati, I asked him, “Dr. Anand, at the feet of the idol one can see a ram. How do you explain that (since her vehicle is a swan)?” He replied, “Hindu mythology has neither head nor tail. People have let their imagination run wild and conceptualised as they wished.” I said, “According to the Curator, to take humanity from animal level to the human is the sadhana of knowledge and from there to a super-being. So at the feet of the idol the ram symbolises animality. What do you think?” He promptly exclaimed, “Puranic stories are all hotch-potch. They make no sense at all.”

Then he changed track: “Under the Museums head of account the central govt. has 22 lakh rupees lying. Come to Delhi. I will get out at least a lakh and a half for this museum of yours. If you can’t manage the wherewithal for the Delhi trip I will give you that too.” Suddenly he said, “You have many statues of the same type. What is the need of keeping the same type of image of the same century? Exchange them for cash. You will get lakhs of rupees and with that make this museum attractive.” The museum had several images of barefooted Surya which was a rarity since post-Kushan times Surya is always booted.

He was going on talking non-stop. “Instead of that as your town is filthy so is its peculiar godown-like museum. Can’t you make a garden in the open area of the compound? Fixing firm netting along the boundary wall it can be turned into an enchanting garden. That will prevent Naxal attacks and stealing of flowers.”

At the dining table in the circuit house five of us were seated: Dr. Anand, Miss Sahiyar, Ajit Neogi, Sudhir Chakraborty and myself. Dr. Anand was bare-bodied now, talking incessantly. Some words were unintelligible because of his peculiar accent. Discussing politics he said in a grave voice, “Look, Mrs. Gandhi is very honest and sincere. I have taught her in our socialistic school. But she hasn’t learnt even the A,B,C of socialism. She will be ruined by that Y.B.Chavan (Finance Minister) and teams of innumerable corrupt followers. She has only 5 or 6 sincere and honest followers. They are lying hidden. And that Dange, chairman of the CPI! Is he a communist at all? He is worse than a bourgeois. But he understands politics and knows the tricks. I have respect for Prof. Hiren Mukherjee, a true gentleman, honest, noble communist. However, whatever you might say, CPI is practising “tail-ism” (tail behind the most progressive elements of the working-class movement, by reflecting in their politics only the most reactionary views of the masses). CPI(M) had also tried to do that but they don’t get any gate. None of them are communists. For them communism is a step to climb to power. The true communists are the Naxals, but adventurist ideas have spoilt them. If I were younger, I would have been their leader. And Chyavan? The other day he made away with about a crore of rupees. Look, Mrs. Indira will not be able to establish fascism in India. Democratic socialism is a nonsense. Disguised as democracy, dictatorship will prevail whose central point is Indira. But the form of that dictatorship will be Indian. Europeans like to finish-off the opposition but the nature of Indians is much softer. Indira has that nature. But whatever you might say, Indra is playing marvellously. She is batting with a firm hand. Morarji, Sanjeev Reddy, your Atulya Ghosh are overturned. They will not be able to rise up again. Bureaucracy will be ended. Only the central point of power will remain: Indira.”

Emergency had not yet been declared.

Pages from the Diary of my Father

By

Pages from my father’s diary written in a diary with each page perforated at the top, printed in 1936 by Messrs. The Anglo-French Drug Co., (Eastern) Ltd., P.O. Box 460, Bombay.

It begins at the end on 1st July 1988, just a couple of months before he passed away on 4th September 1988, with an entry on the page printed Tue. 15 Dec.

“1st July 1988 AD-64, Salt Lake City, Cal-64

            Amu brought this Diary of mine—for period 1936-1/7/1940—the most agonizing/formative part of my life.

            I read it today—can recollect most in ‘tranquility’.

            We have a home at AD-64. We moved on 1.7.1976. Pradip was then IAS at Krishnagar as SDO (actually I was Additional District Magistrate, having been SDO 1973-74 in Chandernagore). Prodosh was to do Part 2 in BA (Hons). Prodosh has been at Oxford on a State Scholarshp for Advanced Studies in English. He got I, 1st in 1971 in MA and got a I next year with Gp A in MA. Then he got a job as Lecturer through College Service commission. Also, a Part-time Calcutta University Lecturer.

            He left for Oxford on Ashthami Day 2/X/1984. I saw him off along with Pradip and Prodosh’s friend, Champak Bhattacharya. He went in British Airways.

            We anxiously awaited his first letter.

            He has done M.Phil and now is doing his final thesis for M. Litt. We expect him back by end 1988.

            I got heart problem, breathlessness since Jan 1988. Dr. A. Maity through Nandita, has been treating me.

            We two are here—Suprobhat and I

            For Prodosh’s return, Suprobhat has worked very hard. we have got his room done in Plastic ‘Moonlight’. The other room on 1st floor, where Pradip and his family had stayed, is bluish. The ground floor has been all lime-washed. Earlier, the outside had been done with Robbiachem. J & N’s men have done it. Very helpful. It has cost about Rs. 14000/- I had over Rs.13000/- from arrears of Pension and restoration of Commutation since 1/1/86.

            God has been very kind. We have Julie (Deepanjali) a grand daughter now about 15 (25/X/1973) and Aurpon, our grandson. Pradip is a Joint Secretary. He is very good. Has done Asst. Magistrate Malda during Probation, SDO Chandernagore, ADM (LR) Krishnagar, DM Berhampore, Registrar Cooperatives, JS Finance and now JS Health.

            Very fast reader and a good writer. Published 8 books!

            I passed 70 on 20/2/1988. Probha will be so on 22/11/1988. we shall celebrate that. Dinku will be back.

            Here then are the last days of my life. This house we built from 1972. I had commuted 50% of my Pension for Rs. 56000/- or so. Army FF was Rs. 24000/- or so. Voltas (I joined on 29/3/1965) Provident Fund (my own share) I got Rs. 25000/-. LIC Annuity (VL superannuation) I got about Rs. 10,000/- Then CDS in 1978, I had 13,600/-. It cost Rs. 1,20,000/- plus 16000/- for the 2nd room on the 1st floor. the ITO had verified it in his Assessment Order.

            I still have the car WBG 2559 that Prodosh did not let me sell in 1977! He can have it. But I can’t afford the petrol @ Rs.8/- or so, nor do I have the strength.

            Pardu-di is unwell I gather

            Nilima-di and Sailen are aging and not too well.

            I enjoy reading, eating and being lazy. I am most fortunate in Suprobhat. She takes such care of me, and works so hard.

            Pradip gave me a TV 2 years ago for sports (Mexico Olympics). Eyesight is not too good.

            Mahinder Singh, Ayodhya, Shanti still write to me. So does Jim Lovejoy and Mrs. Loukes. Mary, her daughter, came here. Harold has died. So CB and his wife Dr. Young. So Dr. Spear.

            I did legal practice since 1978 in Bankshall/Special Court/Alipore/High Court, Estate Duty. Gave up since 1984.

            Pension OK with VL interest on PF gifted to wife.

            Mother 85 at Durgapur.

            Sachi died. Robi died. Rani died 12/6/88. Earlier Durga had died.

            Somu will retire in Oct.

            Everyone (brothers/sisters) made own flat/house.

            Mother got Pension. So does Bowdi.

            Better stop. Bath.

                                    Guni, 1/7/88

Tue. 19 May (1936?)

It is long time since I wrote last. I went to Ajmer on the 9th evening with Robi, Brojen and Sachin. We attended Profulla kaka’s marriage. Next we went to Nathdwara. Mother and all O.K. They are spending their time very well indeed. G.L.B.

Wed. 20 May

We have drawn up a plan for our Social Service League work. Had interesting class on Interference of Light. Bought Govt. of India publication worth -/12/- and a guide to P.S. Commission exams for -/8/-. Cinema “Dena Paona” in Hindi -/4/- Did not go to New Delhi. Should have written to Nathdwara. GLB

Fri. 22 May

Attended classes. Lent -/8/- to A.K. Dasgupta. Wrote letters to Nakaka and Didi. No other important news. Night school reopened. G.L.B.

Sat. 23 May

2 coats -/1/6

2 shorts -1/6

1 pyjama -/-/9

I Panjabi -/-/9

1 bedsheet -/-/9

Handkerchief

Stocking

/6/9

Went to Court to obtain the Succession Certificate. But the time was jolly late. Hence got from Mr. Bose at his house. The certificate is granted over a govt. paper of 460/- Cut Chemistry class. G

Sun. 24 May

Went to New Delhi to give the Certificate to Nanida. Left it with servant as desired by him. My expenses:-

Public service papers—1/4/-

Bus                              –/5/-

Not working at all. Disgraceful. This is my defect. G.

Mon. 25 May

Send a telegram to Nakaka to send Nepu immediately. Received reply that he will be coming on Wednesday morning. I have reorganized the Night School. But not many students! the children of our College servants form the overwhelming majority. Attended Physics class & did a bit practical. Result bad. G.

Tue. 26 May

Went to New Delhi to see Nanida from University. I was told he was going to office from yesterday. May God give him a prosperous and successful life! In the afternoon I have fever. Seems Malaria. Nausea and headache. Whole body paining for the 3 boxing bouts I had last evening. g.

Wed. 27 May

Nepu arrived this morning with Upu. He has been provisionally admitted by Mr. Sarkar, i.e. if he gets a 1st or a good 2nd. I hope he gets one, 2nd, at least! Very shy and simply out-of-date boy. I very much hope he will change in St. Stephen’s. Nakaka wants him to be under chotokaka’s guardianship. We went to New Delhi. Met Nanida. Upu staying there alone. I wonder at his will. G.

