Devdutt should be careful with Indian epics

The book is based on his columns; and columns do not lend themselves to packaging as a book. When they were brought together as a book, no attempt was made to run a consistency check across columns.

Ramayana versus Mahabharata: My Playful Comparison

By Devdutt Pattanaik Published by Rupa

Price: Rs 295

Devdutt Pattanaik is a wonderful storyteller, especially when he illustrates his own books. I have several favourite Devdutt books, but I won’t add this slim book to that list. There are illustrations, though those are smaller. The problem lies elsewhere. First, this book is essentially based on his newspaper columns; and columns, no matter how much they are adapted, do not readily lend themselves to packaging as a book. Second, more seriously, every columnist is less careful in a column and more careful in a book. In that column to book transition, the lack of rigour seeps in.

This volume is titled, Ramayana versus Mahabharata, with a subtitle, “My Playful Comparison”. Which Ramayana and which Mahabharata? For both Ramayana and Mahabharata, there are Sanskrit and non-sanskrit versions. For Ramayana, there are Sanskrit versions other than Valmiki Ramayana. Devdutt’s strength is in retelling stories from nonsanskrit versions of Ramayana and Mahabharata too, as evidenced in his earlier books. In this particular case, since he not only talks about the Sanskrit Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata, but about the respective Critical Editions brought out in Vadodara and Pune, do we take the book’s statements to be about these, or about non-sanskrit versions?

“For example, the language used in the first and last chapters of the Valmiki Ramayana is very different from that of the five chapters in the middle.” This is a reference to the Sanskrit version. One shouldn’t have used the word “chapter”. A chapter (adhyaya) is different from a kanda. In passing, it is by no means obvious that the Valmiki Ramayana was originally divided into seven kandas.

“Valmiki’s name refers to the termite hill that arose around him as he meditated in perfect stillness for a thousand years.” While this is a popular story, it is not one from the Sanskrit Valmiki Ramayana. The point is that these two statements occurred in two different columns. When the columns were brought together as a book, no attempt was made to run a consistency check across columns and a reader is likely to think the termite hill story figures in the Sanskrit. This doesn’t mean Devdutt shouldn’t tell us the termite hill story, but some care is needed.

“Today, the Ramayana and Mahabharata are seen as elaborations of the Vishnu Purana.” Such statements may pass muster for a column, but not for a book. “Before war, both Ram and the Pandavas evoke Durga, the goddess of war, and patron of kings. It is said that Durga was traditionally worshipped in spring (Vasanta) for nine nights; Ram shifted the worship to autumn (Sharad) so he could obtain the blessings of the Goddess before.” Far greater care was required in the choice of words.

“However, when it comes to gambling his possessions away, Yudhishthira gambles the twins first, before gambling Bhima or Arjuna (who have the same mother and father), revealing his real favourites.” Whatever else might be said about Yudhishthira, this is simply not true, about a bias in preferences, regardless of whether one has the Sanskrit or nonsanskrit Mahabharata in mind. This was simply the standard practice of beginning with the youngest. When Yudhishthira sent his brothers off to fetch water, in the incident leading up to the Yaksha’s questions, it was no different.

“The tribal people of the forest live on hunting and gathering, prefer not to pursue agriculture and animal husbandry, reject the concept of private property, and try to blend in with the forest that is their home. In the Ramayana, they are called the Shabara people and in the Mahabharata, they are known as the Kirata… In the Mahabharata, a tribal youth, Ekalavya, wants to learn archery from Drona. Drona refuses to teach him as he is not a Kshatriya.” Assuming we are on the Sanskrit Mahabharata, where does Drona say he will not teach Ekalavya because he is not a Kshatriya? There is no such statement. Is Ekalavya called a Kirata? No he is not, he is the son of the king of the Nishadhas. Nala, of Nala and Damayanti fame, was also a king of the Nishadhas.

In this book, since he not only talks about the Sanskrit Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata, but about the respective Critical Editions brought out in Vadodara and Pune, do we take the book’s statements to be about these, or about non-sanskrit versions?

So was Guha, in Valmiki Ramayana. In mentioning Nala or Guha, no one mentions their “tribal” or Nishadha identity. It seems to become important only for Ekalavya. Indeed, to quote Devdutt, “In the Ramayana, Ram calls the boatman, Guha, his brother for ferrying him across the Ganga.” Note the lack of the adjective “tribal”.

On vimanas, “There is no archaeological evidence and the current knowledge of aeronautics indicates that the structures described could not possibly have been airborne.” Fair enough. But where in the Ramayana or the Mahabharata are there descriptions of the structures? In all probability, Devdutt has vaimanika shastram in mind. But that’s not what the quoted sentence suggests.

Don’t get me wrong. Pattanaik has written in a very engaging style, as he always does. And the book, as the sub-title proclaims, is supposed to be a playful comparison. Because the style is engaging, the book is likely to be popular and Devdutt always sells well. But that should also mean that one should be more careful.

Bibek Debroy, a renowned economist, scholar and translator, is chairman of Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. As a translator, he is best known for his magnificent rendition of the Mahabharata in ten volumes and the three-volume translation of the Valmiki Ramayana. He has just come out with the English translation of The Bhagavata Purana.