Mahabharata: Volume 7

by Debroy, Bibek

  The story of the epic is also about these antecedents and consequents. The core Mahabharata story is known to every Indian and is normally understood as a dispute between the Kouravas (descended from Dhritarashtra) and the Pandavas (descended from Pandu). However, this is a distilled version, which really begins with Shantanu. The non-distilled version takes us to the roots of the genealogical tree and at several points along this tree we confront a problem with impotence/sterility/death, resulting in offspring through a surrogate father. Such sons were accepted in that day and age. Nor was this a lunar dynasty problem alone. In the Ramayana, Dasharatha of the solar dynasty also had an infertility problem, corrected through a sacrifice. To return to the genealogical tree, the Pandavas won the Kurukshetra war. However, their five sons through Droupadi were killed. So was Bhima’s son Ghatotkacha, fathered on Hidimba. As was Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu, fathered on Subhadra. Abhimanyu’s son Parikshit inherited the throne in Hastinapura, but was killed by a serpent. Parikshit’s son was Janamejaya.

  Krishna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa’s powers of composition were remarkable. Having classified the Vedas, he composed the Mahabharata in 100,000 shlokas or couplets. Today’s Mahabharata text doesn’t have that many shlokas, even if the Hari Vamsha (regarded as the epilogue to the Mahabharata) is included. One reaches around 90,000 shlokas. That too, is a gigantic number. (The Mahabharata is almost four times the size of the Ramayana and is longer than any other epic anywhere in the world.) For a count of 90,000 Sanskrit shlokas, we are talking about something in the neighbourhood of two million words. The text of the Mahabharata tells us that Krishna Dvaipayana finished this composition in three years. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he composed 90,000 shlokas. The text also tells us that there are three versions to the Mahabharata. The original version was called Jaya and had 8,800 shlokas. This was expanded to 24,000 shlokas and called Bharata. Finally, it was expanded to 90,000 (or 100,000) shlokas and called Mahabharata.

  Krishna Dvaipayana didn’t rest even after that. He composed the eighteen Maha Puranas, adding another 400,000 shlokas. Having composed the Mahabharata, he taught it to his disciple Vaishampayana. When Parikshit was killed by a serpent, Janamejaya organized a snake-sacrifice to destroy the serpents. With all the sages assembled there, Vaishampayana turned up and the assembled sages wanted to know the story of the Mahabharata, as composed by Krishna Dvaipayana. Janamejaya also wanted to know why Parikshit had been killed by the serpent. That’s the background against which the epic is recited. However, there is another round of recounting too. Much later, the sages assembled for a sacrifice in Naimisharanya and asked Lomaharshana (alternatively, Romaharshana) to recite what he had heard at Janamejaya’s snake-sacrifice. Lomaharshana was a suta, the sutas being charioteers and bards or raconteurs. As the son of a suta, Lomaharshana is also referred to as Souti. But Souti or Lomaharshana aren’t quite his proper names. His proper name is Ugrashrava. Souti refers to his birth. He owes the name Lomaharshana to the fact that the body-hair (loma or roma) stood up (harshana) on hearing his tales. Within the text therefore, two people are telling the tale. Sometimes it is Vaishampayana and sometimes it is Lomaharshana. Incidentally, the stories of the Puranas are recounted by Lomaharshana, without Vaishampayana intruding. Having composed the Puranas, Krishna Dvaipayana taught them to his disciple Lomaharshana. For what it is worth, there are scholars who have used statistical tests to try and identify the multiple authors of the Mahabharata.

  As we are certain there were multiple authors rather than a single one, the question of when the Mahabharata was composed is somewhat pointless. It wasn’t composed on a single date. It was composed over a span of more than 1000 years, perhaps between 800 BCE and 400 ACE. It is impossible to be more accurate than that. There is a difference between dating the composition and dating the incidents, such as the date of the Kurukshetra war. Dating the incidents is both subjective and controversial and irrelevant for the purposes of this translation. A timeline of 1000 years isn’t short. But even then, the size of the corpus is nothing short of amazing.

  * * *

  Familiarity with Sanskrit is dying out. The first decades of the twenty-first century are quite unlike the first decades of the twentieth. Lamentation over what is inevitable serves no purpose. English is increasingly becoming the global language, courtesy colonies (North America, South Asia, East Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Africa) rather than the former colonizer. If familiarity with the corpus is not to die out, it needs to be accessible in English.

