(RE)EXAMINING MARGINALIZED CHARACTERS: CASTE AND GENDER IN

SELECT RETELLINGS OF THE MAHABHARATA IN RECENT INDIAN ENGLISH

FICTION

M.A.

1

May 2015

Tanvi Mohile

(RE)EXAMINING MARGINALIZED CHARACTERS: CASTE AND GENDER IN

SELECT RETELLINGS OF THE MAHABHARATA IN RECENT INDIAN ENGLISH

FICTION

A Dissertation for the Partial Fulfilment of Master of Arts to

S.N.D.T Women’s University,

Churchgate,

Mumbai-400 020

By

Tanvi Mohile

2

Guide

Dr. Dhrupadi Chattopadhyay

INTRODUCTION

“Great as the Ramayana is as an epic poem, and loved by the

people, it is really the Mahabharata that is one of the

outstanding books of the world. It is a colossal work, an

encyclopaedia of tradition and legend, and political and

social institutions of ancient India.”

-Jawaharlal Nehru (qtd. In Lothspeich: 5)

The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are two Indian epics which are

very important to the social, cultural and political scene in

India. They were, and continue to be, an important part of

people’s consciousness and the Indian social construct.

3

This research focuses on retellings of the Mahabharata and

issues of caste and gender that have been represented in the

retellings through characters from the Mahabharata. In order to

do this, the research uses contemporary caste and gender

theories to understand what, and how, changes have occurred

with respect to these two issues. Caste and gender issues are

ever-present in Indian society and Indian literature reflects

these issues in their changing forms. It is interesting to

study how authors in the 21st century retell an epic like the

Mahabharata to showcase these changes in society.

At the same time, the Mahabharata is considered to be Indian

mythology and therefore, it is necessary to associate myth

theories with it. This research especially tries to make use

of myth theories by Mircea Eliade and Bronislaw Malinowski who

talk about the effect of myth on society.

The Epic Form and the Mahabharata:

In A Glossary of Literary Terms, M.H. Abrams and Geoffrey Galt Harpham

write-“...the term epic or heroic poem is applied to a work

4

that meets at least the following criteria: it is a long verse

narrative on a serious subject, told in a formal and elevated

style, and centred on a heroic or quasi-divine figure on whose

actions depends the fate of a tribe, a nation or...the human

race.” They also distinguish between traditional and literary

epics, where traditional epics “were written versions of what

had originally been oral poems..” Examples of traditional

epics include Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, the Anglo-Saxon Beowulf,

the Spanish Poema del Cid etc. On the other hand, literary epics

“were composed by individual poetic craftsmen in deliberate

imitation of the traditional form.” Examples of literary epics

include Virgil’s Aeneid, Milton’s Paradise Lost etc (107).

According to the above definition of epics it can be said that

the Mahabharata is a traditional epic. But the notion of an

Indian epic is different than a western one. In India the

Sanskrit epics are called kavyas or mahakavyas. Indira

Viswanathan Peterson defines kavya as “literature conceived

above all as a form of art in the medium of figurative

language. Its purpose is to achieve aesthetic effects through

the exquisite manipulation of language and of the conventions

of form” and she calls the mahakavya as “the most prestigious

5

of the kavya genres.” (1) M. Srinivasachariar defines a

mahakavya as “a writing of considerable length varying

description and elaborate construction, embracing a narrative,

theological or historical and is divided into Sargas or cantos

for convenience of narration” (81). The Mahabharata is one of

two Sanskrit epics of ancient India, the other being the

Ramayana. Irawati Karve, in Yuganta, distinguishes between the

two epics by calling the Mahabharata a history and the Ramayana

a poem (79). Bibek Debroy, in his Introduction to his

translation of the unabridged Mahabharata, says that both the

epics are included in the smriti tradition, which means that

they “were recited, heard, memorized and passed down through

the generations.” The Mahabharata is said to have been written

by Sage Vyasa, but there is also an alternate view that Vyasa

or Vedavyasa was a title conferred on a person who classified

the Vedas. According to Debroy, therefore, the composer of the

Mahabharata is Krishna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa. He also says

further that subsequent generations have added to the epic and

therefore it is difficult to say if the epic as we know it

today was the one composed by Krishna Dvaipayana. (xviii) The

epic poem is made up of 100,000 couplets-divided into 18

6

parvans or, alternatively, 100 parvans. It is difficult to

determine when the Mahabharata was composed because of the

belief that it had multiple authors. According to Debroy, it

was composed over a period of 1000 years between 800 BCE and

400 ACE. (xxi) It is one of the largest known epics and is 7

times the size of the Iliad and the Odyssey combined. It is

considered to be an important text in Hinduism because of its

teachings of dharma and also because it is considered to be

itihasa (history) by some. Debroy writes,”...itihasa is better

translated as ‘this is what happened’. Itihasa isn’t myth or

fiction. It is a chronicle of what happened; it is fact. Or so

runs the belief.” (xvii) Also, the Bhagavad Gita, a part of the

Mahabharata, is a discourse between Krishna and Arjuna about

moral code and ethics, and the path to final liberation for

man. Therefore, it also has a religious significance in

Hinduism (britannica.com).

The Mahabharata, therefore, is culturally and socially

important in India. Ramanujan in his essay titled ‘Repetitions

in the Mahabharata’, writes “..a text like the Mahabharata is

not a text but a tradition” (420). Amish Tripathi, one of the

leading writers of mythological fiction in India, also said in

7

a discussion in a YouTube video of the Odisha Litfest 2012

that Indian mythology is still just as popular and readable

because it forms such an important part of our culture and

society (youtube.com).

Even though it is true that the Mahabharata and the Ramayana

are both important in Indian society, it is the Mahabharata

which is associated more with the workings of society and the

behaviour of humans than the Ramayana. This is because of the

stories that the two epics tell. The Ramayana is the story of

Lord Rama who is a divine figure in Hinduism. On the other

hand, most of the characters in the Mahabharata are more human

than divine. Debroy writes, “every conceivable human emotion

figures in it, which is the reason why it is possible to

identify with it even today. The text itself states that what

is not found in the Mahabharata, will not be found anywhere

else.” (xxxi) Pamela Lothspeich, in her book Epic Nation, says

that the Mahabharata is “revered national literature and

national history”. Its reputation is that of “an authoritative

text about India’s past”. According to Lothspeich the reason

for this is that “the Pandavas have not been apotheosized as

8

Ram and Krishna have been, and for this reason they are more

easily appropriated as ‘real’ historical figures.” (3)

Inspite of it being called “national history” the epic is

often studied as Indian mythology rather than history. In ‘At

the Foot of Mount Olympus: A Theory on Myth’, Flip Schutte

defines mythology as “the body of myths of a particular

culture” and “the study and interpretation of such myths.” He

defines myth as “a narrative that through many retellings has

become an accepted tradition in a society.” (577)

While considering the books and other material available on

the Mahabharata it is necessary to keep in mind that many

authors and scholars consider it to be a myth. But there has

been much debate on this issue and Indian scholars maintain

that it is a part of India’s history and is about people and

cultures which lived in India. Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, the

author of the Mahabharata Project and the Chairman of The Indian

Council of Historical Research (ICHR), said in a recent

interview in the online Outlook magazine, that “For the last

60 years, our writing and understanding of history has been

influenced by the West... And, these are my personal views,

history writing in India is Euro-centric and

9

imperialistic....There is a certain view that the Mahabharata

or the Ramayana are myths. I don’t see them as myths because

they were written at a certain point of time in history....

the Ramayana is true for people...it’s in the collective

memory of generations of Indians. We can’t say the Ramayana or

the Mahabharata are myths. Myths are from a western

perspective.....  In continuing civilisations such as ours,

the writing of history cannot depend only on archaeological

evidence. We have to depend on folklore too.”

(outlookindia.com)

Dr. Devdutt Pattanaik, another well-known Indian writer says,

in an article titled ‘History versus Mythology’ published on

his website, that “the pre-scientific European accepted

whatever the priests preached on the pulpit. The post-

scientific European demanded evidence for everything. Both the

pre-scientific and the post-scientific European rejected

sacred stories of other parts of the world (America, Africa,

Asia, Australia) as myth for all together different reasons.

The former for religious reasons: truth only comes from the

Bible. The latter for scientific reasons: lack of measurable

evidence.” (devdutt.com) Therefore, the change in perception

10

of the epics, from history to mythology is very recent. It is

only with the colonisation of India that the epics came to be

viewed as mythology rather than a lived history.

Critical Reception:

J.L. Brockington in The Sanskrit Epics writes about the critical

reception to the Mahabharata in the West, in the early 19th and

20th centuries. The first English translation of any part of

the Mahabharata was by Charles Wilkins, in 1785. It was the

first time that any Sanskrit text was being translated into a

European language. Franz Bopp edited different incidents in

the epic and also edited the first complete edition of the

Mahabharata, called the Calcutta edition, between 1834 and 1839.

The next to come was the Bombay edition in 1862-63 with

Nilakantha’s commentary.

Christian Lassen undertook a systematic research of the epic

because he wanted to “reconstruct Indian geography, ethnology

and the pre-Buddhist history of India on the basis of the epic

material.” (Brockington, 43) Other important scholars of the

epic include the two Adolf Holtzmanns, an uncle and a nephew.

The younger Adolf Holtzmann gave the ‘inversion theory’ which

11

said that it was originally Duryodhana’s side which was the

victorious side but later Vishnu followers changed the text to

show the triumph of Krishna and the Pandavas.

The first half of the twentieth century saw a decline in the

interest in epics. Hermann Oldenberg studied the structure of

the epic and said that the epic was a mixture of prose and

verse but was later reworked into a regular verse structure.

On the other hand, Gerrit Jan Held studied the epic using an

ethnographic perspective and was of the opinion that the

Kauravas and the Pandavas represented two tribes and the dice

game was a usual feature for the maintenance and regulation of

wealth amongst the tribes. Charles Autran also used

ethnographic perspectives to study the epic but he also used

the comparative approach, comparing the epic with the Greek

world.

In India, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute started

an ambitious project of compiling a critical edition of the

Mahabharata in 1919. The critical edition was compiled using

various manuscripts from all over India and critical

commentaries available on the epic. V.S. Sukhtankar was the

12

editor of the massive project. The Institute published 19

volumes between 1927 and 1966.

Irawati Karve’s Yuganta is a very important critical work. She

writes about the different characters in the epic and

interprets their behaviour, actions and their effects on the

course of the epic.

Versions and Retellings:

The Online Oxford Dictionary defines ‘version’ as

“A particular form of something differing in

certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the

same type of thing” and it defines ‘retelling’ as

“Tell (a story) again or differently”. The definitions are

similar and it is, therefore, difficult to determine the

difference between them.

A.K. Ramanujan, in his essay ‘ Three Hundred Ramayanas’, says

though that he “ prefer(s) the word telling to the usual terms

versions or variants because the latter terms can and typically do

imply that there is an invariant, an original or Ur-text”13

(25). This is the main difference, then, between retellings

and versions. There are different versions of the Mahabharata

all over India. In an article titled ‘Epic Fictions’, in The

Caravan, Jai Arjun Singh writes, “as you travel from one region

to another, plot specifics vary, as do people’s perceptions of

different characters. Duryodhana might be the villain-in-chief

in any conventional version of the Mahabharata, but there are

temples in Kerala and Uttaranchal where he is worshipped as a

just ruler. And not all Mahabharata traditions subscribe to a

misty-eyed view of the Pandavas as heroes. Tribal communities

who revere Ekalavya as a folk-hero—cruelly denied the status

of the world’s greatest archer—are likely to think of Arjuna

and Drona as privileged schemers.” (caravanmagazine.in) In

Yuganta, Irawati Karve writes that there were different versions

of the Mahabharata available in the print form all over India-in

Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Maharashtra.

The oldest manuscript was found in Kashmir, written in 10th

century AD on birch bark. There is also a Javanese version of

the epic. (4) One version, though, could have many retellings.

In fact, the epic itself is being retold by different people

because “we have the first narrator Ugrashrava who tells the

14

story upto a point, and then tells it as told by the second

narrator Vaishampayana who in his turn is the chief narrator

upto a point and then tells it as told by the third narrator

Sanjaya..” (Karve 6)

One of the earliest known Sanskrit retellings of the

Mahabharata was Kiratarjuniya of Bharavi written in the 6th century

AD. There have been retellings in many Indian languages like

Marathi, Bengali, Hindi, Assamese, Kashmiri, Gujarati,

Konkani, Tamil etc. (Pai 56). Authors use prevalent versions

to make the story relevant to contemporary times.

The epic has also been retold over the years in literature.

There have been various books written. Amar Chitra Katha

published a comic book version of the epic, there have been

countless novels written from the perspective of different

characters. Some examples include Pratibha Ray’s Yajnaseni in

Oriya, Shivaji Sawant’s Mrityunjay in Marathi, M.T. Vasudevan

Nair’s Randamoozam and P.K. Ramakrishnan’s And Now Let Me Sleep in

Malayalam, S.L. Byrappa’s Parva in Kannada, Gajendra Kumar

Mitra’s Panchajanya in Bengali, V. S Khandekar’s Yayati in

Marathi, Shashi Tharoor’s The Great Indian Novel in English etc. In

the 21st century too authors continue to write novels based on

15

the Mahabharata, like Devdutt Pattanaik’s Jaya, Chitra Banerjee

Diwakaruni’s Palace of Illusions, Ashwin Sanghi’s The Krishna Key,

Kavita Kane’s Karna’s Wife: The Outcaste’s Queen, Anand Neelakantan’s

Ajaya, Anuja Chandramouli’s Arjuna etc.

Interestingly, an epic as large as the Mahabharata was also

retold on twitter. Chindu Shreedharan, a senior lecturer at

Bournemouth University retold the story of the Mahabharata from

the perspective of Bhima in 2009. He retold it in 2,700 tweets

over 1065 days. His tweets have now been published as Epic

Retold. (hindustantimes.com)

Derived Works:

There have also been many works derived from the epic. Some of

the most well-known works include Bhasa’s Urubhanga (Broken

Thigh) which is based on the fight between Duryodhana and

Bhima. Another of his works is Madhyamavyayoga (The Middle One)

which is about Bhima and Ghatotkach, his son. These were

written in Sanskrit around the 2nd or 3rd century. Dharamvir

Bharati’s Andha Yug (The Blind Epoch) was an important play of

the 20th century. Another well-known play of the same century

is Girish Karnad’s Yayati. There are also many films based on

16

the epic. Peter Brook’s 1985 play on the Mahabharata was 9

hours long. It was later made into a film of the same name.

