Mahabharata’s Spatial Politics and the Khandavadahana
Kanad SInha
——————————————————————
Creative Commons License:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Citation:
Sinha, Kanad. “Mahabharata’s Spatial Politics and the Khandavadahana.” Coldnoon: Travel Poetics 3.2 (2014): 79-105.
.
| P U B. M A Y ‘1 4 | 3 (2) |
The primary concern of early Indian literature rests in the settled society. Still, the forest (vana/araṇya) has occupied a pivotal place in its domain. It has featured as early as in the Ṛgvedic hymn to the araṇyānī. The Āraṇyakas and the Upaniṣads are known to have been composed in the forest hermitages of the world-renouncers. Often, the forest plays the role of a fantasy world, a world of utopian harmony in hermitages, monstrous demons with supernatural power, and spectacular natural beauty. Like the ‘wine-dark sea’ in Homer’s Odyssey, it often constitutes the ‘unknown other’ in the imagination of the poets. However, it will be wrong to assume that there is no realistic portraiture of the actual life in the forest or its relationship with the settled society. In fact, often this relationship is expressed through a language of massive violence. Especially striking, in this regard, is the ruthless violence displayed in the episode of the burning of the Khāṇḍava Forest in the Mahābhārata.
The episode is not only contrary to the modern ecological sensibilities but also against the general trend of Sanskrit literature which usually speaks for a harmony with the nature. But, forest is not just a fantastic space of natural beauty. It is an entity covering a vast space, inhabited by the forest dwellers. Therefore, the ruthless violence of the khāṇḍavadāhana episode can also be read as a commentary on the actual relationship between the inhabitants of the forest and the settled society.
Any historical hypothesis based on the text has to address the issue of its chronological location first. Though the text has usually been dated between 500 BCE and 500 CE, there is no definite reason why the date cannot be pushed back. Rather, historians like Romila Thapar and R.S. Sharma—who have pointed out the difference between the narrative and didactic sections of the text—note that the older narrative section probably represents the context of the period of the Later Vedas (c.1000-600 BCE) (Sharma, 1983: 135-52; Thapar, 2008a: 613-29).
The relationship between the Vedic world and the Mahābhārata has indeed been very close. The Bharata-Purus are the most important people in the Ṛg Veda, and their hegemony in the Vedic world had been established for good by the chief Sudās who defeated a confederacy of ten hostile chiefs, on the banks of the river Paruṣṇī, and another confederacy led by a chief named Bheda, on the banks of the Yamuna. These Bharata-Purus evolved into the Kurus who, alongside their sister tribe the Pan᷃cālas, are the most important of the Later Vedic tribes. Michael Witzel has shown that most of the Vedic texts were composed under the patronage of these two tribes, and the first proto-state in India was formed under the Kuru king Parīkṣit.1 The Mahābhārata is basically a tradition on how the North Indian plains came under his suzerainty, and its main narrative begins from the very period of Śaṃtanu, who is the last Kuru king to appear in the Ṛg Veda. Parīkṣit has been praised as a contemporary ruler in the Ṛg Veda Khila and the Atharva Veda (AVS: XX.127.7.10). His son Janamejaya is quite well known in the Later Vedic texts. By the time of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, however, the descendants of Parīkṣit were no more prominent (BU: III.3.1).
Therefore, the Mahābhārata tradition seems to have originated in a historical context of the very early part of the Later Vedic times, roughly the tenth-ninth centuries BCE, the period intervening between the Ṛg Veda Saṃhitā and the Atharva Veda Saṃhitā. The traditional attribution of the text to the same person—Dvaipāyana Vyāsa—to whom is attributed the division of the Vedic corpus in Ṛg, Sāma and Yajur saṃhitās, which must have taken place precisely the same time, only strengthens our claim. Vyāsa’s disciple Vaiśampāyana, the first public narrator of the Mahābhārata in Janamejaya’s sacrifice, seems to be a historical figure like his patron, and is known precisely as the teacher of the Mahābhārata even to the Āśvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra (AGS: III.4). Therefore, we can agree with J.A.B. van Buitenen that, “It seems more likely than not that the origins of The Mahābhārata fall somewhere in the 8th or 9thcentury” (Vyāsa, 1973: xxiv). However, marking out the remnants of that tradition from the later layers is a difficult, if not impossible, task. The narrative-didactic divide can be useful to start with, but oversimplifies the matter (since all the narrative episodes are not necessarily from the earliest tradition, and it cannot be said for sure that the earliest bards had no didactic element in their narrations). Thus, it is important to understand the different Mahābhāratan episodes and legends separately, with internal and external corroborative evidences.
Thus, here, we will attempt to locate the event of khāṇḍavadāhana in its ‘original’ context, using its internal references as well as other contemporary sources. In the process, we will also survey the wide historiography on forest and forest-clearance in early India, and the literature on this specific episode.
The burning of the Khāṇḍava forest and the establishment of Indraprastha mark a crucial episode in the narrative of the epic. The story tells that when the Kuru realm was partitioned, after the Pāṇḍavas were maritally allied with the Pan᷃cālas, they were assigned the forest tract of Khāṇḍavaprastha, whereas the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra received Hastināpura proper. The Pāṇḍavas, however, went on expanding their circle of allies, and their alliance with the Vṛṣṇis got cemented when Arjuna married Subhadrā, the half-sister of the Vṛṣṇi chief Kṛṣṇa. The birth of Abhimanyu, the son of Subhadrā, was thus an event of ecstatic celebration. The Pāṇḍavas, their wives and Kṛṣṇa were enjoying themselves in a pleasure-trip. There the fire-god Agni approached Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, and asked them to burn the Khāṇḍava forest. He also pointed out the problems involved in the process:
Indra always protects this Khāṇḍava Forest from conflagration, and as long as the good-spirited God protects it, I cannot burn it. His friend lives there with his people, the Snake Takṣaka, and for his sake the Thunderbolt-wielder protects it from burning (Vyāsa, 1973: I.215.5-10).
