'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 63

Originally posted by: AnuMP

Has any one here read Aryavarta Chronicles? Apart from Sangeeta and Sabhayata that is?

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

Regarding Ajaya i would say that its mostly fictional.Most of the incidents that have been described in the book are fictional didn't happen in that way in the actual epic

for example Duryodhan not fighting with drupad at all and instead he is able to broker a peace treaty with him whereas pandavas are shown as warmongers who go and fight with Drupad is completely fictional.As per the actual epic Duryodhan fought and loss

But there are other places(although its just 10-20%) where the author does make a point and good point that too something that is based on the epic.Its isn't just swept under the rug

for example panadavs involvement in burning nishada woman with her son's in laskhagarah.KMG is largely silent on pandavas involvement in this incident .It can go either ways as per KMG it could be planned or something done on purpose it could simplY have happened unintentionally.But the critical edition and RM Ramesh clearly point toward pandavas involvement and them actually pre planning the burning which is how the writer of Ajaya has presented it and criticized it .Which cant be called fictional

so in points like this i do like Ajaya when epic based incidents are shown but with another POV but ya mostly the incidents and twisted and fictional elements have been add to make Suyodhan the hero which he wasnt

Originally posted by: TheWatcher

Bold part - Well, KMG isn't a retelling / author's work in which author can write what he interpreted, KMG's job was to translate the Shlokas word by word and not add anything including his perspective, he only translated the Shlokas.

Originally posted by: KrisUdayasankar

Hello all!

Just saying "Hi" since I'm new to the forum, though I've been reading through the very interesting discussions on and off. Look forward to being a part of the exciting debates :)

Krishna

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

agreed

when i said KMG i meant the actual epic only

in other words if we go by KMG translation of ved vyas's epic there isnt any direct linkage between pandavas running away from lakshagarah and burning of Nishada and her sons.

but if for the same thing we refer to CE translation there is direct linkage

before the burning this is what yudi says in KMG

Yudhishthira, the virtuous son of Kunti, addressing Bhima and Arjuna and the
twins (Nakula and Sahadeva) said, 'The cruel-hearted wretch hath been
well-deceived. I think the time is come for our escape. Setting fire to the
arsenal and burning Purochana to death and letting his body lie here, let us,
six persons, fly hence unobserved by all!'

now in CE the bold part has been translated as 'lets leave six bodies here and fly unobserved'

just a few words but the whole meaning has changed

so if the writer of Ajaya has written about this incident in a negative light one cant call it factually wrong

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

Originally posted by: AnuMP

If I am not mistaken Rukmavati did marry Pradyumna. Rukmini doesn't exist in AC. I hadn't really given much thought to Shikhandin one way or the other before AC but I think that was the authors way of supporting marginalized groups of people.


Agree that Arjun doesn't come off very well in AC. But I think you are going to find many authors who take the same view because of the whole sharing thing or giving her up thing as in AC. Parva for example, depicts him even as an abuser. POI takes a very dim view of Parth. I like Arjun as a character but he wasn't without flaws

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

Sabhayata and TheWatcher, I was reading your posts with some interest, because you both have articulated informed opinions based on logical perspectives. I, on my part, had also noticed this difference between the KMG translation of Yudhishthira's words and the rendering of the same in my traditional Aryashastra version (as also the Critical Edition). The original Sanskrit shloka is: aayudhaagaaram-aadeepya dagdhvaa caiva purocanam / shat praanino nidhaayehha dravaamoh-anabhilakshitaah // [After burning down this arsenal along with Purochana, and leaving here (the bodies of) six persons, we shall escape unobserved.] This perhaps is one of the rare instances where the otherwise infallible KMG translation has (unwittingly or otherwise), given a different ('non-controversial') twist to the meaning. Perhaps the cavalier view of expendability of aboriginal Nishaadas, so shocking to our modern humanist sensitivities, was due to the 'pre-moral' ethic of the time, also seen in the episodes of Ekalavya and arguably of the Khandava-dahanam. But here it's even more disturbing, as the callous words are uttered by Yudhishthira, the revered epitome of virtue. But at the same time these unadulterated accounts also underline the intellectual honesty of the original narrator in presenting events as they (supposedly) happened, which is the hallmark of a true epic chronicle. The Ramayana too presents one such instance of class persecution -- that of the illustrious Rama beheading the Shudra ascetic Shambuka for violating the enjoined limitations of his class by engaging in tapasyaa. But unlike the Mahabharata event, that episode, appearing as it does in the Uttara-Kanda, could be a later casteist addition.