There have also been reinterpretations of the epic on film

like Shyam Benegal’s Kalyug and Prakash Jha’s Raajneeti. B.R.

Chopra’s T.V. series, Mahabharata, was very popular in the

late 1980s. An animated film titled Mahabharata was also

released in 2013. These derived works are also, in a way,

retellings of the epic because playwrights, film makers,

directors choose to focus on certain incidents or characters

and retell the epic from different angles and perspectives.

It is this continuing interest in the epics that has led to

this research and it attempts to understand the place that the

epic holds in 21st century India. Retellings of the epic are

what have kept the epic alive after centuries of its

conception.

Selected Retellings:

The primary sources for this research are Kavita Kane’s Karna’s

Wife: The Outcast’s Queen and Anand Neelakantan’s Ajaya: Roll of the Dice.

Karna’s Wife tells the story of Karna in the Mahabharata, but it

focuses more on Karna’s life as a family man than as a warrior

17

or hero. Kane has created the fictional character of Uruvi and

she tells Karna’s story through this character. When asked

about the motivation behind the writing of the novel she says,

“Karna, though, one of the most popular, the most loved, and

the most revered and the most sympathised characters in Indian

mythology, has always been seen as a two-dimensional figure –

either as Arjun’s rival or as Duryodhan’s friend. I was more

interested in him as an individual, a husband, a son, a

brother, a lover not just as the doomed and the damned

warrior.” (sliceofreallife.com)

The fact that she created Uruvi, Karna’s wife, also goes to

say that authors have felt the need, and still do, to write

mythology in a contemporary way. About Uruvi she says, in the

same interview, “Uruvi is his wife, a fictitious character I

created so that I had more liberty with her and could mould

her without any social restrictions or moral limitations.”

Neelakantan’s Ajaya: Roll of the Dice is another novel which tells

the story of the Mahabharata but from the perspective of

Suyodhana, or Duryodhana as he is popularly known. The novel

is the first part in two, the second part being The Book of Kali,

which hasn’t been published yet. Ajaya tells the story of the

18

epic till the dice game. It attempts to subvert the accepted

notions of good and evil in the epic. Neelakantan provides a

voice to characters like Eklavya and Vidura who do not usually

speak out because they form a small part of the epic’s vast

expanse. He writes through the perspective of various

characters and tries to provide a different view of the epic.

In an interview he says about the change in perspective,

“History shows that the side that gets vanquished always gets

painted in black. What I did was to shine the light from a

different angle so that the shadows and lights interchanged or

got mixed to shades of grey.” (booksoarus.com)

Authors have been retelling the epic from different

perspectives for many years and it is these retellings that

have provided layers to the epic and its characters. These

retellings have changed and transformed the text and continue

to do so. Lakshmi Bandlamundi writes, “Individuals select

certain aspects of their lives and the world around them to

write their life stories and likewise they select certain

aspects of the epics to rewrite the story.” (5) She also

writes about how the text is transformed because of the

interaction of the readers with the text because even though

19

“the author intends to convey certain messages, the readers,

depending on their history and social location, bring varied

meanings to the text” (8). Therefore, retellings are

constantly changing the epics and making them contemporary to

the times that they are written in.

Literature Review:

There have been many studies on the Mahabharata, both, by

Western and Indian scholars. One of the important works by

western scholars is The Sanskrit Epics by J. Brockington, which

discusses both the Indian epics, their forms, content, themes

and their impact on society and culture. Another scholar of

Indian mythology is Sheldon Pollock who writes about the epics

in Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. Alf

Hiltebeitel, an American professor, is also a well-known

scholar of Indian mythology and the Mahabharata. Some of his

works include Rethinking the Mahabharata: A Reader’s Guide to the Education

of the Dharma King and a collection of his writings titled Reading

the Fifth Veda: Studies on the Mahabharata.

In India too there has been a lot of work done on the

Mahabharata. The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune

20

has published a critical edition of the epic in eighteen

volumes. V.S. Sukhtankar is one of the editors of the critical

edition and is also the author of On the Meaning of the Mahabharata.

Another eminent scholar on Indian history and mythology is

Romila Thapar. Her book, The Past Before Us, analyses history and

mythology and their association with the present. A.K.

Ramanujan has also written on both the epics. His essay titled

‘Repetition in the Mahabharata’ is considered to be important.

Essays on the Mahabharata, edited by Arvind Sharma, is also an

important book and has critical essays by various western and

Indian scholars.

This research too attempts to study the Mahabharata and

especially the issue of caste and gender marginalization in

recent retellings of the epic. There has been some work done

on caste and gender in the original epic. In Gender and Narrative in

the Mahabharata editors Simon Broadbeck and Brian Black provide

essays by different authors on issues of gender, roles of

women, transsexuality, marriage etc. in the epic. The Dialogics of

Self, The Mahabharata and Culture by Lakshmi Bandlamudi explains the

various ways in which the epic is related to culture. But

since these focus on the original epic, the changes that have

21

been observed in the retellings have not been thoroughly

studied.

Much work has been done on novels of the twentieth century

like Pratibha Ray’s Yajnaseni, Shivaji Sawant’s Mrityunjay, M.T.

Vasudevan Nair’s Randamoozam, V. S Khandekar’s Yayati, Shashi

Tharoor’s The Great Indian Novel etc. In ‘A passage Through the

Mahabharata Re-tellings: Study of some Contemporary Novels’

published as a PhD. Thesis by Leena Pai, she discusses six

novels, five have been mentioned above and P.K. Balkrishnan’s

And Now Let Me Sleep. She focuses on the depiction of the

characters and on studying the reasons behind selection of

characters for perspective retellings. She also writes about

how authors have deviated from the original epic and what

these deviations mean. In ‘The Mahabharata and the Marathi

Novel: Textual Strategies’, published in Indian Literature,

Harishchandra Thorat writes about the narrative of the epic

and textual strategies used by authors, for example, the

choice of narrator and the description techniques used. He

also writes about how the Mahabharata is used in Marathi

novels- metaphorically, by “re-narrating” it and by making it

22

more “literary” with “decorative style, attractive

descriptions and dramatic episodes” (135).

Shashi Tharoor’s The Great Indian Novel has been a subject of

discussion in many articles and research papers. In her

thesis, Pai calls it a “political satire” and talks about the

narrative by saying that “the epic narrative is completely

violated, the sequences of events changed and incidents

modified to suit the modern political scenario” (109). ‘In

Colonial Historiography Vs Postcolonial Historiography:

History, Myth and Allegory in Shashi Tharoor’s The Great Indian

Novel’ by Ram Bhawan Yadav, published in Lapis Lazuli –An International

Literary Journal (LLILJ), he discusses the use of metaphors in the

narrative by Tharoor and also how the author has represented

history and politics through his novel.

Therefore, most of the research surveyed in the literature

review focuses on characterization and the narrative style

employed by the authors. There is still some scope to study

marginalized characters, especially from the perspective of

caste and gender marginalization. The reason for choosing the

study of marginalized characters is that many authors today

give voice to characters considered to be marginalized.

23

In ‘The Marginalized Groups in Indian Social Construct: A

Critical Study of Mahesh Dattani’ by Sanjiv Kumar and Dr.

Prakash Bhadury, published in the American Journal of Research in

Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, the writers say that “

marginalization refers to individual or groups who live at the

margin of society” (109). Authors write from a perspective

that is different from or opposite to the popular perspective.

Characters like Karna, Vidura, Eklavya, Duryodhana, Draupadi,

Bhanumati are getting a voice through recent retellings. There

have been papers written on marginalized characters in the

Mahabharata like ‘Going Beyond the Marginalized: A Study with a

Specific Reference to Indian Women in the Epic Context’ by Dr.

Rajani Jairam, which discusses the marginalization of women

and representation of the same in epics. But there hasn’t been

much research on the issues of marginalized characters in

retellings of the epic and that is what this research intends

to focus on.

Methodology:

This research attempts to study if, and how, margins of caste

and gender have changed over the years and how authors of

24

mythological fiction portray these changes in retellings of

the epics.

The Mahabharata has been studied and debated on as the critical

reception and literature review sections show. But, it is also

true that its origins, with respect to author/authors and the

year in which it was written, are debatable. Therefore, it is

difficult to refer to an ‘original’ text. What we have at our

disposal are translations, versions, reinterpretations and

retellings of a supposed ‘original’.

While considering the notion of retelling it is important to

consider postmodernism because retelling or rewriting is a

postmodern technique used in literature and other forms of

art. Postmodernism employs parody, pastiche, intertextuality

as a way of retelling already known stories. Retelling and

rewriting are sometimes taken to be synonymous but may also be

distinguished. Christian Moraru, in his book Rewriting: Postmodern

Narrative and Cultural Critique in the Age of Cloning, insists that “rewriting

and retelling are not synonyms”. (17) In the Routledge Encyclopedia

of Narrative Theory, retelling is also called “renarrativisation”.

Here, retelling and rewriting are also used synonymously.

Retelling is differentiated from imitation or replication and

25

“numerous-if not all- postmodern rewrites erode this ‘model’

[the original text] and its underpinning ideologies while

critiquing the very social context within which the dialogue

of the rewrite and the rewritten occurs...the rewrite reworks

not only a text from the past-a form- but also cultural

formations, i.e, the values underlying that text.” (460) While

considering retellings of mythological stories it is necessary

to understand that these stories already have “residual

meanings and ideologies” associated with them. Therefore, “any

retellings bring with it a predetermined horizon of

expectation, which in turn means that its values and ideas

about the world are always already legitimate.” (180)

The retellings chosen are in the novel form and therefore it

is necessary to also consider the transition that occurs from

the epic to the novel. Mikhail Bakhtin, in his essay ‘Epic and

Novel’, writes that the epic is a genre which is now

“completed”. On the other hand, the novel is a genre which is

“developing”. Bakhtin writes that in the process of becoming

the more established and dominant genre, the novel is

renovating the earlier genres. The novel is a genre which is

much more “free and flexible” and it represents contemporary

26

reality using a different language. Also, he writes that

“reality as we have it in the novel is only one of many

possible realities; it is not inevitable, not arbitrary, it

bears within itself other possibilities.” Therefore, the novel

genre incorporates the epic within itself, thus altering it,

making it more contemporary and evolving it.

As genres have evolved, so have the issues discussed and

represented in them. Notions of caste and gender have changed

over the years, as Dipankar Gupta demonstrates in Interrogating

Caste where he writes about how the Brahmanical model of the

caste system has evolved over time. Gupta talks about how

there are hierarchies of caste and within castes too. It is

these hierarchies that make the social structure in India.

Gupta explains the hierarchies by referring to Louis Dumont’s

Homo Hierarchicus. The theory of caste hierarchy will be used to

understand what kind of a social structure existed and if and

how this social structure has changed over the years. In his

book, Gupta explains that it is not very easy to study the

caste system, especially with reference to India, because

there are various levels that have to be considered. In the

chapter titled ‘Caste, Infrastructure and Superstructure’,

27

Gupta gives a brief history of the caste system and how it

came to be. According to this history, the hierarchy of

Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras did not always

exist and its conception was, for the most part, for purely

economic and political reasons. It will be possible, with this

theory, to understand how authors of recent Mahabharata

retellings depict the caste system in their novels and what

justifications are given for this system.

Similarly, marginalization because of gender has also

undergone changes with the advent of feminist and gender

theories. For this purpose, Indian feminist theories will be

used. The reason for choosing Indian feminist theories is that

the texts considered talk about women in India. Western

feminism has been shown to be different than Indian feminism.

Feminists in India look at the issues of gender differently

because it is a very complex issue in India and is also

intimately related with the issue of caste. The texts which

will be used include Sharmila Rege’s Writing Caste/Writing Gender

and Uma Chakravarti’s Gendering Caste: Through a Feminist Lens.

In Myth: A Very Short Introduction, Robert Segal gives myth theories

by various scholars. In ‘Myth and Society’ he writes about the

28

views of Bronislaw Malinowski , who says “myths deal even more

with social phenomena-marriage, taxes, ...ritual.” According

to Malinowski “myth persuades denizens to defer to, say, ranks

in society by pronouncing those ranks long-standing and in

that sense observed.” (126) In Myth in Primitive Psychology,

Malinowski writes that,” an intimate connection exists between

the word, the mythos, the sacred tales of a tribe, on the one

hand, and their ritual acts, their moral deeds, their social

organization, and even their practical activities, on the

other” (74). The same, when applied to Indian mythology

especially the Mahabharata, would mean that the society and its

traditions described in it reflect the society of its time.

Therefore, the notions of caste and gender as given in the

epic can be seen as observed in actual society. The retellings

considered in this research also reflect a certain society and

Malinowski’s theory can be used to understand how this

happens.

In Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return, Mircea Eliade

writes that “man constructs according to an archetype” (25).

The Online Oxford Dictionary defines archetype as “an original

which has been imitated, a prototype.” Therefore, according to

29

Eliade, myths are archetypes which men imitate and follow.

Myths are intrinsically related to the beliefs and customs of

man. Eliade says that there occurs a “metamorphosis of a

historical figure into a mythical hero.” This is how he

explains the “mythicization of historical prototypes” (57).

He also writes about the “regeneration of time” and how it

“abolishes history” (53). He says that time is cyclic and

hence every new cycle tends to change and hence “abolish” the

previous time. Similarly, myths are continuously being

regenerated through their retellings and hence these

retellings work to change, subvert or sometimes even abolish

the previous myth. Over the centuries there have been many

retellings of the Mahabharata and each of these retellings has

changed the epic and the myth in some way or the other. The

perspective that people used to view the epic has changed. He

says that the continuous regeneration of time “tends to

restore the initial instant, the plenitude of a present that

contains no trace of history.” (76) He also says further that

man feels the need to return to the beginning, to “the

mythical moment”, in order to “regenerate himself” (77).

Hence, the retellings of the epic are also a means of going

30

back and reinterpreting what we know of our culture, history

and mythology and making it relevant to contemporary times.

The study uses the above mentioned caste and gender theories

and myth theories to understand the changes in caste and

gender margins in society and also how these are reflected in

literature through the use of myth.