  There are many different versions or recensions of the Mahabharata. However, between 1919 and 1966, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) in Pune produced what has come to be known as the critical edition. This is an authenticated text produced by a board of scholars and seeks to eliminate later interpolations, unifying the text across the various regional versions. This is the text followed in this translation. One should also mention that the critical edition’s text is not invariably smooth. Sometimes, the transition from one shloka to another is abrupt, because the intervening shloka has been weeded out. With the intervening shloka included, a non-critical version of the text sometimes makes better sense. On a few occasions, I have had the temerity to point this out in the notes which I have included in my translation.

  It took a long time for this critical edition to be put together. The exercise began in 1919. Without the Hari Vamsha, the complete critical edition became available in 1966. And with the Hari Vamsha, the complete critical edition became available in 1970. Before this, there were regional variations in the text and the main versions were available from Bengal, Bombay and the south. However, now, one should stick to the critical edition, though there are occasional instances where there are reasons for dissatisfaction with what the scholars of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute have accomplished. But in all fairness, there are two published versions of the critical edition. The first one has the bare bones of the critical edition’s text. The second has all the regional versions collated, with copious notes. The former is for the ordinary reader, assuming he/she knows Sanskrit. And the latter is for the scholar. Consequently, some popular beliefs no longer find a place in the critical edition’s text. For example, it is believed that Vedavyasa dictated the text to Ganesha, who wrote it down. But Ganesha had a condition before accepting. Vedavyasa would have to dictate continuously, without stopping. Vedavyasa threw in a counter-condition. Ganesha would have to understand each couplet before he wrote it down. To flummox Ganesha and give himself time to think, Vedavyasa threw in some cryptic verses. This attractive anecdote has been excised from the critical edition’s text. Barring material that is completely religious (specific hymns or the Bhagavad Gita), the Sanskrit text is reasonably easy to understand. Oddly, I have had the most difficulty with things that Vidura has sometimes said. Arya has today come to connote ethnicity. Originally, it meant language. That is, those who spoke Sanskrit were Aryas. Those who did not speak Sanskrit were mlecchas. Vidura is supposed to have been skilled in the mlechha language. Is that the reason why some of Vidura’s statements seem obscure? In similar vein, in popular renderings, when Droupadi is being disrobed, she prays to Krishna. Krishna provides the never-ending stream of garments that stump Duhshasana. The critical edition has excised the prayer to Krishna. The never-ending stream of garments is given as an extraordinary event. However, there is no intervention from Krishna.

  How is the Mahabharata classified? The core component is the couplet or shloka. Several such shlokas form a chapter or adhyaya. Several adhyayas form a parva. Most people probably think that the Mahabharata has eighteen parvas. This is true, but there is another 100-parva classification that is indicated in the text itself. That is, the adhyayas can be classified either according to eighteen parvas or according to 100 parvas. The table (given on pp. xxiii–xxvi ), based on the critical edition, should make this clear. As the table shows, the present critical edition only has ninety-eight parvas of the 100-parva classification, though the 100 parvas a
re named in the text.

  Eighteen-parva classifcation 100-parva classifcation Number of adhyayas Number of shlokas