Requested by Agni, the water-god Varuṇa provided Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna with some extaordinary weapons necessary to meet the challenge. Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna then burnt the forest with massive carnage, defeating Indra and his forces. However, they spared Maya, an Asura architect, who—on return—built a magnificent palace for the king Yudhiṣṭhira. The burning of the forest increased the habitable and cultivable territory of Khāṇḍavaprastha to a great extent, and gradually Khāṇḍavaprastha became the great city of Indraprastha (Vyāsa, 1973: I.214-216).
The event has been interpreted in various manners by scholars. Biardeau interprets the event as a mythical representation of the theme of pralaya and recreation (Hiltebeitel, 218). She bases her argument on a story about king Śvetakī who held an unusually long sacrifice—on the advice of Śiva and officiated by the sage Durvāsā, a part-incarnation of Śiva—which caused a sickness to Agni. The remedy to Agni’s sickness was the devouring of the Khāṇḍava forest. Thus, it is Śiva—the lord of pralaya—who pushes Śvetakī to an excessive and unethical sacrifice. Agni’s sickness represents the pitiful situation of dharma, on the verge of destruction, when restoration is possible only through a great disaster. The survivors of pralaya are only those who are indispensable for recreation after destruction, such as Maya, representing illusion (māyā), which permits the empirical world to be recreated and subsist, and the four Śārṅgaka birds, representing the four Vedas. However, the whole thesis is based on a legend mentioned only in some Northern Recension manuscripts, and rejected by the Critical Edition. Therefore, this story of Śvetakī—and Biardeau’s subsequent theory—has little value in our search for the original content of the tradition.
Alf Hiltebeitel views in the story the initiation of Arjuna by defeating Indra—his father and the king of Devas—whose opposition is actually a test, and treats it as a parallel to the initiation of the Buddha by defeating Māra the lord of this world. He notices the similarities between Arjuna and the Buddha by showing that both married by drawing a great bow in a svayamvara. The Buddha’s wife was named Gopā or Yaśodharā whose son Rāhula kept his lineage. One of Arjuna’s wives, Subhadrā, is often called yaśasvinī and was once dressed as a gopa lady, and it is her son—Abhimanyu—who kept the Pāṇḍava lineage (Hiltebeitel, 217-18).
The parallelism is too weak to take seriously. It stretches the adjective yaśasvinī too much to make it a counterpart to Yaśodharā, and equating a gopī’s costume with the name Gopā is even more far-fetched. Most importantly, Subhadrā was not the woman whom Arjuna married at the svayamvara. While Abhimanyu actually maintains the Kuru lineage, through his son Parīkṣit, Rāhula takes pravrajyā before begetting a son. However, initiation may be a sub-plot in the episode, as Buddhadeb Bose has noted that here—at the end of the ‘Ādiparvan’—Arjuna receives his Gāṇḍīva bow by passing the test of defeating his father, Indra, just like Yudhiṣṭhira who gets initiated at the end of the ‘Āraṇyakaparvan’ by passing the test of defeating his father Dharma (Bose, 2004: 61). But, initiation is not the main theme of the narrative, and definitely not in the manner Hiltebeitel presents it.
The section, in fact, clearly corresponds to the practice of burning forests to establish new agrarian settlements. Clearing of forests to establish agrarian settlements was no doubt a major factor behind the rise of the mahājanapadas and state-formation. Though Shereen Ratnagar has pointed out that large-scale deforestation began in the Ganga valley only when the British understood the utility of sal, it is undeniable that a great portion of the forests had been cleared to establish settlements (Ratnagar, 179-90). R.S. Sharma takes the introduction of iron-tools for productive purposes—c.700BCE onwards—as the pivotal break, arguing that the clearance of forest with iron axe and wet rice cultivation aided by iron ploughshare helped to generate enough surplus for state-formation and urbanization (Sharma, 2006a: 42-48; Sharma, 2006b: 150-68). D.P. Agrawal also argues that iron technology addressed the task of land clearance for agriculture and settlement in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab and Mid-Gangetic Valley, marked by monsoon forests, swampy jungles and kankry lands (Agrawal, 49-59). M.D.N. Sahi traces the iron-aided changes to the PGW-phase, and tries to show the existence of an agricultural base, new cereals, subsistence production, existence of full-time specialists, social stratification, proliferation of artisanal production, and beginning of urbanization in the PGW phase (Sahi, 191-97). B.B. Lal also credits the PGW-users for introducing iron-aided large-scale agriculture in the Ganga-Yamuna valley (qtd. in Habib, 17-27). The technological determinism of the thesis has undergone much criticism. However, the fact of forest-clearance remains. A. Ghosh, a major critique of Sharma’s thesis, points out that fire, not iron axe, was the popular instrument of forest-clearance (Ghosh,100-13). That fire had a major role in Aryanization and occupation of new areas in the Later Vedic Age is shown in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa which says how the hero Videgha Maṭhava and his priest Gotama Rāhugaṇa stopped at the bank of the river Sadānīrā, before entering Videha, as Agni Vaiśvānara cleared the other bank for them (ŚB: I.4.1.14-17). The role of Agni Vaiśvānara, in both the colonization of Videha and the burning of the Khāṇḍava forest, may mean both the clearance of forest by fire and the process of Aryanization represented by the sacrificial fire. C.V. Vaidya sees khāṇḍavadāhana as a marker of slash and burn form of land cultivation, interpreted as a dedication to Agni (cited in Hiltebeitel: 214). Thapar also views it as an instance of forest-clearance by burning (Thapar, 2008b: 68).
