The Mahabharata and the Formation of Nation: Locating Transitions in the Culture of Visualization
Abstract:
The research paper is an attempt to assess critically the representation of Vyasa’s Great Epic in two television soap operas- B.R Chopra’s Mahabharat (1988) and Vaibhav Modi’s Dharmakshetra (2014) - to locate the transitions that have occurred in the culture of visual representation since Chopra’s television series. Chopra’s Mahabharat with his emphasis on the homogenous and sacrosanct nature of the past of the nation undergoes tremendous revision in the hands of Vaibhav Modi and his team to give it a more favorable and secular look. The paper seeks to locate the nuances of such revisionist attitudes and explore the relationship such popular visualizations have with the formation of the nation.
Keywords: Mahabharata, Nation, Visual Culture, Television Soap Opera.
The rigorous attempt of the “Hindutva” nationalists in the Post-Independence era to represent India as a monolithic Hindu/Hindi nation led to the subordination of the other religions and regions in the country. These nationalist forces imagined India as an exclusively Hindu country which often had to fight against the “outsiders”- the English and the Muslim invaders- in order to protect its “honour”. The country was still under threat from these “outsiders” even after the independence as on one hand the “Western” Indologists reinterpreted the history of India questioning its sacrosanct nature and the Muslims, on the other hand, barred the formation of India as a homogenous Hindu country. Therefore, it was also a time that the motherland once again produces the “protectors” in order to save herself from these threats.
Television and Popular Culture in India: A Study of the Mahabharat by Dr. Ananda Mitra is very important a work which unfolds the contribution of Doordarshan in the Post-Independent India to the configuration of a “Hindutva” led cultural nationalism. Mitra discusses B.R. Chopra’s Mahabharat in particular which he thinks “reinforce a specifically Hindu-Hindi or a North Indian image of India, thus marginalizing other regional, linguistic, and religious groups” (Chakkittammal 4).
The North Indian locale of Chopra’s Mahabharat is stressed upon with a repeated invocation of the image of “akahara” or gymnasium. Mangesh Kulkarni’s enquiry into “Hindutva” nationalists’ insistence on the physical education for the youths of the country reveals the “communal ideology” behind the formation of the “fixed character type” of men. Further, the insistence on the somatic configuration through excessive indulgence to physical exercise or activity and maintaining “brahmacharya” brings in the association with the North-Indian wrestlers who are also characterized by the same kind of austerity: “It seeks to overcome the baleful effects of immoral modernism by developing the psychosomatic self through a micro-physics of rigorous discipline anchored in the akahara (gymnasium). The nation is seen as the akahara writ large, embodying an elemental balance in the national ecology” (61). In Chopra’s Mahabharat, the Pandavas and the Kaurava were shown being trained in an “akahara”. Yudhisthira is shown asking the royal guards in Varanavata whether his brothers have returned home from “akhar” where they were practicing their battle skills. Bheema killed Hidimba and Baka in wrestling duels. Most important of all was the wrestling match between Bheema and Jarasandha which went in favor of the Pandavas with the help of Lord Krishna.
According to Sikata Banerjee, two forms of Hindu masculinity- “the Hindu soldier and the warrior monk”-emerged during the colonial era to resist the British imperial advancement. However, these two forms of masculinity did not lose its temper even after the independence (Reddy 1186). The Sangh Parivar reformulated these two forms of masculinity to “configure” a “hegemonic masculinity” characterized by physical strength, virile nature, austerity and “brahmacharya”. The North-Indian gymnasiums became the centre for such formation.
Chopra’s Mahabharat represent the male characters both as “Hindu soldier” (both Pandavas and the Kauravas) acquiring physical skills and protecting its land from the “outsiders” and as “Warrior monk” (Pandavas during exile) performing warriorhood, “brahmacharya” and unemotional marriages with women. They are represented as eager men always ready to protect family and the family writ large i.e., nation. It is to be noted here that “brahmacharya” strictly rebukes sexual exuberance and only grants a man an unemotional copulation with the wife with a view to producing more “protectors” of the land.
