Bhima and Duryodhana and many Urubhangas

Sourav Roy Registration No: 34399 M A, Semester II, School of Arts & Aesthetics End Term Paper Consistently out of character: Fractured protagonist identities in Urubhanga performances SAA574 History of Performance : Indian Context Shivaprakash, Ameet Parameswaran and Others word count: 4408 Consistently out of character: Fractured protagonist identities in Urubhanga performances Fragments of a vessel in order to be articulated together must follow one another in the smallest details, yet they need not be like one another. In the same way a translation, instead of making itself similar to the of original, it must lovingly and in detail, form itself according to the manner of meaning of the original, to make them both recognizable as the broken fragments of the greater language, just as fragments are the broken parts of a vessel." -Walter Benjamin, The task of the translator, 1923 “Bhranti (confusion) is misapprehension. For example, in Venisamhara, Yudhisthira's taki g Bhi a fo Du odha a. - Sagardandin, Natakalakshanaratnakosha, ca. 13th c CE E e though the Ū u haṅga episode is a break in Mahabharata in all senses of the term, since the first promise of the act, it serves rather a contrarian purpose. If the scene of the Pãndavas' and Draupadi's humiliation, in the Sabhãparvan' s Dyütaparvan, is the Mahãbhãrata' s nucleus, then the pair of vows that Bhîma then makes, to drink Duháásana's blood and break Duryodhana's thigh, is the wartime epic's chief thread of continuity, running from that narratively iti al e e t to the o e that a s e s it i the Šal apa a , Bhî a 's st iki g do of Du odha a o the war's eighteenth and final day.1 Besides acting as a thread of continuity, it also serves the purpose of an active climactic element (amongst the anticlimactic post-war gloom and doom) where the audience's pleasure is chiefly derived from the intense physical combat between two warriors who are precisely at par as far as physical prowess is concerned. Therefore the promise of a never-ending battle sequence is almost palpable. The final vivid sequence of the breaking of the thighs of Duryodhana in Mahabharata helps us appreciate why it continues to be a favourite sequence to fire the imagination of playwrights and audiences alike, till date. “eei g that he o of li itless po e fu iousl ha gi g to a d hi , Du odha a sought to foil his atta k, bull of the Bharatas. Deciding on the avasth’ana move, ... aimed to jump into the air in o de to t i k V ik oda a. But Bhi a·se a guessed the ki g s i te tio . Cha gi g at hi a d oa i g like a lio , the P a da a iole tl hu led his a e at Du odha a s thighs as his oppo e t leaped i the ai once more in order to deceive his enemy, Your Majesty. With the crash of a thunderbolt, the mace hurled that a io of te if i g deeds oke Du odha a s ha dso e thighs. His thighs s ashed, ... that tiger among men, fell to the ground, making the earth resound.2 One would expect, Bhima as the ultimate victor (however unjustly) would be the protagonist character to be celebrated from then on. For example, a late Gandharan (5 th - 6th Century AD) wrestler's weight has the depiction of a mace on one side and that of a palm leaf (associated with Balarama cult because of the God's toddy-happy ways) on the other,3 it is argued not only as a sign of Bhima's celebration as an ideal of physical valour but also his eventual legitimization by Balarama, in direct contradiction to the Mahabhārata narrative. But as we now turn our attention to the contradictions and inconsistencies, we are all set to enter a vast forest of texts and performance traditions associated with the Mahabharata. Page 1 The text of Mahabharata, being composed over centuries (300 BCE- 300 CE4) is replete with narrative inconsistencies, which have been explained away using various disciplinary and ideological frameworks as interpolations, deliberate rewritings to conform to Brahminical religious process, literary devices, metaphysical lenses, translatational errors or a combination of all of the above. The performance traditions thriving around the epic is another forest altogether. The performance tradition of the Mahabharata is now at least two millennia old and encompasses a spectrum of re-enactments that may be conveniently classified... albeit with the caveat that these categories, particularly in India, often overlap and cross-pollinate. ... for