Thu. 28 May

I spend my day in a reckless manner. Turned out from practical for not bringing practical note book. But I follow the experiment. Nepu wants to go back to Udaipur. He is homesick. Poor chap!!

Wed. 3 June

Today the Muslims celebrate the birthday and the death of the Prophet. Nice day, calm, cool and cloudy. Had a fine afternoon at Anand’s. Went to Wazirabad evening. T.B. case rather serious. Spitting blood. General health better. Mess dinner. One can’t eat much in formal dinner though! G.

25/7/36

I have not written anything for a pretty long time. All these days of June with their various interests have glided into the past. when I look back I do not find any eventful day in my hostel life excepting a few days of restlessness. But I have come to love freedom and for its sake some time or other I will have to face serious differences of opinions between me and others. My elder brother’s behavior towards me and my younger brothers has been abominable. I apologized to him and wept only to keep a joint family. But God only knows that this will not be possible in future.

I have not heard from Uncle Nandalal for a long time. I do not know his reasons, but indeed this long silence seems disgusting. I, however, have no right to accuse him of this silence. I myself cannot claim any regular correspondence.

The world seems to be divided and cruel. Can’t it be made a better one? I want to lead a life which my family circumstances would not allow me. I have (been) attending chapels quite frequently and there is every likelihood of my being converted to Christianity. I have had discussions with other students, my friends. They seem to be awfully upset over it. But really I do not understand! Why should my conversion bring forward a great change in my social position. I wonder what the Baidik Mahasabha would think of it!

My conversion depends largely on any future greater revelation of Christ. I feel it must come or instead something must happen which will drive off my Christian faith.

I do not claim myself to be a great religious person. But I believe that everyone of us can be a bit more religious and make the world happier and habitable.

I submit my life to God. Let Him direct me!

25/7/36 G.L. Bhattacharya

27/7/36

We had our College Dinner this evening I had to be a server. This is the first time I served. I had a long talk with Mr. Anand about the college especially about Mrs. Sarkar & Bose. I informed him about the feeling against Mr. Sarkar in the senior students. He showed me the hollowness of any such feeling. I am really grateful to him. After this we played football for about 2 hours before the College House. The lawn was absolutely flooded by the rain and it was a great fun to pull Balbir, Shri Chand and others from their rooms.

Anand Mukarji is asking me to stay with them for 3 months. I should like to do that very much. But what about brothers, mother and sisters. From a letter received from durga, I find all of Nakaka, Kaki etc. have gone to Udaipur without taking a single of my brother or sisters with them. I do not know the reason. I hope there is some satisfactory explanation to all this. If it is all Nakaka’s dislike I shall have to bring along the family here. But there is the Nanida question and probably I shall have to stay at home. a clash will come and it must be met.

I offer my troubles and worries to Jesus Christ. Let Him settle them as He would.

G.L. Bhattacharya. 27/7/36.

Awful rain

The 5th July 1936. Ajmer

My college closed day before for the long vac. Went home. Withdrew 150/- and sent 90/- to Nanida, insured.-/3/3- Left for Ajmer that night. Tonga strike, hence had to do shopping in rain on foot. Balbir saw me off. Nice chap. I arrived here yesterday morning and with any luck am starting for Nathdwara tonight. Tried my best to persuade Grand Uncle to go with me for a holiday. He has too many reasons! Poor chap.

Nakaka wrote to me day before saying mother would like to come and stay in Delhi. Rather unlike by me. I dare say the behaviour of aunt has not been very generous. Still I owe them a great deal for keeping mother so long with them. I propose to bring back my mother and try to remain together with elder brother and bowdi. May God grant us a peaceful home. Guni. 5/7/36.

Nathdwara 11/7/36

Tonight is our last night at Nathdwara as we will be leaving for Delhi tomorrow night. Debuda’s wife going with us and I shall be escorting her to Calcutta

They had been having a marvellous time here. A very cheerful home indeed. Bowdi is wonderfully cheerful and jolly. She is greatly different from what one would expect to find in her.

Nakaka’s health is not very good. He is having a rather disturbed time and he might be transferred to Udaipur. In that case his salary will be reduced considerably as the exchange value of Udaipur currency is about Rs. 46 for 100/- Udaipur currency. He is not very upset though and I attribute this great strength of mind to his faith. The reasons for his possible transfer is that he is not a Vaisnav and is a non-vegetarian. He, however, never took any meat or fish in this place. It will be rather bad if he is transferred from here. May God grant him peace of mind and may He allow him to stay here as he is at present. Guni. 11th July 1936.

The 29th July 1936 Wednesday

I spend my days in a hilarious way. Khuku has no class and we stop Dhabu when she come home during interval. We go to Metro for the matinee show. Moonlight Murder. 1/2 seats for -/12/- cash. Next we go to Parafare. Next we go to Paradise for ice-cream. Rather a nice time we had.

Heaven knows whether we meet or not. At least I am rather disappointed with my relatives. Isn’t it a tragedy that as we grow old we come to witness in our best friends and relatives something which is not attractive? I am sorry to note this.

I have been to Baripada. Kumi is not very well. She is very thin. Her son is not very healthy either. Charu is OK, so is her husband and daughter. I ate a lot last night in Mejdada’s place. Rather nice mutton and pulao.

Tonight is my last night in Calcuta and I mean to talk it over. May God bless our family.

G.L. Bhattacharya. 29.7.36

Benaras The 11th August 1936

We reached here in the morning having left Calcutta last night by 9 Up Dehar Dun Express. Accompanied by my four cousin sisters, Khuku, Dhabu, Shova and Nila. I went to a whole night performance at Rupabani on Sunday night. We were shown five pictures: Manmoyee Girls’ School, Abaseshey, Chandidas, Excuse Me Sir and Devdas. The shows ended at 530 AM Monday morning. We reach Goabagan and off to sleep. I get up at 10 AM. Khuku at 1230 PM. Dhabu and Shova not much sleep, poor girls, they have their classes. Khuku cuts her Anatomy class (3 to 4) for my departure.

I book 4 of our trunks to Delhi paying 10/3/- and another 10/3- for extra luggage, excluding two heavy beddings for which I very much hope they won’t charge me. We leave Goabagan at 9.15. I bid good-bye to my cousin sisters. I feel said and I am sure they feel it too.

I am not going to conceal that I went on very well with them during the 3 weeks I stayed in Calcutta. At time I was rather annoyed with Khuku and sorry at her attitude towards me. But I know I have my defects and recognising her frankness I should not be too sorry. A man, however, expects sympathetic replies and not point blank attacks from a woman he likes. However, I know she is fond of me although this belief is considerably weakened.

Dhabu has presented me a ring, costing her about 20/-. The money is her scholarship money. I thanked her and I seemed to like her more than I did before. This, however, is not for the presentation of a ring. She is a decent girl, with womanly qualities, rather shy. She ought to prove a better wife and housekeeper than Khuku for her sympathetic attitude. But I do not know how Khuku would behave when she is married. she has that angry attitude that is typical to our male family members.

Shova is a decent girl. She works hard and will be rewarded for it if she does not overwork herself. Nila is working hard too. Jitu is working hard and should do very well in ISc final.

It is with a sad heart that I leave my cousin sisters and I realise how much I like them when I gradually move away towards Delhi. It is with a vacant mind that I leave them, a sad heart. I promise however that when I go to them next I become an earning member of the family.

May God bless them and make them happy. A prayer too for my poor mother and my brothers and sisters. May God grant them a peace of mind and may give Nanida a more sympathetic and considerate heart. G.L. Bhattacharya

16/10/36

It is a long time I wrote last. I went to Dalhousie. I have bought a gramophone. Didi came with Barda. they went day before.

I feel not at all cheerful. It seems I am going away from God. I cannot find place to think of Him. I must go out on Sunday morning. Probably what I need is some words of sympathy from someone. Life seems frightfully dry. G.L.B. 16/10/36

8th November 1936

It seems ages since I wrote last. I have been up to Dalhousie for about a month and I am now staying here at home and not in hostel. Indeed, now I feel how tremendously selfish have I been last term when I stayed away from my younger brothers and my mother was at Nathdwara. Anyway, I propose to continue cycling 14 miles a day!

Another major incident which is going to effect our family lives and relatives tremendously is the fact that uncle Nandalal wanted from us about Rs. 14,000/- for bidding in a certain action where we had already invested Rs. 2000/- of grandfather’s money. Mother and I were perfectly willing Nanida not. We have decided not to pay much to my disapproval. But is it not funny that no one can pay the money excepting us! Krishalal unable, no one able! and yet they are able! I wonder why should we pay?

We are giving a power of attorney to our uncle for our interests at Harinavi.

I just like to review my college career:-

1st year—nothing

2nd year—(i) arranged maths tutorial

                (ii) Member Science club

               (iii) Rovers Scouts. Simla Hills 70 miles on foot

                (iv) U.T.C.

3rd year – (i) Social Service League representative

                (ii) Secretary, S.S.L.

                (iii) Member, Principal’s Committee to reorganize Criterion

                 (iv) Secretary, Independent Party to revitalize Criterion.