Chapterization:

Chapter I

The first chapter will elaborate on the changing margins of

caste as represented in the selected primary sources. It will

give a brief history of the caste system because it is

necessary to understand the evolution of the caste system in

order to understand if and how changes have occurred in it.

The chapter will give examples of characters from both the

primary sources. Through the characters the different views of

the caste system will be shown and it will become easier to

determine the changes, if any, in the portrayal of the system.

31

Chapter II

This chapter will be about the gender issues discussed in the

two primary sources. The changes in problems of gender and the

progression of women in society will be discussed in brief.

Characters in the two primary sources will again be used to

establish gender norms and to understand if there have been

any changes in margins of genders over the years since the

conception of the epic.

Conclusion:

This chapter will give the conclusion of the research. It will

bring together the studies done in chapters one and two, and

try to determine what conclusion can be drawn from the

research.

32

CHAPTER I

This chapter focuses on caste in the selected Mahabharata

retellings and analyzes characters from the retellings to

understand if, and how, margins of caste have changed in

contemporary times with respect to certain issues like caste

hierarchization, caste mobility, privileges accorded to

certain castes, and inequality in opportunities available for

different castes.

Caste as a dividing factor has been present in Indian society

for many years. Uma Chakravarti, in Gendering Caste: Through a

Feminist Lens, writes that the caste system is seen as “(i) a

ritual system; (ii) a system of marriage; and (iii) a

political and economic system (56). Dipankar Gupta, in

Interrogating Caste, defines the caste system as “a form of

33

differentiation wherein the constituent units of the system

justify endogamy on the basis of putative biological

differences which are semaphored by the ritualization of

multiple social practices.” (141)

Both the above mentioned books will be used here to provide a

brief history of the caste system in India. It is necessary to

understand the history of the caste system because, as Gupta

says, “If the ideology and practice of the caste system

underwent modifications over time […] then there is no reason

why it should not do so in future as well” (178-179). The

study of these changes will help in determining the

transformations that have, or have not, occurred over the

course of many years and how these are reflected through the

retellings of the Mahabharata.

There are four castes in which the Indian society is said to

be divided-the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the

Shudras. The Untouchables were the people who were outside of

the caste system. (Chakravarti, 9) According to Gupta, “the

caste system is often considered to be a graded hierarchy

based on the purity-pollution scale” (34) but, he says that

the hierarchy of the caste system cannot be easily defined

34

because “there is no agreement over who should occupy which

position in the hierarchy.” Therefore, even though it is

agreed upon that castes should be hierarchized, the exact

hierarchy is not fixed and it will depend on “the prejudices

of the particular caste that is elaborating this hierarchy”

(35).

Gupta gives a history of the caste system from Vedic India and

the Upanishadic period. He writes that the Brahmana and

Kshatriya castes, or those of the priests and the kings, had

not developed distinctively but were in fact “jointly

responsible for upholding the social order” (186). It was only

in the Manusmriti (c.200 CE) that a clear distinction was made

between the king and the Brahmana. It outlined the duties and

the role of a king as separate from a priest. The Brahmanas

who enjoyed the support of the king could claim higher status,

while those who couldn’t, had to take up other jobs, even jobs

as “lowly” as carpentry. Therefore, the importance of power

and politics in the formation and maintenance of the caste

system cannot be ignored.

Gupta also asserts that the notion of Brahmanism and the Vedas

was not always accepted as true. Importance was given to land

35

ownership, and the Brahmana’s “superior ritual status did not

always entail superior economic and political power”. The

warrior-priest gave way, in later years, to separate

identities for both warriors and priests. The Brahmanas became

powerful on the basis of their supposed religious knowledge

but, nonetheless, those who did not own land of their own were

not considered to be dominant.

But at the same time, it was not only wealth that mattered in

defining one’s status but also one’s position in society.

Therefore, the landlords were higher in the social order than

the priests and the merchants, even though wealthy, were not

part of the nobility.

Later, during the Gupta period (around 300 A.D.), Brahmanism

spread to other parts of the country because of the land

grants given to the Brahmanas, it changed the social

structures and also modes of production of the communities

living in these areas. Also, kings were conquering new lands

through wars and the people from the vanquished lands were

being relocated to different parts, thus further changing the

structure of the caste system. It is true, though, that exact

records of these periods in history are not available.

36

Therefore, the modes of production and the backing of the

state were important in the formation of the caste system

(Chakravarti 57-58, 63).

Chakravarti writes about the eighteenth century, as an example

from pre-colonial times, when caste mobility was observed in

the hierarchy of castes. Mobility occurred because of division

of castes, both high and low. Castes could move either up or

down in the hierarchy depending on their social practices. She

gives an example of ‘true’ and ‘false’ Rajputs, the ‘false’

Rajputs being those who allowed widow remarriages. But, it is

also true that mobility within castes was seen more amongst

the middle castes but castes which were higher or lower in the

caste hierarchy had more rigid structures.

With the coming of the British there were many changes in the

lives of Indians. The British soon found that they could not

avoid the issue of caste while dealing with India. It was also

seen that the lower castes were hoping to “renegotiate” their

status with the coming of the new rulers. The higher castes

“could act like the king” to settle disputes between castes

because the British were unaware of the intricacies of the

caste system and had to rely on internal help. Another way by

37

which the lower castes sought to let go for their caste status

was by converting to Christianity. The main reason for this

was the education available for Christians through the

missionary schools that the British government had set up.

Education led to jobs for the lower castes and hence they

could try to move up in the caste hierarchy. In the nineteenth

century there emerged critiques against caste hierarchies.

Jyotiba Phule, among others, was the pioneer of this critique.

He spoke against the Sanskritization process where lower

castes attempted to move upward in the system by inculcating

the values and rituals of the upper castes. He emphasized on

education, which would lead to the questioning of Brahmanical

norms of society. It was only through education that the lower

castes could hope to hold any positions of power in the

government. Therefore, there were many changes occurring in

the caste system during the colonial period.

The changes in the system during the colonial period led to

many reforms. The caste system, therefore, changed in the

post-colonial period too. Dr. Ambedkar was the pioneer of the

Dalit movement which sought to improve the conditions of the

dalits who were at the lowest rungs of the caste hierarchy.

38

The Constitution of India, drafted under the Chairmanship of

Dr. Ambedkar, abolished Untouchability. In contemporary times,

there have been reservations made for the OBCs (Other Backward

Castes), SCs (Scheduled Castes) and STs (Scheduled Tribes) by

the government in the areas of education and employment. But,

this has been “disapproved..by the upper castes who have never

conceded the validity of such provisions, and have decried

them on the ground of dealing a death blow to the ‘merit’

principle” (Chakravarti 140). Alternatively, this disapproval

could also be seen as a reaction to their loss of power.

The issues of caste and the structure of the caste system have

changed over many years but it has not entirely disappeared

and hence it forms a major part of contemporary Indian society

too. There are many issues regarding caste that are still

debated and require attention. In various villages all over

India, the caste system forms a very important part of

everyday life. Lower caste people are not allowed to enter

temples, women are required to get water from separate

sources, students are discriminated against in schools. The

Dalit movement is still fighting against untouchability. In

many villages in the north, khap panchayats (a form of village

39

council, but unelected) are in charge of maintaining caste

structures. The issues of caste are not only confined to the

villages and are observed in cities and towns too. But it is

true that in public spaces in the cities caste discrimination

is not largely practiced. Therefore, the caste system remains

an issue which cannot be ignored in contemporary India too.

I will now look at certain characters portrayed in the two

primary sources to understand the representation of caste by

the two contemporary authors. Karna, Suyodhana/Duryodhana,

Ashwatthama are characters which are common to both the

primary sources and a comparative study of these characters

will be done. I will look at how the authors have represented

issues of caste through their characters. Another important

point of difference is the narratorial voice of the two

novels. Both novels are third-person narratives, but the

crucial difference is that Kane’s narrative is selective and

the narrative progresses through Uruvi’s eyes. In Ajaya the

narrator is omniscient and the reader can, therefore, know the

inner thoughts of all the main characters.

Karna:

40

“Karna’s story pulls at the heartstrings in a particularly

human way because of his vulnerability, his overbearing pride

stemming from his insecurity, his loyalty, and the nobility he

exhibits in the process of seeking his dharma and fulfilling

his destiny.”

Christopher Key Chappel

Karna is one of the most important characters in the

Mahabharata and he could be deemed as the tragic hero1 of the

epic. From his birth itself, nothing goes right for him. He is

abandoned by his mother, Kunti, because she had given birth to

him when she was still unmarried and she was afraid of the

reaction of her family and the society to this fact. He is

brought up by Adhiratha and Radha who belong to the suta caste

and that is the caste that defines his life.

The suta caste was one of the prevalent castes of the time.

Vidura and Sanjaya, two other characters in the Mahabharata also

belonged to this caste. In Yuganta Karve writes, about the sutas,

1 Abrams and Harpham have given the Aristotelian definition of a tragic hero as a character who “will most effectively evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good nor thoroughly bad but a mixture ofboth” […] and who suffers “a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of his mistaken choice of an action, to which he is led by his hamartia-his “error” or “mistake of judgement” or […] “his tragic flaw” (408).

41

saying that they are “a class of people.... representing the

illegitimate progeny of the Kshatriyas [who] performed various

functions at the Court. They were counsellors and friends of

kings, charioteers, and also bards.” Dr. S.V. Ketkar called

the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and the Puranas as sauta literature,

“literature belonging to the sutas, preserved and sung by the

sutas and perhaps largely composed by the sutas.” (3-4)

Therefore, Karna belonged to the caste of charioteers and

bards. He was expected to become a charioteer himself, but was

keener on learning the art of warfare, an education that only

the Kshatriyas were supposed to pursue. He had to face a lot

of humiliation because of this wish and hence, even with his

valour and abilities, he remains one of the tragic figures in

the epic.

Kane’s Karna and Neelakantan’s Karna are a little different.

In both the novels, he is shown through someone else’s eyes,

in Kane’s novel through his wife Uruvi’s and in Neelakantan’s

novel through the omniscient narrator. Uruvi’s narration

glorifies Karna as a person who has been dealt a very bad hand

by fate but who stays true to his ideals and beliefs despite

of all the difficulties he faces. She describes him as a

42

“man....born in adversity” whose life “was a fairytale gone

wrong”. (12) Karna’s caste is, of course, a large part of who

he is in the novel and it also affects many of his decisions.

Kane portrays Karna as someone who doesn’t conform to the

prevalent caste rules and who is, in fact, eager to break away

from the caste system but he would always be seen as “the King

of Anga, the king with a crown of thorns, the king who was a

sutaputra” (13). Kane’s novel also questions the issue of a

supposedly lower-caste man, Karna, instigating the humiliation

of an upper-caste woman, Draupadi. Here, Karna, a man

marginalized on the basis of caste, becomes dominant instead

of dominated. Therefore, there is a new dynamic in caste

hierarchization. A more contemporary example of this could be

the reservation policy of the government for the lower castes.

As mentioned above, this policy has not been taken favourably

by the upper castes and has been seen as a move to displace

their social power.

Also, because the novel begins mid-way through Karna’s life,

from the weaponry contest between the princes of Hastinapura,

his caste has already defined him and made him the man he is.

In Ajaya, on the other hand, Karna’s life since childhood has

43

been shown and therefore, the novel explains more about how

his caste defines him. Neelakantan’s Karna is a Kshatriya, a

Brahmin and a suta. He is a Kshatriya by birth, even if he is

unaware of this fact initially, he is a suta because he has

been brought up as one and he is a Brahmin because Kripacharya

teaches him to be one. Therefore, he could be defined as

belonging to all three castes, depending on how one chooses to

define caste.

Caste, therefore, forms a major part of Karna’s narrative. But

in the two novels that are considered it has been portrayed

differently. In Kane’s novel, Karna chooses to remain a suta

all his life, even when Krishna and Kunti tell him the truth

of his birth, he does not want to let go of his suta identity.

He says to Uruvi in the novel, “I am not ashamed of who I am.

I am proud to be Radheya, the sutaputra, the son of Adhiratha

and Radha.” (42) On the other hand, in Ajaya, he seems almost

ashamed of his suta identity. When Adhiratha acknowledges him

as a son, Karna refuses to look up at him and acknowledge him

as his father. He feels angry about the fact that his father

chose that moment to call out to him. He thinks to himself,”

Why did he have to do that? I would have gone to him after the

44

event, after the world understood I am a better archer than

Arjuna. Now I stand insulted before all because of my foolish

father.” (260) In Ajaya, Neelakantan shows the lengths to which

Karna is ready to go to in order to become a Kshatriya. His

narrative brings out his desire to be someone he is not. While

in Kane’s novel, even though this desire is present, Karna

seems to have already accepted his position in life.

Therefore, caste appears to be a more prominent factor in

defining Neelakantan’s Karna.

Even though both authors have portrayed Karna differently, the

issues of caste that have been discussed remain the same.

Karna, in both the novels, is an example of a person who wants

to become something that society will not allow him to be

because of his caste. He becomes a representation of many

individuals who are discriminated against because of their

caste even if they have the merit to move beyond the system.

Ashwatthama:

Ashwatthama is the son of Dronacharya, the guru of the Kuru

princes. By caste they are Brahmins, but Dronacharya teaches

weaponry and the art of warfare to the princes. Therefore,

45

even though they are Brahmins they practice a Kshatriya way of

life.

Neelakantan describes them as a “tall, fair Brahmin with the

dark flowing beard....his wife, an emaciated and frail

woman...the boy with them stood still, his big black eyes

filled with wonderment.” (30) Dronacharya could be considered

as an example of those Brahmins who obtain positions of power

because they are favoured by the king. Gupta, in his book,

talks about how some Brahmins who were in favour of the king

could be better off than others who did not own land or were

not in the service of the king. Therefore, along with caste,

it is also necessary to consider the class here.

Drona’s family, though Brahmins, were very poor. They were at

the lower end of the class hierarchy (“the political and

economic status with the landlords at the top and the landless

labourers at the bottom”), but at the upper end of the caste

hierarchy (“according to ritual purity with the brahmana on

top and the ‘untouchables’ at the bottom”). But, as

Chakravarti points out, “the upper castes enjoy social power,

regardless of their individual circumstances with respect to

control over material resources, through their linkages with

46

other caste-fellows in the political system” (13). Drona too

has such an advantageous linkage through his brother-in-law,

Kripacharya.

