ABORIGINS IN THE MAHABHARATA
A case study of Hidimba and Ghatotkacha
Abstract- Indian Epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata play an important role in shaping the values and attitude of the Indian people. The Mahabharata gives many examples of Aryan and Non-Aryan marriage alliances. It also gives ample evidence of how the Non-Aryan women married to the Aryan men were treated in the Aryan society. The paper is an attempt of exploring the treatment meted out to the aborigine women married in the Aryan family in the Mahabharata and the offspring of this alliance. It will mainly focus on the life of Hidimba, the Rakashasi married to Bhima and their son Ghatotkacha.
Compelled by the circumstances, Kunti, the mother of the Pandavas asked Bhima to marry Hidimba, but she was never given respect and place due to the daughter-in- law of the house. She was abandoned after a son was born to her. Her son was also not honored like a prince but was only used as a cannon fodder to fight and die. He was a glaring victim of the Machiavellian politicians, for whom human life and emotions of ‘others’ is mere plaything.
Even after the death of her son, Hidimba do not enter in the Mahabharata. On the other hand, two Non-Aryan wives of Arjuna, Chitrangada and Ulupi were brought to Hastinapur, the Pandava capital after the war. This also indicates the different treatment meted out to women of different races. The good looking Naga and Manipuri princess can be tolerated but not a dark skinned cannibal Rakashsi.
Krishna’s attitude towards Ghatotkacha is most shocking. He not only conspired and sent Ghatotkacha to fight against Karna, so that Arjuna can be saved, but he also says that had Ghtotkacha was not killed in the war, he himself would have killed him as he was a Rakashasa and enemy of the Vedic religion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction- Popular literature is like a mirror of the society. It gives insight into the social values, practices and prejudices. The Mahabharata, which was referred to as ‘Itihasa’, i.e. the history, was composed and interpolated with many passages from 800 B.C. to A.D.200.1 Though the historicity of the events in the Mahabharata is questionable, but as a popular literature it is an encyclopedia of the society; its inspirations and conflicts.
One of the interesting areas of study for the social scientists interested in the history of Ancient India is to study Aryan and Non-Aryan interaction. In the Mahabharata we come across many references to the people, who could be termed as Non-Aryans in the racial and cultural-linguistic sense2.
One of the natural way of acculturation is marriage or co-habitation between the males and females of different cultural traditions. There are many incidents of this kind of alliances in the Mahabharata. One of the most interesting of this is an alliance between Bhima, the Pandava prince and Hidimba, the Rakshashi princess.
The treatment given to Hindimba and her son Ghatotkacha gives an indication of the way the pre-Aryan marginalized people were treated and used by the clever Aryans to serve their purpose. It also gives an indication of racial arrogance of the Braminical Aryan society.
Hidimba, the Rakshasi princess- Hidimba makes her entry in the ‘Adiparva’, the first book of the Mahabharata. She belongs to the tribe who were termed as ‘Rakashas’. The tribe was probably cannibal and was despised by the Aryans. She is accompanied by her brother Hidimb who wants to kill the Pandavas and eat their flesh. She was sent by her brother to kill the Pandavas and their mother Kunti who were moving from place to place in the forest after escaping the attempt of the Kaurava prince Duryodhana to kill them. Hidimba came to the place where four of the Pandavas i.e. Yudhisthir, Arjuna, Nakula , Sahadeva and their mother Kunti were sleeping and they were being watched over by mighty Bhima, the second Pandava prince.
Instead of killing them and enjoying their flesh as Rakashas are supposed to, she is infatuated by the strong and handsome Bhima. Here she is being portrayed as someone being disloyal to her own brother.
