The Mahabharata is a Sanskrit epic based on an internecine struggle between two sets of cousins for the most powerful throne in North India in the late second millennium B.C.E. Around this core are strung other stories and bits of mythology, as well as philosophical and religious compendia. One such is the Bhagavadgita, in which Krishna, as God, addresses one of the central heroes, Arjuna, as Everyman, in regard to doing his duty without concern for the fruits of his labors—an emphasis on means over ends which was to be a hallmark of Mahatma Gandhi’s ethical philosophy in this century. Another is the Sakuntala episode, which inspired Kaladasa’s famed play in approximately the middle of the first millennium C.E., and relates the birth of India’s great ancestor, Bharata, a name (or, more accurately, its derivative) by which India is known in Indian languages (hence, Mahabharata, or the story of the great descendants of Bharata). The result is a loosely tied work of almost two and a half million words (in an unabridged complete English translation). It lacks the dramatic and structural power of the Iliad, although it shares certain similarities with its Indo-European counterpart and its mythological background. Hence, while the Iliad is about the climax of a central war, the Mahabharata builds up to and from the war, the battle itself being but a small (albeit decisive) part of the work as a whole. And, like the Iliad, a woman, Draupadi, is central (but with greater character than that of Helen). While probably lacking the degree of emotional devotion attached to the other great Sanskrit epic, the Ramayana, it nonetheless is a fount for much in Hindu culture, folk and classic, oral and written. It is arguably the most important, and perhaps the greatest, literary work in Indian culture. For several years I have taught a summer course on “Civilization of Classical India,” which meets two hours a day for four weeks. I have found it advantageous to use primarily literary works, with history materials being supplemental.

The Mahabharata has continually been the single most important feature, and I have relied most strongly on Peter Brook’s five-hour and eighteen-minute film version.¹ There are three cassettes (97, 111, and 110 minutes respectively), each taking up a class period. Although these videos can be used at any point in the course, they do make a grand impression in the first week. After the initial Monday’s introduction to the course, the videos are used Tuesday through Thursday, with Friday intended for discussion. During the week the students have read the Ramayana² and the Shilappadikaram.³ Comparison of the principal female characters in the three works provides a good basis for the discussion. Since the Shilappadikaram is Tamil rather than Sanskrit, differences between the cultures can also be brought in for discussion. One of the many popular versions of the Mahabharata⁴ can be used as a text as well; and, if one wants to stress religion and ethics, the Bhagavadgita.⁵ Usually I do not require a reading of the Mahabharata, but I do put the script of the video⁶ on reserve and provide information on the Bhagavadgita (which is necessarily treated succinctly in the film).

Students respond very well to the film—understandably so, for it is a work by Peter Brook, and it is extremely well-acted by a thoroughly multicultural, multinational cast. A few years ago an Indian student gave me a copy of a paper in which he stated that he found the video to be “extremely Westernized,” and yet while concerned about its ability to convey the Mahabharata’s spiritual depth, he nonetheless felt that it was “still a good film as it gives Westerners an insight into what Hinduism is all about,” and that Brook had done a fine job.⁷ Indeed, the fact that it is “Westernized” in part explains its appeal to American students (although I’d be surprised if American students were to consider it “Westernized”). As it is a fine work of dramatic cinematography, one might want to put on reserve a wonderfully illustrated explication of the production of the film, The Mahabharata: Peter Brook’s Epic in the Making.⁸ There are a considerable number of aids one can use, both for instructional preparation and for in-class presentation. Indeed, there is enough supportive and peripheral material that it would be possible to have a class on the Mahabharata itself (that is, assuming sufficient student interest to meet minimum enrollment requirements). The video comes with an explanatory pamphlet which could also be of interest to students. Of greater value are the long introductions to the three volumes (five of the eighteen books which constitute the epic) of the translation by J. A. B. van Buitenen; and, likewise, the introduction to P. Lal’s one-volume prose version.⁹

The short introductions to many other versions are often problematic (e.g., Chakravarthi Narasimhan’s contention that it is “very difficult to find a true heroine in these pages,” and his rationalized belittling of Draupadi¹⁰). But such is not always the case. B. A. van Nooten’s introduction to William Buck’s creative translation is outstanding; even more so, however, is his succinct analysis for the Twayne World Authors Series.¹¹ Two other secondary sources are also of considerable value: Iravati Karve’s Yuganta¹² is mostly a series of thought-provoking character studies; a short introductory essay by Barbara Stoler Miller concludes with a substantially presented list of nine “topics for discussion” (there are numerous other essays in this work which are useful for background and comparative purposes, especially Miller’s “The Imaginative Universe of Indian Literature”).¹³