IV year—1. Member S. Club Committee, College

            2. Speaker—Chamber of Criterion

            3. Acting Secretary, University Science Seminar

            4. Rovermate—College Patrol

V year—1. Member S.S.L. Managing Committee

            2. Suggested and organised collections for S.S.L. fund for Chinese students distress fund Rs. 357/12/- (students Rs. 297/-)

            3. Organised with Ayodhia the Nationalist Party in the Criterion Club.

            4. Went to S.C.M. Jubilee Conference at Rangoon. Thence Myngian, Pegu, Pynmana.

            5. Founded with Nirmal, “The Freethinkers”

            6. Secretary 13 Club

            7. Senior Rover Mate, College Rovers

            8. Vice-President, Criterion Club, April-> Oct 1938

            9. Vice-President, English Literature Society

            10. Editor, Bengali Section of College Magazine

            11. Represented College in All-India debate at Aligarh.

7th December 1936. 6 AM

Today is the Founder’s day of my college, the institution which I love so dearly. This may be the last Founders day I shall be attending in college—the 4th one.

Mr and Mrs Mukarji are still in England. Our exam is from the 12th instant. I am not fully prepared and the fault is mine. I have to put up much more work otherwise there is little chance of my getting a first class.

I am becoming weak in mind! Evil thought I cannot strongly resist. I have to and I will with Christ by my side. G.L. Bhattacharya 7/12/36

11th Dec 1936

Tomorrow is my exam. I am not very well prepared but I hope to do well in tomorrow’s paper—Physics ‘A’. I do not know what to write.

Oh yes! The King (Edward VIII) has abdicated (last night). He wants to marry Mrs. Simpson. A glorious sacrifice that makes him still greater. Duke of York succeeds to the throne. I am sorry. G.L. Bhattacharya.

19th December 1936

I am becoming more and more sinful day by day. Evil thoughts I find difficult to resist. and these will possibly lead to immoral actions. I am supposed to be a man of very sound character and of highest principles in every respect; but they do not know how evil I am in my heart.

I pray to God and Christ to help me. Let me today declare an open war against my evil thoughts and bad desires.

Wash me with a hyssop and I shall be clean.

I want to record here and in definite terms that I must become a Christian. The path is difficult but God will help me. I have Christ by my side.

Give me strength O Lord so that I may defeat temptation. G.L.B.

26th December 1936

Yesterday was Christmas day. I got up and after attending calls of nature I went out with three books:-

  • Books of Prayer
  • Byways of blessedness
  • The New Testament

I read the (ii)nd book in front of the Great Place—my old place for Prayers. I read the chapter on Hidden Sacrifices. I tried to apply the principles laid down in that chapter to my life. I discover that I must

  • Leave the regular evening walks with Sachin and Satu
  • Leave self-assertion which probably is my great defeat
  • Sacrifice Self Interest
  • Never pay back, abuse or dislike in the same coin. Remember, “FATHER FORGIVE THEM”.

I walk along towards the War Memorial Arch; I do not stop here and I continue going towards Okhla on foot. Near Nizamuddin I find a cemetery uncared for. Here I find the grave of S. Baddly died 14.6.28 aged 50 years. There are some others, two—unnamed.

            “Beneath these rugged elms, that yew-tree’s shade

            Where heaves the turf in many a mouldering heap,

            Each in his narrow cell for ever laid,

            the rude Forefathers of the hamlet sleep.”

I read a prayer about the blessed dead. There is a buffalo grazingby the grave of Baddly. God bless his soul.

I move along. I reach Okhla. I sit on a bench near the end of the “falls”. A very pleasant cold wind welcomes me, plays with my hair and with my thoughts.

I read the chapter on Hidden Sacrifices again. I like it more.

I leave the place and reach near Nizamuddin Station by a cross-country path. There are three villages on the way.

I come home at about five. I had only a cup of tea in morning and nothing since then. I eat and drink—I like the water. It is so refreshing! 

I have walked about 13 miles and I feel tired. Will God help me to keep up my resolutions?

Satu comes along just as I have taken some refreshments. I go out with him to Sachin’s place. From there we walk to Connaught Place. We visit Verma Art Gallery. Here we meet Sachin’s “didi” and her husband. We walk back together.

Ranu, Sachin’s sister, gives us some biscuits. They are nice to taste.

So ends my Christmas day!

Last year this evening we are probably playing at cards with Asimadi. Mejda is present and father has done the shopping.

May Jesus guide me and the world. –G.L. Bhattacharya

The 3rd January 1937. 8.40 P.M.

I sit to write with mixed feelings in my heart; for this time last year my father lies unconscious at his bed. He died 4th Jan 1936 at 6.40 A.M. (Delhi Time) i.e. 6.10 Indian Standard Time.

I feel sorry for his death. It was untimely and he wanted to live. Also his death has placed the family in some difficulty. We have lost our guardian, our adviser, one to whom our welfare was a vital thing.

I feel glad because by his death he escaped the terrible misery that a man with high blood pressure has to undergo. He was a man who wanted a lively house. The disease was absolutely against any such enjoyment.

I know nothing for sure about the next world. I do not know where he is now and how he is. Whether his soul has found peace in Eternity or whether his life was another whim of God I cannot tell. But I know how much he loved us and how greatly he was concerned for our welfare. I also know how much I loved him.

He is gone! Where and where to I know not. But our relationship, our sense of love I shall always cherish and his memory will ever remain a source of strength and pleasure for me.

I cannot offer him any homage for I know not where he is and if he is even having a separate existence. I however offer my prayers to the great memory of his life that I possess. He was a “Jolly good fellow”.

I had been out with Mr. aannand, Mr. Adams, Mr. Sarkar, Mr. Bose and Satish and 28 Intermediate students. We have been to Agra, Secendra, Dayalbagh, Inamut-ut-Dowlah, Fatehpur Sikri,  Bayena, Bharatpur, Deeg (Suraj Mal Palace) and Muttra. The tour has cost Rs. 9/- per head.

We had a very good time.

The College opens tomorrow. This may be my last term in St. Stephen’s College. I have to work hard andI must get a First Class. May God make me do my duty! G.L. Bhattacharya 3/1/37.

17th January 1937

I have become a pessimist. I do not find the usefulness of prayers. I have begun considering this life a huge joke.

The underlying reason of this is my failure. I have got 3/50 in Chemistry Practical. I got 90/150 in English, 34/50 in Physics ‘B’, 9/16 in Inorganic Chemistry. Others not yet out. If I do this sort of thing in Exam, I fail.

I do not see any hope. Everything is so clumsy and disgraceful and insincere. I have started contemplating suicide which I hated before.

Yet I feel I have had divine help. In the Physics Practical Exam I almost failed. But I worked and prayed patiently till in the end I got my result all right. I could not get the image of a slit’s image formed in a telescope.

Yet I feel and try to glorify myself. I think I shall certainly get a I class and stand 1st in the University. I never thought like this in my Intermediate. I wanted what I deserved. Now I seem to want favour and luck.

Can I once and for all explode this and cry out let me have what I deserve? But then again I want God to make me deserve to stand 1st. My whole future life depends upon it. Is it so serious? Why should it really be unless life is all farce and there is no value of any other quality of life. If there is, is there any reward and again I can’t get rid of the idea of getting reward!

If there is any God will He come and give me any indication of his existence? Will he show me that sincerity, honesty etc. have their values and these are the things that really count?

G.L. Bhattacharya 17/1/37. 9.40 A.M.

Copied from Original [the hand seems to be that of my father’s 4th youngest brother Amarendra Lal]

5/7 P.M. 17/1/37 Sunday

 Fatehpur Sikri Rly Station 31st Dec 1936, 11.50 P.M.

Ten minutes more to go and 1936 is over. I vividly recollect this time last year, I writing under a razai in 14 Queen Mary’s Avenue, New Delhi, about my hopes and wishes. Did then I even dream that this time next year I would be standing by a stool in the Rly Station at Sikri and write these notes! It is amazing and interesting to think how times change. I wonder what I shall be doing this time next year!!

It is four minutes to 12. We are sleeping in the station. Mr. Adams and I are sleeping in one long bench. I hope we have a good sleep.

I hope for many things this time last year and I prayed for certain things. I am not going to do anything that sort this time. I only ask God to give me what I deserve and to make me love work. May I hate real idleness and get rid of self-assertion, anger and unfriendliness. May I do my duty with God by my side. G.L. Bhattacharya. New Year. 0-0 hour.

Copy 17/1/36. 5/20 P.M. Taj Mahal 30/XII/36

সামনে আমাদের তাজমহ্ল। প্রশানত, ধীর, স্তব্ধ,মুক। জলে ওর ছায়া। মাথার উপরে চাঁদ। চার ধারের মিনারেটগুলি যেন সবই সামনে। এখানে বসে উপলব্ধি করা যায় তাজমহলের শান্ত, ধীর স্তব্ধতা। চাঁদ উপরে বলে সামনে এক্টু অন্ধকার।চাঁদমহল তার দুঃখের স্ম্রিতির অর্ঘ্য নিয়ে দাডিয়ে আছে। সব নিস্তব্ধ; এখানেই প্রথমে এই প্রাসাদের প্রতি সহানুভুতি জাগিয়ে তোলে।

And this is the time when for once Taj tests you. If your feelings respond to its mute offering, if your heart is in tune with the beauty Taj has to uncover to you, you will like the Taj; if you do not, you better go back for this night, because if you will see Taj that night you will only be disappointed. I was eager to receive what Taj had to offer me. I liked it mild, peaceful, mute appeal. I advanced towards Taj.