He is employed at the Kuru court as a teacher for the princes.

This allowed him to have a lot of control over them. But,

again, this control was only possible because of Dhritarashtra

and Bhishma, the elders of the Kuru clan. Therefore, he too

becomes an example of the marginalized that are considered

both dominated and dominating.

In Ajaya, Dronacharya is someone who strictly adheres to the

caste system, he practices untouchability and expects his son

to do so. He has been portrayed as a very strict Brahmin who

follows the scriptures and therefore, the caste system as

given in the scriptures. Aswatthama too follows his father in

practicing the Kshatriya way of life and is trained as a

warrior, but he does not conform to the rules of his Brahmin

caste. His biggest fault, according to Drona, is that he

befriends Karna, a suta, and this is the reason for the divide

between Drona and his son.

47

Ashwatthama’s life since childhood has been shown by

Neelakantan in Ajaya. It is because of his father that he too

is interested in following the Kshatriya dharma and learning

the art of war. But as portrayed in the novel, Dronacharya

favours Arjuna more than his own son and this causes

Ashwatthama to resent his father. In Ajaya he seems to be in a

place between the two castes, Brahmin and Kshatriya, because

he doesn’t follow his father’s beliefs and customs but neither

is he a Kshatriya. An example of this would be the weaponry

competition held for the Kuru princes in which Ashwatthama was

barred from participating, even though he had learnt the use

of weapons in the same lessons as the princes. Neelakantan’s

Ashwatthama is portrayed to be much more boisterous and

outgoing than Kane’s Ashwatthama.

Kane describes him, through Uruvi, as “a young lad, a serious,

quiet boy, always courteous and obedient” (70) and for Uruvi,

Ashwatthama’s brutal killing of the Pandavas’ sons comes as a

surprise at the end of the war. It is probably because in her

eyes he was a simple, Brahmin boy and not really the Kshatriya

he tried to be all his life. In this way, Karna and

Ashwatthama are similar. They both try to move away from their

48

castes to become Kshatriyas, which was the prominent caste of

the time. Therefore, both these characters can also be seen as

examples of caste mobility. Chakravarti writes “caste

mobilization was one aspect of the changing dimensions of

class formation and the relationship between caste and class,

which might translate into upward social mobility moves”

(120). Therefore, their desire of becoming Kshatriyas could be

attributed to their desire to move up in the social hierarchy

and be a part of the prevalent caste.

Mobility in castes is also seen in contemporary India,

especially because of the castes almost losing their

functionalities. Castes were associated with certain functions

in society with the sons continuing in the same professions as

their fathers. But this functionality has now changed and, in

both cities and villages, it is not surprising to see the

younger generation moving away from the professions practised

in their families for decades. This change in functionality of

the caste system has not only led to caste mobility but class

mobility too. Ashwatthama as a character is still relevant

even in contemporary society because he represents these

changes that have occurred and continue to occur.

49

Suyodhana/ Duryodhana:

In the Mahabharata Duryodhana is considered to be the villain of

the epic. As various authors extol the virtues of the

Pandavas, Duryodhana is the one who is almost always cast as

the villain. In her M.Phil thesis, Anusha Ramanathan writes

that “it is interesting that while Yudhishtir’s family members

mostly got individual credit for their actions and thoughts,

it is Duryodhana who is held responsible for each deed of his

family and friends” (28). It is this popular image of

Duryodhana that has been completely subverted by Neelakantan

and hence in his novel, Suyodhana (popularly called

Duryodhana) becomes the victim of the schemes of his uncle

Shakuni and his cousins, the Pandavas.

With respect to the issue of caste that is of interest here,

Duryodhana is someone who seems entirely casteless. But is he

really? He is a Kshatriya whose closest friends include a suta,

Karna and a Brahmin, Ashwatthama. In Ajaya, he defends Karna at

the weaponry contest by saying that Karna “is someone truly

deserving of becoming a Kshatriya” and that “talent knows no

caste” (262).

50

He is portrayed as someone who has an idealised dream for the

future society. He says “I see a tomorrow where all barriers

will crumble and we will live in a free world. I see a future

where we stop asking people about their caste and treat each

other as equals. I see my country breaking free of the

irrational beliefs and superstitions. I see a tomorrow where

there will be no limits placed on what one can achieve. The

accident of birth will not stand in the way of achievement.”

(Neelakantan 262) But, while having such a vision for the

future, he does not think to support Eklavya as he does Karna.

Why would he differentiate between the “accident of birth” of

Eklavya and Karna and choose to make one a king but not expend

any efforts for the other, except a feeling of guilt? There

have been debates on whether Duryodhana’s decision of making

Karna the King of Anga was based on his generosity and sense

of equality or his selfish motives to best the Pandavas. If

his support of Karna is taken to be for selfish reasons, would

this explain why he does not help Eklavya who, with his thumb

cut, does not prove to be an asset anymore? On the other hand,

Eklavya is a nishada, an untouchable who is outside of the

caste system. He cannot even be given the support and help

51

that Karna, as a lower-caste man, could be given by some like

Duryodhana and Kripacharya.

Duryodhana is seen as “a Prince [who] dared [to] challenge

the system” (Neelakantan 264). But is this only possible for

Duryodhana because he belongs to the upper caste in society?

It could be interpreted this way because others like Karna and

Eklavya, even with their talents and abilities, were unable to

do so. They did not have the privileges of caste that

Duryodhana seems to have. Duryodhana is a prince of the Kuru

kingdom and even though there may be fights amongst the

cousins, as a member of the ruling household he has certain

rights and advantages. Therefore, Karna might not have been

able to achieve recognition as a warrior and hence challenge

the structure of society if he did not have the friendship of

Duryodhana.

But, on the other hand, even though it is true that he belongs

to the prominent caste of the time he cannot use this to his

advantage every time. His guru, Drona, clearly shows a bias

when behaving with the Kauravas and the Pandavas. This only

goes to show that within castes too there may be hierarchies

based on familial relations and politics.

52

It is also important to consider Duryodhana’s friendship with

Karna and Ashwatthama. How does he perceive both his friends?

Even though he extols the virtues of Karna and declares him a

Kshatriya based on his merits, Karve points out that he “never

offered a girl from the Kaurava family as a bride to Karna”

(142). Therefore, he too, probably indirectly, conforms to

caste rules and practices endogamy, “the rule enjoining marriage

within a specified group, that is, caste” (Chakravarti 27).

Chakravarti writes that “caste cannot be reproduced without

endogamy and it is for this reason that endogamy has been

regarded as a tool for the manifestation and perpetuation of

caste and gender subordination” (27). Therefore, Duryodhana

too can be seen as practicing caste discrimination, may be not

outwardly but in a more innate sense.

This is true also for contemporary Indian society where, quite

often, individuals overtly do not discriminate against the

lower castes but when it comes to the issue of marriage the

caste of a person is immediately taken into account. This is

also seen in various matrimonial columns in the newspapers, as

given by Chakravarti (146), or through matrimonial sites which

have sections based on caste. It is also seen in the horrific

53

cases of honour killings in India, where families kill their

own children because they have married into other castes.

Therefore, even though discrimination of any kind has been

abolished by the Constitution, it remains ever present in the

private world of Indian citizens. Chakravarti writes that the

makers of the Constitution were aware that it would be

extremely difficult to completely abolish the caste system and

“so the practice of caste was sought to be confined to the

private realm” but she also says that this has been largely

unsuccessful and “even from the public sphere caste cannot be

banished so easily and never has been” (140).

In Kane’s novel the reader sees Duryodhana as Uruvi sees him.

For Uruvi, Duryodhana is “coarse, brutal and devious” (79).

She believes that the only reason that Duryodhana has

befriended Karna is because he wants the advantage that Karna

will provide during the war with the Pandavas. She has seen

how everyone treats Karna because he is a sutaputra, but

Duryodhana does not and that causes her to question his

intentions. She does not live in a world where caste

distinctions are so easily forgotten and hence she is wary of

him. But, Kane seems to want to redeem him of these doubts by

54

the end of the novel because Duryodhana says, on Karna’s

death, that “Karna was above any caste, any social order-he

was unique, too special! I always believed that Karna was a

kshatriya; his actions, his thinking were those of a true

kshatriya!” (286)

From both these portrayals of Duryodhana, the authors have

shown that it is difficult to be entirely casteless and that

the issue of caste is so ingrained in society, even today,

that it is not entirely possible to ignore it even if one

wants to.

The research will now look at characters which are not common

to both the primary sources. These characters include Vidura,

Eklavya from Ajaya and Uruvi from Karna’s Wife.

Vidura:

Vidura was the brother of Dhritarashtra and Pandu and

therefore, the uncle of the Kuru princes. But he was the son

of a palace maid and hence was never considered for the Kuru

throne. Vidura, too, is a suta and even though the sutas were

“extremely close to the Kshatriyas, of the same blood as the

55

Kshatriyas, in a position to advise them without fear, they

could never become the Kshatriyas’ equals” (Karve 68).

According to Karve, “the Mahaharata... is completely silent about

Vidura” (71), but, Neelakantan gives him a voice in Ajaya.

Neelakantan’s Vidura is a character that remains in the

background of the narrative and yet finds a voice. He is

someone who Bhishma and Dhritarashtra both rely upon and his

sense of duty is very strong. But at the same time, he is a

man who has accepted his position in life and in the court of

the Kurus. He is not seen to be taking the efforts that Karna

or Eklavya do in order to move up in the hierarchy of castes.

According to Karve “in comparison with the other characters in

the Mahabharata it can be said that his life was a happy

one....but still it feels as if an indefinable sadness and

melancholy filled his life” (70) Neelakantan too portrays

Vidura as a character whose acceptance of his position as a

suta leads him to be ignored and isolated in the narrative. In

the introduction scene itself, Vidura acknowledges his status

and forbids Suyodhana from touching him (22-23). His

appointment as the Prime Minister is met with disapproval from

the Brahmins, but it is only because of Bhishma and Vyasa’s

56

intervention that it is finally accepted. It is interesting to

note that while some Brahmins are against this, it is another

Brahmin, Vyasa, who supports Bhishma’s decision.

Vidura does not ask for privileges from the Kuru household

despite of being Dhristarashtra’s brother and the Prime

Minister. When Parshavi, Vidura’s wife asks him why he doesn’t

take advantage of his position to get a better house she tells

him that he “seem[s] to enjoy poverty” (Neelakantan 64). In

the novel, Vidura is the one who realizes that Shakuni is up

to something and warns Bhishma about it. He is also the one

who takes Karna to Drona to ask the guru to teach the suta. But

he is refused both times. Vidura realizes that “no one with

the baggage of low caste, like him, could aspire to be even a

clerk in government service....merit no longer counted. Every

position was based on caste” (Neelakantan 85). He also feels

extremely guilty about being away from his sons due to work

but he convinces himself by saying “yet this is my fate, to

toil hard and feel guilty for not spending enough time with

them” (Neelakantan 148). But even with these thoughts he

believes himself to be powerless to do anything, unlike the

57

other suta in the novel, Karna, who strives hard to be

recognized as a Kshatriya.

Even though Neelakantan gives him a voice, the third person

narration allows the readers to know Vidura’s inner thoughts

of helplessness and guilt towards his family, Vidura remains

in the background in the entire narrative, almost as if he is

powerless to change what is happening around him. Vidura’s

portrayal is mirroring countless individuals who have accepted

their lower caste status almost as their due and who do not

attempt to, or think that they cannot, change their

situations.

Eklavya:

Eklavya is a nishada boy who is a part of one of the most

well-known stories from the Mahabharata. Being a nishada, he is

not accepted as a student by Drona. But Eklavya is determined

to learn archery and hence he makes a clay model of Drona and

learns in front of the model. When Drona realizes this and

sees Eklavya’s skills in archery he asks Eklavya to give him a

guru dakshina. Eklavya readily agrees. Drona asks Eklavya to cut

off his right thumb and give it to him as guru dakshina. Eklavya

58

unhesitatingly does so, but with this Drona successfully

thwarts a nishada who could have been a better archer than his

favourite pupil, Arjuna.

In Ajaya, Neelakantan makes Eklavya one of the main characters

of the novel. He is shown to be the son of General

Hiranyadhanus, a nishada in the army of King Jarasandha. He is

unaware of this fact, though, and lives a life of poverty in

the forests surrounding Hastinapura with his aunt and five

cousins. The first glimpse of Eklavya is when he comes to

steal a mango from the Princes. He is only described as “a

dark boy” (Neelakantan 33). As the novel progresses we learn

that Eklavya is interested in learning archery but is unable

to do so because of his caste. He is also shown to be

associated with the Nagas, another marginalized group.

Neelakantan describes the episode of the guru dakshina where

Eklavya has to sever his thumb for Drona. Eklavya, in this

episode, is a boy who believes that he can become an archer

but is cruelly, and literally, shown his place by the guru. He

believes that “he paid the required fee...for the knowledge he

had stolen” (201). But in the novel, Eklavya’s story does not

59

end here. He goes on to join the Nagas in a rebellion against

Hastinapura.

In another episode in the epic, a woman and her five sons are

left to die in the fire in the house of lac instead of Kunti

and the Pandavas. Neelakantan uses this episode to further the

story of Eklavya because the woman and her sons are none other

than Eklavya’s aunt and his five cousins. Kunti and the

Pandavas cunningly invite the nishadas home and serve them

sweets which are laced with drugs. Eklavya soon realizes this

and the killing of his aunt and cousins, and the crushing of

his own dreams, act as fuel to the anger that Eklavya is

already feeling. It is at such a time that Eklavya joins the

Nagas who believe that “there is no future for us [the Nagas]

in this country, unless we overturn the caste system” (310).

Therefore, in the novel Eklavya becomes another example of

someone who has been unjustly discriminated against because of

his caste and who decides to rebel against the system. His way

of rebelling, though, is questionable because he himself is

unaware of what the Nagas plan to do to overturn the system.

But, nonetheless, by giving him a voice Neelakantan has

attempted to give a voice to the marginalized and has shown

60

how the oppressed too can find ways to rebel against the

oppressors.