example, the set of Mahabharata-based Sanskrit dramas attributed to the playwright Bhasa (c.second century CE?) that were rediscovered early in the twentieth century, as well as pre-modern vernacular literary epics, such as the tenth-century Bharatam i Ka ada the poet Pa pa, o Villiputu Al a s c.fourteenth-century Tamil Makaparatam, and more recently a series of plays ...mounted in urban theaters in the half century since Indian independence....open-air folk theater traditions of uncertain (though possibly long) historical pedigree such as the Mahabharata plays of Tamil Terukkuttu drama (Frasca 1990) and the Pandav Lila of the Garhwal Himalayas (Sax 2002). Both of these regional performance genres feature in local festivals of community renewal through ritualized propitiation of divine protectors, and also involve the periodic possession of actors and sometimes spectators by the divine characters being portrayed. ...however, that in all forms of Mahabharata performance, beginning with the earliest surviving dramas and including both ends of the elite–popular spectrum, radical reinterpretation of the Sanskrit epic story, often involving the omission, invention, and transposition of events and characters, has been the rule rather than the exception. Indeed, right from the era of Bhasa—who in Urubhangam the eaki g of the thigh pe itted Duryodhana to die a peaceful and noble death in his palace, surrounded by his family members and magnanimously forgiving the Pandavas and Krishna for their role in his downfall, and in Pañcaratnam the fi e ge s e t so fa as to effe t a e o iliation of the feuding cousins without recourse to war—to the modern Terukkuttu pla e s fascination with extra-epic characters like Pottu Raja, the earthy and demi-demonic bodyguard of Draupadi-as-local-goddess (Hiltebeitel 1988: 333–67), the history of Mahabharata retelling through performance has been characterized by a narrative fluidity and an interpretive freedom...5 In the light or rather twilight of the above discussion, any attempted survey of inconsistencies in the epic, becomes a project of epic proportions. Therefore to further concentrate the scope of this paper, the inconsistencies in the characterizations of Bhima and Duryodhana across a select few performance texts and performances would be attempted here. Now the first obvious question that arises here is in which way it is a productive intellectual exercise (even if we choose to overlook the disciplinary difficulties that arise from comparing performance texts with performances, each separated from the other considerably by time and space) considering that various inconsistencies would definitely be found that would turn it into a pedantic exercise of tabulation, considering that the contemporary scholarly discourse around characterization theorises charcterization even in a specific text or a performance as anything but a coherent, consistent entity. Page 2 A istotle, a gui g i the Poeti s that t aged is a ep ese tation, not of men, but of action and life, of happiness and u happi ess a d that happi ess a d u happi ess a e ound up ith a tio A istotle 9 : 39-40), asserts the primacy of plot over character. We would endorse this argument by suggesti g that lassi pla s su h as Oedipus the Ki g, E e a and Phaedra are most productively read as moral and/or political demonstrations in dramatic form. While human concerns constitute the subject-matter of drama, and while theatre is pe fo ed hu a age ts, so that it follo s that hu a ei gs a e oth the o te t a d the fo of theate (Wilson 1976:97-9), characte ; i lassi d a a, is de o st a l a function of action and of the thematic and ideological underpinnings of a tio . ...The ou geois d a ati te t, o te po a eous ith the realist novel and (in its later phase) with the development of psychology as a s ste of s ie tifi e ui , efle ts a o e conspicuous interest in character per se. ... The grounding of characterisation in psychological detail need not detract from the structural and ideological functions of character. ... I-layman questions the te ha a te : a da ge ous o d because it implies a coherence, a consistency and an indiidualit , hi h a ot e the e 9 : . This fo ulatio effectively describes the project, with regard to the construction of character... Furthermore, it usefully reminds us that character, in drama, is constructed wholly within and by means of language, a