As I came more and more forward towards it, Taj for some time seemed to grow mysterious. But the moon was going up and up the sky and soon the darkness in front was giving way to light. It seemed as if Taj was explaining its mysteries slowly, opening out its secrets one after another. As I came forward Taj appeared like a dreamland and this dreamland began to get bigger in size nearer I came to it.

By now 1/4th of its front was shining and it appeared as I went on that Taj was wanting to:-

            “To get rid of what it knows

            Its bosom does so heave.”

It is a thing one must feel, not see.

Now I am sitting near the bank of Jumna. The moon shines on Taj with all its glory. Taj seems to have poured out all its secrets. The old mysteries have disappeared. But in their stead now I find a new mysterious, the glorious, beautiful indescribable Taj, the serene, the eternal monument!!

I now have a look at Jumna. It is flowing on and on for hundreds of years. It washes the base of the Taj and it seems to carry the great story of the wonderful love to places far and far away.

The whole scene is so mysterious, calm, serene and glorious. You must feel Taj and use eyes for (feeling) that purpose. If you use them for seeing you will be disappointed. G.L.Bhattacharya. Taj 10/55 P.M. 30/12/36.

Copied from the Original 30/1/37, 8.45 A.M.

31st Dec 1936, Fatehpur Sikri, above Buland Durwaza

I see the sunset. 1936 ends. The sun of tomorrow will never see it. A beautiful sunset. I am alone. I try to remember the Lord’s Prayer as the sun sets. I can’t remember it. “Oh god! Why hast thou forsaken me!” But just as the sun sets I vividly remember the Lord’s Prayer. I say it. The sunset ends my chapter of life in 1936.

1936 has been awful for me in some ways. Father died 4th January 1936. I have seen the world in many different ways. I have had many experiences. Unlike 1935 this year has not however been a year of uncertainty. We knew what we were up against.

I have had other experiences too. This is more or less enthusiastic but constant Christian devotion and faith on my part. My results have been satisfactory, although my work has been unsatisfactory.

So Goodbye 1936! You will not come back in any man’s life. You have given us our opportunities. It was we who took them or refused them. You now merge into eternity.

May God guide me in future!

G.L. Bhattacharya, IV yr B.Sc. St. Stephen’s College, Delhi. 5.50 P.M. 31st Dec. 1936.

30th Jan 1937

Is there any hope in life? Is it chance or is there anything worthwhile and good and noble? does goodness succeed to win bread? Or are we to be clever and opportunists? should we place love, unselfishness, spirit of service before us or continue to try to go up and up getting rid of others? Can you tell me? GLB

Dated the 13th Feb. 1937

I do not know what I am feeling just now: happy or sad.

Yesterday Dr. Laroia told me that I was short by 14 lectures and there was no chance of my making them up. In other words, if Dr. Laroia wishes I may be detained. I tried to induce him to be more kind and not so harsh on me and S.K. Bose. Really how selfish I am! I never thought of S.K. Bose’s possibility of detention uptil now. Yes! These are the facts. S.K. Bose and I are likely to be detained if Dr Laroia so pleases. He has us completely in his hands.

But this does not pain me as much as his other remarks. He tells me that he has been hopelessly disappointed in me and if Mr. Mukarji asks his opinion about me he would say that I happen to be his worst student. Lecturers did hold a quite satisfactory opinion of me. Now when I have only a month left to end my college career I hear that what I have done in college has been all worthless, futile and wrong. At that time I felt that the platform on which I stood shook: all my principles, all my work, my religious views, had been utterly valueless.

I come to college and tell Mr. Annand; he is sympathetic and enquires of what these things might lead to make me weep. I cannot control it; it is such a contrast! Mr. Annand and Dr. Laroia.

He helps us to arrange for the Rudra Dinner for servants. This is held annually on 12th February which is Mr. Rudra’s birthday. We have 72 servants in all; 38 Hindus, 18 sweepers, 17 Mohamedans, 5 Christians. This year we did not ask the Maitland House servants as after all they are private servants paid by lecturers.

After the dinner I ask him whether I am worse than I was in Intermediate. He ridicules the idea. He discusses the future prospects and I hear from him that my brain is worth much more than Rs. 200 P.M to the country. I confess that I am glad to hear it and this is not because I want and like to be flattered. But I want to know that after all I am not worthless and I have not lost the right path in life. I tell him bitterly what I think about Dr. Laroia. In the night I come back on cycle and read a few chapters from the Revelation. I like them I cannot read Physics.

This morning I go out with my New Testament and Byways of Blessedness. I discover I have been wrong with Dr. Laroia. I have tried to ignore him and although on occasions I tried to love him and like him, they were not enough.

I pray to God to give me a heart to love him. After all he is a man, he has his children, his wife and his relations, and these depend upon him and love him. If he suffers, they will suffer too.

In Byways of Blessedness I find a decent verse:-

            “If men only understood

            All the emptiness and aching

            Of the sleeping and waking

            Of the souls they judge so blindly,

            Of the hearts they pierce unkindly,

            They, with gentler words and feeling,

            Would apply the balm of healing—

            If only they understood.”

“The remembering of injuries in spiritual darkness; the fostering of resentment is suicide.”

Then I turn to St. Matthew and there I find the words:-

“Take no heed as to what thou shalt eat or drink or what thou shalt put on. For your heavenly father knoweth that ye have need of these things.”

“Take no heed of the morrow, for the morrow shall take care of itself.”

I leave the whole thing to God. I pray to Jesus to lead me on.

I pray to God to give Dr. Laroia a better spirit, make him happy and good.

May God guide me and the world! G.L. Bhattacharya 13/2/37. 9-15 A.M.

20th February 1937. 11 P.M.

It is my birthday today. Anand Mukarji presents me a book, “Guide to Politics”. God bless him!

I am 20 now, born in 1918.

God bless me and my work! GLB

1st March 1937

Today is my exam for the Indian State Railways Exam. I have not worked for this exam sufficiently and if hard work is essential for getting through this exam, I certainly do not deserve to get through and be interviewed. S.N. Roy is also appearing, but he feels he has no chance. Poor chap!

My B.Sc. final comes off on 12th next month. Just six months more. I do not know what have I been doing all this time! I feel I am very badly prepared. If I do not get a 1st class it will be a dashed tragedy. I pray to God in Christ’s name to use me and to make me work in such a way henceforth so that I deserve to get a first class. Will he hear me?

As to this today’s exam I leave it to the hands of God. I did some work yesterday morning. I wonder if they are sufficient1! I pray so that I may work very hard from tonight. G.L.Bhattacharya.

The 9th March 1937

I have just gone through my Diary of 1935 and 1936à37 (this one). By a curious coincidence I find that on 8th March year before last we had our farewell tea and I have recorded just what I want to record here. That is I am not well prepared for the final exam.

This evening I had arranged a farewell -/2/- cold drink party to Mr. Annand. 47 were present in all. It was a grand success. This is the first function of this kind that I have been the organiser.

In the evening we have our farewell dinner. This may be my last college dinner. I have attended I think eleven out of 12 dinners we have had in college. I cannot imagine that I am going off from this college. I got a seat in the Main Table—only 4th year student. Monsukhani and Satish Chandra of VI year were the two other people in this table. a honoured seat by Mr Loukes’ side!

Mr. Loukes is going off tomorrow evening. He thinks I ought to come back to college for M.A. and do some work. I wonder what will happen.

I am to be interviewed on the 16th March by the P.S. Commission. B.B. Banerji is also getting interviewed. Sachin has not qualified.

Here I want to mention that the reason why I qualified for the interview I feel has been mostly god’s help. I did the paper in 45 minutes, 15 minutes before time. I felt as everything came right, that a hand was guiding me—I took the factories exam but could not qualify. I was entirely unprepared for it. Probably God does not want to see me in defence services. Does He want to see me in Indian State Railways? I wonder!

There is another incident which strikes out as a great love of God for me. Last year I had taken a wtbox (?) returned it but did not take the chit back from the Lab. This was missing and I was to have paid fully for it—about Rs. 25/- Dr Laroia told me to buy one and only day before I was inform that the wtbox has been in the Lab all along! Is it a mere accident? If so why did it no happen before?

About my exam: I am bad in practicals and I must improve them. My theory papers are not very bad I suppose. People expect me to get a 1st. I pray to god to give what I deserve.

Another point. Nanida has informed us that he would not be paying Rs.30/- p.m. any more to the family.—G.L. Bhattacharya 9/3/37

10th March 1937

Mr. Loukes took our last English class. We realised as the bell rung that we were no longer to be together in one class. Thus time has passed on; we were mixed together from various parts of India and now after 4 years it has left us again separated.

But have we gained? I think I have and hence this life does not seem to be unreal. For although we may be separated may be for life, we have gained certain things which have eternal values.

Mr. Loukes has left Delhi this evening to fetch “Mrs. Loukes” from England. I saw him in the morning and bid him good-bye. He wish me good-luck and hoped to see me back in college. I was feeling very sad and had to come out to control myself. May God bless him and make his married life a very happy one!

In the evening at 4 P.M. we had the Criterion Photo. I was given a seat by Mrs. Mukarji for being the Speaker of the Chamber of the Criterion.

I have to work hard for this month. May God give me the strength to work.

–G.L. Bhattacharya 10/3/37.

24/3/37

We had the Dismissal Service on the 16th. It was our last roll call in IV year (Oh no!! there was no roll call for us).