The burning of the Khāṇḍava forest as an instance of forest clearance is integrally linked with perceptions of the forest in early India. Forest (araṇya) in ancient India was conceptualized as an antithesis to the settled society (grāma/kṣetra). Therefore, the idea of forest was more about its cultural location than its landscape. The idea of different landscapes in ancient India has attained some attention in Francis Zimmermann’s book Jungle and the Aroma of Meat. Here, Zimmermann discusses the Āyurvedic concept of different caras (eco-zones). Thus uncultivated unsettled land (araṇya) could be of two distinct ecological natures—jāṅgala (dry) and ānūpa (marshy). While the former is usually associated with the west, the latter is with the east. The jāṅgala is supposed to be an area of dry climate which leads to excesses of the Āyurvedic humors wind (vāta) and bile (pitta), whereas the unctuous climate of the anūpa leads to dominance of phlegm (kapha) and wind. There is no inherent superiority of one of the caras over the other implied. However, in other places it is time and again reiterated that jaṅgala is better, since the meat of the jāṅgala creatures and the water of the westward flowing rivers are dry, salty, light and beneficial, whereas the meat of the ānūpa creatures and water of the eastward flowing rivers are heavy and unhealthy. Therefore, Manu and Yājn᷃avalkya prescribe kings to clear forest and settle in the jāṅgala regions. However, the best eco-zone lies in between the two, in the Delhi Doab, called the sādhāraṇadeśa or madhyadeśa which provides the ideal balance of the three humours (Zimmermann).
Though these concepts are found in the Āyurvedic texts composed in a period much later than the period of our concern, the dominance of the Madhyadeśa, the Kuru-Pan᷃cāla region, is quite interesting. As forest-clearance and establishment of settlements is suggested mainly for the sādhāraṇadeśa and thejāṅgala regions, the Khāṇḍava forest seems to be an ideal forest for clearance. It was located in the sādhāraṇadeśa which also had certain jāṅgala characteristics implied in the name Kurujāṅgāla for the region. Moreover, Zimmermann also shows the assumed medical potential of the light and heavy jāṅgala meat, which may have some role in shaping the later northern legend about the Khāṇḍava animals being prescribed as remedial diet for the diseased Agni.
The forest-burning episode concerns not only the forest, but also the forest-dwellers. Aloka Parasher-Sen minutely surveys the relationship between the settled society and the forest-tribes in ancient India, and notices a flexible social environment. She quotes Andre Beteille to note that the tribes for centuries and millennia continued to exist in the lap of civilization and that the real issue is thus “not identifying the evolutionary stage to which the tribal type of organization corresponds but in coming to terms with the co-existence of the tribal and other types of social organization within the same social and historical context” (Parasher-Sen, 2004b: 292). She notices the distinction between subordinate and marginal groups from the Amarakośa of Amarasiṃha (c. 5thcentury CE), where the lower varṇas within the varṇa-ordered society (śūdra, pāmara, jalma, prākṛta, kṣudra, nihīna, itara), the untouchables subordinate to it (kiṅkara, dāsa, bhṛtya, bhujiṣya, preṣya, paricāraka, caṇḍāla, mātaṅga, jaṅgama, pukkasa, śvapāca), and the hunting tribes outside it (kirāta, śabara, pulinda) are categorically distinguished (Parasher-Sen, 2004a: 17). The forest tribes are therefore marked by exclusion rather than subordination. Thus, the forest-tribes are invariably bracketed with the foreign, being outside the varṇa order, as mleccha. This tendency is not exclusive to the Brahmanical tradition, since similar categorization can be found in the Jaina Prajn᷃āpana and the writings of the Buddhist scholar Buddhaghoṣa, both datable around the fifth-sixth centuries CE (Parasher-Sen, 2004a: 20-21).
However, exclusion does not necessarily mean antagonism. Instances of both cooperation and conflict between the ārya and the mleccha can be found in early Brahmanical literature. The Niṣādas had a prominent role in the Viśvajit sacrifice in which the sacrificer had to temporarily reside among the Niṣādas and the iṣṭi was to be performed by a Niṣāda chieftain (Parasher-Sen, 2004b: 297). In Yāska’s Nirukta (c. 7thcentury BCE), the Niṣādas alongwith the four varṇas form the pan᷃ca jana. On the other hand, the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa describes the Niṣādas as evil-doers and thieves who robbed wealthy men in the forest. Both the tendencies are combined beautifully in the Mahābhāratan legend where Niṣāda shares common ancestry with the first king Pṛthu, both being born of the evil king Veṇa’s body, but is excluded from the latter’s dominion. Here the Mahābhārata enlists some other forest tribes alongside the Niṣādas, which are theKarṇapravaras, the Kālamukhas, and the Rākṣasas (Parasher-Sen, 2004b: 299).
Like the Niṣādas, the Kirātas were another prominent hunting forest tribe mostly associated with the hilly tracts of the Himalayas and the Vindhyas. The Rāmāyaṇa describes them as wearing thick top-knots and subsisting on raw flesh (Parasher-Sen, 2004b: 298). In the Mahābhārata, they are shown as Himalayan tribals attired in skins, and eating roots and fruits. Their hunting characteristic is shown in the kirātārjunīya story in both the Mahābhārata and Bhāravi’s later epic. Later on their conflicts with the rulers of the Vindhyan region have been recorded in the Śrāvaṇa Belgolā Inscription of Narasiṃha II who claims to have broken their power, and the claim of the Western Gaṅga king Satyavākya Konganivarman to be the destroyer of the Kirātas (Parasher-Sen, 2004b: 298).
Less prominent forest tribes living in primitive condition were the Śabaras and the Pulindas. The Arthaśāstra mentions them among the hunters, trappers and forest-dwellers, who were to guard the frontiers. Greek writers mention them as Sabarai and Poulindai. They were included as a target of Aśoka’s dhamma (Parasher-Sen, 2004b: 299). They are also quite prominent in the Kathāsaritsāgara. Other tribes like the Puṇḍras and the Andhras got gradually incorporated into the mainstream.
