www.galaxyimrj.

com Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ISSN 2278 – 9529

Characters and Multiple Rasas in the Mahabharata: Charu Sheel

Singh’s Scripture on Stone in Context

Satish Gupta

Mahabharata is decidedly the greatest poem of the world. In the Indian tradition, the later
day drama was also known as poetry which was divided into shrbya kavya and drishya kavya.
One emphasized the meditation part as it meant listening to a recitation; the later implied a
visual representation of the same elements on the stage. As a tale of war, Mahabharata
elicits the eight rasas as expounded by Bharata in his Natya Shastra. There are episodes
within episodes whose meaning-breeding capacity is endless. Viewed as a genealogical

y
narrative, the story takes us to climaxes that are pathetic, heroic, horrible, lovely among the
rest. The warring clans in the epic are the Pandavas and the Kauravas. Their father was
Yayati who married the Naga dynasty daughter Devyani and Shukracharya’s daughter
Sharmishtha. Shukracharya was the guru of devils already and Nagas were warring tribes
living in the North-Western plains of Himalaya. It is clear from the outset that the instincts
ax
for war are common to both the tribes. The game of dice is the churning point of the plot.
This game has been organized by Duryodhana on the advice of Shakuni, his maternal uncle.
The idea is to capture power of the kingdom that Pandavas were ruling, Yudhisthira, the
eldest of the Pandavas brothers may be said to represent an ideal structure of mind that can
only lead to negative participation, an uneasy calm of which he is a victim throughout.
Yudhisthira appears to beget the shanta rasa (later added by Abhinav Gupta) which is
internally full of commotion. Bhima represents valor and heroism; thereby producing the
heroic rasa. He is a little bit victimized by his elder brother whose dictates he cannot violate;
therefore his heroism does not strike the iron when it is hot. For example, when Duryodhana
misbehaves with Draupadi in the Sabhaparva, Bhima threatened Duryodhana of dire
consequences but Yudhisthira kept Bhima at bay.
al
The idea that I am trying to postulate is that the rasas in Mahabharata are form of
contingencies since the nature of their operation is such that timely evolutions fail to emerge
which ultimately leads to war.

Viewed from a low mimetic angle, Yudhisthira is the mockery of the morals he professes to
posses while Bhima, a travesty of circumstances which molest his heroism. Arjuna leads the
battle in very many ways but Sabhaparva has exposed Bidur, Drona, Bhishma, Kripacharya
G

and the rest of the elderly persons who were attending the party. The desire to see the
Draupadi naked is veebhatsa (most horrible) at its worst. The assembly goes silent and no
body protests except Dushashana who is silenced vehemently. Arjuna is dear to Krishna, the
God incarnate. Because Draupadi calls Krishna her brother; so Krishna supplies an endless
loom of Sari and Duryodhana’s dream does not come at a relishing end. Duryodhana has an
endless amount of envy, jealousy and hatred for Pandavas in general and Draupadi in
particular. The rasa of hatred is brought to the fore when Duryodhana goes down into the
pond of water mistaking it for the floor of the palace. This makes Draupadi laugh- the
laughter having a tinge of irony as well as satire. Duryodhana’s move therefore is counter-
active. Arjuna is a philosopher entangled in the shortcomings of a man. Krishna is the
revelation, the knowledge, the foundation and a player in the game as well as the game itself.
He is the onto-genesis of the rasas in which He makes the Pandavas and the Kauravas
participate. Arjun’s refusal to fight the war occasions Bhagvadgita which masterly expounds

Vol. I. Issue. II 1 April 2012

www.galaxyimrj.com Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ISSN 2278 – 9529

the theories of Karma Yoga, Raj Yoga, Gnan Yoga and Bhakti Yoga. Arjuna listens to such
premiums of knowledge and is simply bewildered, for, he is just a man. Even though,
Krishna answers all his questions but he is not satisfied. Compelled at his shoddy nature,
Krishna shows Arjun his Virat Rupa (cosmic form). This forms climaxes of Veebhatsa and
Lalitya both into a transcendental form of sublimity. Arjun closes his eyes for; he is unable
to behold what is up in front. He requests Krishna to become his friend again and talk as He
did in the former times. Arjun begins to fight even against his own wishes. The rasa of
heroism cannot get better than this particularly when Bhishma, fighting from the Kauravas’
side, broke the wheel of Arjun’s chariot and surrounded him with all kinds of arrows. When
Krishna looks at Arjun in such a state, he picked up the broken wheel of chariot and ran
towards Bhishma. Bhishma had vowed that he would compel Krishna to fight the war even
though, for a while. Look at how the rasa of heroism is treated as a value as well as
intelligence and power. Bhishma throws off his bow and arrows and goes to Krishna for; he

y
has succeeded in his vow.

The over-all structure of Mahabharata is the conflict between the high and low mimetic
where irony, satire, lampoon and the rest have all their places and where heroic actions fight
for values and the churning of emotions are also involved with a view to cater the way to

ax
liberation. Bhishma, Drona and Kripacharya knew that they are fighting from the wrong side
and they want that the Pandavas should win.