d has o u e e o d the fi tio al o ld of the te t. I the adi al te t, ha a te is e/p ese ted ...as o st u t. ... In each case, the spectator is placed at a critical remove from the action and, in consequence, from the likelihood of efle i e a ts of e otio al ide tifi atio ith the characters. Hence, a more active mode of spectatorship is placed on offer.6 But if we set aside this semiotic approach and consider the approach of extreme context-specificity of Indian narratives7 the question of inconsistencies in characterization takes on a range of hues that is far more intellectually exciting. If we heed the oft-said adage about Indian performance traditions based on epic texts that, it is not about what happens (the audience already knows the plot and the ending) but how it happens, the question of various 'inconsistent' characterizations of Bhima or Duryodhana can become that of a tributary or distributory paradigm. Considering, each spectator is privy to various 'inconsistent' characterizations of either Bhima or Duryodhana, whether they end up merging into creating a single multifaceted mental construct (tributary) or whether all these various characterizations emanate from a single entity, 'Core Bhima' or 'Core Duryodhana', and therefore however inconsistent, they seem to cohere perceptually for a spectator because of a 'family resemblance' as defined by Wittgenstein? Several attempts would be made to answer this question with the use of distinct theoretical constructs but first, we must discuss the inconsistencies in characterizations across the performance texts and the performances. That the very act of Urubhanga is a narrative and characteristic rupture in Mahabhārata is evident from the following passage (besides the fact that the act needs a convoluted legitimization from Krishna). Page 3 At the fall of your son, there was a huge noise of kettledrums, o hes, a d ta o s that pe et ated the ea th s i a ds. The directions became pervaded by horrendous looking torsoes. With their many feet and many arms, they danced and aroused fear, Your Majesty. Men bearing standards, arrows, or weapons trembled when your son was felled, Your Majesty. Lakes and wells vomited blood, best of kings, and rivers began to flow upstream with strong currents. Women took on the characteristics of men and men took on the characteristics of women when your son Du · odha a fell, O ki g.8 This is no ordinary environmental reaction sequence of a heroic warrior's fall. It is almost an upturning of world order, put into motion by a utterly uncharacteristic act on Bhima's part. But the point to be pondered here, even though incited by Krishna, whether the act is really uncharacteristic. Throughout Mahabharata, Bhima is portrayed as both a little bucolic and quite bellicose and effective more as an instrument for others rather than as his own man. For example, if we take his relation with Draupadi9, we can see his love for her, reflected in being the most outraged at her every ordeal, threatening to burn Yudhishthira's dice-playing hand or constantly railing at Dhristarashtra and Gandhari, and yet being reduced to a 'heavy', a useful minion to accomplish messy, difficult tasks (bringing the Saugandhika flower or killing Kichaka), not ever getting or even hoping for the love Arjuna gets from Draupadi. Judged in that light, Bhima acting as a final agent for the Pandava victory seems quite in character. (Duryodhana, the last claimant for the throne and the last obstacle for Pandavas, was in hiding to gain time and send word to Dhritarashtra about his survival so that the patriarch can urge the five brothers for not just clemency but also, perhaps a part of the kingdom for Duryodhana, which would be binding on them, so Duryodhana had to be killed before this could take place.)9a It has been said that the characters of a Sanskrit drama are not so much stylizations of familiar individuals as they are personifications of role types embedded in Indian culture. Drama is a celebration of hierarchy, not in the sense that the powerful always triumph but rather that in a well-ordered universe identities are in some sense given and not acquired, and the relationships are reasonable and not arbitrary. That implies that the character which is one's identity is a constituent of the ordered whole....The idea that character is constant is reinforced by many facets of Indian social and religious custom, especially the notion of karma...Indeed, the presumptions of the Indian drama make drama itself a problem, for if character is a constant, and action largely predictable, just how can interest in that action by that character be excited and sustained? Part of the answer would appear to be from the notion of imbroglio...Much of the audience's enjoyment of such scenes derive from its superior knowledge, for it recognizes the mistake, as the characters do not: the audience is the locus of the fundamental truth that character is not permanently altered. 