However, the line between the subordinated and excluded groups was not always rigid. Therefore, Manu tried to include both the Niṣādas and the Kirātas within the varṇa-jāti fold. Theniṣāda became an anuloma jāti born of a brāhmaṇa father and a śūdra mother, whereas the kirāta was designated a vrātya kṣatriya status (Parasher-Sen, 2004b: 298). Amarasiṃha categorized the Niṣādas among the untouchables like the canḍālas. Thus, the system was flexible, and varied in different socio-political conditions (Parasher-Sen, 2004a: 19).
Parasher-Sen’s study provides us valuable insight about the forest-tribes and their position vis-à-vis the mainstream society. However, it does not go into much detail about the actual lifestyle and activities of these tribes, focusing more on their status in the normative texts. Moreover, the tribes prominent in the epic tradition—such as the Rākṣasas, the Vānaras and the Nāgas—are left out of the study. A closer scrutiny of these tribes would provide us clearer ideas about the representation of the ‘other.’
In her essay “Of Tribes, Hunters and Barbarians: Forest Dwellers in the Mauryan Period” Parasher-Sen underscores the settled society’s tendency to exclude the tribal communities from their cultural landscape, be it in the different Brahmanical concepts of Āryāvarta or in the Buddhist idea of Majjhimadeśa. However, the forest had its importance as well, as a supplier of fuel, timber, hay, game, and edible produce. Thus, forest’s importance as a resource-base coexisted with the apprehension about the ‘barbarian’ āṭavīkas. In the Mauryan period, forest gained more attention, and Kauṭīlya, with his typical emphasis on resources, categorizes forests according to their resource potential, giving special importance to elephant-forest (nāgavana) and material forest (dravyavana). He also suggests special store-houses for forest-products and appointment of special officers for tapping forest-produce. Forbidding clearance of the elephant-forests and encouraging planting of the dravyavanas, he welcomes the possibility of clearing other kinds of forests for establishing new settlements (janapadaniveśa). However, he shares the earlier apprehension about the forest-tribes. Thus, aṭavībala or force of the forest tribes is to him less desirable than a force of the aliens led by an ārya, and the former is recommended only in an emergency, like attack by a force consisting of forest-tribes. The Arthaśāstra also recommends different ways of breaking up free and armed forest tribes. That even Aśoka was not free of this apprehension is clear in his Rock Edict XIII where he gives an oblique warning to the forest-tribes that his lenient policy only means “patience as far it is possible to exercise.” Still, sensitively enough, he strictly prohibited burning down of forests, and his Fifth Pillar Edict enlists a complete ban on killing of certain creatures and restriction on killing of some others, although this might not have been a welcome measure for the hunters and fishermen (Parasher-Sen, 1998: 173-91). In this dual antagonism and cooperation between the settled society and forest in ancient India, though important as a source of resources, the forest was the realm of the ‘other’ and the state practised as much non-interference as possible, being happy with the extraction of certain resources
That the forest attained more focus in the Maurya period is not surprising: Candragupta Maurya possibly hailed from a forest tribe of Pipphalīvana. In many legends, he meets his mentor Cāṇakya in a forest, also perfroming miracles. However, for us, more significant are the Aśokan decrees. The prohibition on burning down forests is an indication of prevalence of such practice in pre-Mauryan time. The restriction and prohibition on killing of several creatures also is a happy contrast with the massive slaughter and cruelty involved in the burning of the Khāṇḍava forest.
Thapar’s essay “Perceiving the Forest: Early India” discusses the dichotomous as well as complementary relationship between the forest and the settled society, and the threefold role of the forest as the site of hunting, hermitage, and exile. Hunting, with almost the entire army in action, often took the form of a “surrogate raid on nature.” The violent and massive hunting of Duḥṣanta or the great carnage involved in the burning of the Khāṇḍava forest, both in the Mahābhārata, seem more to be necessary precondition for power rather than used in a symbolic sense. The burning of Khāṇḍava appears to be a claim on the land as territory and differs in mood from the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa story of Videgha Maṭhava where the fire plays a more legitimizing role. The hunt could also be a mechanism of asserting control over the grazing ground. Thus, the Kurus seem to have extended their control over Dvaitavana where they established a pastoral settlement. Inspection of cattle becomes an excuse for hunt and display of power. However, the resistance of the forest-dwellers to this infringement of the forest comes in the form of the Gandharvas of Dvaitavana. The Gandharvas are counted also as one of the forest tribes resisting the burning of the Khāṇḍava.
The most frequent imagery of forest people in the epics, however, is that of the Rākṣasas, appearing as the unfamiliar forest-dwellers who obstruct hunting expeditions and harass those establishing settlements in the forest, such as the ṛṣis establishing their āśramas. The hermitage of the renouncer, in fact, is to be located outside the settled society whose norms he renounced. But, for the forest tribes, it remains an infringement of the forest by the settled society, and the hermitage indeed played the role of a mediator between the two. As the realm of the unknown, forest is also the place of exile in both the epics, where most fantastic incidents of the epics unfold.
The equation changed a bit with the appearance of the state machinery. In the Mauryan period, Kauṭīlya views the forest as a source of resources and also discusses the diplomatic possibilities of alliances with the forest people. That the forest-dwellers still had a dichotomous relationship with the state is indicated in the warning in Aśoka’s Rock Edict XIII. In the Gupta period, Samudra Gupta is known to have brought the āṭavīka chiefs to servitude. Closer contacts between the two worlds were facilitated by the grant of agrahāra lands in the forested regions in subsequent periods. Thus, the distinction remained, but the antagonism became less ferocious. In Kālidāsa’s Abhijn᷃ānaśakuntalam, Duḥṣanta’s hunt loses its Mahābhāratan ferocity. In Bāṇabhaṭṭa’s Harṣacarita, the picture of the forest is quite close to that of a village. The description of the nephew of the Śabara chief matches the stereotypes of the Niṣāda or the Rākṣasa, but he is no longer feared or fantasized. Rather, Bāṇabhaṭṭa acknowledges him as someone who knows every leaf of the forest (Thapar, 2001: 173-91).