The poet describe her feeling in monologue,
“This person (i.e. Bhima) is worthy of being my husband, I shall not obey the cruel mandate of my brother. A women’s love for her husband is stronger than her affection for her brother. If I slay him, my brother’s gratification as well as mine will only be momentary. But if I slay him not, I can enjoy with him forever and ever” (Adi Parva Section CLIV)
Seduction of Bhima- She assumes an appearance of a beautiful young girl, as Rakashas are supposed to know the art of assuming different forms. The poet describe her beauty as,
“Her head decked with garland of flowers and her face like the full moon and her eyebrows and nose and eyes and ringlets all of the handsomest description, and her nails and complexion of the most delicate hue, and herself wearing every kind of ornament and attired in fine transparent robes”( Adi Parva, Section CLV)
She cautions Bhima of impending danger from her brother and proposes him,
“I would have none else for my husband save thee!--- My heart as well as my body hath been pierced by Kama (Cupid). O, as I am desirous of obtaining thee, make me thine’ ( Adi Parva ,Section CLIV)
She also gives an assurance that she will protect him from the flesh eating Rakasha and tries to seduce him by offering other allurement.
“O sinless one, be thou my husband. We shall then live on the breasts of mountains inaccessible to ordinary mortals. I can range the air and I do so at pleasure. Though mayest enjoy great felicity with me in those regions” ( Adi Parva Section CLIV)
In contrast to Hidimba, who is willing to betray her own brother for the sake of her carnal desire, Bhima is being portrayed as someone who is loyal and dedicated to his brothers and mother as he replies,
“O Rakshasa women, who can like a muni3 having all his passion under control, abandon his sleeping mother and elder and younger brothers? What man like me would go to gratify his lust, leaving his sleeping mother and brother as food for a Rakashasa?”( Adi Parva Section CLIV)
To please Bhima, Hidimba is even willing to rescue all of them as she says,
“I shall certainly rescue you all from my cannibal brother” ( Adi Parva Section CLIV)
Bhima, though dutiful towards his brothers and mother seems to have been charmed by the approach of the young women in the lonely forest as is natural for a young man. He seems to have noticed her feminine beauty as is obvious in his address to her. He addresses her as being amiable, of delicate shape, of fair hip, of handsome eyes and of slender waist. He also boasts about his physical power, as young man generally tries to impress a young girl that he fancy,
“O beautiful one, thou shalt today behold my prowess like unto that of Indra. O though of fair hips, hate me not thinking that I am a man” ( Adi Parva, Section CLV)
While addressing her in the same dialogue, Bhima uses the adjective “fair Hip” twice. This is indicative of the infatuation on Bhima’s side as well. Reference to hips is obviously having sexual connotation.
The dialogue between the two becomes almost similar to romantic drama, as Hidimba says,
“O tiger among men, o though of the beauty of the celestial, I do not certainly hold thee in contempt” ( Adi Parva Section CLV)
Killing of Rakashasa Hidimb- When the Rakashasa Hidimb saw that his sister is soliciting man, he became indigent and accuses her of sacrificing the good name and honour of all the Rakshasas. He rushes to kill Hidimba but is stopped by Bhima who now assumes the role of the protector of the damsel in distress. He even justifies her carnal desire. Addressing Hidimb, Bhima says,
“This girl is scarcely responsible for her act in desiring intercourse with me. She hath, in this been moved by the deity of desire that pervadeth every living form. ……thy sister came here at thy command. Beholding my person, she desireth me. In that the timid girl doth no injury to thee. It is the deity of desire that hath offended. It behoveth thee not to injure thee for this offence. O wicked wretch, though shalt not slay a women when I am here” ( Adi Parva Section CLV)
What follows is a dialogue between two, at the end of which a dual is fought and finally the Rakasha Hidimb was killed by Bhima.
There is no intervention from Hidimba to stop the fighting between her brother and Bhima, neither she makes any attempt to save her brother when he was killed by Bhima.
After this, Hidimba follows the Pandavas and their mother Kunti. Bhima here now shows anger and is ready to kill Hidimba. This was in contrast to the tenderness that he had shown for her few hours back. Either he was very excited or out of control after his fight with the demon or it was a show off to prove his loyalty to his mother and brothers. However he was stopped by Yudhishithir in his attempt.