Reza’s Bhima perfectly plays the role of a “monk warrior” performing heroic feats on the one hand by killing Hidimba and Baka as they restrict the passage to their goal to restore “dharma” and on the other by marrying Hidimbi to produce his own progeny. Reza’s Bhima stays with Hidimbi only for one year, till the birth of Ghatotkacha. Once the progeny is born, Bhima’s task with Hidimbi is complete and he leaves filling Hidimbi’s mind with the ideological definition of a great mother that the latter should concentrate on becoming. Again, at the prospect of sharing Draupadi, Bhima is momentarily surprised but obediently accepts Yudhisthira’s argument for marrying her. Arjuna too was shown married to many women.
However, it never shows the kind of emotional crisis and psychological trauma that “hegemonic masculinity” often confers upon an individual. At the same time “Hegemonic masculinity” leads to the marginalization of other forms of masculinity such as gay men but
it (gay men) is not the only subordinated masculinity. Some heterosexual men and boys too are expelled from the circle of legitimacy. The process is marked by a rich vocabulary of abuse: wimp, milksop, nerd, turkey, sissy, lily liver, jellyfish, yellowbelly, candy ass, ladyfinger, pushover, cookie pusher, cream puff… and so on. Here too the symbolic blurring with femininity is obvious (79).
R.W. Connell in Masculinities developed the concept of “hegemonic masculinity” as one of the forms of masculinities which is “culturally exalted” over other forms of masculinity. She defined it “as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (77). Though this form of masculinity has always been defined as biologically determined, Connell highlighted the “historical process” behind the formation of such notion of masculinity. Therefore, “‘Hegemonic masculinity’ is not a fixed character type, always and everywhere the same. It is, rather, the masculinity that occupies the hegemonic position in a given pattern of gender relations, a position always contestable” (76).
The subordinated state of women in the patriarchal culture of North India also features Reza’s depiction of women in Chopra’s Mahabharat. In this “culture wars” initiated by a patriarchal chauvinistic force, the women were given the “privilege” to become the carrier of “tradition” and nation (8). Sharma and Reza contrived the narrative of Vyasa and presented the women in the epic as the passive, faithful, docile and self-sacrificing. They lose their individual traits and grandeur which Vyasa’s narrative had assigned them with. Pandit Narendra Sharma and Rahi Masoom Reza helped in visualizing the notion that the “family” (country or society writ large) comes first and it is the duty of the women, to nurture and protect the “family” even at the cost of sacrificing themselves. They do not question the dictates of the great patriarchs of the society. They blindly adhere to the norms and helps in nurturing them. Pradip Bhattacharya is of the view,
A major defect in Reza’s visualisations is his characterization. Reza is content to cast Kunti in the image of the traditional wife, meek, obedient to her husband’s slightest wish. Reza completely fails to portray the steel and fire of Kunti, the immeasurable patience with which she guides and trains the Pandavas in their childhood and youth….Reza has also missed her tremendous political acumen and sound diplomatic perceptions (251).
Gandhari’s character also lost her strength and was shown as helpless and overtly sentimental a woman always sobbing over the things going on. Draupadi’s character was twisted and presented as a woman helpless in society and in need of “protection” by the male chauvinistic forces. Reza’s Draupadi performed well the task of inciting the masculine vigor and becoming the raison d’être behind the “Great War”. Reza’s failure in visualization adds to the ideological construction of Indian Women and even homogenizes the middle-class upper-caste Indian women into becoming the self-appointed protectors of such “tradition”.
Apart from using these regional registers, Doordarshan preferred Hindi language as the medium of audio-visual broadcasting which created a tension at the cultural level. The choice of Hindi as the language in Chopra’s Mahabharata emphasizes that the great epics of the country were as if written in Hindi and it is the language which the ancient and holy “historical” characters and even the Gods preferred for communication. Dr. Mitra was of the view that
Mahabharat is trying to reproduce Hindi as the language of the nation, emphasizing Hindi is the language in which the greatest epics of India are read and produced. Dr. Mitra argues here that Doordarshan is redefining what is currently considered the preferred combination of social, religious and cultural elements. Regions in India are split by linguistics, social and cultural practices. Doordarshan has been able to project Hindi as the preferred language of the television (Chakkittammal 5).