The antagonistic relationship between the forest-dwelling Rākṣasas and the settled society is refelcted in the two exiles of the Pāṇḍavas. Whenever the Pāṇḍavas entered the forest as exiles, this infringement was resisted by the Rāksasa chiefs like Hiḍimba and Kirmīra. On the other hand, when a Rākṣasa chief, Baka, tried to impose his authority on the settled society of Ekacakrā, by demanding the sacrifice of one human from one family of the village every day, he is slain by Bhīma, his body becoming a public spectacle.
The dichotomy of the village and the forest, in ritual and actual context, is also an object of interest in Charles Malamoud’s Cooking the World. Malamoud shows how araṇya constituted the ‘other’ to the ‘self’ of the settled village, and could include all kinds of landscapes other than the cultivated village, ranging from forest to desert. The village was the settled society governed by social norms (dharma) observed by the householder (gṛhastha), while the forest, the ‘other’ world of wilderness. Therefore, forest animals were not to be used for sacrifice to prevent the householder becoming a part of the other landscape. Yet, as the sacrifice implied human authority over both the realms, the forest had to be absorbed into the village. In the horse sacrifice, forest animals were tied to the posts between the posts where village animals were tied. But, they were then set free while the latter were sacrificed. Forest was therefore both within and without the village. Within, as the realm inferior to that ruled by dharma and subjected to those worshipping Agni, the god of the sacrificial fire; without, as the realm of unknown wilderness that might account for the Absolute. It is the forest where, in contrast to the gṛhastha, the renouncer (sannyāsin) sought the Absolute, transcending the normative reach of dharma. Ascetics would sometimes use only the hollow of their hand as dish for eating, while some others would directly eat with their mouth like animals. Man could be a part of both the worlds. He was the village animal par excellence, the ideal sacrifice, the only animal who could also be a sacrificer. But, he was also considered among the forest animals in many cases including the list of sacrifices in the horse-sacrifice. The secret lay in the contrast of the gṛhastha and the sannyāsin, though each could be a stage in the same man’s life. However, the ancient Indian thinkers also tried to juxtapose the two in the stage of vānaprastha, a utopia according to Malamoud. It is a stage when the householder entered a forest establishment, permitted only to take his wife and his fire. However, the sacrifice would be of wild rice, not of anything cultivated. Thus, the natural harmony remained undisturbed, and that harmony of nature in the hermitage attained fantastic proportion in Kālidāsa’s picturesque language (Malamoud, 91-94). Malamoud also agrees that the relationship between the forest and the village in ancient India was both dichotomous and complementary. Whether his description of vānaprastha as a utopia can be accepted is, however, questionable. Vānaprastha abounds in early Indian literature. Whereas, the complete harmony of nature in the hermitages, described by poets like Kālidāsa, might have utopian elements in it, the existence of vānaprasthaāśrama as a social reality cannot be altogether relegated as utopic.
From the state’s perspective, perceiving the forest as a place of both antagonism and complement to the complex society could not be enough. Though the forest space was othered, it was to be subordinated to the complex society over which the king ruled. B.D. Chattopadhyaya notes that the mystique of forest with transcendental as well as evil characteristics can be traced as early as in the Ṛgvedic hymn to the araṇyānī, and the Āraṇyaka texts. However, the complex society could not treat the forest by complete separateness, since the forest was an important source of resources and often pivotal to the security strategies. Therefore, forest was to be brought within the moral-cultural authority of the complex society, though as a marginal area. The forest dwellers were to provide services to the complex society, but as marginal untouchables or outcastes. The attempt of culturally hegemonizing the forest space, and the resistance of the forest dwellers to it, created a certain tension between the two. This led to the repeated references to the forest-dwelling Rākṣasas spoiling the sacrifices. We have already seen that even the usually lenient and non-violent emperor Aśoka speaks apprehensively of the forest-dwellers, and issues veiled threats to them for making them adhere to the moral order. These attempts of hegemony became widespread from the Gupta Age onwards. Samudra Gupta vanquished many forest-chiefs, and the practice of granting lands in forested areas gradually led to the transformation of many forested areas into settled villages or towns. The forest chiefs, with this incorporation, often acquired symbols and substance of political authority of the contemporary complex society as well. Sanskritization became a major tool for that, as Chattopadhyaya shows from the inscriptions of Samkṣobha, a parivrājaka mahārāja subordinate to the Gupta kings, and of the Hoysalas. He also notes elements of Sanskritization on the forest hunter Kālaketu of the Caṇḍīmaṅgala, a 16thcentury Bengali text by Mukundarāma Cakravartī. Conversely, those chiefs who did not take part in the transformation, remained forest chiefs, rather than becoming monarchs matching the requirements of a complex state society, even up to the 20thcentury, as Chattopadhyaya shows from the instance of the forest rājā in the Āraṇyaka, a Bengali novel by Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyaya (Chattopadhyaya, 23-37).
At least, in the pre-Gupta days, the state’s attempt to hegemonize the forest-space often took the form of violent confrontations. The forest dwellers could have been violent in spoiling sacrifices, as the state could be violent in imposing its order on the forest. With this background in mind, we may proceed to the most comprehensive study of the concerned episode in Ruth Katz’s Arjuna in the Mahābhārata. She does not accept Biardeau’s description of the event as a representation of pralaya arguing that the pralaya imagery is nothing but a descriptive tool. In fact, one major methodological contribution of Katz is pointing out the formulaic nature of various literary imageries used by the poet, which are majorly literary and descriptive tools, rather than serious mythical or historical pointers. Indeed, there is hardly any thematic possibility of the Khāṇḍava-burning being conceived as dissolution, since mythically the Mahābhārata represents the end of Dvāpara and beginning of Kali, not the time of dissolution at the end of Kali.