Uruvi:

Kane’s novel is from the perspective of Uruvi, the princess of

Pukeya. Uruvi, though, is a fictional character. She says in

an interview that the novel was written as “a result of a long

afterthought of how Karna’s wife would have reacted to his

moral downfall, post the ‘vastraharan’ episode where he is

said to have played a dubious role. With what face did this

noble, righteous man was able to confront his wife and admit

that he had wronged a woman?” (srutis.blogspot.in)

While she gives this reason as an inspiration for the novel,

it is far more interesting to question why she thought that it

was necessary to create a character to question Karna’s role

in the vastraharan episode? Karna already had a suta wife,

Vrushali. Why, then, did Kane create a character who is not

only Karna’s second wife but also a Princess, someone who

belongs to an upper caste? Couldn’t she have written the book

from Vrushali’s perspective? Therefore, the question of caste

once more becomes important in this retelling of the epic.

61

Uruvi is a princess who has been brought up with every comfort

and who is loved by her parents. Her decision to marry Karna

is not a favourable one, as her father points out to her,

because she is a Kshatriya while he is a suta. Her marriage is

said to be pratilomic, a marriage between an upper caste woman

and a lower caste man. Her marriage was not endogamous and, as

Chakravarti writes, “any violation of the rule of endogamy is

punished by expulsion, usually referred to as ‘outcasting’

(33). Thus, Uruvi herself becomes an outcast and is also an

outcast’s wife.

Shona, Karna’s brother is not happy with Uruvi’s marriage to

Karna. He does not agree to the marriage because, as he says,

“she’s a Kshatriya princess, a stranger, an outsider who will

never be able to mingle with us” (Kane 45). Even with

Vrushali, her relationship is nothing beyond cordial. Kane

describes it by writing that “they talked, they chatted, they

lunched together, but Uruvi sensed a distance between them.

For all their amiability they remained stubbornly unfamiliar,

two strangers under the same roof, sharing and loving the same

man” (Kane 50). On the other hand, for Karna’s parents “she

was a goddess who dared to tread the mortal path” (Kane 51).

62

Karna too “never let her forget that she was a Kshatriya

princess, part of the elite” (Kane 53). Therefore, there were

conflicting ways in which Karna’s family, and Karna himself,

looked at Uruvi.

When Uruvi learns of Draupadi’s vastraharan and Karna’s role in

it, she decides to leave him and go back to Pukeya. But is it

only because she is a Kshatriya princess that she has the

privilege to do this? Kane does not write about what

Vrushali’s reaction to the entire episode was. Is it only

Uruvi who could be entitled to express her opinion and anger?

Kane provides a new perspective to Karna’s story because of

her upper caste fictional character. Uruvi’s Kshatriya way of

life is different from Karna and his family’s way of life.

Uruvi has been brought up with certain privileges, morals and

beliefs that she carries into her life as a suta’s wife. But

can these be applied to a life that is so different from hers?

These doubts are voiced by Shona when he says “..the question

here is-is she worthy of you? Is she suited for you, for our

family?” (67)

63

Nonetheless, by the end of the novel she too takes the

decision, like Karna, of continuing her suta way of life

instead of returning to the Hastinapura palace with the

Pandavas and living the life of a Kshatriya. This can also be

perceived as a privilege that Uruvi has, to live her life as

she wants to. It is a privilege that is difficult for most

people belonging to the lower castes. But though she belongs

to the suta caste through marriage, she is a Kshatriya by birth

and this gives her a certain advantage over other sutas.

The same cannot be said of Karna, who was a suta by adoption.

He could have certain Kshatriya privileges, not because he was

one by birth but, because he was the closest friend of

Duryodhana. His life as a suta was based more on having no

choice, even though he does choose later to die as Radheya

rather than a Pandava.

Kane’s Uruvi can be considered as the portrayal of a woman for

whom caste is not as important as it is for the society she

lives in. Through her narration, Uruvi tells the readers

Karna’s story, for her Karna is not simply defined by his

caste but by his qualities of being courageous, kind and loyal

64

but also misguided. For her Karna is first her warrior husband

and then a sutaputra.

Conclusion:

Both, Kane and Neelakantan, have retold an age-old story in

their novels. In Kane’s novel, caste issues are always in the

background of the plot as she focuses on bringing out the

human traits of all her characters. For Neelakantan, on the

other hand, caste is a very contemporary evil in society and

it forms the central core of his narrative. It is interesting

to see that two novels published in the same year have such

different approaches to the Mahabharata and its representation

of caste. But, at the same time, it is observed that these

authors have chosen to retell the epic because contemporary

issues can still be discussed through its characters. Another

issue that this research looks at is of gender. Gender studies

have progressed at a great speed in the past few decades and

this research will attempt to analyse these changes in the

selected novels. Gender in the retellings of the Mahabharata

will be discussed in the next chapter.

65

CHAPTER II

66

Gender is, and always has been, an important issue of

discussion and debate. Theoretically speaking, it is necessary

to distinguish between sex and gender. Simone de Beauvoir

writes in her book, The Second Sex that “one is not born, but

rather becomes, a woman.” (qtd. Butler 35) Here, she is

clearly differentiating between sex and gender by associating

one with the biological self and the other with the

sociological. Judith Butler, in her essay on de Beauvoir’s

book says that “sex is understood to be the invariant,

anatomically distinct, and factic aspects of the female body,

whereas gender is the cultural meaning and form that that body

acquires, the variable modes of that body’s acculturation.”

(35) According to Butler, de Beauvoir does not accept gender

as being natural. She writes that we do not understand

ourselves with respect to our sex, it is always with respect

to our gender because “we never know our sex outside of its

expression as gender” (39). Therefore, gender cannot be

studied in isolation from culture.

Gender issues form an important part of social debates in

contemporary India. Uma Chakravarti explains some of the

prominent issues relating to gender in India, in her book

67

Gendering Caste. She traces a history of gender in India through

the book while highlighting issues such as marriage,

widowhood, control of sexuality etc.

She starts with the Rig Vedic and later Vedic society which,

according to her, the nineteenth century Hindu nationalists

have “romanticized” as the “golden era” for women. (42) But

Chakravarti writes that this period has not been studied

thoroughly and from the information that is available it can

be said that the society was “strongly patriarchal”. A woman’s

main function was that of the “reproducer” as the marriage

rituals of the time indicate and therefore, there was strong

patriarchal control over women’s sexuality. This control was

attributed to the beginnings of social stratification and the

practice of marrying within clans, in other words, the

beginning of the system of endogamy. Later Vedic texts like

the Grihya Sutras highlight concerns about the wife, it was

necessary that the wife be “carefully selected, carefully

groomed and carefully controlled” (44).

Around the second century A.D., according to Chakravarti, the

Manusmriti became the primary text for defining caste and gender

in the society. Great importance was attributed to the

68

practice of endogamy and hence marriage. It is in this period

that Varnasamkara (the theory of mixed unions) was introduced

and the anulomic and pratilomic marriages were defined. Anulomic

marriages were between low caste women and high caste men,

these were accepted, while pratilomic marriages were between high

caste women and low caste men, these were unacceptable.

Therefore, the patriarchal society worked through control over

marriage practices.

Marriage practices served to keep a firm control over women’s

bodies. Chakravarti writes that “the honour and respectability

of upper caste men are regarded as protected and preserved by

women who therefore must be closely guarded and whose

sexuality is stringently monitored” (67). It was necessary

that the women make a smooth transition from virgin to wife to

motherhood. Motherhood was, therefore, “idealized and

ritualized”. Female sexuality was a matter of great concern

and had to be “managed” in order to keep the lineage pure.

According to Chakravarti, it was the realization that

“reproductive power was the one power that women still held in

the new structure of relations in which they were

subordinated” and it was thus necessary “to simultaneously

69

exaggerate and treat women’s ‘innate’ nature as terribly

dangerous.” (72) Another concept that the patriarchal society

promulgated was that of strisvabhava and stridharma, “the

strisvabhava of women-their innate nature as sexual beings-was

in conflict with their stridharma of fidelity to the husband”

(72). Therefore, in order to keep their stridharma, the notion

of the pativrata became the ideal that women were taught to

aspire to. It was through epics such as the Ramayana that the

“pativrata ideal” was made popular. Sita became “the long-

suffering, patient, loving and faithful wife” to Rama, and she

also became the ideal woman for generations of Indian women

(75).

Chakravarti then moves to the pre-colonial era. She writes

about widowhood as being “a state of social death.” (82) A

woman’s life revolved around her husband and therefore on his

death “she ceased to be a person; she was then neither a

daughter nor a daughter-in-law”. The existence of a woman was

defined by her relationship to her husband and her role in the

production of heirs, as a widow she did not have any identity.

Many women committed sati on their husband’s pyre but those

who didn’t would be “physically alive” but “socially dead”.

70

But she also writes that there were widow remarriages

practiced amongst the lower castes.

While taking the example of the eighteenth century in

Maharashtra, under the rule of the Peshwas, Chakravarti says

that all matters concerning women and their sexuality like

endogamy, remarriage, wifehood and widowhood was under the

control of the patriarchal structure. Adultery by women led

to excommunication from the society and “the state could even

induct the offending woman into slavery if no one was willing

to take responsibility for her.” (110) Therefore, women’s

lives were strictly monitored by the society.

With the coming of the British, there were many changes in

Indian society and its laws. Sati was abolished by law in

1829. The British did not interfere in religious practices of

the Indians and therefore the “personal laws”, like the

marriage laws, were left mostly unchanged. These laws have

continued into the post-independence period. The Widow

Remarriage Act was introduced in 1856. This act also led to

the renewal of the practice of levirate remarriage, i.e.,

marriage to the younger brother of the husband, in case of the

husband’s death, in some parts of the country. Also, the

71

British government was hoping to homogenize the legal system

so that it could be better for administration and this led to

new laws which allowed marriages “across castes, and across

religious communities” (127). The notion of “love-marriage”

was also introduced during this period. Various other laws

were made during colonization including the first Age of

Consent Bill in 1861. This Bill was revised in the 1890s and

it led to subjecting a woman’s body to “the most critical gaze

in the public sphere”. These Bills did not change the practice

of child marriage but were introduced in order to legalize the

“age for a woman to be regarded as a consenting partner for

sexual relations” (134). At the same time, reformers like

Phule started stressing the importance of women’s education.

But, Chakravarti writes that the reformers “did not propose

drastic structural change” (135).

In the postcolonial period, “women are located in a way that

they can be both subordinated and also wield a degree of

power” (144). It is necessary to understand that only women of

a certain social standing could have this “power”. Their

subordination is, still, mainly in the areas of marriage and

reproduction with the practice of endogamy considered

72

important. Women’s compliance to patriarchal structures is

“invisibilized under the seemingly more neutral notion of

upholding ‘tradition’, or the specific ‘cultures’ of families,

or of communities” (144). The notion of honour or izzat is also

very important and the responsibility of upholding this honour

rests with the woman of the family. Chakravarti writes that

“women are the repositories of family honour-of their own

family as daughter, and of their husband’s family as wife and

mother”. Brahmanical patriarchy, “despite the constitutional

guarantee of social and political equality to all citizens”,

continues to be the controlling force in society. (159)

Jasbir Jain writes, in Indigenous Roots of Indian Feminism, that three

of the most basic freedoms that Indian women aspire to have

are the “right to education, to body and to space within

marriage” (283). At the same time, she is careful not to

generalize and say that all Indian women aspire to these

freedoms because women’s lives are defined by many

things-“caste, class, urban, rural, tribal, education and its

absence, married, abandoned, widowed or divorced, single,

dependent or economically independent, barren or productive,

lesbian or heterosexual” and also religion (269). For the

73

contemporary Indian woman creating an identity for herself,

bridging the gap between the traditional and the modern, are

challenges faced every day. Some of the issues that plagued

women decades ago continue to hamper the progress of women

today too. The expression of their sexuality, control over

their bodies, choices concerning their lives, marriage,

motherhood, widowhood are still concerns that women have to

deal with.

The Indian epics have always been a part of the Indian peoples

“collective unconscious”. Jain writes, that “images drawn

from them permeate written and oral cultures, political

interpretations, man-woman relationships and perpetuate role

models of every kind of human behaviour-father-son, husband-

wife, brother-brother, mother-son...” (29) Therefore, these

epics have played a very important part in the construction of

Indian society and the ideals that the society follows,

including gender. She writes further that “gender construction

in India has its roots in Sita’s agnipariksha, Draupadi’s

chirharan and Damayanti’s adherence to the pativrata code” (29).

The epics not only define roles for women but also men. The

Mahabharata is considered to be “one of the definitive cultural

74

narratives in the construction of masculine and feminine

gender roles in ancient India” (Broadbeck and Black, 10). Not

only has it defined gender roles in the past but “its numerous

tellings and retellings have helped shape Indian gender and

social norms ever since” (10). The ways in which authors alter

gender roles in these retellings draw attention to the

changing social perceptions about these roles. Broadbeck and

Black write that “gender identities” are “unstable, subtly and

constantly changing” (13). Therefore, it is necessary to study

how contemporary authors incorporate these changing identities

into retelling a narrative which is already so familiar to

most of their readers.

I will now look at some of the characters in the two chosen

retellings to understand if, and how, the two authors have

highlighted the changes in gender roles. The characters chosen

are Draupadi, Kunti, Gandhari and Uruvi. These characters have

been chosen because they are some of the most important

characters in the epic and play an essential role in the

culmination of the epic in the Kurukshetra war. They are shown

to have a lot of influence on politics in the Hastinapura

court. Also, their roles in the epic, and its retellings, are

75

intrinsically related with certain issues of caste and gender.

The main argument here is that authors of these retellings of

the epic are using the incidents and characters in the epic to

highlight alterations in margins of gender and are hence

representing contemporary reality with respect to certain

issues of gender.

Draupadi:

Draupadi is the daughter of King Drupada of Panchal. She is

referred to as “ayonija-sambhava, not of a woman born”

(‘Draupadi’ 20) because she has been born out of the

sacrificial fire. Drupada holds a yajna in order to obtain a

son, Dhrishtadyumna, who will kill Drona and hence avenge

Drupada’s humiliation. Along with Dhrishtadyamna, Draupadi too

is born out of the fire. According to Bhattacharya, the

purpose of Draupadi’s birth is proclaimed in a celestial

announcement when she steps out of the fire. The announcement

claims that “this lovely, dark...lady will destroy all

Kshatriyas” (20). Therefore, her position in the narrative is

extremely important for the outcome of the text.