18 But to probe deeper into what constitutes the consistency of characterization in an epic like Mahabharata, we must look into the questions of Smriti (memory-consciousness) and Swadhrama (one's own ethical construct) and both are intimately connected to each other. Considering that each character of the epic is the illustration of a specific aspect of the overarching ethical discourse, acting out of character is frowned upon (for example, when the bellicose Bhima surprisingly suggests peaceful diplomacy before the war, he is mocked and shot down by Krishna10) it is memory of one's self and past acts that is said to keep things together. Page 4 In the Mahabharata, the question 'Who am I?' is bound up with the question 'What is my place?' Thus the answer to the question of a man's duty too is dependent on the place he holds.... man must try to keep the thread of smriti unbroken...for this one life. 9b For this argument to work, we have to assume memory as an unchanged, authentic imprint and it is anything but. Just like the epic, it is liable to be revised consciously or unconsciously. This comes into play when we consider the greyness of how Bhima remembers11 drinking Dushshashana's blood (he denies it to Gandhari) or when he timidly owns1 up to his adharama of breaking Duryodhana's thigh to her when she accuses him of the same, after the war ends. (even though he hesitatingly offers Krishna's legitimization, that of evil deserves evil). So it is an uncharacteristic act, no matter how vociferously justified. We will now turn our attention to the starkly different characterizations of Duryodhana in Mahabharata and Bhasa's Urubhangam. As we know that the deep belief in his patrilinear legitimacy to the throne (being the eldest son of the eldest brother and Pandavas not even born from Pandu, therefore his constant addressing of them as 'Kaunteya'-s) what mobilizes him in his actions. Besides he has a history of very personal animosities with Bhima (and therefore finally, the choice of Bhima to fight him in the final battle is charged with multivalence). In Mahabharata, he doesn't take his unjust defeat lying down (pun intended, he props up with his hand 'like a cobra') and spews venom, that is very logically structured and not just an angry loser's rant at Krishna, concluding with that he had a lived a richer and fuller life than Pandavas, ending in a moral death. (we must recall that his path to heaven was substantially easier than the Pandavas) The characteristic evil (his litany of crimes against the brothers is rattled off at every opportunity) with which we are used to associate Duryodhana, is argued convincingly by scholars12 as essentially his defiance of the superiority of Krishna, framed by a text aimed at establishing that very ideology. The upholding of his swadharma that of a Kshatriya (killing of his enemies) and his deliberate refusal to accept Krishna's ever-changing discourse of swadharma is what leads to his doom. In Bhasa's Urubhanga, Duryodhana seems utterly oblivious to the injustice of being hit below the belt and takes it as the destiny ordained by the divinity of Krishna (the very same concept he defies at the cost of his death in Mahabharata). BALARAMA: But Bhimasena, who tricked you in battle, survives! DURYODHANA: Have I then been tricked by Bhima? BALARAMA: Who else brought you to this state! DURYODHANA: Listen: It was Hari himself, alien to deceit, who entered the mace to bring me over to the realm of Death. Beloved Hari! Who stole the coral tree from Lord Indra, along with his pride; Who sleeps a thousand years, at will, on the timeless sea.13 One word of caution about the argument, framed above thus. It panders to a monolithical Brahminical conspiracy theory, (which is focussed rather unproductively on only the effects rather than the machinations)and doesn't give