The principle interest of Katz lies in understanding Arjuna at three levels of his personality: heroic, human, and devotee. However, the violent massacre in the Khāṇḍava forest becomes problematic at the heroic level. It not only offends modern sensibilities (both Hindu and Western), but also hurts the moralities of nonviolence (emphasized in the didactic sections of the very text as well as in classical Hinduism) and rightful warfare (in which, according to the epic narrative, innocent bystanders were not to be slain). More surprising is the lack of attempt to justify the act anywhere in the epic. To understand this aspect, Katz explores several possibilities. One is that a battle against cosmic forces might not have been bound by the moral dilemmas that battle with human enemies would entail. Therefore, the code of warfare might not have been adhered to in this case. To prove that the battle was actually conceived as one between cosmic forces, Katz draws a parallel with the Iliad where Achilles fights the river Skamandros. There Achilles, aided by Poseidon and Athena, could ultimately overcome the combined strength of the river and its tributary Simoeis only when he was aided by fire brought by the smith Hephaistos. This duality of fire and water in Indo-European myth is represented in the fight between Agni and Indra in the Khāṇḍava episode as well. Moreover, this violent cosmic duel can actually have a positive overtone if it is conceived in a sacrificial nature which the presence of the Fire-god indicates. Katz refers to other such instances of massive positive cosmic destruction in sacrificial cause in the epic mythology, most notably the churning of the ocean by the Devas and the Asuras. She also compares the companionship of Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa in the event with that of Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh where the two heroes fight the forest-guardian Humbaba. There Humbaba had both fiery and watery characteristics which Gilgamesh could overcome with the force of the winds sent to his aid by the sun-god Shamash.
This episode leads to the maturation of Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa as warriors. Therefore, the two display an amoral and premature martial ecstasy which was to be refined later on. That Arjuna was to mature into an ethical warrior, rather than continue to be a brutal ecstatic killer like Bhīma, is indicated in his brief spell of chivalry to save the architect Maya (Katz, 71-84).
Finally, at the level of Arjuna’s devotion, Katz notes that Kṛṣṇa is still not a deity. He needs Varuṇa’s aids to face Indra as boldly as Arjuna does. However, the duo is described as the incarnations of the sages Nara and Nārāyaṇa at the end of the narrative. These two brilliant sages, believed to be upholders of dharma incarnated in every epoch, would gradually be deified in the Pan᷃carātra Vaiṣṇava tradition of bhakti. There Nārāyaṇa would be identified with Viṣṇu, and Nara conceived as the human universal. Thus the indication to the Nara-Nārāyaṇa characters of Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa can also be an indication to Arjuna’s character as a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. This devotion and companionship would also lead to Arjuna’s deification as early as in the time of Pāṇini (Katz, 213-21).
The hypothesis of Katz is well-argued. However, while she dismisses the dissolution imagery as a descriptive tool, why the sacrificial imagery could not be the same is not clear. The sacrificial imagery is definitely there, as is the antagonism between water and fire. However, the biggest problem in viewing the event as a sacrifice is the presence of Indra in the antagonistic side, a problem Katz herself notes but prefers to ignore. Moreover, while in the Achilles-Skamandros story, it is the power of fire that defeats the water, here the ultimate fight was not between Indra and Agni, as the two human heroes dominated the scene.
The comparison with the Gilgamesh-Enkidu story seems too far-fetched. It is true that the Indo-European and Semitic traditions may not be as separate as is usually believed, and there are reasons to claim some mythical connections between the Gilgamesh tradition and Indian mythology. But in this case, companionship of two heroes, and the fiery stormy nature of heroic battles, is too general a commonality to argue for something substantial. Moreover, in the Gilgamesh-Enkidu story, both fire and water are on the side of Humbaba, and the forces those help Gilgamesh are wind and sun which are not very substantial in the Khāṇḍava episode or the Iliad story.
Therefore, Katz also agrees that it is probable that the episode represents a historical forest-burning for the purpose of conquest or land clearing, wiping out the wild tribes. In that case, the violent nature of the massacre becomes understandable. In fact, in both the Indian epics, it seems that the codes of warfare were observed only in the cases of battle between the kṣatriya warriors, whereas ruthlessness is well-approved in the contest with forest tribes. We have already discussed the killing of Vālin in the Rāmāyaṇa which makes the matter clearer. The case of Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna may be similar here.
Holtzmann (the younger) views the forest as a retreat for Natives (Asuras) against Aryan onslaught (qtd. in Hiltebeitel, 214).But, in this case, the Nāgas rather than the Asuras are at the centre-stage. Irawati Karve thinks that the Nāgas and Birds were forest-clans whom the Aryan ‘conquering settlers’—Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna—liquidated (Karve, 93-108).
The description also points to a human, rather than beastly, nature of the victims. The fact that the Nāgas were an ancient community, who reappeared time and again in Indian history, is well-known. They were a powerful ruling group, who were sometimes allies or antagonists of the kṣatriya rulers. Thus, even in the Gupta period, while Samudra Gupta fought several battles against them, Candragupta II married a Nāga princess. The Bhāraśiva Nāgas were a powerful ruling group. Similarly, in the Mahābhārata, marital alliance between the Kurus and Nāgas is mentioned (like Arjuna’s marriage with Ulūpī). Kosambi notes the importance of the Nāga cycle in the epic, reflected in the Nāga aid to Bhīma, Nahuṣa’s conversion into a Nāga, Balarāma’s transformation into a Nāga, and Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s assumed Nāga characteristic (Kosambi, 39). The Nāgas were also antagonistic to the epic heroes. Legends hold that Kṛṣṇa subdued Kālīya Nāga on the banks of the Yamuna. Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa butchered the Nāgas of Takṣaka’s lineage in the Khāṇḍava forest. A Takṣaka later killed Parīkṣit, the grandson of Arjuna. Janamejaya resolved to kill all Nāgas to avenge his father’s death.