Assertion of carnal desire by Hidimba- Here the portrayal of Hidimba, is in contrast to the Aryan damsels, who are supposed to be shy and not to assert their sexuality. Hidimba is found asserting her sexuality not only to Bhima but also later to Kunti, Bhma’s mother as well. She addresses Kunti,
“ Though knowest the pangs that women are made to feel at the hands of deity of love…., these pangs, of which Bhimsena hath been the cause, are torturing me…….unite me with this thy son” ( Adi Parva, Section CLVII)
She also gives assurance of the safety and security of not only Bhima but also promises to help the whole family in distress,
“Let me go taking him with me, wherever I like. Trust me, o blessed lady, I will again bring him back unto you all. When you think of me I will come to you immediately and convey you whithersoever ye may command. I will rescue you from all dangers and carry you across inaccessible and uneven regions. I will carry you on my back whenever ye desire to proceed with swiftness” ( Adi Parva Section CLVII)
She entertain Kunti by all her means and says’
“O, be gracious unto me and make Bhima accept me” ( Adi Parva Section CLVII)
In contrast to the Rakashshi Hidimba, the Aryan women like Draupadi is being portrayed as docile and passive in their interaction with men. Draupadi was married to five brothers without consulting her. During the period of the Pandava’s exile, when she was approached by Kotika, the messenger of Sindhu King Jayadratha, Draupadi says,
“Being alone in this forest here, I should not speak unto thee, remembering the usages of my sex” (Vana Parva Section CCLXIV)
The patriarchal influence is obvious in Draupadi’s attitude. In comparison the Non-Aryan women like Hidimba and Ulupi4 appears to be much freer and earthly when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. The women in the patriarchal society lead almost a mechanical existence. They are to be won at the Swyamvara5, put as a bait at dice, possessed and protected. All attempts are made to desexualize them.
Coming back to the narrative of Hidimba, Kunti was aware of her precarious position. She was fugitive along with her children escaping from the assassination bid and was badly in need of shelter and comfort. She approved of the alliance of Bhima and Hidimba.
After getting approval from Yudhishtithira, Bhima and Hidimba leaves for the deep forest with the condition that she will bring back Bhima everyday at nightfall. There is no mention of any marriage ceremony. So probably it was a mutually agreed cohabitation. Here the usual precedent of elder brother marrying before the younger one is also done away with. So it is quite likely that when the story of Mahabharata was composed in its most primitive form, restrictions about man-women relations were not as severe as it became later. As we also see the rare example of polyandry in the case of Draupadi’s marriage with the five Pandavas. And we also come across many union of high caste Aryans with non-Aryan women, like sage Parashar and Satyavati, Shantanu and Satyavati.
After the union between Bhima and Hidimba was consented by Yudhishthira, Bhima makes it a precondition that he will only stay with her till the time a son is born to her. After this the poet describe the romance between Bhima and Hidimba in a very beautiful words,
“On mountain peaks of picturesque scenery and region sacred to the Gods, abounding with dappled herd and echoing with the melodies of feathered tribes, herself assuming the handsomest form decked with every ornament and pouring forth at times mellifluous strains. Hidimva sported with the Pandava and studied to make him happy.”(Adi Parva Section CLVII)
Ghatotkacha- A son was born to them whose head was bald like a Ghata (water-pot) and he was named Ghatotkacha (the pot-headed). Away from the restrictive gaze of the Aryan society and living in seclusion as the people have taken the Pandavas and their mother as dead, they had no inhibition in mixing freely with the Rakashi Hidimba and her son. As the poet writes,
“Ghatotkacha who was exceedingly devoted to the Pandavas, became a great favorite with them, indeed almost one of them” (Adi Parva Section-CLVII).
After this Hidimba leaves the Pandavas abruptly, without any regret for separation. Here the treatment given to her by the poet is rather inhuman. She was dismissed without any regret,
“Then Hidimva, knowing that the period of her stay (with her husband) had come to an end, saluted the Pandavas and making a new appointment with them went away whithersoever she liked.” (Adi Parva Section-CLVII).