There are also items through which one can increase students’ appreciation for the influence of the Mahabharata, such as that on the dance-drama Kathakali.¹⁴ Kathakali portrayal of incidents from the epic, as well as some from other styles of dance, can be shown in class.¹⁵ The epics have had an influence on folk tradition through “oral epics.”¹⁶ For example, Karine Schomer has noted similarities and parallels between Alha (a Hindi oral epic popular in North Central India) and the Mahabharata; while the latter marks the end of an era, so does the former, in regard to the Muslim conquest and the resulting termination of Hindu rule in North India.¹⁷ The Mahabharata can be demonstrated to have great hold on contemporary popular culture, from a comic book depiction to the extremely popular ninety-three episode soap opera presentation on Doordarshan (the Indian government television network) on Sunday mornings. I have the July 1990 Newstrack video magazine, which shows clips from the series and has prominent figures from various fields commenting on the production.¹⁸ Shown the day after the conclusion (it is short) of Brook’s series, it makes quite a contrast. Students find it rather curious. I also use an overhead transparency of the blurb on the back of a paperback novel, which has the following quote from the book: “Mohan had managed to get the job. I never asked him how he did it. If Gandhari, who bandaged her eyes to become blind like her husband, could be called an ideal wife, I was an ideal wife too. I bandaged my eyes tightly.”¹⁹

A more pertinent example from modern literature is Lakshmi Narain Lal’s Hindi play Mr. Abhimanyu, which has also been published in English.²⁰ (The Hindi publication has five black-and-white photographs from the play which can be made into transparencies.) Like the epic Abhimanyu, the hero is killed by his family, but in a decidedly modern twist, the death is of his moral character rather than of his physical body. Striving to do what is right, and to fight corruption, he is felled, outnumbered and outmaneuvered, including by his father and wife, who are themselves victims of the complacency and corruption rampant in contemporary society. An in-class description of the play can place a contemporary stamp on the events and meanings of the Mahabharata. If there is time in the course, Shashi Tharoor’s lengthy satire The Great Indian Novel²¹ can add even further to the contemporary relevance of the epic. Political events and characters from the independence movement and after are caustically juxtaposed onto the epic, with the political figures barely, but effectively, disguised under the names of the epic characters. A couple of caveats are here in order: the students need an acquaintance with, and interest in, twentieth-century Indian political history; and, the one time I used the novel an older Indian student was very annoyed with it, and with me for using it. The advantage is that it presents a real-life contrast to dharma as espoused in the epic. Yet another example of the power of the epic on literature is the poetic dialogue “Karna and Kunti” by Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore.²² Years ago I was given a nine-page off-print by the translator, Humayun Kabir, parts of which I read to the class for comparison with the very dramatic episode in the video, in which the son denies his mother, with tragic consequences. Five short plays by Bhasa (c. third century B.C.E. up to third century C.E.) deal with the end of the Mahabharata. Particularly effective is the Urubhanga or “Broken Thighs,” which presents the dying Duryodhana in a sympathetic light. After bidding farewell to his wives and children, he realizes the error of his ways and the wrongs he perpetrated on the Pandavas.²³ This is high drama, more reminiscent of ancient Greek tragedy than of standard classical Sanskrit drama (e.g., Duryodhana dies on stage). I also use Kalidasa’s “Sakuntala” in this course, and I have the students read the episode in the epic wherein she is much tougher and the king much less sympathetic than in the play. The contrast between the two sets of characters allows the students to appreciate Kalidasa’s great dramatic abilities, as well as the great power of the epic characterizations.²⁴ Depending upon the students, comparisons with the other great Indo-European epic, the Iliad—including the surrounding mythology—can lead to rewarding discussion; that is, if one is fortunate enough to have students who are familiar with the Iliad!

I am not sure that the contrast between characters works well (e.g., Arjuna, Achilles; Yudhisthira, Agamemnon; Karna, Hector), with the exception of Helen and Draupadi. Helen, the first time she speaks, refers to herself: “Slut that I am.” Draupadi would never, never say such a thing. She would kill first (and, in a sense, given the assembly scene of the disrobing and the subsequent poetically ironic and karmic deaths of Duryodhana and Duhsasana, she does; the scene is actually more graphic in the epic than in the video). But more general comparisons can work: Both epics involve wars, with women central. The Mahabharata is so huge in volume as to have unwieldy structure, expressing the comprehensive nature and purpose of the work; the Iliad is tightly structured, mirroring Western poetic standards. In the Iliad death is a specter; in the Mahabharata, an enigma. In the Iliad the role of the warrior is conceived as a matter of pride; in the Mahabharata, as duty—dharma. Indeed, this is an epic not only of the internecine fratricidal war among Aryan descendants for the control of North India, it is a war of dharma and adharma (hence its concern with ethics and religious values); it is not coincidental that the same prefix—with necessary linguistic adjustments—starts the name of the eldest Kaurava brothers: duh—as in duhkha—which means “difficult, very bad.” It is necessary to stress the underlying concept to and beyond dharma: rta, cosmic (and thereby social) harmony. The term is cognate with the English words “right” and “straight.” There is, by the concept of rta and the underlying philosophy of the Mahabharata, meaning and purpose to the cosmos, and to existence within it. It is one’s dharma (moral duty) to do nothing to diminish that cosmic/social harmony; indeed, it is one’s duty to do everything one can to preserve and increase it. That is what the Mahabharata is about. There is nothing esoteric about this. It is what Gandhi meant by the application of ahimsa as a positive force; it is what Martin Luther King meant by his statement that “the universe is on the side of justice.” ²⁵