Mr Annand left on the 12th. I went to see him off at the station. He wished me good luck. He was I think the most energetic member of the staff, a fine man who has left “as many enemies as friends in this College,” to use his own worlds.

I have been working not unsatisfactorily. About 8 hours a day. I hope to be fairly prepared for the exam on the 12th April 1937

My English

  • I have done English Poems by “Gibbs”.
  • Ideals and Realities
  • Return of the Native

Remaining: Macbeth, Dolls House, Lady with the Lamp and 3 chapters of the Common Weal.

Physics

  • Fairly prepared for Sound etc. Must do more thoroughly.

Chemistry

Fairly prepared in Physical and Inorganic. Organic remains.

May God guide me1 I have heard from Mr. Lovejoy, a very good letter. May God bless his work and may Christ inspire him and be with him always.

A great news! I have made friends with Dr. Laroia on 18th evening after our last Chemistry lecture. G.L. Bhattacharya

5th April 1937

I went to see picture this evening. Satu took me along. It was “Camillee” with Greta Garbo, Robert Taylor and Lionel Barrymore I am not sorry to have seen this film. Greta Garbo was wonderful.

My exam starts on the 12th. I ask myself whether I am well prepared. I want to get a 1st class and all the people feel sure that I shall get one. I however am not so sure. I feel afraid that I may even fail. In what? Practicals—NO! I do not know.

I have not been selected in the Indian State Railways. This may show how really unworthy I am. It may also mean that God does not want me to get that job. I did not deserve it.

Do I deserve a 1st class. I confess I do not know. It is other people who ought to judge. I leave the whole matter to God. He granted me the 1st place in I.Sc. although I am sure I was not the best student. He gave it because He knew what I shall have to face in the future. He will do what is best for me.

I have worked fairly satisfactorily. I might have or should have worked more. But frankly I feel I have lost all my interests in studies. I do no longer love my subjects. Hence again,do I deserve a 1st class?

Before I end up I have one prayer. I had asked for a 1st Class in the name of Jesus Christ. I shall probably do it again. The prayer that I have in mind is this: may god give me the strength to face with a cheerful smile the consequences that will follow my result.

I have heard from Mr. Winsor. He has been ill. Mr Mukarji has told me that he will be delighted to have my brothers in college.

The picture I saw this evening I shall probably never forget. The love acted was wonderfully spiritual. May God bless Greta Garbo. G.L. Bhattacharya

Dated 9th April 1937

I got my roll number from college this morning. It is 404. We (Satu and I) went to Timarpur and saw Sachin. We three came back in the evening. Sachin has come to stay here in New Delhi.

I meet Dr. Laroia on the way. I tell him that I have got my subjects well prepared. He asks me about my Inorganic Chemistry preparation. I tell him what I have done. He wants me to come to see him sometime in connection with Inorganic Chemistry.

I come back home at about 8.30 P.M. This is the result of not having any guardian above me. I have wasted practically the whole day. I take a bath in the evening. It is quite refreshing.

I shall work again from tomorrow

My God! Will you stay with me always? G.L. Bhattacharya

Sunday, 11th April 1937 9.50 P.M.

Tomorrow is my 1st paper in English. This is my B.Sc. examination. I am fairly prepared in English— I sometimes feel that I am not well prepared at all. The position is thus; I ought to do well in English. What I need is clear thinking and a cool head tomorrow morning. I hope I shall be able to have them.

I have not worked throughout the day and I am not going to touch and English text book tonight. I hope “reason” and “common sense” would not fail me tomorrow and I shall have God by my side.

I hope to do well. The rest rests in the hands of God. A lot will depend on how I answer my English paper and a lot will depend as to how I fare in this Exam.

There is nothing very much that I want from God—[don’t I?]. I faced my Intermediate Exam with love at my heart. I shall try to face this examination in the same spirit.

May God guide me and be with me tonight, tomorrow and always. G.L. Bhattacharya

Dated 19th April

It is just over a week that I wrote last. On the 12th I heard that Mr. Winsor passed away on the 28th March 1937. I could not believe Anand when he told this to me. Only recently 3rd april I had heard from him, probably his last letter to India…May God keep his soul in peace.

My English Papers have been well answered. I should get a I class in English. The 1st Paper was rather lengthy and I could not answer very satisfactorily. I have of course attempted all the questions. The 2nd Paper, I think I have done well, although I did not have time to have a thorough revision.

I have been going out with Sachin and Satu fairly regularly. I realise how much harm they have caused me. Not because they are bad: they are not. But they are thoroughly unsuited for my company. We do not have any intellectual discussion. We talk rot and discuss things and girls. Is it not absolutely ridiculous? I have asked Satu on many occasions to come along War Memorial Arch site. He would not as he said those sites were “too lonely” and he would like to “see men”.

I have striven, may be feebly, to avoid them on occasions. I think I have failed in my attempts. I sometimes wish I were in hostel. That would at least have solved this problem and may be that I might have been better prepared for my exams. Anyway,it is not too late and I will try to avoid their company. For the sake of my loyalty to my duty and “Call” I must sacrifice their company and their friendship.

The real cause is, I think, they do not see why I should do well in exams while they would not. Well! They might agree to this occurrence, but they are never ready to acknowledge that I know more about certain things than they do.

I realise that this on some way might show that I am more proud that I should be. It may on some ways be true but on the whole I should say it is wrong. I like free intellectual discussion on subjects. I believe we young men can accomplish many things and there is some value in discussing problems that affect the whole society.

But we would not discuss these. I know not really why. I have a vague feeling that this is because they dislike to be contradicted and strive their utmost not to give way although they might stand on “Untruth”. This might also apply to me. Secondly I think they are not of sufficient thinking standard to discuss things with me. They would never acknowledge superiority from their fellow men which I do believe I have done and do.

Tomorrow is my Chemistry Exam: I paper, Inorganic and Physical. I have read the subjects fairly thoroughly but do not seem to remember the whole lot. I pray to God that He may so guide and bless me that I write and do exactly what I deserve…

I thought I must and would and should get a I class in Chemistry Theory. I wonder sometimes if it would be possible…

No, my God, I should and I must. I want this and I think You too want it for me. Use me in such a way tomorrow my Lord that I may glorify you and give my true knowledge and form. I probably want some favour—but cannot a son ask that from his father? G.L. Bhattacharya.

Date the 22nd April

Yes: they are over! I refer to my Chemistry papers. I have done them quite well and I should get a I class in them.

There are three things I want to record:

  • I have realised and it was a great joy to realise that I am here and should live only to work for God and Christ. I must do what He wants me to do and if I would not do that I should better die…

Probably it is a very simple fact but it is another thing to realise the fact.

  • I want to record how must I have been helped by God in my exams. In yesterday’s Organic paper there was a problem which at first attempt I could not answer. I remembered God and Christ’s guidance. Next time I attempted I got the answer right and let me record, quite suddenly…a mere accident?
  • My self-glorification..

Can’t I ever get out of this terrible sin? I think and try to impress on others that I am a great man or shall I say a very good boy. No, no. this must not be so.

My Physics Theory papers remain. I ask God to guide me in them just as he has done in my Chemistry and English; and in the past…

My life for His work… G.L. Bhattacharya. 22/4/37

22nd April ‘37

Went to college in the morning after writing the last few pages.

Satu came this evening to ask me if I would go out. I did not as I had a lot of Physics to do. He went back.

I have worked for 5 hours this evening in Physics. I have revised Heat and part of Light. Tomorrow I must finish Light and Properties of Matter. I should also do Magnetism. Day after I should do Electricity and Sound. For the next two days I must revise them again and again… I must do well in Physics Theory.

God bless the world. G.L. Bhattacharya 22.4.37

Date the 26th April ‘37

My Physics Theory papers start from tomorrow. I am not thoroughly prepared, at least I do not think I am. Tomorrow is Heat, Light & Properties of Matter.

I have just bought “Quink” for my pen which I am just now using.

May God guide me in my papers tomorrow and day after and let me have what I deserve.

G.L. Bhattacharya 26/4/37

The 2nd May 1937

Nakaka came here from Udaipur on 27th April. He has left for Nainital tonight. He has taken Robi along with him I hope he improve in his health.

My theory papers have been fairly well answered. If the standard of marking is of the same standard as in this University, I think I should get a I class in these.

Tomorrow is my Chemistry Practical “A”—Qualitative Analysis and Preparation. I got only 3/50 in test. I hope and pray that I should get through. The rest rests in the hands of God. Let me do what I can and let the rest be as God wants.

The chaps from 45 have left for Simla. I saw AB & MB. I confess I felt somewhat sorry on their going. However I do not think I was in love with her (MB). I did not dislike her though and would like to meet her and talk to her…

Let me come back to my exam topics. I must make a general plan before I start. Also, I must do the work with a scientist’s spirit of cheerfulness and patience.

May God stay with me tomorrow and day after and guide me in my work. Let me do the work for Him…That’s right, isn’t it? I need Him. G.L.Bhattacharya +

Date the 7th May 1937

Shanti and I went to college this morning and we did some practicals: Electricity and Light.

Today Anand and Iftikhar had their practicals. Iftikhar has done very well it seems. anand has faired badly in one question. Iftikhar might come 1st. Let me compare his marks with mine. It may not be of any use:

                                    Ift.                   G.

English                                                10 marks more

Maths                          120                  100-> 110 (?) Chemistry

Physics                        110                  70 + Prac

Therefore, to beat him I must get more than 30 in Physics Prac.