Ghatotkacha also departs after making a promise that he would come when wanted on business. Here at the end of Adi Parva ( Section-CLVII), the author gives a hint that Ghatotkacha was pre-destined to die and was created in the plot only as a counter balance to mighty Karna, the mortal enemy of the Pandavas. The poet writes,
“It was illustrious Indra who created (by lending a portion of himself) the mighty car-warrior Ghatotkacha as a fit antagonist of Karna of unrivalled energy, in consequence of the dart he had given unto Karna”
So Gahtotkacha will stand against Karna is foretold by the poet.
Though Kunti and the Pandavas were helped by Hidimba, they probably realized that if they stay there for a longer period, they are doomed to the life of seclusion and will be deprived of our rightful share in the kingdom.
Though they had no permanent place to stay and no reliable shelter they decided to leave Hidimba and went ahead. Probably Kunti and other Pandavas were feeling apprehensive that if Bhima grows too fond of Hidimba, he may choose to stay permanently there. There was also a possibility of a loss of face if the Aryan world came to know that the Aryan prince Bhima had married a Non-Aryan Rakashi girl and she is a first daughter-in -law of the Pandu’s family or even in the whole younger generation of the Kuru princes, as Duryodhana was yet to be married at that time. So there was a possibility of Kunti and the Pandavas being accused of spoiling the name and reputation of the whole Kuru linage. Kunti pulled Bhima out of the domestic bliss and went ahead along with her sons to another place Ekacakara to take shelter in the house of an ‘honorable’ Brahmin.
Portrayal of Hidimba in the Mahabharata- In the alliance between Bhima and Hidimba, Hidimba is someone who takes initiative and Bhima reluctantly aggress after his elder brother orders him to do so. The portrayal of an Aryan prince and a Rakashi princess also highlights the contrast in the Aryan and the Rakasha values. Bhima is shown as devoted to his family and for them he is even willing to kill a woman who had given her heart to him. In contrast Hidimba not only conspired against her own brother but also marries a person who kills him. She is being portrayed as someone who is lusty and devoid of affection for her brother. It has a negative and a positive aspect both. Negative is obvious that by conspiring against her own brother she had brought his ruin. She could not control her infatuation for Bhima! But this fact itself brings out her individual identity. She asserts herself and does not blindly supports whatever her brother does. She is open and comfortable about her carnal desires and asserts it. As she decides that instead of killing and eating such a strong and handsome man like Bhima why not to have him as her husband?
The Mahabharata had different layers and underwent many interpolations from time to time. It gives evidences of the marriage alliances of the Aryans and Non-Aryan Rakashas. In the Sabha Parva (Section XXX) we come across the mention of the tribes called the Kalamukhas, who were a cross between human beings and Rakshasas.
The general acceptance of Hidimba being a pushy proposer and Bhima being a passive who had to be cajoled into alliance gets a rude shock in Drona parva(Section CLXXVI) when Rakasha prince Alayudha tells Duryodhana, “I want to kill Bhima because he had raped the Rakashi princess Hidimba” 6
Why Hidimba was forgotten?-After the departure from the forest Hidimba is forgotten forever. Though Ghatotkacha is remembered and used by the Pandavas whenever they need him. He was remembered during the ‘Digvijay’ when Nakula goes to southern part of India for conquest. (Gita press edition, Digvijay Parva Ch.31). He was sent as a messenger to Bhibhishana, the king of Lanka. He was also remembered during the time of exile of the Pandavas. He stays with them during the absence of Arjuna. One thing about which the Mahabharata is silent is that why the Pandavas did not go to Hidimba during their period of exile after losing the game of dice? Was Hidimba a very violent that she could not tolerate Drupadi and the Pandavas decided not to take the risk or could it be fiery Draupadi who was not willing to accommodate with one more wife? It was Hidimba who was the first daughter-in-law in the generation of Yudishthir, and Kunti was probably afraid that she may claim her position of chief queen which will make the position of Kunti and her sons embarrassing. To avoid all this she preferred to dump Hidimba. It is also possible that the Pandava princes had avoided contact with her because now the situation was different. On earlier occasion they were a fugitive princess hiding secretly with the world taking them as dead, but now the situation was different. Yudhishtira had been a ‘Samrat’ who had performed ‘Rajsuya Yagya’. He was also accompanied by a Brahmin priest Dhaumya. During his period of exile many sages visited him and had a long discourse. In this situation they probably thought it beneath dignity to seek shelter with the Rakasha tribe of Hidimba. Taking help from Ghatotkacha was a compromise of lesser degree and as Ghatotkacha was called to the Pandavas and he served them with all the humility of a son, it boosted the racial ego of the Pandavas without compromising much on their dignity as they can take a stand that it was Ghatotkacaha who came to them and not other way round.