The poet(s) of the Mahābhārata represents these forest-dwelling tribes with all their characteristics with much sensitivity probably derived from better first-hand knowledge than of the Rāmāyaṇa. Vālmīki, whose geography starts faltering the moment it moves beyond the North Indian plains, perceives the forest tribes as cannibalistic monstrous Rākṣasas or animal-like Vānaras, adorns them with fantastic qualities, and punishes the open display of sexual desire of their females by mutilation of their organs. Devoid of much first-hand knowledge about these communities, he also attributes Sanskritized names—like Kumbhakarṇa, Vibhīṣaṇa, Sugrīva and Śūrpanakhā—to them. But the case is different in the Mahābhārata. There we notice the possibility of a greater contact with these people whose names (Hiḍimba, Baka, Kirmīra, Ghaṭotkaca) bear clear non-Sanskritic origins. The ways in which the settled society and forest dwellers tried to preserve their own spheres, and resisted any infringement by the other, are shown in the Hiḍimba and Baka episodes mentioned above. The open sexual advances of the Rākṣasa and Nāga women have been accepted in most cases, and not punished by mutilation.
The difference between the Brahmanical society and that of the Nāgas, the forest-dwelling Rākṣasas, and the non-Aryan tribes of the North-east is made clearer by the instances of matrilineal succession among the latter groups. Thus, Ghaṭotkaca, the son of Bhīma by the Rākṣasī Hiḍimbā, remained with his mother and became a chief. Similarly, Irāvan, Arjuna’s son by the Nāga princess Ulūpī, also remained with his mother. Citrāṅgadā, the Manipuri princess, kept her son Babhruvāhana with her, who eventually succeeded to the throne. The aggressive nature of the conflict is also clear by the fact that Arjuna killed Takṣaka’s wife when she tried to save her son.
But, describing the episode as an outright Aryan/non-Aryan conflict is difficult. Rather, the forest-dwellers—in this case—seem to be Vedicized people who worshipped Indra. Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna actually fought against a full army of the Vedic deities, excluding Agni. However, they were aided by two Vedic deities, Agni and Varuṇa, as well. The army they faced was a mixture of opposites, as the deities fought alongside the Rākṣasas, Dānavas and Daityas. More surprisingly, it was not only the Nāgas who resisted Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, but also the Garuḍas—the chief adversaries of the Nāgas. The fact that the Nāgas and Garuḍas might have been closely related—despite their antagonism—is indicated in the myth which shows them as born of the same father—Kaśyapa—and different mothers—Kadru and Vinatā—who were sisters, just like the Devas and Asuras. Therefore, it was a combined resistance of all the residents of the forest, who set aside their conflicts to protect their abode. The account seems to represent not an Aryan/non-Aryan conflict, but a conflict of two ideas—the old Vedic and tribal idea of association with nature and forest, and the rising idea of settlement and proto-urbanization through forest-clearance. Even the Aryan elites were divided on this issue is indicated by the presence of Indra and Agni as opponents, and of Varuṇa in both the sides. The setting is still Vedic, and not later, as shown by the list of the deities involved—Agni, Indra, Varuṇa, Yama, the Aśvins, Dhātṛ, Jaya, Tvastṛ, Aṃśa, Aryaman, Mitra, Puṣan, Bhaga, and Savitṛ. Śiva is present, but only as a participant in Indra’s army, and nothing more.
That the Khāṇḍava Forest suddenly disappeared from the geography of Kurukṣetra sometime in the Later Vedic Period is indirectly attested by Later Vedic literature as well. Therefore, the concerned forest is a part of the geography of Kurukṣetra in both Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa (JB: III.168) and Pan᷃caviṁśa Brāhmaṇa (PB: XXV-XXVI) but not in the slightly later text Mānava Śrauta Sūtra (MŚS: IX.5.4.1).
After these analyses a natural question arises: why did the forest have to be burnt, when so much opposition was involved? Apart from the fact that it occupied a substantial section of Khāṇḍavaprastha, assigned to the Pāṇḍavas, there might have been some geopolitical reasons as well, as J.A.B. van Buitenen writes:
The oval figure beginning at Hastināpura, continued through Ahicchatra and Kāmpilya, and reversed through Mathurā of the Vṛṣṇis, must if it is to return to its source, once more intersect the river Yamuna. It is at this approximate spot that we find Indraprastha, the city founded by the Pāṇḍavas in the Khāṇḍava Tract given them by Hastināpura after the alliance with Pan᷃cāla. It is surely Kuru country, but it is Vṛṣṇi riverside, and it is the Vṛṣṇi diplomat Kṛṣṇa who helps them to clear the area and establish themselves. A triangle of alliance has been forced by Kṛṣṇa, from Indraprastha to Mathurā to Kāmpilya, and the security of Mathurā secured by the marriage bond of Indraprastha and Kāmpilya. In the process Kṛṣṇa has also wound up with the balance of power: If war is to break out, Indraprastha, Mathurā and Kāmpilya can jointly converge on Hastināpura (Vyāsa, 1973: 10-11).
Kṛṣṇa’s engagement in burning the forest may become more meaningful in this light if we remember that the Vṛṣṇis were also trying to regain Mathurā from the Magadhan chief Jarāsandha who had driven them out to Dvārakā.
Thus, the burning of the Khāṇḍava forest can be safely contextualized in the period of the later Vedas, as an instance of forest-clearance by fire for establishing a new settlement of economic as well as geopolitical advantage. The pantheon involved in the legend is essentially Vedic and the episode is a remarkable instance of different antagonistic Vedic forest tribes fighting together to defend their abode. The legend also shows the beginning of the rise of Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna as heroes, and the former’s assault on the old religious system, through his deification was yet to mature. Indraprastha, the resultant settlement, survived for a considerable period. While Hastināpura was deserted for Kaushambi around 800 BCE, Indraprastha remained a centre of the Kuru power at least till the time of the Buddha. The Daśabrāhmaṇa Jātaka refers to the Kaurava kings of Yudhiṣṭhira’s lineage ruling from the Kuru capital Indraprastha.2 However by the time of the Buddha, the Kurus had lost their Later Vedic glamour, with the Khāṇḍavadāhana having been exemplary of their reign.