  (1) Adi 1) Anukramanika8 1 210

  2) Parvasamgraha 1 243

  3) Poushya 1 195

  4) Pouloma 9 153

  5) Astika 41 1025

  6) Adi-vamshavatarana 5 257

  7) Sambhava 65 2394

  8) Jatugriha-daha 15 373

  9) Hidimba-vadha 6 169

  10) Baka-vadha 8 206

  11) Chaitraratha 21 557

  12) Droupadi-svayamvara 12 263

  13) Vaivahika 6 155

  14) Viduragamana 7 174

  15) Rajya-labha 1 50

  16) Arjuna-vanavasa 11 298

  17) Subhadra-harana 2 57

  18) Harana harika 1 82

  19) Khandava-daha 12 344

  Total = 225 Total = 7205

  (2) Sabha 20) Sabha 11 429

  21) Mantra 6 222

  22) Jarasandha-vadha 5 195

  23) Digvijaya 7 191

  24) Rajasuya 3 97

  25) Arghabhiharana 4 99

  26) Shishupala-vadha 6 191

  27) Dyuta 23 734

  28) Anudyuta 7 232

  Total = 72 Total = 2387

  (3) Aranyaka 29) Aranyaka 11 327

  30) Kirmira-vadha 1 75

  31) Kairata 30 1158

  32) Indralokabhigamana 37 1175

  33) Tirtha-yatra 74 2293

  34) Jatasura-vadha 1 61

  35) Yaksha-yuddha 18 727

  36) Ajagara 6 201

  37) Markandeya-samasya 43 1694

  38) Droupadi-Satyabhama-sambada 3 88

  39) Ghosha-yatra 19 519

  40) Mriga-svapna-bhaya 1 16

  41) Vrihi-drounika 3 117

  42) Droupadi-harana 36 1247

  43) Kundala-harana 11 294

  44) Araneya 5 191

  Total = 299 Total = 10239

  (4) Virata 45) Vairata 12 282

  46) Kichaka-vadha 11 353

  47) Go-grahana 39 1009

  48) Vaivahika 5 179

  Total = 67 Total = 1736

  (5) Udyoga 49) Udyoga 21 575

  50) Sanjaya-yana 11 311

  51) Prajagara 9 541

  52) Sanatsujata 4 121

  53) Yana-sandhi 24 726

  54) Bhagavat-yana 65 2055

  55) Karna-upanivada 14 351

  56) Abhiniryana 4 169

  57) Bhishma-abhishechana 4 122

  58) Uluka-yana 4 101

  59) Ratha-atiratha-samkhya 9 231

  60) Amba-upakhyana 28 755

  Total = 197 Total = 6001

  (6) Bhishma 61) Jambukhanda-vinirmana 11 378

  62) Bhumi 2 87

  63) Bhagavad Gita 27 994

  64) Bhishma vadha 77 3947

  Total = 117 Total = 5381

  (7) Drona 65) Dronabhisheka 15 634

  66) Samshaptaka-vadha 16 717

  67) Abhimanyu-vadha 20 643

  68) Pratijna 9 365

  69) Jayadratha-vadha 61 2914

  70) Ghatotkacha-vadha 33 1642

  71) Drona-vadha 11 692

  72) Narayanastra-moksha 8 538

  Total = 173 Total = 8069

  (8) Karna 73) Karna-vadha 69 3870

  (9) Shalya 74) Shalya-vadha 16 844

  75) Hrada pravesha 12 664

  76) Tirtha yatra 25 1261

  77) Gada yuddha 11 546

  Total = 64 Total = 3315

  (10) Souptika 78) Souptika 9 514

  79) Aishika 9 257

  Total = 18 Total = 771

  (11) Stri 80) Vishoka 8 177

  81) Stri 17 468

  82) Shraddha 1 44

  83) Jala-pradanika 1 24

  Total = 27 Total = 713

  (12) Shanti 84) Raja-dharma 128 4511

  85) Apad-dharma 39 1560

  86) Moksha-dharma 186 6935

  Total = 353 Total = 13006

  (13) Anushasana 87) Dana-dharma 152 6409

  88) Bhishma-svargarohana 2 84

  Total = 154 Total = 6493

  (14) Ashva-medhika 89) Ashvamedha 96 2741

  (15) Ashra-mavasika 90) Ashrama-vasa 35 736

  91) Putra-darshana 9 234

  92) Naradagamana 3 91

  Total = 47 Total = 1061

  (16) Mousala 93) Mousala 9 273

  (17) Mahapra-sthanika 94) Mahaprasthanika 3 106

  (18) Svargarohana 95) Svargarohana 5 194

  Hari Vamsha 96) Hari-vamsha 45 2442

  97) Vishnu 68 3426

  98) Bhavishya 5 205

  Total = 118 Total = 6073

  Grand total = 19 Grand total = 98 (95 + 3) Grand total = 2113 (1995 + 118) Grand total = 79,860 (73787 + 6073)

  Thus, interpreted in terms of BORI’S critical edition, the Mahabharata no longer possesses the 100,000 shlokas it is supposed to have. The figure is a little short of 75,000 (73,787 to be precise). Should the Hari Vamsha be included in a translation of the Mahabharata? It doesn’t quite belong. Yet, it is described as a khila or supplement to the Mahabharata and BORI includes it as part of the critical edition, though in a separate volume. Hence, I have included the Hari Vamsha in this translation as well. With the Hari Vamsha, the number of shlokas increases to a shade less than 80,000 (79,860 to be precise). However, in some of the regional versions the text of the Mahabharata proper is closer to 85,000 shlokas and with the Hari Vamsha included, one approaches 95,000, though one doesn’t quite touch 100,000.