Use of Ghatotkacha- During the exile of the Pandavas, in the ‘Vana Parva’ when Draupadi was unable to bear the tedious journey, Ghatotkacha was remembered, the poet writes,
“Then with Yudhishitira’s permission, Bhima thought of his Rakshasa son. And no sooner he thought of by his father, then the pious Ghatotkacha made his appearance and saluting the Pandavas and the Brahmanas, stood with the joining hands” (Vana Parva Section CXLIII)
Otherwise noble and simple Yudhishthir also take resort to cunningness and calls Ghatotkacha as a legitimate son of Bhima and praises him.
“O Bhima, let this mighty and heroic Rakshasa chief, thy legitimate son, devoted to us, and truthful, and conversant with virtue carry his mother (Draupadi) without delay.” (Vana Parva Section CXLIV)
By calling him a legitimate son and Draupadi as his mother Yudhishthira seems to have played a trick on Ghatotkacha. He was not treated as a legitimate son; he was not remembered when the Pandavas conducted Rajsuya Yagya. He and his mother were never given a place of honour in the Pandavas family and now calling him as a legitimate son and also elevating him to the position of son of Draupadi is ironical. How clever people exploit the simple, by using sweet words and dump them later when they are no longer useful! This son born out of the union of Bhima and Rakashshi was most probably hidden from the public gaze and he was utilized to serve the purpose of the Pandavas. The cunning conquering Aryan race was using the forest dwelling simple people for their benefit. Even they do not have any scruple to use the children in whose vain their own blood also flows, because the half of that blood belongs to those who are considered as ‘others’ i.e. the Non-Aryan Rakashsas.
After listening the word of Yudhidhisthira, Bhima orders Ghtotkacaha to carry Draupadi on his shoulders.
“---this thy mother hath been sorely tired---------, carry her”( Vana Parva, Section CXLIV)
Mahabharata brings out the selfishness and hypocrisy of the human nature. While in distress we do not hesitate in pretending to love those whom we may not easily acknowledge as our own!
If Ghatotkacha is now addressed as son of Draupadi then why he was carefully forgotten during Rajsuya Yagya.
During the period of exile of the Pandavas, Ghatotkacha not only served the Pandavas himself, but other Rakshasas of his clan also served the Pandavas and accompanying Brahmins by carrying them on their shoulders. As Ghatotkacha was their chief, they obeyed him.
“At the command of the lord of the Rakashas, those Rakashasas of terrific prowess began to proceed, bearing all other Brahmans” ”( Vana Parva, Section CXLIV)
Hidimba is not referred anywhere after her departure. It is only her son Ghatotkacha who comes to help the Pandavas. It is also possible that she might have married or cohabited with someone else, after the departure of Bhima. The values about the man-women relationship of the Rakasha community were different than the Aryans. We have Rakashasi princes Shurpanakha in Ramayana proposing Rama and then Lakshmana. Ravana, her brother had no hesitation in abducting married women and desiring to posses her. Whatever the cause might have been, the author of the Mahabharata does not mention Hidimba after her departure. However the Pandavas do not have any hesitation in using the service of her son Ghatotkacha.