This is strangeness added to wonder- the rasa that might lead to chaotic amazement. Arjuna
rejects even the benediction of Bhishma who wishes for his victory. This is value of values
for Arjuna argues that as long as Bhishma is fighting against him, he is not going to win.
Bhishma advises to Arjun to go to Krishna Who knows how Bhishma can go out of battle.
The Mahabharata story is interwoven with divine graces of Krishna falling upon the
Pandavas who are fighting for Dharma- truth, righteousness, justice against Adharma- the
opposite of these.
al
The point must be made, however, that Mahabharata war is a war among the elite clans. The
economic structure of the society is not foregrounded in the story. We learn that
there are Dalits, the downtrodden and the marginalized. They have their traditional
professions to earn their livelihood but they are lowered down in the hierarchy and the
excellence in their work does not give them any place higher-up the order. This is so because
the categories are fixed and we witness at least two examples of what demeaning the human
might mean in the great epic.
G

Karna is a Soot putra, the son of a dasi (maid servant). He goes to Drona for becoming his
disciple so that he could learn the art of bowmanship, among other education. Drona asks
Karna his caste and Karna says he is a Brahmin. This is knowingly done because in the value
system prevalent at that time only Brahmins and Kshatriyas could receive education. Once it
so happened that Drona was sleeping with his head on the thighs of Karna. A reptile or a
scorpion comes there and bites Karna, who though remains undisturbed. In the meantime
Drona is awakened and he suspects that Karna had spoken a lie to him. A Brahmin according
to Drona does not have the amount of patience and courage that Karna has shown. This
episode is highly unfortunate since Karna’s commitment for his Guru is carried back by a
clumsy question that relates to caste. Even though the nature of Brahmins is clarified in the
process but caste cannot form the basis of Guru-Shishya relationship.

Vol. I. Issue. II 2 April 2012

www.galaxyimrj.com Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ISSN 2278 – 9529

The second episode is that of Eklavya himself and the reference to the collection of poems
entitled the Scripture on Stone (New Delhi: 2007) written by Charu Sheel Singh. Drona
refuses to accept Eklavya, the tribal boy- a scheduled tribe in modern day parlance, for no
fault of his own. One is not born into a caste; the caste is imposed upon him. It is a pity; our
gurus could not see this. Not to be deterred Eklavya makes a clay image of guru Drona and
practices archery. As the destiny and time would have it, Drona reaches the forest to see
Eklavya practice. Consider the following lines in the poem “Eklavya”:

Eklavyas and Dronas have identical

origins in the chilling windmill
of a life ever on the run; earthy
simplicity cannot eat someone’s flesh
into the dustbins of a classy

y
mess. Guru’s denial for pupilage
made the universal rest with
the shady shrouded locality
of being wherefrom one has
exists not available to minds
obscene.
(Singh: 41) ax
The poet exposes Drona’s pretensions of being a guru for he has politicized and even
banalized the institution i.e. gurudom. The cutting edge of irony cuts a little bit more when
the poet says:

Drona could not

believe what the tendrils of his
al
eyes saw. Anxiety and mistrust
made him stand on a
crust that could have fallen
even before it could
erect itself. (43)

The images in the poem are marauding like Sharks in the high seas. They have catapulting
experiences where the poet gives a radical reading of the tradition distilling values in the
G

process and devaluing many all the same. The poem reaches a high water mark when the
poet says:

Gurudom
wept into shame as Saraswati
sunk below depths that
the earth stands upon.
guru is not the name
of a shrub that is

thorny to others; guru

is a lotus canopy that
showers umbrella petals

Vol. I. Issue. II 3 April 2012

www.galaxyimrj.com Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ISSN 2278 – 9529

without distinction or
gore. Drona lost the
diamond gold of a moment
in history which would
have made him immortal. (45)

The guru is not a locality nor a tiny shred of memorized wisdom; he is a living whole who
lives for ever and ever. He has a tremendous capacity to assimilate rather than
disintegrate. Drona is found wanting on both these counts. The poet does not leave us in any
doubt as to the difference between the guru and the guruttva. Consider the following lines:

y
Eklavya’s guru was Drona for sure and
the pupil could digest
no more on this score.
Drona did not know the ions of
electric wobbling nor did
he feel the pulse of
ax
terrestrial bodies where
guruttva resides. (43)

The poet emphasizes here that the name cannot be greater than the qualities and the qualities
are what characterize a guru. Gurudom is a process, a consciousness whose choices of will
and action do not depend upon the guru, the person; they come straight away from God
Himself. It was for this reason that Drona did not realize the transfer of his consciousness
from his own being to the clay image that Eklavya had made. The anti-climax, though,
comes when the temporal guru asks for the thumb as Gurudakshina. There is commitment on
the one side and the self centered interest on the other. Drona would like to go with Arjuna
al
than with Eklavya for he is a system’s man. Eklavya may be a downtrodden character but it
is through him that the values of sincerity, devotion and commitment emerge. Guru is not a
profession therefore but a life element which does not make distinction of any kind on any
basis.

Drona may be higher in our esteem if he had told Arjun to go and compete with the tribal
boy. He does not say this because he knows a defeat to Arjuna would bring bad name to him.
G

Drona’s asking for the thumb of Eklavya is the most horrible (Veebhatsa) part of the
relationship between a guru and disciple. Eklavya’s love for the guru may not generate
Shringar rasa for that is given to the elites of the society, his love is the cry of a lover from
behind the stones that goes into the shrieks of the wind but gurus do not listen. This is
Veebhatsa of another kind. The poem succeeds in elaborating the tragic failure of a culture.

REFERENCE

Charu Sheel Singh, “Eklavya” in Scripture on Stone (New Delhi: Adhyayan, 2007)

Vol. I. Issue. II 4 April 2012