My Chemistry practical has not been bad. In my 1st paper I did 4/6 radicals OK and the preparation right. On 2nd day I have done my experiments OK—that’s what I think. My marks should be:-

  • English                        100 lenient
  • Chemistry ‘A’ & ‘B’   80 + 30 Prac.  
  • Physics ‘A’ & ‘B’       75 + Prac

Total                            295 + Prac Physics

I want a 1st class and a scholarship. I hope I do not fail in it.

But am I not losing my moral and religious standards? Why shall I want things etc.—-He will give me what I need as He knows my wants before I ask Him.

Therefore my soul be quiet. Do not lose things you hold of eternal values. You will be strengthened if you are on the right track. Make no demands of life and happiness is yours.

May God bless me and guide me. G.L. Bhattacharya                       

Date the 23rd May 1937

I am again suffering from worries. Robin has failed in matric. Brojen gets a 2nd class. Robin fails in Science theory and in Physiology Hygiene Practical by 3 marks. He would have passed had he passed in either of the two. Poor fellow! He has however taken it very sportingly.

Jitu gets a I class in I.Sc. in Calcutta. Fatik, Monmotho Kaka’s 2nd son gets a IInd in I.A.

I, however, feel that something bad awaits me. Mr. Mukarji is said to have enquired in which subjects I had done bad. He does not say anything but Anand feels that this years result is going to be very bad. He thinks there is a possibility of my not getting a I class or standing 1st. I hope there is no chance of my failing.

I meet Dr. Laroia in the morning in College. He asks me about my doings etc. I indirectly ask him about my result. He avoids it but by his attitude I feel I have not done well.

If the standard of marking is the same as that in our terminal exams, I do assert that I should get a I class and my marks should be well above 320.

I however do feel worried. Only 4 days back I wrote to Ayodhia saying that I was an optimist. Is it not funny that directly after writing that letter where I have said that “facts, incidents and reason” are firmly behind my optimism, I am suffering from quite difficult mental worries. Oh God!

Yes! I have been tremendously lack in contact with God recently. Can I leave my worries in his hand? I must come back to Jesus Christ. “My Lord! take me in they hand.”

G.L. Bhattacharya

26th May 1937

Well, well, well!

I went to college. Brojen had been admitted on condition he must secure 160/600 in Promotion Exam, otherwise he is liable to be detained.

I heard the Principal’s Welcome Address to the new 1st years in the hall. I liked it. I came back in the morning. Played “Monopoly” in Ajitda’s place. What a tremendous difference between Ajitda and my elder brother!

Our result is to be out on the 29th. I should leave everything in God’s hands.

G.L. Bhattacharya

Congress session 18th-20th Feb at Haripur. Subhas Bose present.

Sunday the 20th February 1938

Today is my birthday. I was born this day in 1918.

I shall summarize the major events that have happened since I wrote last in these pages:-

  • I obtain a 2nd class in B.Sc., 276/450. 1st class = 290/450. Shanti 277/450. another chap 279/450. 1st 291/450—Arabic Gollege. I am 1st from chemistry side.
  • I join college with English in M.A.
  • I suffer from terrible mental disappointment. I get Jaundice.
  • Sacred thread ceremony RobiàAmu. I perform before Nakaka.
  • I go to Calcutta, Baripada, Udaipur. I try for a job at Udaipur.
  • Mejda with family comes here. We moved in 588, Hamilton Road on 1st Oct 1937.
  • Hemlata with children and Bhagirath babu during the Durga Pujas.
  • Nanida’s father-in-law also comes.
  • we do some selling of ready-made clothes sent by Mejda. Rs. 55/- paid to Bowdi.

(10) Mejda & family with Robi go to Udaipur etc and back to Calcutta.

(11) Nanida leaves us on 21st Nov 1937.

(12) I visit Rangoon, Mandalay, Myngian, Pynmana, Pegu etc with S.C.M. people. Jubilee of S.C.M. at Judson College, Rangoon.

(13) Leave Rangoon 1st Jan 1938. Cal: 4th. Leave same day. Durga and Upu in Calcutta for marriage proposal of Durga.

(14) Uncle Indulal retires on 23rd Dec 1937.

(15) I turn a socialist (from Rangoon)

(16) Start the “Freethinkers” and “Rovers” work at Mori Gate Busti.

(17) Karan and Nirmal affair solved last night.

I think I have given a fairly proper survey of important incidents.

Insurance Policy for Rs. 5000/- in North British.

Dhabu gets married on 22nd Nov 1937 (Sunday) to Ganesh c. Mukarji, a Rari chap at Roorkee.

About myself, I do not really know what to write. I find the future very dark for me. I have my ideas but I feel I am very weak to carry it through. Sometimes I feel I over-estimate myself a good deal.

But what is to be done?

Why do I want to live? What line of action should I follow so long as I am alive?

Yes, I must educate my brothers and sisters. I propose to send them to school as soon as we move to New Delhi next April. What about me?

I must not marry, I feel. At least I cannot afford to have a homely, quiet life. Let my life be a dedication to others. There is a great deal to be done in the family in our country. Very frequently people laugh to hear good ideas! After all my future position counts a lot: Am I going to be an unemployed vagabond? Or a clerk getting 40->50 chips P.M.

I make this definite promise. In no case am I going (to) accept a clerical job less than Rs. 75/-. Teaching, yes, it can be lower!

Should I go back to Calcutta for my Law? No! I don’t think that it is useful.

My studies I must improve. I must reduce my college activities in number and do more work. I feel I am no good in English.

Let me end with a determination for a religious life—a Christian one. Yes! I believe I am a Xian. Christ is my Master, my God, my inspiration.

May God guide us. May I obtain an unfailing courage through Jesus Christ.

G.L. Bhattacharya

21/2/38 11.30 P.M.

Anand and I were invited to dine with raja rams. Played bridge after. They win by 2 points—Mr & Mrs Raja ram. I was very quiet there it seems. Anand tells me that he had never seen me so quiet before. Well! that is my defect. I can never be free on 1st meeting!

I become D.U. Library member. Borrowed some books. Satu goes with me to Library.

Write business letters: (1) Nandida; (2) Bengal Electric; (3) Agra Electric. GLB 21/2/38

23/2/38

Yesterday’s Account.

Shanti comes. Anand and I detain him for shopping to city. There we all have sweets. Sh dinner in college. I did not go. Felt sleepy—slept early.

Today

The Viceroy’s statement about the crisis in UP and Bihar. Concilatory. Wrote letters to: (1) Rangoon—contributions to Alo; (2) S.K. Rudra; (3) Anil de.

Went to Busti at Mori Gate. Read many magazine. Evening to Prakash’s paper on “sino Japanese” question.

Mr & Mrs Mukarji came to our house in my absence. Mr Mukarji was very good and talked in Bengali with all including mother. Robi showed all his medals to Mr Mukarji. May God bless them and their families.

I must work more. G.L. Bhattacharya

27/2/38

We (Ayodhia and I) go for a picnic with Mukarji family, Joginder Nath, Hubert Marr, two girls and 4 girls from Lady Hardinge. We had a grand time in Old Fort. Anand’s 2nd cousin Miss Chaube was I though excellent. Some other girls were nice too. Some were too delicate. Miss Chaube the one exception. G.L. Bhattacharya

28/2/38

Anand takes me to a picture in Plaza, Laurel and Hardy, “Way down West”. Bombing of Panay—a little exaggerated account.

There is one thing that I want to confide to my diary. Probably I am being sentimentsl, but the matter is prominently in my mind and as a diary ought to be a sincere document of one’s life I should mention it here. Yes1 I very much like Anand’s 2nd cousin Miss Chaube. I have not experienced ‘love’ stuff before & so can’t say if I am in love with her or not. I feel however that she is too good for me and she deserves much more finer persons in her life. I hope and pray that she may be happy.

A palmist says that I am very passionate and I shall never earn much. I shall get married in 3 years time but my wife will be serious and reserved. Gosh1 I don’t want this in my wife! He adds that I shall be moving about in different jobs and shall not be contented with one. He adds that I think much but no good in action.

May Christ be mine! GLB

Sunday 6th March 1938

Last evening ‘Nihar’ died—a young chap of 24. Eldest son. Old father >80. sisters, mother, younger brothers. Hope of family. Died a sudden death. Heart failure. “Oh Lord Thy Will Be Done.” sometimes one wonders if the Buddhist is not right! We did something—I will! god bless his soul. comfort his parents and brothers and sisters and others.

Today To Shanti’s house with Ayodhia, Amrit, Iftikhar, Cockin. Anand and brothers also present Had meals. Celebrating opening ceremony of their New House at Keeling Road. Tea in Ayodhia’s room to Mr. Cockin. Anand, Nirmal, I, Cockin and Ayodhia and Iftikhar.

Tal to Mr. Mukarji about Mr. Raju’s resignation. Awfully in debt. He had to go. No alternative for the Principal.

Dinner with Sant Ram’s. Trilok invited me. Adair, Harbans and I and a Hindu College chap from outside.

Must keep well. Sleeping up on roof. G.L. Bhattacharya

8th March 1938

My mind is in a state of turmoil it seems. I cannot concentrate to read serious stuff. This is not good.

I have to deliver a speech in the Farewell Dinner. Anand and I have to prepare ‘chanar payas’. 4½ maunds of milk ordered.

I have to arrange for the tea of the Social Service League on Thursday 10th.