76

Of course, the Mahabharata war is a result of many incidents,

but Draupadi’s vastraharan is one of the most important reasons

for it. Draupadi is, therefore, a very important character in

the epic and there have been a few retellings of the epic from

her perspective too, like Pratibha Ray’s Yajnaseni and Chitra

Banerjee Diwakaruni’s Palace of Illusions.

In the two primary texts chosen for this research, the authors

have portrayed Draupadi in different ways; the main difference

here is with respect to who narrates her story. In Ajaya,

Neelakantan’s omniscient, third-person narrator tells the

reader the story of her swayamvara and marriage. On the other

hand, in Kane’s novel, the reader can see Draupadi from two

perspectives; one is through Uruvi’s eyes and the other

through her own, when she relates the incidents that occur in

the sabha.

One of the most important incidents concerning Draupadi is her

swayamvara. Draupadi’s swayamvara is a test of the strength and

skills of her suitors. They had to shoot an arrow in the eye

of a fish rotating above a vessel of water while looking at

the reflection of the fish in the water. In Ajaya, Neelakantan

introduces an important debate surrounding the idea of a

77

swayamvara. Balarama speaks about the tradition, in the novel,

when he says that “in ancient times, the swayamvara had no

contest. The maiden chose her husband from many suitors...Only

the woman’s choice mattered” (320). But, Draupadi has no

choice because her father wants “only the best for [his]

daughter” and he “prefer[s] her husband be a great warrior”

(320). Therefore, she has to marry whoever wins the contest.

But, this too is not very simple. Draupadi rejects Karna as a

suitor because he belongs to the suta caste. Does she really

believe in the caste system or is this rejection only because

she has to follow a system determined by patriarchy? Her

decision to not marry Karna is voiced in a “soft whisper” and

when Karna looks up at her in shock and anger he sees “a

sadness that was even deeper than his own” (322). Neelakantan

seems to want to point out that Draupadi, if given a choice,

would not have rejected Karna at all.

Kane also writes about her rejection of Karna by saying that

“the Panchala princess had been reluctant to break the norm

and accept him as her husband” (133). She also writes that

Draupadi had sacrificed her love in order to save her brother

who would have fought with Karna, and would have been killed,

78

if she had accepted Karna as her husband (134). Therefore,

both the authors write about Draupadi’s rejection of Karna in

a way that states that her decision was taken only by keeping

in mind the existing patriarchal norms of the society with

respect to caste and also with respect to how a woman,

especially a princess coming from the higher Kshatriya caste,

was expected to behave. These accepted norms give a lot of

emphasis to endogamy and hence, Draupadi’s marriage with Karna

would have been wholly unacceptable, as Uruvi’s is in Kane’s

novel. Endogamy is still practiced in society too, Chakravarti

gives examples of marital advertisements in newspapers to

prove this point (146), and women are still expected to think

about what is acceptable and what is not when choosing a

husband, if they are given a choice at all. Therefore, caste

and gender are intrinsically related, especially with respect

to marriage customs.

After her marriage, Draupadi goes home with the Pandavas and

in a “momentous decision” taken by Kunti, the “course of

history” is changed forever (Neelakantan, 329). Kunti asks

Arjuna to share what he has brought with all his brothers and

thus, Draupadi is married off to all five Pandavas.

79

Neelakantan expresses her anger over this by saying that “they

were discussing her yet she had no voice in deciding her own

future. She was just ‘it’, a thing without heart and feelings;

to be bartered, shared, fought over, and pawned when its use

was over” (330). Draupadi seems to echo the sentiments of many

generations of women who did not, and still do not, have a

choice in matters concerning their own lives. In Ajaya too,

Draupadi argues against marrying all the Pandavas but with the

intervention of Krishna she resigns herself to her future, “in

the best tradition of Indian wives” (331). The five Pandavas

share a common wife and she is not expected to protest. Here

the question of control over a woman’s body is brought into

focus. Draupadi herself has no control over her body but is

forced to wed five men, not only because of patriarchal norms

but also because of her mother-in-law, Kunti, who does not

want her sons to be divided for any reason.

Yudhishtira says to Draupadi, in Ajaya, “you are ours now and

we will protect you until death claims us all” (332). But,

Draupadi is called “Nathavati Anathavat, suffering the agony

of a woman who had five husbands but with no one to protect

her, who is alone and uncared for” (Kane, 130). These too are

80

established gender roles, the woman as weak and the man as her

protector. But, Draupadi herself reverses this role when she

saves her “hapless” husbands “like a boat” when they “were

drowning in a sea of sorrows” (130), after the dice game.

The dice game is where Yudhishtira gambles away the Pandavas’

inheritance, the Pandavas themselves and Draupadi too. It is

after the dice game that the Pandavas and Draupadi are sent

into exile for 13 years. The dice game is also the episode

where Draupadi is humiliated because of her vastraharan. This

episode of the epic has been written by Kane in Draupadi’s

voice, as she is narrating the incidents to Uruvi.

She narrates the incidents with a very direct tone, not

leaving anything out. Her narration itself is like an act of

defiance against the humiliation that she has faced. In this

incident too the question of the woman as weak and the man as

strong comes through. Draupadi, who is fighting for her own

dignity, becomes the oppressed victim, while all the men in

the assembly, who remain silent through it all, become the

perpetrators of the crime. But, it is still Draupadi who

emerges strong and dignified, instead of the men. Her

narration shows her humiliation, but also her strength and

81

determination. She is disgusted with her husbands and with all

the elders of the Kuru clan. She leaves the hall with her

“head high, even though [her] honour was in shambles” (131).

As Draupadi’s swayamvara and the incident of the vastraharan show,

the patriarchal society was in complete control of women’s

lives. But, at the same time, Draupadi does not conform to

established gender roles by quietly accepting everything as

her fate, but fights for her dignity. Also, Draupadi, as a

mother, is not given the same importance as Draupadi as a

wife. Here she is subverting the value accorded to a woman as

a mother in patriarchal society. Neither of the two texts

chosen mentions her as a motherly figure.

Kane’s writing, through Draupadi herself, makes the narrative

stronger and brings out the issue of how gender constructs are

not always fixed or stable. Draupadi is not represented as a

woman who is weak but as someone who is “ready to fight back”

because that is the only way she can live. The idea of

vengeance is what drives her forward. But this incident does

not deter her from remaining a devoted wife, a pativrata, to her

five husbands. Therefore, her portrayal is that of a woman who

is determined to get justice but at the same time, who does

82

not shirk her duties and her role as a wife. But it is still

Sita, the wife who suffers quietly, who remains the ‘ideal’

woman. Draupadi, with her anger and need for revenge, is never

someone that an Indian girl is taught to emulate. Draupadi is

a woman who has the agency to fight for herself, even though

it is true that this agency is not available in all spheres of

her life. This makes her a character with whom many

contemporary women can empathize. Women have more freedom to

choose and speak out for themselves, but this does not mean a

complete departure from patriarchy.

With an increasing number of retellings, especially retellings

from Draupadi’s perspective, authors attempt to bring out the

qualities of a sense of justice, dignity and a determination

to fight back that need to be emulated by contemporary Indian

women. Mythology is being retold to highlight the changes that

are required, but might not have happened yet.

Kunti:

Kunti is the wife of Pandu and the mother of the Pandavas. She

plays a very important part in the Mahabharata as the mother of

83

the five Pandavas and Karna, and as the mother-in-law of

Draupadi. It is her abandonment of Karna that causes him to be

brought up in the house of a suta and to live as a suta his

entire life. It is Kunti’s wish that Draupadi marry all the

five Pandavas so that they remain undivided.

Karve writes, in Yuganta, that “every man in her [Kunti’s] life

contributed to her unhappiness” (29). Her father, Shurasena,

her adoptive father, Kuntibhoja, her husband, Pandu and even

her sons, the Pandavas, were all responsible, in one way or

another, in making her life unhappy. Her entire life is

defined by her relationships to these men and it is controlled

by them.

Her father gives her away to his childless friend, Kuntibhoja,

who marries her to Pandu. But, despite of marrying the king of

Hastinapura, her life is not a simple one. Pandu retires to

the forest, with Kunti and his other wife Madri. Pandu and

Madri both die in the forest and Kunti is left widowed with

the Pandavas. She returns to Hastinapura and a life-long feud

begins between the Pandavas and the Kauravas over the throne

of Hastinapura which ends in the Kurukshetra war.

84

The relationship that defines her life the most is the one

that she has with the Pandavas, as their mother. Unlike her

daughter-in-law, Draupadi whose role as a wife is highlighted

in the text, it is Kunti’s role as a mother that becomes

significant. Motherhood is considered to be one of the most

important stages in a woman’s life, so much so that “a woman

is a woman only if she is a mother” (Jain 285). In Indian

culture the mother is glorified as a woman who will go to any

lengths to ensure the happiness of her sons. Kunti becomes an

example of such a mother, even allowing a tribal woman and her

five sons to die in order to save the lives of her own sons

and herself. On the other hand, she is also the unwed mother

who abandons her child as soon as he is born because of the

social stigma associated with it.

In Kane’s novel the reader sees Kunti, through Uruvi’s eyes,

as a loving mother and a woman who has lived with dignity

through all the sorrows in her life. But, Uruvi’s perspective

changes drastically when she learns that Kunti is, in fact,

Karna’s mother and that she has extracted two promises from

Karna-to spare Arjuna and to use one weapon only once in the

battle. Uruvi knows, and so does Kunti, that these promises

85

will bring about the death of Karna. Uruvi accuses Kunti of

never having loved Karna and only acknowledging him now in

order to save her other sons. She says to Kunti that “you have

so cleverly used the fact of motherhood as a political weapon

to guarantee a win for your Pandava sons” (259).

The Mahabharata has many women who are central to the narrative

of the epic and who contribute to the outcome of the war thus

subverting accepted patriarchal norms. Amba vows to kill

Bhishma and is reborn as Shikhandi in order to fulfil her vow,

Gandhari’s decision to blindfold herself is seen as an act of

resistance, Draupadi’s anger and vows for revenge are what

drive the Pandavas to war. Kunti is also extremely important

to the outcome of the epic. Through Kunti, Kane highlights the

role of the mother and the power that a mother has over her

sons. She uses Uruvi’s narration to question Kunti’s behaviour

as a mother. Kunti doesn’t offer much in the way of

explanation when Uruvi berates her about abandoning Karna and

only acknowledging him for her own selfish needs. Does Kane,

then, want to show that Kunti is accepting the accusations

fired at her?

86

Uruvi says to Kunti “You were the mother who tricked her sons

to marry one woman. And you are the mother-in-law who allowed

her daughter-in-law to be labelled a whore, while you

maintained a spotless reputation. Why, even in this hour, you

are ready to use your daughter-in-law as his ultimate

temptation. You are ready to corrupt anyone for your goal!”

(264). But, what is Kunti’s goal? Isn’t it because she wants

her sons to be the rulers of Hastinapura that she is going to

such great lengths to ensure their victory? Is she subverting

the ideals of motherhood then?

Kunti’s silence against Uruvi’s tirade is Kane’s perspective,

in a way, of how Kunti would react to these accusations that

have been debated on by scholars and the readers of the

Mahabharata for generations. Her silence might be taken as

acceptance, but does that necessarily make her a bad mother?

Kunti’s decision of abandoning Karna was influenced by the

patriarchal society she lived in. She was a Kshatriya princess

and for a woman in her position, maintaining her ‘purity’

before marriage was of the utmost importance. Other decisions

in life like returning to Hastinapura with the princes,

allowing a poor woman and her sons to die for them, asking

87

them to share a wife were all supposedly for the benefit of

her sons. Kane’s portrayal of Kunti is of a woman who is

struggling with the decisions that she has taken but is,

nonetheless, strong enough to face the consequences.

In Ajaya, on the other hand, Neelakantan portrays Kunti as a

very manipulative and cunning woman who knows exactly what she

wants and knows how to get it. She allies herself with priests

like Dhaumya in order to control the course of events leading

up to the war. She addresses herself as a “poor widow” and

uses her position to gain the sympathy of the courtiers (152).

It is she who adds drugs to the sweets served to a nishada

woman and her sons so that their corpses can be found later in

the house of lac, while the Pandavas and she escape. Here, the

question of caste too becomes important. The woman who is

killed belongs to the nishada caste and is hence at the lowest

rungs of the caste hierarchy. The woman is marginalized due

to, both, caste and gender. It is necessary to understand that

though Kunti is part of a patriarchal society, she is an upper

caste woman and therefore, is privileged to a certain extent,

a privilege that the unnamed nishada woman does not have. She

is marginalized on the basis of her gender not only because of

88

upper caste men but also because of upper caste women, like

Kunti. The interaction of caste and gender is observed here.

Kunti, in Ajaya, does not think twice about killing the family

of nishadas. She backs her decision by saying that “it was His

will that this mother and her five sons arrived to act as

decoys for our ‘death’...Nothing is considered wrong if it is

in self-preservation” As a mother, she seems to only think

about the welfare of her sons and is determined that they will

be the rulers of Hastinapura.

Therefore, Kunti’s portrayal in the two novels is different

and her position as a mother is questioned by both the texts,

but especially by Kane’s Uruvi. Kane seems to abide by the

notion of a mother as loving, caring and all-suffering for her

children. But at the same time she questions Kunti’s decision

of abandoning her first-born son only because of a fear of

society. This stigma, of being an unwed mother, is still one

of the major concerns faced by women in India, especially

upper-caste women. On the other hand, unwed mothers from the

lower castes might not necessarily face such a stigma. A

report in The Hindu says “historically and even today, many

unwed mothers are Dalit or tribal women, who have been forced

89

by an unequal caste system to be sexually available for upper

caste men as their accepted destiny. Their children from such

encounters contribute to the cheap labour on which India’s

economy runs. ” (thehindu.com). Therefore, control over the

body and sexuality of a woman is also an intrinsic part of

caste politics and not only gender.

Neelakantan, on the other hand, is portraying the plight of a

single mother in a patriarchal society and the lengths to

which she has to go to in order to protect her sons and

herself. Single mothers and unwed mothers are marginalized in

similar ways because of the firm belief that a woman needs a

man in her life in order for it to be complete. Both the

authors highlight the role of the mother in the lives of her

sons. The Pandavas do not dare to defy her under any

circumstances and that is how a mother is supposed to be.

Indian culture, portrayed through Hindi cinema and TV shows,

also defines such an image of motherhood. The mother is an

‘ideal’ mother when she always has the best interests of her

sons in mind, irrespective of the effects on others and when

the sons are always ready to do as she asks.