Bhasa enough credit for creating the pathos he generates in us for Duryodhana (including the character Durjaya, his young son, who wonders why he can't sit of his father's lap) which is denied to him in Mahabharata (his side of story is presented in a way to appeal to our logic and not to our emotions.) Moreover, by this act of conformity, he gets to be the moral hero (the status which is revealed yet deliberately obscured in Mahabharata). Page 5 The Urubhahga is not just a retelling from the villian's perspective. A not-so-subtle change in the "villian's" character is also manifest: Duryodhana is not only the dramatic hero, he is also the moral hero. In fact, that seems to be the point of the play: it is he who draws the lessons from his and his family's defeats and recommends compassion and reconciliation with the victorious Pandavas. 14 After considering these two performance texts, we will synoptically look at the characterizations of Bhima and Duryodhana in two performances which are almost contemporary to each other, Peter Brook's 'Mahabharata' (TV Film, 1989) and Kavalam Narayana Panikkar's 'Urubhangam' (Stage production, 1987) respectively. Bhima (Mamadou Dioumé ) and Duryodhana (Georges Corrafce) gets ready to charge at each other in Peter Brook's Mahabharata Now that we are comparing characterizations across performance texts and performances, the loss and gain that happens in intertranslation are not always self-evident. For example, the casting of a black actor as Bhima supposedly breaks a cultural stereotype (casting a non-Indian in an Indian role) but reinforces a racial stereotype (the 'primitivity' of Bhima as a character). This applies even in case of body movements, fot example, the avasthana move by Duryodhana mentioned in Mahabharata (possibly a bona fide move by mace fighters) which seemed to consist of folding both the legs and leaping into the air (which makes it very easy for Bhima to break both the thighs with a single blow) seems to have its performative parallel in Udvartana (springing up by drawing both the knees inwards) mentioned in Natyashastra.15 Page 6 Yet we can never assume concrete one-to-one correspondences while comparing. This qualification of correlation-but-not-necessarily causation lies at the heart of appreciating the 'inconsistencies' of characterization we are discussing here. As the intercultural scholars have rightly pointed out (Ira Bhaskar, Rustom Bharucha, Alf Hiltebeitel) Peter Brook's 'Mahabharata', in an act of cultural piracy, reduces a tale of complex moral discourse to a spectacle-oriented battle between two clans, the same reductionism reflects in the characterizations as well. Besides this overarching dilution, the Urubhanga sequence is narratively faithful to Mahabharata, yet with subtle displacements, successfully evades the unresolvable ethical dichotomy as delineated clearly below.10 (1) Bhima, who apparently has a reputation for adhering to dharma, is prompted by Krsna to violate dharma in order to kill Duryodhana. (2) Yudhisthira is silent about the foul blow of the club but upbraids Bhima for breaching dharma by trampling his fallen foe. (3) Addressing Duryodhana himself, Yudhisthira attributes his downfall to fate, then to Duryodhana's own wickedness, then again to fate. (4) Balarama refers twice to Duryodhana as righteous (dharmatma), whilst his brother Krsna calls him wicked, shameless, the basest of men (papo . . . nirapa- trapah . . . purusddhamah). (5) Krsna, who had instigated Bhlma's major breach of dharma in killing Duryodhana, and had attempted to justify it to Balarama, asks Yudhisthira why he condones Bhlma's minor breach of dharma in trampling the fallen man; in fact Yudhisthira has already condemned this as an act of adharma. (6) Yudhisthira, apparently forgetting his earlier condemnation of Bhima's act, offers excuses for it, which Krsna reluctantly accepts. (7) Krsna now scolds the Pandava warriors for insulting a fallen foe, and then proceeds to insult him at length himself. (8) Duryodhana accuses Krsna of winning the war by means of adharma, but Krsna retorts that Duryodhana lost it through his own wickedness. (9) Then Krsna explains to the Pandavas that the war could only be won by means of adharma, and that this is acceptable because even the gods act in such ways. This, once again, brings to the fore why we can't dismiss the inconsistencies in the protagonist identities