Krishna, the Machiavellian politician- During the Great War when Karna was causing lot of destruction in the Pandava’s army. As Arjuna was getting ready to go against Karna, he was stopped by Krishna,
Cleverly he plays with the words, he do not disclose openly that he is sending Ghatotkacha in the mouth of certain death. He says,
“O Dhananjaya, there is none else capable of advancing against him in battle, save thee, o tiger among men, and the Rakshasa Ghatotkacha .” (Drona Parva Section CLXXIII)
He also plays with the words and cautions Arjuna,
“I do not, however, o sinless one, regard the time to have come, o mighty armed one, for thee to encounter the suta’s son in battle. The blazing dart, resembling a mighty meteor, given him by Vasava, is still with him, o thou of mighty arms, kept for thee with care by suta’s son.” (Drona Parva Section CLXXIII)
Krishna says further,
“As regards Ghatotkacha, he is always devoted to you and desirous of your good. Let the mighty Ghatotkacha proceed against the son of Radha. Endued with the prowess of a celestial, he has been begotten by the mighty Bhima. With him are celestial weapons as also those used by Rakashasa.” (Drona Parva Section CLXXIII)
Arjuna do not raise his voice against this. As a brother’s son Ghatotkacha was like a son to him. But he also becomes a silent conspirator in the conspiracy.
Krishna cunningly plays with the emotion of Ghatotkacha who was devoted to the Pandavas. He says,
“Be thou the raft in this battle to the sinking Pandavas. ------. Except thee, O thou of terrible prowess, there is none else that can withstand the Suta’s son” (Drona Parva Section CLXXIII)
He also extols Ghatotkacha on the name of maternal and paternal linage,
“--accomplish that which is worthy of thy own self, of thy maternal race, and of thy sires” (Drona Parva Section CLXXIII)
He also reminds him of the paternal debt,
“Children, those sources of good, are expected to rescue their sires both here and hereafter” (Drona Parva Section CLXXIII)
Arjuna also joins in and extols Ghatotkacha,
“O Ghatotkacha, thyself, the long-armed Satyaki and Bhimsena, the son of Pandu, these three, in my judgment, are the foremost ones among all our warriors. Go and encounter Karna in single combat this night” (Drona Parva Section CLXXIII)
Gatotkacha fights a terrible battle with Karna and the Kaurava army. In order to save the Kaurava army, Karna uses the potent weapon that was kept reserved for Arjuna and kills Ghatotkacha.
At the death of Ghatotkacha, Krishna does not show the basic civility of restraining the outburst of joy as his beloved Arjuna is now safe. The poet describes,
“Beholding Hidimva’s son slain and lying like a riven mountain, all the Pandavas became filled with grief and began to shed copious tears. Only Vasudeva filled with transports of delight, began to utter leonine shouts, grieving the Pandavas. Indeed, uttering loud shouts he embraced Arjuna. Tying the steeds and uttering loud roars, he began to dance in a transport of joy, like a tree shaken by a tempest. Then embracing Arjuna once more, and repeatedly slapping his own armpits, Achyuta endued with great intelligence once more began to shout, standing on the terrace of the car.” (Drona Parva Section CLXXX)
On Arjuna asking the reason of this great joy, Krishna gives a very long explanation. Here he comes out as a very cunning representative of the Aryan- Braminical group. First he describes how now it is possible for Arjuna to slay Karna as now he is weakened. But what he says further about Ghatotkacha is quite disguising for Krishna as an individual as well as for the Aryan-Brahminical politics,
“Hidimva’s son also. I have slain by the employment of means, viz., through Karna with his dart. If Karna had not slain him with his dart in great battle, I myself would have had to slay Bhima’s son Ghatotkacha.-----That Rakashasa was inimical to Brahmanas and sacrifices. Because he was destroyer of sacrifices and of sinful soul, therefore hath he be thus slain.-------- O son of Pandu, they that are destroyers of righteousness are all slayable by me.” (Drona Parva Section CLXXXI).