90

Kunti’s role as a woman is also coloured by the fact that she

produces heirs through the process of niyoga. Therefore,

biologically, the Pandavas are not Pandu’s sons. The concept

of niyoga allows a woman to produce heirs from another man,

with the permission of the husband, if the husband is unable

to do so for some reason. According to Bhattacharya, Kunti

does not want to give birth to sons who are not Pandu’s but it

is on the insistence of her husband that she does so (‘One-in-

Herself’ 25). Therefore, here too the question of control of

women’s sexuality is brought forward. A woman’s main role is

in reproduction, to produce heirs and this aspect of her role

cannot be compromised upon. It is not surprising to hear

instances of marriages ending because the couple is unable to

have children or a man being married a second time because his

first wife could not bear children. Therefore, the role of

woman in reproduction, in carrying forward the name of the

family, is of the utmost importance and affects her position

in the house.

Kunti’s relationship to her daughter-in-law, Draupadi, is also

important when considering gender roles. Kunti’s insistence

leads to Draupadi marrying five men, therefore, Kunti too has

91

a part in controlling the body of her daughter-in-law.

Patriarchal notions of control over a woman’s body, and life,

are practiced through another woman. Chakravarti writes about

the compliance of women which goes a long way in cementing the

patriarchal system. She writes that “while women lose in

relation to their own menfolk, within a patriarchal situation,

they derive certain benefits from the system of which they are

a part” (144). Therefore, the patriarchal system is “a complex

structure which both expects compliance from women and grants

them a degree of power” (147-148).

The issues of motherhood, especially single motherhood,

control over the body of a woman, her choice in matters

concerning her life are contemporary concerns addressed

through the character of Kunti in these retellings.

Gandhari:

Gandhari is the princess of Gandhar, married to King

Dhritarashtra and mother to the Kauravas. She is married to

Dhritarashtra on the insistence of Bhishma, but she is unaware

that Dhritarashtra is blind. When she realises this, she ties

a blindfold around her eyes and vows to never remove it. This

92

act can be interpreted either as an act of defiance, or as

Gandhari proving herself to be a pativrata by not allowing

herself the pleasure of sight that her husband does not have.

It can be questioned because it can also be interpreted that

she chooses the role of a wife as more important over that of

a mother. But, in the retellings Gandhari is considered with

respect to her role as a mother.

In Kane’s novel, Gandhari does not appear as a major character

but the readers are given a glimpse of her through Uruvi. Her

portrayal is only from Uruvi’s perspective and hence it is

also coloured with her prejudices. Uruvi talks about Gandhari

to Bhanumati, Duryodhana’s wife. According to Uruvi, Gandhari

is not a “devoted wife” but “a masochistic person of such

stubborn resolve that she deprived her husband of seeing the

world through her eyes” and “she remains blind to the faults

of her sons and refuses to perceive the enormity of what’s

happening around her” (206). She does not yield the influence

in her children’s lives that Kunti does for the Pandavas.

Therefore, their roles as mothers are also very different.

Gandhari, according to Uruvi, has allowed her children to

“grow up wild, unrestrained and thoroughly spoilt.” The

93

Kauravas do not heed her word and she “is not a figure of

maternal kindness nor is she the guide, philosopher or the

strict disciplinarian a mother should be” (208). Therefore,

here, Kane is differentiating between the two women by saying

that Kunti is the ‘ideal’ mother while Gandhari is not.

In Ajaya, Neelakantan portrays Gandhari as a woman who has been

forced to marry a blind man and who, even though she wants to,

cannot have the kind of influence she wants on her children.

She is unable to stop her brother Shakuni from manipulating

her sons. In Neelakanatan’s novel, Shakuni is one of the main

perpetrators of everything going on in the Kuru court. But

even with interventions from Gandhari, Shakuni continues to

interfere in the politics at Hastinapura. Therefore, Gandhari

does not have any say in what happens in her own family.

Neither was she given a choice in marriage, nor is she an

influential mother or sister.

But, it is necessary to understand that Neelakantan does not

make Gandhari entirely passive. In the prelude to the novel,

Bhishma comes to Gandhari’s chamber to take her away to

Hastinapura after the Gandhara army has been routed. She

welcomes him with an “icy chill to her voice” and carries

94

“herself with...dignity and composure.” She accepts her fate

but makes it known, through her behaviour, that she is not

happy with it. She is described as “the most powerful woman in

the entire sub-continent and the real power behind the blind

King” (138). She insists that Shakuni go back to Gandhara so

that her husband and sons can rule the kingdom in peace.

Gandhari is an example of a woman who has spent her entire

life within the confines of patriarchy. Both Kunti and

Gandhari have had their lives decided for them. But it is

through motherhood that the main difference in their lives

becomes apparent. Kane questions Kunti’s conflicting

motherhood but only after portraying her as the ideal mother.

On the other hand, she doesn’t give a voice to Gandhari at all

and only focuses on the fact that she could not become a

mother like Kunti is. Therefore, the authors attempt to define

motherhood through these characters.

Another important point when considering the character of

Gandhari is that she does not belong to Hastinapura or its

surrounding kingdoms but is from Gandhara, a land to the west

of Hastinapura, according to Neelakanatan. Therefore, her

position is that of a foreign woman and someone who is not a

95

part of the caste or gender system of the kingdom she has

married into. But that does not mean that she does not have to

follow the rules of her adopted country. Her position as a

wife and mother, as a woman, is still within the patriarchal

structures of society.

Uruvi:

Uruvi is Karna’s second wife, a princess who chooses to marry

a sutaputra. But, it is important to remember that Uruvi is, in

fact, a fictional character. Kane says, in an interview, that

“through Uruvi [she] could validate some of [her] arguments”

(Sruti’s BookBlog, 2013).

Jai Arjun Singh, writing for the Indian Quarterly, says “Even

though Uruvi is part of Karna’s life and is affected by his

actions, she can be viewed as a sutradhaar figure who is

essentially outside the narrative, a stand-in for the

author.....One might say that what she [Kane] has attempted—

consciously or otherwise—is a form of literary and social

criticism, by revisiting the story as a 21st-century person

and bringing modern morality to it, and doing this not from a

safe distance but as an insider” (indianquarterly.com).

96

Therefore, Uruvi’s narrative becomes very contemporary and

through Uruvi, Kane brings forward various debates with

respect to the epic. From the very beginning of the novel the

reader sees Uruvi as a headstrong young woman who is not

afraid to fight for what she wants. She knows that marrying

Karna, a social outcast because of his low caste, will change

her life forever but she is willing to take this decision and

she sticks to it.

As a woman she is a very important character because all the

incidents are narrated from a woman’s perspective. These

narrations come with Uruvi’s, and in a way Kane’s, prejudices

against many characters like Bhishma, Kunti, Duryodhana,

Gandhari etc. Uruvi is placed diametrically opposite to

Draupadi and their stories converge in the final Kurukshetra

war.

The very first glaring difference between the lives of these

two women is their swayamvara. While Draupadi has to marry the

man who wins the contest arranged by her father, and hence has

no choice at all in the matter, Uruvi has complete freedom to

choose a man she loves. Draupadi marries Arjuna and rejects

Karna, acting according to what was expected of her by her

97

family and by society as a whole. Uruvi, on the other hand,

does the exact opposite by choosing to marry Karna over

Arjuna. Kane does not idealize this situation by making

Uruvi’s choice easier. In fact, Uruvi has a difficult time

convincing her parents to accept her decision. She has been

portrayed as a very intelligent and outspoken woman who can

argue fiercely for her decisions. She even goes on to declare

that “if I [Uruvi] can’t have him, I would rather stay

unmarried” (18). Her father faces a dilemma that many Indian

fathers face even today, of leaving their daughters unmarried,

and Uruvi’s parents reluctantly agree to her choice. But, it

causes uproar at her swayamvara nonetheless, with everyone

drawing out swords against the pratilomic marriage. Uruvi’s

decision remains unchanged but the cost of her decision is

that she goes from being a loved and respected princess to a

social pariah.

Another important way in which she is different from Draupadi

is in the fact that Draupadi was born from the feelings of

hate and revenge, and these were the emotions that surrounded

her life. Uruvi was a loved and pampered daughter who was

allowed the freedom of learning medicine, horse riding,

98

painting and who was allowed to develop as a woman outside of

the patriarchal confines of the society.

This is not to say that this patriarchal society did not

affect Uruvi’s life. Marrying Karna was a momentous decision

for her and it led to drastic changes in her life, not only

with respect to her social position but also her role as a

woman and a wife. For a woman who had everything she had

wished for when growing up, becoming the second wife of a

sutaputra brought many challenges. Uruvi’s marginalization is

based on the fact that she marries into a lower-caste and

therefore, her social position changes. Women who entered into

pratilomic marriages were excommunicated from the society,

according to Chakravarti. That is exactly what happens with

Uruvi too. She realizes that her relationships with people

have changed after her marriage into a lower caste. It is not

only her relations with those from the upper-castes that

change but Karna’s suta family also takes some time to

understand her, especially his brother Shona. She has to

overcome a transition from being an upper caste woman to a

lower caste woman, a change that has been shown by Kane to be

difficult.

99

Another important change was that she had to share her husband

with Vrushali, Karna’s first wife and this changes the

dynamics of their relationship. She sees herself as an

intruder in their marriage and is very conscious of any

reaction from her co-wife (46). Her relationship with Draupadi

too is coloured by the fact that she is aware of Draupadi’s

love for Karna. Therefore, as a woman and as a wife she is

always in a shadow of doubt about where she stands.

Uruvi’s most important role in the novel is as Karna’s wife,

as his “friend, companion, and above all, his conscience

keeper” (Sruti’s BookBlog). Uruvi’s relationship with Karna is

different than Vrushali’s because she comes from a background

which allows her to think differently. She is the one who

defends Karna but also the one who insists on leaving him

after she is made aware of his role in Draupadi’s vastraharan.

But, it is only because of her royal upbringing that she has

the privilege of taking such a decision, Kane does not portray

Vrushali doing something like that. In fact, Vrushali is

almost silent on the entire episode. Therefore, caste also

plays an important role in allowing Uruvi to take this

decision.

100

On the other hand, it could be interpreted that Vrushali is a

pativrata when she does not leave her husband in his most trying

times, while Uruvi goes to Pukeya. Therefore, Uruvi’s

character as a contemporary woman is complicated, especially

when it comes to her role as a wife. Even her modern-day

outlook on life does not keep her away from the patriarchal

society.

The fact that Kane had to create a fictional character in

order to put her views across and in order to interpret the

epic in another way can be taken to mean that she saw the

other gendered characters, like Vrushali, to be limiting in

what she wanted to put across. It could be interpreted as a

way to highlight the changes in gender roles too. The

contradictions in the characters of Draupadi and Uruvi clearly

mark them as being from different times, even though they

occupy the same space in the context of the novel. Uruvi’s

contemporary outlook on life is different than that of

Draupadi and closer to the women of today. But, eventually,

both are a part of patriarchal societies. Changes in gender

margins are a slow process and the role of the patriarchal

society in defining these margins cannot be ignored.

101

Conclusion:

The chosen retellings use characters from the epic to

highlight some of the changes that have occurred with respect

to gender, especially in the portrayal of Draupadi and Uruvi.

On the other hand, the authors have used these characters to

point out that the gender system in India has not evolved in

major ways and continues to be a cause for concern in Indian

society. That is not to say that gender margins have not

changed at all. There have been changes as is apparent from

the history provided and also from the characterization in the

retellings. Women have a better agency for voicing their

opinions. But, women continue to be defined by their roles-as

daughter, wife, and mother-in patriarchal society. Their

relationships with other women too are within the confines of

patriarchy, Kunti and Draupadi’s or Uruvi and Draupadi’s

relationships are examples of the same. It is also important

to remember that the relation of gender with caste cannot be

ignored. Gender margins change as caste margins change and the

two are very closely related.

102

CONCLUSION

“The Mahabharata is the creation and expression not of a

single individual mind, but of the mind of a nation; it is the

poem of itself written by a whole people...the whole poem has

103

been built like a vast national temple unrolling slowly its

immense and complex idea from chamber to chamber..”

-Shri Aurobindo (qtd. in Lothspeich, 75)

The above quote highlights the extent to which the Mahabharata

is a part of culture in India and in the minds of its people.

Its various characters and episodes make it a treasure trove

for authors working on retelling the epic because, as Lakshmi

Bandlamudi writes, “the characters are simply seen as

prototypes and moulds in which humanity is cast and hence

their validity is understood as timeless” (105).

This research has focused on some of the issues related to

caste and gender in two retellings of the epic. The caste

issues discussed include the basis of hierarchization of

castes, caste mobility, and unequal opportunities because of

caste. While some of the gender issues discussed include the

agency available to women in a patriarchal society, the

woman’s role as a mother and wife and her position in the

patriarchy especially with respect to other women.

104

The research has attempted to determine if the epic and its

characters have been moulded to represent contemporary reality

with respect to the issues discussed in the preceding

chapters. Dipankar Gupta, while writing about the caste

system, says that “a quick reflection will at once reveal how

much at odds the conceptual view....is with the dynamics of

contemporary Indian reality” (56). The same might be said for

the gender constructs in society too. Gender roles, too, have

evolved and are evolving. Therefore, the margins of caste and

gender too have been altered. It is these changes that this

research has attempted to study.

It has been observed, through this research, that authors in

the twenty-first century have discussed current issues of

caste and gender with the help of the epic and its many

characters. Anand Neelakantan’s Ajaya is based in a society

divided by a rigid caste system, but at the same time it is a

society which has individuals trying to subvert this system.

Kavita Kane too highlights issues of caste through Karna’s Wife,

but her novel focuses on relationships and family ties more

than the society. Nonetheless, both the authors address issues

of caste-Karna and Ashwatthama are men who adopt the lifestyle

105

of another caste, thus practicing caste mobilisation, Vidura

is accepting of his lower caste and his behaviour is almost

compliant with his subordination, Eklavya has been given an

agency by Neelakantan to play an important role in the

narrative, Duryodhana and Uruvi are characters who are

privileged with respect to their caste but their position in

the caste system is also complicated.

Gender issues too have been dealt with by both the authors.