It overlooked what one of Reza’s main inspirations- The Critical Edition of the Mahabharata- established. The researchers of the critical edition of the Mahabharata proved that there are more than one Mahabharatas. All in all, as M.A. Mehendale shows, “it (Mahabharata) has come down to us in two recensions- the Northern and the Southern, and eight different versions. Five of them viz. the Kashmiri, the Nepali, the Maithili, the Bengali and the Devanagari belong to the Northern recension and the remaining three to the Southern” (03). Therefore, an emphasis upon the language of Hindi as a language in which epics are produced led to the marginalization of the other regional languages as it marginalizes the other Mahabharatas produced in other regional backgrounds which lies beyond North India.
This spatial politics emerged from the idea that North India with its focus on rigorous somatic configuration in symbolic gymnasiums provides a perfect para-militaristic base for the Hindu Nationalists from which they can operate their ideological movement. It cannot be said for sure that B.R. Chopra or anyone of his team members entertained the Hindu Nationalists or their agendas. Rather, it is often highlighted that Chopra’s Mahabharat was not the fruit of communal ideology as one of its script-writers was a Muslim. However, in the light of the above analysis, there is no doubt about it that somehow it strengthened a Hindu/Hindi nature of the Indian past which led to the marginalization of other Indian regions and their cultural resources.
However, there can be located a rapid transition in the presentation of the great epic on television in the last two decades which seem to owe its origin to the inclusivist attitude of the writers, directors and producers. What we need to understand is that India has moved beyond tribalistic identity politics emerging in the 80s and the 90s which primarily rekindled the aryan and the non-aryan debate considering the dark skinned non-aryans (homogenized as “tribals”' in the post-independent India) of the country as the “insider”, the true inhabitants of the land who lost their homes and lands to the white skinned Aryans, the flag bearers of Brahmanism. The influence of Ambedkarite Movement can also be seen here which upheld Buddha’s anti-caste as well as anti-brahmin attitude. But India has also moved beyond the narrow exclusivist vision of the orthodox Hindu nationalists. It is, as Vamsee Juluri thinks, “perhaps, the beginning of a new sense of what it means to be Hindu in a modern global, and indeed secular world too” (The new can-do Hindu). Televised soap operas like Dharmakshetra (2014), Karn Sangini (2018), Kahani Hamaaray Mahabharat Ki (2008), Suryaputra Karn (2015), Mahabharat (2013) conform to this vision of an inclusivist India.
Out of these, Dharmakshetra (2014), produced by Vaibhav Modi and based on Vyasa’s Mahabharata, is one of the first soap operas of its kind to record the voices of the “other”, the vanquished. The television drama is set at the court of Chitragupta where the Pandavas and the Kauravas meet after the Kurkshetra war to provide justification of the deeds they have committed in the past life. In this way, the soap opera emphasizes that Vyasa’s epic is not about a universal battle between “Good” and “Evil” or “White” and “Black”. Rather it shows all the characters in a “Grey” light. The Kauravas, presented as the villains of the epic in Chopra’s Mahabharat, have an opportunity here to answer the questions that have haunted the populace since ages. Modi’s Duryodhana is not an evil incarnate but an emotional and insecure man who has faced along with his siblings the indifference not only of his parents but also of the other elders in the family. Chitragupta addresses him not as Duryodhana but as Suyodhana, the name actually given to him at his birth. His situation seems to be similar to Nathaniel in Freud’s Uncanny who is afraid of losing his eyes. Nathaniel’s castration complex has taken the shape of a fear of losing the throne and of being displaced in the case of Duryodhana. It is under the spell of this fear that he tried every means possible to eliminate the Pandavas. Threatened with the prospect of war, a true Kshatriya must adopt efficient measure to resist the enemy, Yudhisthira thinks. Duryodhana argues to have done the same. Still he is considered to be villain. Is it because the victors write history? It was not at all statecraft or a political strategy to choose Karna as the king of Anga. What attracted Duryodhana in Karna was the Pandavas’ disgust for him of which the former was also a recipient. Their relationship was based on honour and trust. The great patriarch Bhisma himself talks favorably of this aspect of the relationship between Duryodhana and Karna surprising the rest present in the court of Chitragupta as it is for the first time that Bhisma has approved an action of Duryodhana.