I hope I speak properly.

I find myself rather small these days! I ought not to have jealousies and ambitions in me. Let me laugh and do things like a man.

I think I am becoming too irreligious these days, i.e. without really thinking of god. Can’t I be merged into Him and forget myself.

Sunday, 13th March 1938

I have in me a restlessness. I do not feel like doing serious work. I want to have an easy life! Oh, what can I do after all if I remain like this?

I want a vital support; life in me. And I believe that I can get it only through Christ. Well!!

May Christ bless us. G.L. Bhattacharya

13th March 1938 (contd)

We had the Farewell Dinner on 10th last at 730 P.M. We—Anand and I cook ‘chanar payes’—ultimately ‘saved’ by Mrs. Mukarji and her servants. I spoke for non-examinee students—quite well, I gather.

Had S.S. League -/2/- anna tea and later Annual General Meeting the same evening. (a) Plenty of tea. (b) Makhanbara, samosa, two barfi, two kesarpak. I organised it.

Quite hard work. Feeling was of complete exhaustion Smoked 3 cigerettes. GL

Friday, 18th March 1938

We have our 13 Dinner tonight at Mr. Loukes’ place. Lady Grigg, Shankar, Prof. Malkani as guests of the club. D.N.Banerji and S.B. Ghosal are two absentees. Lady Grigg gave us a bit of advice: “Don’t use emotional language,” and “rid mind of prejudice,” “mental detachment is a blessing.” Shankar, a shy little fellow, one would not think him to be so shy after seeing his cartoons. Prof. Malkani grand old bird. I was more or less silent.

We take office in the Criterion Club. I am the Vice-President. Prakash Narain is the President (for summer term)

I am getting very sceptical about myself and my future. G.L. Bhattacharya

Dated 31st March 1938

I have (been) working rather seriously since yesterday. Something is wrong with me I feel.

  • I want to mix with high society; cultured men and women.
  • I want recognition; I want fat salaries, big job, and attention from people.
  • I want to hear from people that I am a grand sort of chap—in short I want flattery. I want to be respected like my uncles and fathers.

At the same time I sincerely hold that a life not dedicated for others is not worth living. I feel that I should have the courage to live a poor life, one of service and sacrifice and of love and I should keep my standard of values proper.

How to reconcile these two desires I sometimes wonder.

I have been given a 2nd class B.Sc. degree on 26th last. The staff gave tea to us old graduates.

I have applied for a job for a Chemical Assistant in Archaeological Deptt. Dehra Dun. Heaven knows what will happen!

Well1 I must try and get at least a 2nd in the next exams. G.L. Bhattacharya

2/4/38

My promotion exam is from 14th next. I simply must get a 2nd class i.e. above 55%. Must work hard.

Am I in love? I sometimes wish I was; it is so hot these days. Well! but with whom? I am blowed if I know!!

Let me work hard. God bless and kick me—GLB

7th December 1938

My last Founder’s Day in college as a student. I take part in almost all the events for M.A.s—Relay, Landboat, Egg & Spoon, Cycle race, Sack race etc

Dinner at 7 P.M.—all brothers servers. I kept an eye on things! Good night! A grand play by Staff, “The Crimson Cocoanut”. Must go to bed. Tomorrow morning to meet Mr. Wood at 9.

Christ bless my college and us. GLB.

31st December 1938, 9.30 P.M.

Last year I was in a train that left sometime back in Burma. Year befoe at Fatehpur Sikri. The year before that in Queen Mary’s Avenue as written in this Diary.

This year a fairly memorable one. I went up to Palampur as a teacher for about a month in April. I was in Dalhousie during the long vacation. Durga gets married in May, so does Sobha.

Uncle Bindulal is here. I bring him from Ajmer. He is getting better and I hope and pray that he is cured and saved on this occasion.

Today I meet Hansraj, see Sadhona Bose in “Abhinaya”. She is really very good. I like her acting.

I am a Christian. I am not yet baptized. Christ! How shall I solve this problem? My life and my family people of whom I am so fond of! Let God guide me.

The last day of this year 1938. I am old! Has this year been very useful to me? I wonder. I feel I am coming out not fit for anything special. I am useless. Probably I shan’t live long.

Heaven knows what I am here for. Let Him guide me. Let me be honest with God I love Him. I stand for Christ But oh! How many times do I think of Him? Let Him hold my hand.

G.L. Bhattacharya 31/XII/38.

3rd January 1939

I get my Test marks:

I – 60

II – 61

III – 34

IV – 53

V – 64—1st Krishan gopal Bed

VI – 53

Not too bad! K.G. gets 413, a good 1st. Gopal 54 in I. I must do better in Exams

I attend Kikabhai Premchand Lectuures by Dr. L.C. Jain—Protective Tariff in India—a good one.

Today is a memorable one for me Father died 4th Jan 1936 at 6.15 A.M. It is 3 years since god took him away from us. His will was done. Let it be done now. May God keep my father’s soul in peace. Also those of others. May they serve God loyally.

I must pray now for myself. G.L. Bhattacharya, about 9 P.M.

Jan 12th, 1939

I feel bad. Today we had Andrew’s trophy Trial Debate on “This house welcomes an Indian Hitler. I spoke fairly well—according to Ayodhia was the best. Bajpai thought I was excellent and he said he did not hear it even at Allahabad! Well, the Judges, Nag, Close and Adam did not think so. I was not even 3rd!—4th

I go to see ‘Carefree’. Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. Jolly good picture.

But why do I feel it so much! Why do I think that I have been wronged? Why is it that I can’t laugh at it sincerely. I am of course not as bad as I might have been otherwise. Probably Ayodhia would have felt it moe. But why should I be disappointed and let it beat me?

Laugh Guni laugh. Praise be Jesus. He has done the best for you and you need not worry.

G.L. Bhattacharya

I hear from Khuku—a good letter. She sends me one of her picures—a good one.

7th May 1939

I thought I had controlled masturbation—I did it about 20th March. Next on 15th April. Next 5th May. Again this afternoon. A wretched book with ridiculous sexual descriptions makes me lose control over myself. Oh God when shall I stop?

Cockin and I stayed with Gyan chand in his village Narwana at Patiala State for a few days. He treated us extremely well although it was not much of a holiday.

My exams finished on 21st April. I have done II, III, V papers fairly well. But I have not done at all well in my I, IV and VI papers. I hope I get a 2nd class! 55%. Really, what a change! In ISc I wanted a scholarship. I came 1st; in BSc I hoped for a I and that I would top the list. I got a IInd. And now I hope I get a 2nd. I hope I do not get a 3rd!! I expect:

II 60 – 65 (actually got 66)

III 60 – 65 + 3 (actually got 66)

V 60 – 65 + 4

I 48 – 54

IV 50 – 53

VI 45 – 55

323 à 356

No! I hope that I should be getting a narrow 2nd.

Satu spoilt his I paper. He did only 3 questions, is left 40 marks. Otherwise he, I think, should have got a 2nd. Even now he may. Ayodhia has done well on the whole. Iftikhar is bound to get a good II, if not a 1st In MA he should thus get higher marks than mine.

On 22nd we had a picnic at Satu’s place. Rather, we invited ourselves. The following were present: Didi, Sachin, Juthika, Kalyan, Robin, Ranu, Sujata, myself. the idea was to see Sujata—Satu’s girl. She is Satu’s cousin—mother’s brother’s daughter. She is shy and silly.

We went to see a picture in the evening. Ranu, Sujata and Satu go in one rupee seats—silly. Sachin gets furious. I was rather annoyed. all of us go in the -/8/- including Didi and Juthika. the picture is good one: ‘Dramatic School’. After it we don’t look at Satu & co. Apparently they feel it a bit. Sujata apologises—accept it—she is really very childish. Sachin gets very furious. I didn’t like his attitude. Not a successful day as a whole.

Ayodhia is working hard in totalling up P.U. papers. Awfully boring. I have him to come and stay with me. He was so sad.

Financial difficulties—no money. Told Mr. Mukarji. He is trying to get me one in United Christian High School. Hope it comes about.

Mr annand passed through delhi on his way to England day before. He has kept my name with Mr. Gilon at Palampur So there is a chance there—but so meagre a salary!

Had tea with Youngs on Friday at 4. I like Mrs Young. I never knew her well.

I am taking an exam on 17th July. If I get in it means getting settled in life Rs. 140à

But that is no solution to life’s problems. Mr. Walters wants to present me with a book (12 ½ s)

I hear from Mr Lovejoy & Anand.

And now Christ be with me. Le me work from tomorrow. 7/5/39 GLB

24/5/39

I stayed with Mr Loukes from 17th to 20th. I like him very much. He gave me good food. Took me to a picture on 17th night. Iget my ideas clear.

  1. Socialism: best expression of the Xian faith i.e. approximate more to a Xian ideal than anything else. But by no means the idea.

The human element must never be lost sight of. Even in democracy, bad as it is, we can express our disapproval of things. In socialism this must not be stopped.

  • War is a ‘holy’ evil. Compromise inevitable on other issue but no compromise on the issue of war.
  • If India gets violent, must disassociate from the violent part of it. But sympathize with its ideals & sacrifices involved.
  • Spend reasonably but not miserly.

About my future, not very clear. May Christ guide me. G.L. Bhattacharya

29th Oct. 1939

I am a lecturer in St. Stephen’s College. I take 1st year Science in English. G.L.Bhattacharya

20th February 1940

Today is my birthday I was born in Calcutta in 1918.