  Why should there be another translation of the Mahabharata? Surely, it must have been translated innumerable times. Contrary to popular impression, unabridged translations of the Mahabharata in English are extremely rare. One should not confuse abridged translations with unabridged versions. There are only five unabridged translations—by Kisori Mohan Ganguly (1883–96), by Manmatha Nath Dutt (1895–1905), by the University of Chicago and J.A.B. Van Buitenen (1973 onwards), by P. Lal and Writers Workshop (2005 onwards) and the Clay Sanskrit Library edition (2005 onwards). Of these, P. Lal is more a poetic trans-creation than a translation. The Clay Sanskrit Library edition is not based on the critical edition, deliberately so. In the days of Ganguly and Dutt, the critical edition didn’t exist. The language in these two versions is now archaic and there are some shlokas that these two translators decided not to include, believing them to be untranslatable in that day and age. Almost three decades later, the Chicago version is still not complete, and the Clay edition, not being translated in sequence, is still in progress. However, the primary reason for venturing into yet another translation is not just the vacuum that exists, but also reason for dissatisfaction with other attempts. Stated more explicitly, this translation, I believe, is better and more authentic—but I leave it to the reader to be the final judge. (While translating 80,000 shlokas is a hazardous venture, since Ganguly, Dutt and Lal are Bengalis, surely a fourth Bengali must also be pre-eminently qualified to embark on this venture!)

  A few comments on the translation are now in order. First, there is the vexed question of diacritical marks—should they be used or not? Diacritical marks make the translation and pronunciation more accurate, but often put readers off. Sacrificing academic purity, there is thus a conscious decision to avoid diacritical marks. Second, since diacritical marks are not being used, Sanskrit words and proper names are written in what seems to be phonetically natural and the closest—such as, Droupadi rather than Draupadi. There are rare instances where avoidance of diacritical marks can cause minor confusion, for example, between Krishna (Krishnaa) as in Droupadi9 and Krishna as in Vaasudeva. However, such instances are extremely rare and the context should make these differences, which are mostly of the gender kind, clear. Third, there are some words that simply cannot be translated. One such word is dharma. More accurately, such words are translated the first time they occur. But on subsequent occasions, they are romanized in the text. Fourth, the translation sticks to the Sanskrit text as closely as possible. If the text uses the word Kounteya, this translation will leave it as
kounteya or kunti’s son and not attempt to replace it with Arjuna. Instead, there will be a note explaining that in that specific context Kounteya refers to Arjuna or, somewhat more rarely, Yudhishthira or Bhima. This is also the case in the structure of the English sentences. To cite an instance, if a metaphor occurs towards the beginning of the Sanskrit shloka, the English sentence attempts to retain it at the beginning too. Had this not been done, the English might have read smoother. But to the extent there is a trade-off, one has stuck to what is most accurate, rather than attempting to make the English smooth and less stilted.

  As the table shows, the parvas (in the eighteen-parva classification) vary widely in length. The gigantic Aranyaka or Shanti Parva can be contrasted with the slim Mousala Parva. Breaking up the translation into separate volumes based on this eighteen-parva classification therefore doesn’t work. The volumes will not be remotely similar in size. Most translators seem to keep a target of ten to twelve volumes when translating all the parvas. Assuming ten volumes, 10 per cent means roughly 200 chapters and 7000 shlokas. This works rather well for Adi Parva, but collapses thereafter. Most translators therefore have Adi Parva as the first volume and then handle the heterogeneity across the eighteen parvas in subsequent volumes. This translation approaches the break-up of volumes somewhat differently, in the sense that roughly 10 per cent of the text is covered in each volume. The complete text, as explained earlier, is roughly 200 chapters and 7,000 shlokas per volume. For example, then, this first volume has been cut off at 199 chapters and a little less than 6,500 shlokas. It includes 90 per cent of Adi Parva, but not all of it and covers the first fifteen parvas of the 100- (or 98-) parva classification.

  * * *

  The Mahabharata is one of the greatest stories ever told. It has plots and subplots and meanderings and digressions. It is much more than the core story of a war between the Kouravas and the Pandavas, which everyone is familiar with, the culmination of which was the battle in Kurukshetra. In the Adi Parva, there is a lot more which happens before the Kouravas and the Pandavas actually arrive on the scene. In the 100-parva classification, the Kouravas and the Pandavas don’t arrive on the scene until Section 6.