References
Primary Sources
Allahabad Stone Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta in Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum (Vol. III), eds. D.R. Bhandarkar, B. Ch. Chhabra and G.S. Ghai. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, 1981; 203-20.
Aśoka’n Edicts in Thapar, Romila, Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Āśvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra in Hermann Oldenberg (trans.), Gṛhya Sūtras (Part-I). New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1964.
Atharva Veda Saṃhitā . Vols. I-II, trans. William Dwight Whitney. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971.
Bāṇa. Harṣacarita, E.B. Cowell and F.W. Thomas trans. New Delhi: Motilal Banarssidas, 1968.
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad in Patrick Olivelle ed. Upaniṣads. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Hymns of the Ṛgveda. Vols. I and II, trans. by Ralph T.H. Griffith. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1999.
Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa. Raghu Vira ed. Nagpur : Sarasvati Vihara, 1934.
The Jātaka. E.B. Cowell ed. Vol. IV, trans. W.H.D. Rouse. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2002.
Kālidāsa, The Birth of Kumāra, trans. David Smith. New York University Press, 2005.
Kālidāsa, Complete Works of Kālidāsa. Vol. II, trans. by Chandra Rajan. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2007.
Kauṭīlya, The Kauṭīlya Arthaśāstra. Vols I-III, edited and trans. R.P. Kangle. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1997.
Mānava Śrauta Sūtra, trans. J.M. van Gelder. New Delhi: Śata Piṭaka Series, 1961-63.
Manu, The Ordinances of Manu, trans. Arthur Coke Burnell and Edward W. Hopkins. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1971.
Pan᷃caviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, trans. W. Caland. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1938.
Ṛg Veda Brāhmaṇas, trans. Arthur Berriadale Keith. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, 1920.
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, trans. by Julius Eggeling. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2005.
The Uttarakāṇḍa: The Seventh Book of the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. Ed. Umakant Premchand Shah. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1975.
Vālmīki, The Rāmāyaṇa (Vol. I), ‘Bālakāṇḍa’ trans. Robert P. Goldman. Princeton University Press, 1984.
Vālmīki, The Rāmāyaṇa, ‘Ayodhyākāṇḍa’ trans. Sheldon Pollock. Princeton University Press, 1986.
Vālmīki, The Rāmāyaṇa, ‘Araṇyakāṇḍa’ (The Forest) trans. Sheldon Pollock. New York University Press, 2006.
Vālmīki, The Rāmāyaṇa, ‘Sundarakāṇḍa’ (Sundara) trans. Robert P. Goldman and Sally J. Sutherland Goldman. New York University Press, 2005.
Vālmīki (Vol.VI), ‘Yuddhakāṇḍa’ (Part I) trans. Robert P. Goldman, Sally J. Sutherland Goldman and Barend A. van Nooten. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2010.
Vyāsa, The Mahābhārata, critically ed. Vishnu S. Sukthankar, (Vols. I and II): Ādiparvan (ed. Vishnu S. Sukthankar). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1969.
Vyāsa, The Mahābhārata (Vol. I), trans. J.A.B. Van Buitenen. University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Vyāsa, The Mahābhārata (Vol.II), trans. J.A.B. van Buitenen .University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Vyāsa, The Mahābhārata (Vol.III), ‘Āraṇyakaparvan’ ed. V.S.Sukthankar .Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 2002.
Yājn᷃avalkya, Yājnavalkya Smṛti, trans. B.S. Bist. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, 2004.
Yāska, The Nighaṇṭu and the Nirukta, ed. Lakshman Sarup. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1962.
Secondary Sources
Agrawal, D.P. “Protohistoric Chronology and Technology and Ecological Factors: A Synthesis” in B.P. Sahu ed. Iron and Social Change in Early India. Oxford University Press: 49-59.
Bose, Buddhadeb. Mahābhārater Kathā . Kolkata: M.C. Sarkar and Sons, 2004.
Chattopadhyaya, B.D. “State’s Perception of the Forest’ and the ‘Forest’ as State in Early India” in B.B. Chaudhuri and Arun Bandyopadhyaya eds., Tribes, Forest and Social Formation in Indian History. New Delhi: Manohar, 2004: 23-37.
Ghosh, A.. “City in Early Historical India” in B.P. Sahu ed., Iron and Social Change in Early India. Oxford University Press, 2006: 100-13.
Habib, Irfan. “Unreason and Archaeology: Painted Grey Ware and Beyond,” in K.M. Shrimali ed., Reason and Archaeology. Delhi: Association for the Study of History and Archaeology, 2007: 17-27.
Hiltebeitel, Alf, “The Burning of the Forest Myth,” in Bardwell L. Smith ed., Hinduism: New Essays in the History of Religion. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982.
Katz, Ruth Cecily. Arjuna in the Mahābhārata. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989.
Karve, Irawati, Yuganta. Hyderabad : Orient Longman, 2007.
Kosambi, D.D. “The Autochthonous Element in Mahabharata,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society 84.1 (January-March, 1964): 31-44.
Lal, B.B. “The Two Indian Epics vis-à-vis Archaeology.” Antiquity, LV (1981): 27-34.
Malamoud, Charles. Cooking the World. Oxford University Press, 1996.
Parasher-Sen, Aloka. “On Tribes, Hunters and Barbarians: Forest Dwellers in the Mauryan Period,” in Studies in History 14.2 (1998): 173-91.
——.“Introduction,” in Aloka Parasher-Sen ed., Subordinate and Marginal Groups in Early India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004.
——.““Foreigner” and “Tribe” as Barbarian (Mleccha),” in Aloka Parasher-Sen ed., Subordinate and Marginal Groups in Early India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Pargiter, F.E. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1997.
Ratna