I go to Wazirabad as I did in 1936 with Richardson on this day. Our hut should have begun to be constructed today. It has not.

I feel very tired at tea at Didi’s. I am in my bed now. I feel inclined to stop.

Let me look back.

1939 Febà1940 Feb

  1. Brojen and I get 2nd classes both in I.Sc & M.A
  2. Brojen admitted in Presidency College, Cal.
  3. A teacher in Maths & Science in my old school, New Delhi, @ Rs.60/- per month from 21 (about) August 1939.
  4. A Lecturer in English in St. Stephen’s College, Delhi. Take I year Sc, my own class. Lovejoy takes Arts, from 1st October 1939.
  5. War declared on 3rd Sept 1939.
  6. Go to Udaipur in X’mas.
  7. Attend 1st Old Boys’ Dinner on 30th dec.
  8. Stand 19th in the All India Assistants exam held in July 1939.
  9. Didi has a daughter born.
  10. Durga has a daughter born. Both in Lady Hardinge.
  11. Hemlata stays till July. Satish takes her away.
  12. Ramgopal comes and stays till after Puja.
  13. Mejda, with Jyotsna, comes during Puja. So does Brojen with Didi.
  14. We engage a servant.
  15. Mother has bad attack of asthma. Takes Tarakeswar medicine.
  16. Bijayabasanta Bhattacharya wants to marry his daughter to me. I refuse.
  17. I begin to dislike Atul.
  18. Open Account in Lloyd’s Bank with Rs. 40/-
  19. Jitu married.

G.L. Bhattacharya. 8-50 P.M.

Hoshangabad 7th Feb. 1941

I arrived here this morning after many hesitations. Met Bengali at Jhansi who got me a ticket. Rajen Chetsingh met me at station with car. Mr. Ranjit Chetsingh is at calcuta. Mrs Cheksingh is English—very nice. I feel quite at home.

This place is beautiful and it has certainly been worthwhile coming here. After lunch I go to lie down on the banks of Narmada. After tea, we go in car to tilak Ghat and see the Muharram Processions. Then I go alone for a walk and see a most gorgeous sunset—oh after how many days!

After dinner I read a passage from Gitanjali—I must buy it. Beautiful. Next Augustine and I go out for a walk in the beautiful moonlight night.

Hurricane lantern! After so many months—how delightful. I pray for the world. May Jesus be with me always and may he bless the Chetsingh family. Guni L. Bhattacharya

8/2/41

Morning—late for breakfast. Don’t apologise from Mrs. C.S. Read (C.F.) Andrews on the Inner Life—very good. Must finish it and buy other books by him. Went out of a long walk. Read Wordsworth. After lunch sleep a bit. Tea and a walk to the rocks with prehistoric drawings.

I enjoy my day. Beautiful blue sky and glorious sun, strong breeze and green fields—so peaceful.

After dinner go down to Itarsi. Meet Mr Chetsingh—so human. I introduce myself. He did not meet Loukes at Calcutta. He makes me feel at home. A Mr & Mrs. Sen on sightseeing with him in train. They stay at Itarsi for the night.

May God bless the Chetsinghs and guide me. Guni

9/2/41

After breakfast to my first Quaker public meeting in city. Pay -/8/- to hospital fund. Maximum contribution to far to a religious work. go to Parry (I.P.). Mrs. Parry introduced. A charming view of the river from their house. At Meeting meet Donald Grooms—invites me at 230. After lunch read Andrews on “Inner Life”. It thrills me as it must have others. I wish I had known him and not just pretended to have done so—as I frequently lie.

Went to Grooms. donard looks so young and unspoilt Englishman. His wife is extremely young too. Eyes seem very amused. A baby recently arrived—quiet sort of chap. Rober Paul Groom. Have tea. Ask Donald not to get swollen headed. He should turn out a good chap. (N.B. http://partapstoriesforall.blogspot.com/2008/11/my-friend-donald-groom.html )

At 5 attend a Quaker meeting here. Only 6. Silence. Mr. Chetsingh reads out 1st Psalm and explains it—good. Mrs. Chetsingh prays that we should not be wanting to be self-glorifying and seeking after popularity and that the highest aim of man is to know Him. “Walk not in the council of the ungodly”.

Go to the Library: a good collection of books and well-arranged. I should love to have a similar one on a smaller scale Met one Mr. Chatterji, a local lawyer.

Lovely moon.

May Jesus guide me. I feel so happy here. Guni.

11th Feb 1941

Yesterday too lazy and unhappy. Morning Mr. Bhagwat, big bug of Poona Adult Education, and son come. funny old man. See some men in city. Go to little village school 1 ½ mile away run by Mrs. Chetsingh etc on Wardha method. Striking simplicity. Spinning easy and very successful. What foolish theorists we all are! Drive to Jama after lunch—see beeking and papermaking. Madrasi man and wife, Kurian in charge. drop Mr. Bhagwat at Itarsi. See Friends Hospital, Nurse Training School. Meet Dr. Mathew, an Indian lady—Madrasi. Black, but frank and pleasant.

Do I really love Suprobhat or is it a passing charm?

Back tired. Came of Deck Turns. Dinner. Paul robson and a few other records, one beautiful sad music—violin. Bed.

Today after breakfast ask Mr Chetsingh out for a walk. Tell him problems of mine:-

  1. Religion
  2. Family
  3. Marriage

all linked up.

  1. Religion: it is obvious that I am at my best moments a Quaker. Let it, however, go slow and if it is real, it will remain. Jesus will show me the way. I think I should not apply for membership for a few months. Mr. Chetsingh will keep in touch with me—won’t he?
  2. Must not leave family. Unchristian.
  3. Put off the matter. Too young. Too big a decision. Too little known. Engagement period most pleasant from Mr. Chetsingh’s own account! 4 years. If real love, it will survive. “Suspense column”. Sometime one thinks one is in love—Mr Chetsingh’s two or more experiences.

So that’s that

Go for picnic tea (after sleep) at Tawii river. 8-9 mile walk and run in the shallow river. Dilewa falls & has a dip!! Back—full moon. Go out after dinner for a longish walk at 5 to 9. Back at about 10.30. So lovely.

I pray to God to make me do what He will have me do. To give me the strength for it—I am so weak.

Mr. Chetsingh: “Don’t marry as a cure for loneliness. Dogs do that.” “Double life”. Guni

14/2/41

I am leaving by 3.48 A.M. tomorrow morning. Parmeswaran will be with me till Sanchi. Yesterday “m” twice—oh! god. read “South Riding” by Holby—a huge novel; cp Tom Jones. Today feverish. Go boating out with Mrs. Parry and son of S.P. Rather hot at 4 in my Pattu coat. Very pleasant towards the evening. I am afraid I am hopeless talker—not just shy—I don’t know what to talk about.

So I am leaving Hoshangabad. Has it been worthwhile coming here? I have realized human weakness. I realize how near I am to the Quaker attitude. There are bad men—I am shy—that does not matter. I must do my duty as much as I can. But I love this place. The green countryside, the hills around, the blue sky and a strong breeze, the cattle, the shepherd with a song, all have made me supremely happy at times. I feel my smallness but the greatness of God.

I have also got to know the Chetsinghs—a happy family. Mr. Ch is somewhat like Mejda and I hope he has not been very formal to me! Responsible and has a sense of proportion—but is the “vision fading”?

Donald Groom—good but wants to show off. These chaps do become important in our land so easily!

May God be with me. May I go back to Delhi strengthened to face my duties with Him. Must Pack up! Guni

20th Feb. 1941

Birthday. No congratulations from any source! Office as usual after morning prayers and a cold bath. No Sumitra teaching. To Mukarji, Lovejoy, Nag and Mitra with Ayodhya to distribute his wedding cards.

Important items of the last year

  1. Office job in July 1st 1940.
  2. Mother operated for pre-cancer. OK.
  3. Toru married
  4. Nanida’s daughter dies and a son born.
  5. Grandmother to Nathdwara. Flood at Chittor: 3 days wait at station.
  6. Love Suprobhat
  7. Khuku, Satish, Suresh arrive—Khuku goes back alone.
  8. Ayodhya about to marry. Celebrate last supper with him as a backelor.
  9. Babuji practises.
  10. Take out a postal policy for 5000/-

3rd January 1941. 14 Todar Mal Lane, New Delhi

My father lay unconscious this day 5 years ago. I walked past 14, Queen Mary’s Avenue at a time which 5 years ago was agonisingly strange. For then death of father was something sudden and unexpected. I was hoping to go to Church—no lamp. Let me offer to God thanks for the life my father lived. May his soul rest in peace.

It is proper to make a brief survey of 5 years. It seems sometime so long but at times this day seems so recent. Let the reader go through my diary 5 years ago.

After father’s death, uncles came. Everyone wept. I did not. Probably was too old already! I was about 18. I had 5 younger brothers and 3 unmarried sisters—the boy next to me being 15 and the youngest being Rani 3 years.

There was a good deal done for a job. Nani-da was a bit overage so if they refused him, I was to be the man even for a Rs. 40/- job as Nanida said. I remember the walk with eldest uncle vividly when I told him that I had confidence enough to earn more than Rs. 40/- p.m. in future and refused to accept a job. I remember standing at the gate while Anand came and he did not know father had died. He came to see my radio. I had to warn him.

G.L. Bhattacharya

Main Hostel of the St. Stephen’s College

Room 7, Delhi