Krishna is so confident about the legitimacy of his act that before giving this explanation about his happiness he says to Arjuna,
“Great is the joy I feel. Listen to me, Dhananjaya! This that I will tell thee will immediately dispel thy sorrow and infuse delight into thy heart.” (Drona Parva Section CLXXXI).
Krishna’s this utterance give an indication that Arjuna was also a co-conspirator (May be a silent one) in this scheme of using Ghatotkacha as a cannon fodder. The doubt arises was Bhima aware of this? Probably not. What he would have done if he knew that his son is being made as a sacrificial lamb?
There is no indication of Bhima showing much care for his son born to Rakashashi. He was remembered only to be used for the benefit of the Pandavas. When Rajsyuya Yagya was conducted there was no mention of Ghatotkacha. It is probable that the Rakashas tribes practicing pre-Aryan religion were opposed to the Yagya and so Ghatotkacha was not invited. But there is mention of non-Aryan prince like Eklavya during the Rajsuya Yagya (Sabha Parva Section XXXVI). However it is quite probable that the Nishad tribe to which Eklavya belonged was not as hostile to the Aryans as the Rakashas. But then marrying a Rakashshi, producing a son on her, using him during the time of the crises and then at the same time conspiring against him and sending him in the jaws of death and desiring to kill him if he survives, is obviously a very ignoble act of Krishna and the Pandavas. Among the Pandavas, at least one of them, Arjuna was a co-conspirator in the scheme. Karna and Arjuna were mortal enemies was well known and it was very unlikely that Bhima was not aware of the special Shakti that was preserved by Karna to kill Arjuna and the same Shakti was used by Karna against Ghatotkacha. Krishna’s dance after Ghatotkacha’s death also indicates his role in the death of Ghatotkacha, but there is no voice of protest from Bhima! As all other indicators points out, he also regarded the life of his half-Aryan, half-Rakashasa son as inferior than his purely Aryan brother Arjuna.
Krishna’s accusation that Ghatotkacha was inimical to Brahmanas is also not supported by any evidence. On the contrary he had shown devotion to the Brahmins. During the exile of the Pandavas when Ghatotkacha was remembered by Bhima, he came and shown his reverence to not only to the Pandavas but the accompanying Brahmins as well. (Vana Parva Section CXLIII).
Arjuna whose life had been saved by the sacrifice of Ghatotkacha also does not seem to be feeling very sad about his death.
Not only Ghatotkacha but his son, Anjanaparvan also sacrificed himself in the great Mahabharata war. He was slain by Aswatthaman. (Drona Parva Section CLV)
Krishna comes out as a very dubious and cunning politician in many episodes of the Mahabharata, especially during the Great War. Once someone is elevated to the position of God all his acts becomes sacred act, which is rather dangerous. Krishna as incarnation of God had captured the imagination of the millions of Indian people and his act and utterances are taken as the divine acts and divine words. Krishna’s above act of using Ghatotkacha and at the same time nurturing a desire of killing Ghatotkacha is likely to send a very unhealthy message across the length and breadth of the country. Following the example of Krishna, the vast majority of the upper castes (Self proclaimed inheritors of the Aryan tradition) will also carry the same attitude of discriminations towards the aborigines and lower castes. They are to be exploited and disposed of when the work is over, just because they belong to the “Other” group. It is written in the Bhagavad Gita,
“Yad-yad acharti sresthas
tad-tad eve taro janah
sa yet parmanam kurute
lokas tad anuvartate”
(Whatsoever a great man does, the same is done by others as well. Whatever standard he sets, the world follows.) (S. Radhakrishnan,2004, P.140.)