as mere nuances of characterizations brought about by the creative differences in authorial intentions. When it comes to Panikkar's rendition of Urubhangam, the respective inconsistencies with Bhasa's characterizations take the most interesting forms. Page 7 To ake the idea of Du odha a s e e ge t alte ego concrete, Panikkar invents a second character—a theyyam (godhead or incarnation)— ho sp i gs out of the fo e s shatte ed thigh a d lite all e odies his ette self. Begi i g ith Du odha a s e t o stage behind the traditional half-curtain, this scene develops a triangular dynamic in which the theyyam (aided by Balarama) counsels the wounded prince, allows him to sublimate his anger, and brings him to a state of recognition in which he can forgive his enemies and accept his impending death. The scene obviously has a crucial dramatic function: it places Duryodhana at the centre and creates a space for his ethical transformation th ough the age of a ha a te ho is isi le o l to hi . But it is also visually spectacular, presenting the theyyam as a largerthanlife cgure on stilts, with an enormous headdress and a red-and-gold costume. The yellow costume and normal appearance of Balarama then contrasts with both the imposing figure of the theyyam and the prone figure of the wounded Duryodhana.16 After being confronted by the self-righteous diatribe of Vyasa's Duryodhana, the serenity of Bhasa's Duryodhana, comes across as rather unrealistic. To understand the confounding disappearance of Duryodhana's rage, it might be useful to see Ashwathama as a personification of the same. Both in Mahabharata and in Urubhanga, he takes up (as he is annointed the next general of a mostly non-existent army) the rest of the battle (which results in the most unheroic slaying of the children of the Pandava). Even though he is asked not to be vengeful by Duryodhana himself in Bhasa's version, the very act of anointing him the army general connotes implicit legitimization of his subsequent actions as well as a transferance mechanism for the sublimation of his rage. If we take the theyyam as the representative of the better self of Duryodhana and Ashwathama (who appears in the last sequence of Panikkar's production) as the representative of his baser self, the fragmentation of Duryodhana's character becomes complete. Page 8 Now that we have broken apart the characters of Bhima and Duryodhana, the questions of whether they are tributary or distributary, presents itself again. The question of memory as a thread of continuity becomes just as vital from our, the receiver's (reader or spectator) perspective, because that is what keeps all the different aspects of a character, however inconsistent, together by associative, non-analytical fashion. John D Smith,10 in the same vein, very imaginatively argues that they are juxtaposed without overlap, nullifying the tributarydistributary binary. I drew attention to Paul Feyerabend's comparison between the "archaic style" in ancient Greek art and the formulaic diction of Homer,23 and suggested that his observations could be applied also to the Mahabharata. He describes both the visual and verbal depictions he deals with as paratactic aggregates, and comments: "the elements of such an aggregate are all given equal importance, the only relation between them is sequential, there is no hierarchy, no part is presented as being subordinate to and determined by others" (pp. 233-4). A visual example is "the picture of a kid half swallowed by a lion. The lion looks ferocious, the kid looks peaceful, and the act of swallowing is simply tacked on to the presentation of what a lion is and what a kid is" (p. 233). In verbal narration, the "paratactic" approach explains "why Aphrodite is called 'sweetly laughing' when in fact she complains tearfully (Iliad, 5.375), or why Achilles is called 'swift footed' when he is sitting talking to Priam (Iliad, 24.559)" (p. 241). In the context of the Mahabharata, I drew attention to the similar use of "inappropriate" formulaic epithets, such as the description of Duhsasana as "best of Bharata's descendants" (bharatasrestha) at 2.66.3, just after his attempt to strip Draupadi naked, or the reference to Duryodhana as Suyodhana (a contemptuous antonym of his name, meaning "easy to fight") as he rides in majesty into his city at 3.240.45. It seems to me possible that the character-centred inconsistencies in the