Changing gender roles have been discussed through some of the

main characters in the epic. Draupadi’s role as a wife has

been highlighted by both the authors while also discussing her

relationship with her mother-in-law Kunti. Kunti herself is an

important character in both the retellings and her position as

a mother and a wife have both been dealt with. The authors

have attempted to distinguish between Kunti and Gandhari’s

roles as mothers in the narrative. Uruvi’s role as the upper

caste wife of a sutaputra has also been highlighted. Therefore,

the questions of motherhood, women’s compliance to patriarchal

structures, caste and gender relations, and control over

women’s bodies are some of the issues discussed through these

retellings.

106

The main aim of this research was to determine if and how,

margins of caste and gender have evolved and how authors of

contemporary retellings of the Mahabharata have used the epic

and its characters to portray these changes. The notion of

retelling is important here because contemporary authors are

using an epic whose origins are debatable and are

incorporating present-day social issues within the narrative.

Robyn McCallum and John Stephens write that in order for a

text “to be a retelling a text must exist in a relationship to

some kind of source, which we will refer to as the ‘pre-

text’...” (4). But in the case of the Mahabharata it is

difficult to point to a “pre-text” because there are many

versions, translations, and retellings available. Therefore,

authors can be said to have greater freedom for

reinterpretation and retelling.

The authors that have been chosen for this research are Kavita

Kane and Anand Neelakantan. There are many other authors, some

of them have already been mentioned, who have retold the epic

in order to highlight contemporary issues. Perspective

retellings especially focus on individual characters and their

issues. For example, Chitra Banerjee Diwakaruni’s Palace of

107

Illusions is from Draupadi’s perspective and hence gender forms an

important part of the narrative. Shivaji Sawant’s Mrityunjaya is

from the perspective of Karna and highlights important issues

of caste and identity. Novels like Devdutt Pattanaik’s The

Pregnant King highlight gender relations and transsexual and

gender-ending characters in the epics. Therefore, authors

continue to remould the epic to suit their needs of expression

and representation.

The primary sources considered in this research were chosen

because they provide an agency to marginalized characters,

such as Eklavya and Vidura, and hence subvert the previous

versions and retellings, at least to a certain extent. This

subversion is an indication of the changing margins of caste

and gender. Through these retellings the authors have

attempted to redefine the margins of caste and gender with

respect to the issues that have been considered here. There

are other issues too, relating to caste and gender, whose

study has not been done in this research and therefore, those,

cannot be commented upon.

The chosen primary sources also have contrasting narrators,

with one being an omniscient third-person narrative and the

108

other a selective narrative through the perspective of only

one character, Uruvi. Therefore, as McCallum and Stephens

write, “two versions of a story involving the same characters,

settings and events can differ substantially in their

implications or significances” (ix). The two retellings

portray some common characters but since their perspectives

are different from each other, these portrayals too are not

always similar.

It is also necessary to remember that the primary sources are

a part of Indian English fiction. There have been many

retellings of the epic, usually included in mythological

fiction, in the past decade and it can be said that “Indian

mythology has become the most marketable segment of India’s

English-language book market” (latitude. blogs.nytimes.com).

The increasing focus on retellings of the epics and

mythological fiction has been explained by one of the most

popular mythological fiction writers in India today, Amish

Tripathi, when he says that “[The trend] is a result of our

increasing self-confidence as a nation. I think that [earlier

it] wasn’t market driven. It was supply-side driven. The

English publishing industry itself was perhaps more geared

109

towards catering to the western market, explaining India to

the western market rather than finding topics which sell in

the India market” (blog.reuters.com). Therefore, the reasons

for a surge in retellings might range from a need to

understand our past to representing contemporary reality

through mythology to economic and political purposes.

Limitations:

The scope of the research is limited to the two retellings

chosen and it does not take into consideration many other

retellings that have been published in the past few years.

Also, only a few of the issues, mentioned above, related to

caste and gender margins have been studied here. Caste and

gender debates are vast and varied and it is not possible to

consider all of them within the scope of this research. Caste

and gender also need to be studied together because they

interact in society. This research does look at this

interaction but not in a detailed way.

This research has studied only a few characters from the array

of characters portrayed in the retellings. Many characters

110

like Bhishma, Takshaka, Shakuni, Jara, Mayasura, Bhanumati,

Vrushali, Krishna etc. have not been studied.

The notion of the Mahabharata as a myth also needs to be taken

into account. The introduction mentions myth theories by

Mircea Eliade and Bronislaw Malinowski and these can be used

to study the aspect of the epic as mythology.

Future Prospects:

The limitations of the research can be developed into studies

for further research. There have been many retellings of the

epic, from different perspectives, in recent years and it is

possible to study these retellings and the characterizations

in them. Authors have given voice to many marginalized

characters and it would be very interesting to see how these

characters have been portrayed and what issues have been

brought to light through them.

Caste and gender in the retellings can be studied in greater

detail and other issues, for example the relation of identity

with caste and gender or the role of caste and gender in state

politics, can be studied. Characters through which these

issues are discussed can be chosen for further research. This

111

research has focused on some women characters in the

retellings of the epic but gender studies also includes the

study of masculinity, its relation to femininity, issues of

the third-sex etc. and these issues can also be studied in

further research.

The relation between myth and society can also be considered

for future study. The retellings are a way of reinventing

mythology and these retellings reflect changing societal

norms. Therefore, the study of the retellings as a reinvention

of mythology is another area of study that can be considered.

It would be interesting to look at the notion of “regeneration

of time” given by Eliade in order to understand the continuing

interest in mythology and its use in literature.

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES:

1) Kane, Kavita. Karna’s Wife: The Outcast’s Queen. New Delhi: Rupa

Publications, 2013. Print.

2) Neelakantan, Anand. Ajaya: Roll of the Dice. Mumbai: Platinum

Press, 2013. Print.

SECONDARY SOURCES:

1) Abrams, M.H. and Geoffrey Galt Harpham. A Glossary of Literary

Terms. 10th ed. Delhi: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.

113

2) Bal, Hartosh Singh. The Return of the Ramayana. The New York

Times, 9 April, 2013. Web. 8 April, 2015.

3) Bandlamundi, Lakshmi. Dialogics of Self, The Mahabharata and

Culture. London: Anthem Press, 2011. Print.

4) Bhattacharya, Pradip. “Of Kunti and Satyavati: Sexually

Assertive Women of the Mahabharata”. Manushi

142. (2006): 21-25. PDF File.

---, “One-in-Herself: Why Kunti remains a Kanya”. Manushi

143. (2006): 25-33. PDF File.

---. “She Who Must Be Obeyed Draupadi: The Ill-Fated

One”. Manushi 144. (2006): 19-30. PDF File.

5) Broadbeck, Simon and Brian Black, eds. Gender and Narrative in

the Mahabharata. New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.

6) Brockington, J.L. The Sanskrit Epics. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Google Book Search. Web. 3 April, 2015.

7) Butler, Judith. “Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s

Second Sex”. Yale French Studies 72 Simone de Beauvoir:

Witness to a Century (1986): 35-49. JSTOR. Web. 5

May, 2015.

8) Chakravarti, Uma. Gendering Caste: Through a Feminist Lens.

Calcutta: STREE, 2003. Print.

114

9) Chapple, Christopher Key. “Karna and the Mahabharata: An

Ethical Reflection”. The Mahabharata: What is not here is

nowhere else. Ed. T.S. Rukmani. New Delhi:

Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2005. 131-144.

PDF File.

10) Doniger, Wendy. Mahabharata. Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., n.d. Web. 15 Feb.

2015.

11) Gupta, Dipankar. Interrogating Caste. New Delhi: Penguin

Books India, 2000. Print.

12) Gupta, Ruchira. “A bulwark for unwed mothers” The

Hindu. The Hindu, June 22, 2013. Web. 6 May,

2015.

13) Herman, David, Manfred Jahn and Marie-Lauren Ryan,

eds. Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory.

Oxfordshire and New York: Routledge, 2005. Google

Book Search. Web. 15 April, 2015.

14) Holquist, Michael, ed. The Dialogic Imagination Four Essays

by M.M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas

Press, 1981. Print.

115

15) Hutcheon, Linda. A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory,

Fiction. 1998. London: Routledge, 2003. PDF

File.

16) Jain, Jasbir. Indigenous Roots of Feminism: Culture, Subjectivity

and Agency. New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 2011.

Print.

17)Jairam, Rajani Dr. “Going Beyond the Marginalized: A

Study with a Specific Reference to Indian

Women in the Epic Context”. International Journal of

Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies 1/2. (April 2014): 19-27.

PDF File.

18) Kane, Kavita. Interview. Slice of real life. Sliceofreallife, 22

Feb, 2014. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

19) Kane, Kavita. Interview. Sruti’s BookBlog. N.p. 19 Dec.

2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

20) Karve, Irawati. Yuganta: The End of an Epoch. Reprint. New

Delhi: Orient Blackswan, 2006. Google Book

Search. Web. Feb. 2015.

21) Koskikallio, Petteri. “From Classical to

Postclassical: Changing Ideologies and

116

Changing Epics in India”. Oral Tradition 11/1. (1996): 144-

153. PDF File.

22) Kumar, Sanjiv and Dr. Prakash Bhadury. “The

Marginalized Groups in Indian Social Construct: A

Critical Study of Mahesh Dattani”. American Journal of

Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6/2. (March-May

2014): 109-114. PDF File.

23) Lothspeich, Pamela. Epic Nation: Reimagining the Mahabharata

in the Age of the Empire. New Delhi: Oxford University

Press, 2009. Print.

24) LuitProductions. “Odisha Literary Fest 2012-The

magic lure of mythology”. Online video clip.

YouTube. YouTube, 10 Dec. 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

25) Malinowski, Bronislaw. Magic, Science and Religion and Other

essays. Illinois: Free Press, 1948. PDF File.

26) McCallum, Robyn and John Stephens. Retelling Stories,

Framing Culture: Traditional Story and Metanarratives in

Children’s Literature. U.S.A: Routledge, 2013.

Google Book Search. Web. 10 April, 2015.

27) McCallum, Robyn. “Would I lie to you?”. Postmodern

Picturebooks: Play, parody and Self-Referentiality. Ed. Lawrence.

117

R. Sipe and Sylvia Pantaleo. New York:

Routledge, 2008. Google Book Search. Web. 10 April, 2015.

28) Mircea, Eliade. Cosmos and History: The myth of the Eternal

Return. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959.

PDF File.

29) Moraru, Christian. Rewriting: Postmodern Narrative and

Cultural Critique in the Age of Cloning. Albany: State

University of New York Press. 2001. Google Books

Search. Web. 5 April, 2015.

30) Mukherjee, Tutun and Steven Totosy de Zepetnek, eds.

Companion to Comparative Literature, World Literatures, and

Comparative Cultural Studies. New Delhi: Cambridge

University Press, 2013. Print.

31) Neelakantan, Anand. Interview. Booksoarus. Booksoarus,

3 Feb, 2014. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

32) Pai, Leena.P. A Passage Through the Mahabharata Retellings:

Study of Some Contemporary Novels. Diss. JNU,

2005. PDF File.

33) Pattanaik, Devdutt. “History Vs Mythology”. Devdutt.

Devdutt, 26 Nov. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

118

34) Peterson, Indira Vishwanathan. Design and Rehetoric in a

Sanskrit Court Epic: The Kiratarjuniya of Bharavi. Albany:

State University of New York Press, 2003. Google

Book Search. Web. 6 April, 2015.

35) Pollock, Sheldon, ed. Literary Cultures in History:

Reconstructions from South Asia. Berkeley, Los Angeles,

London: University of California Press, 2003. PDF

File.

36) Ramanathan, Anusha. A Subaltern Reading of Select Rewritings of

Narratives from the Mahabharata. Diss. S.N.D.T Women’s

University, 2007. Print.

37) Ramanujan, A.K. “Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five

Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation”. Many

Ramayanas: The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia.

Ed. Paula Richman. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University

of California Press, 1991. 22-49. Google Book

Search. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.

38) Ramanujan, A.K. “Repetition in the Mahabharata”.

Essays on the Mahabharata. Ed. Arvind Sharma. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass, 2007. Google Book Search. Web. 14

May, 2015.

119

39) Rao, Yellapragada Sudershan. Interview. Outlook. N.p.

21 July, 2014. Web. 15 May, 2015.

40) Rege, Sharmila. Writing Caste/ Writing Gender: Narrating Dalit

Women’s Testimonios. New Delhi: Kali for Women,

2006. Print.

41) Schutte, Flip. “At the Foot of Mount Olympus: A

Theory on Myth”. HTS 62/2. (2006): 577-605.

PDF File.

42) Segal, Robert. A. Myth: A Very Short Introduction. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

43) Singh, Jai Arjun. Epic Fictions. The Caravan. The Caravan, 1

Aug. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

---. A Legitimate Hero. The Indian Quarterly. The Indian Quarterly.

n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

44) Sonwalkar, Prasun. Mahabharata focus of India’s first Twitter

fiction book. Hindustan Times. HT Media Limited, 24

Nov. 2014. Web. 3 April, 2015.

45) Srinivasachariar, M. History of Classical Sanskrit Literature.

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989. Google Book

Search. Web. 6 April, 2015.

120

46) Sugirtharajah, Sharada. “Hinduism and Feminism: Some

Concerns”. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 18/2.

(Fall 2002): 97-104. PDF File.

47) Thorat, Harishchandra. “The ‘Mahabharata’ and the

Marathi Novel: Textual Startegies”. Indian

Literature 49/1 225. (Jan-Feb 2005): 128-136. JSTOR.

Web. 14 Feb. 2015.

48) Trikha, Pradeep, ed. Textuality and Intertextuality in the

Mahabharata. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons, 2006. Google

Book Search. Web. 9 Feb. 2015.

49) Tripathi, Amish. Interview. Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 2

April, 2013. Web. 10 April, 2015.

50) Wolfreys, Julian, ed. The Continuum Encyclopedia of Modern

Criticism and Theory. New York: Continuum, 2002.

Print.

51) Yadav, Ram Bhawan. “Colonial Historiography Vs

Postcolonial Historiography: History, Myth and

Allegory in Shashi Tharoor’s The Great Indian Novel”.

LLILJ 2/2. (Autumn 2012): 1-12. PDF File.

52) The Mahabharata. Trans. Bibek Debroy. Haryana: Penguin

Books India, 2010. Print.

121

122