Modi’s Shakuni has brilliantly maintained the ambiguity often attributed to him. The motif behind his arrival in Hastinapur is not completely clear till Lord Krishna intervene to interrogate him. The interrogation leads to one of the tragic chapters in the history of Gandhar hitherto unexplored in any retellings of the Mahabharata. Shakuni’s ninety nine brothers and father died in the prison of Hastinapur where they all along with Shakuni were imprisoned. They all sacrificed their lives by sharing their meal with Shakuni so that he lives to avenge their death. Though Shakuni never accepted Lord Krishna’s accusation, it is insinuated that Shakuni indeed had a personal motif which precipitated the war. However, as Chitragupta understands, the Pandavas fail to prove that Shakuni cheated during the game of dice. It must be noted here, as Nrisingha Prasad Bhaduri discussed in his book Kaliyug, that there is no direct reference in the Mahabharata which proves that Shakuni cheated during the game of dice. Rather Shakuni was really a skillful player of dice (314-315).
Lord Krishna feels that Ashwatthama, accused of murdering innocence lives, must be given an opportunity to justify the heinous deed he performed towards the end of the Kurukshetra war. Chitragupta and Bhisma accused him of fighting someone else’s fight. Being a Brahmin it was unlike both of him and his father to participate in the war which is a Kshatriya affair. This raises questions concerning “swadharma” i.e., the task assigned to an individual in terms of their caste. Being a Brahmin, Dronacharya can impart lessons in weaponry to the Kshatriya progenies. But he can hardly participate in a battle. Drona justifies his participation by arguing that he was trying to pay Dhritarashtra back for helping him in his moment of crisis. However, Ashwatthama fails to justify his participation in the war only to reveal the truth later on. His participation was instigated by an ambition to prove himself as worthy as Arjuna. It was an indecisive state of mind which prompted him to do the heinous slaughter of the innocence. Interestingly, Duryodhana is apologizing to Draupadi and Pandavas here as it was he who directed Ashwatthama to avenge his unjust defeat at the hands of Bhima. Arjuna is astonished to have discovered this humane aspect of Duryodhana’s personality.
Vidur has always been subjected to humiliation and stigma owing to his parentage. According to Iravati karve, “It was customary then to acquire a son begotten by another man on one’s own wife, if one happened not to have an heir. This was called ‘niyoga’ and was considered a method superior to adoption” (189). Vidur was born as a result of the “Niyoga” between Vyasa and a handmaiden at the court of Hastinapur. Therefore, he was always the dasiputra (son of a dasi or handmaiden) as Shakuni repeatedly addresses him in Dharmakshetra. However, in the court of Chitragupta, Vidur is given a high place among the elders of the Kuru dynasty, a place he always deserved but always denied while alive on earth.
Karna is accused of denying his duties towards his own brothers, the Pandavas and this accusation raises many questions. Karna, disowned by a Kshatriya woman and raised by a charioteer, is expected to switch sides once it dawns upon him that he is a Kshatriya and a Pandava. But Karna still remained with Duryodhana through thick and thin arguing that duties have nothing to do with mere parentage and bloodline. Rather, Karna’s sense of duty teaches him to fight for those who always loved him and accepted him as their own and this is what he did.
Besides, many characters like Bhisma, Yudhisthira, Draupadi, Kunti, Bhima present their side of the story. So, Dharmakshetra is providing an accommodation to the voices hitherto excluded from the cultural memory of the nation. The aim does not seem to be romanticizing the deeds of any characters in the epic whoever that may be. That is not Mahabharata’s way. Rather the aim is to provide lessons in tolerance and acceptance towards the “other” as this is what shapes the future of a developing nation. Dharmakshetra deconstructs the binary such as “White”/“Black or “Good”/”Evil” highlighting that the characters are all humane with some faults inherent in them. Also, Dharmakshetra does not explicitly celebrate the tenets of “hegemonic masculinity” as the show hardly visualizes any chivalric deed on the parts of the warriors. Rather it questions the very notion of chivalry and warriorhood. The show does not show us any “hypermasculine” beings with maces but men with folded arms before each other asking for forgiveness for what they have done to each other. They are not demigods. They are more like ordinary human beings with aspirations, greed, rage, and indecisiveness.
It can be argued that Dharmakshetra also projects a Hindu/Hindi past of the nation like Chopra’s Mahabharat. However, it must be understood that even if it does so, it does it in a more secular and favorable manner. It rejects all binaries. In the contemporary time of the global pandemic when people are forced to stay at home, Dharmakshetra provides a perfect opportunity to ruminate and rethink over the past so that the nation can see a better dawn in the future.
Works Cited