Mahabharata may result from the same paratactic approach, and that the contradiction arises in our own minds because we are no longer used to reading narratives in this way. From this point of view, Arjuna is a great warrior, and Arjuna is in awe of Bhlsma, and the one fact has merely been "tacked on" to the other; similarly, Gandhari's self-accusation has been tacked on to her accusation of fate. To look for some sort of logical link between the two facts is a mistake: they are both simply present as elements in the narrative sequence. A. K. Ramanujan 17 gives a more fascinating explanation of how inconsistencies in Mahabharata, of characterizations or otherwise, open up a break for a subnarrative to branch out that, fractal-like, mimics the parent form and thereby lies their reason of existence. A.K. Ramanujan's image of the Mahabharata as being like a crystal. Coming upon the Encyclopedia Britannica article on crystals, while looking for something else, Ramanujan sensed an uncanny similarity to the Mahabharata when he read: "Few things in nature are more perfect than a crystal, in which immense numbers of atoms or molecules are stacked in perfect alignment. Yet, surprisingly, many of the most important properties of crystals are due to the few odd places where the crystal structure goes wrong. Many crystals could not have grown at all without having imperfections." ◊ Page 9 Acknowledgements Nirmalya Dasgupta, for lending me Buddhadeb Basu's 'Mahabharater Katha' Sanjay Ghosh, for finding me a copy of Irawati Karve's 'Yuganta: End of an Epoch' Endnotes 1. True Lies - Bhī a's Vo s a d the ‘e isio of Me o i the "Mahā hā ata's" Code, Autho s : Phillip E est, “ou e: A Oriental Research Institute,vol. 87 (2006), pp. 273-282 als of the Bha da kar 2. 58.45, Mahabharata, Book Nine, Shalya, Volume Two, Translated by Justin Meiland, New York University Press & JJC Foundation, 2007 pp. 319 3. A Late Gandharan Wrestlers' Weight, Author(s): Angelo Andrea Di Castro, Source: East and West,Vol. 53, No. 1/4 (December 2003), pp. 257-265 4. Hindus: An Alternate History, Wendy Doniger, Penguin India, 2009, pp. 448 5. Bending the Bharata : Two uncommon cinematic adaptations, Philip Lutgendorf, 2008, in Indian literature and popular cinema : recasting classics, edited by Heidi R. M. Pauwels, pp 34, 35 6. Theatre as a sign system: A semiotics of text and performance, Elaine Aston, Psychology Press, 1991, pp 34-36 7. Is there an Indian Way of Thinking? An Informal Essay, A. K. Ramanujan, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 1989 8. 58.55, Mahabharata, Book Nine, Shalya, Volume Two, Translated by Justin Meiland, New York University Press & JJC Foundation, 2007 pp. 321 9. Yuganta: End of an Epoch, Irawati Karve, Orient Blackswan, 2006 pp. 94 9a. Do, pp. 118 9b. Do, pp. 122 10. Co siste a d Cha a te i the Mahā hā ata, Autho s : Joh D. “ ith, “ou e: Bulleti of the “ hool of O ie tal a d Af ican Studies, University of London,Vol. 72, No. 1 (2009), pp. 101-112 11. M.A. Mehendale; "Did Bhlma Vow to Drink Duháásana's Blood ?" Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 2005; vol. LXXXVI; Pune, 2006; 93-97. 12. Ki g Du odha a: The Mahā hā ata Dis ou se of “i i g a d Vi tue i Epi a d D a a, Autho s : Da id Gito e , “ou e: Jou al of the American Oriental Society,Vol. 112, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1992), pp. 222-232 13. Ū u haṅga: The Breaking of the Thighs, Author(s): Edwin Gerow, Source: Journal of South Asian Literature,Vol. 20, No. 1, Part I: Essays on the Mahᾱbhᾱrata (Winter, Spring 1985), pp. 57-70 14. Bhāsa's Ū u haṅga a d I dia Poeti s, Autho s : Ed i Ge o a d Bhāsa, “ou e: Jou al of the A e i a O ie tal “o iet ,Vol. Indological Studies Dedicated to Daniel H. H. Ingalls (Jul. - Sep., 1985), pp. 405-412 , No. 3, 15. The Natyashasthra, translated and annotated by Manomohan Ghosh, Vol 1, The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1950, pp 194 16. Theatres of Independence: Drama, Theory and Urban Performance in India since 1947, Aparna Bhargava Dharwadker, University of Iowa Press, 2005, pp 208 17. Transmitting "Mahabharatas": Another Look at Peter Brook, Author(s): Alf Hiltebeitel, Source: TDR (1988-),Vol. 36, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 131-159 18. Sanskrit Dramatic Theory and Kālidāsa's Plays, Edwin Gerow, From Theater of Memory, The Plays of Kālidāsa, Columbia University Press, 1984, pp. 42-62