Dritrashtra’s comment on the death of Ghatotkacha very finely sums up the Machiavellian politics of Krishna,
“As in a fight between a boar and a dog, upon the death of either, the hunter is the party profited, I think, o learned one, that even so was Vasudeva the party to profit by the battle between Karna and Hidimva’s son. If Ghatotkacha had slain Karna in battle, that would have been a great gain for the Pandavas. If on the other hand, Karna had slain Ghatotkacha, that to would have been a great gain to them in consequences of the loss of Karna’s dart” (Drona Parva Section CLXXXII)
To justify the death of Ghatotkacha, the author Vyasa himself was brought in. As he keeps coming many times in the narration of the story of the Mahabharata. Here however he was brought in the middle of the battle. Weather he himself wrote this or it is a later interpolation is debatable.
Yudhisthira grieved at the death of Ghatotkacha and angry with Karna went in the battlefield to engage with him. Here Vyasa comes and convinces Yudhisthira that it was good that the Rakasha Gahtotkacha had been slain by the dart of Karna, otherwise had he slain Arjuna, your grief would have been greater.
“For thy good it is, o sire, that the Rakashasa had been slain in battle.” (Drona Parva Section CLXXXIII)
Bhima also do not seems to be anyway affected by the death of his son. There is no oath of taking revenge like Arjuna has done for Abhimanyu. On the other hand Yudhishithira sends him against Kaurava immediately after the death of Ghatotkacha. It was only Yudhidhishitra, a good natured gentleman as he was, seems to be feeling sad and remembering the virtues of Ghatotkacha after his death. He says,
“My affection for Ghatotkacha, that prince of Rakashasas is twice that, O Janardhana, which I naturally bear towards Sahadeva. That mighty armed was devoted to me, I was dear to him and he was dear to me” (Drona Parva Section CLXXXIII)
He feels sad at the death of young one as expected of a loving elder in the family,
“O Janardana, when we are alive and thyself too, how could Hidimva’s son be slain while engaged with the Suta’s son?” (Drona Parva Section CLXXXIII)
This utterance indicates that probably he was not a party to the conspiracy to use Ghatotkacha as a cannon fodder or was he trying to redeem himself in his own eyes and trying to cover up for his sin by shedding tears? This however does not mean that his expression of grief was hypocritical, but grieving sincerely at the death of someone and protecting your children at the risk of your own life is a different matter.
After the death of Ghatotkacha there is no mention of his mother lamenting over his death. She never enters back in the story after her departure after giving birth to a son. Even after the war is over we see lamentation of the widows of the slain warrior, we hear neither of the wives or mother of Ghatotkacha. This indicates that though the Non-Aryan Rakashsa men were used for fighting from both sides there women were not allowed to mingle with the Aryan women. The trend still prevalent in caste ridden society. A higher cast wealthy male may have a concubine from the lower caste, but she will not be treated as a respectable wife.
In contrast the death of Abhimanyu was lamented by all. Grief of Subhhadra was described and Arjuna takes a oath of avenging the death of Abhimanyu. No such treatment for Ghatotkacha. Discrimination in death as well! Abhimanyu was a son of Subhadra, sister of Krishna and Ghatotkacha that of a Non-Aryan Rakashai.
In Stri-Parva also women were described as crying for their dead husbands and sons, but here also we do not come across any women crying for Ghatotkacha or his dead son. Neither Bhima nor Draupadi, who was carried on his shoulder during exile, shed any tears for him. People who are regarded as being others receive a discriminatory treatment. Their values, emotions and life is treated as inferior that those who are considered as our own. Absence of lamentations and absence of any Rakasha women crying for their dead husbands and sons indicates the attitude of indifference towards them by the author of the Mahabharata (Vaysa as well as all those who interpolated the text later) as well as the contemporary society of those times.
Krishna also says that he had killed Eklavya, before the Great War as there was a possibility of him joining with the Kauravas. (Drona Parva Section CLXXXI) Eklavya was another victim of Aryan conspiracy. His thumb of right hand was demanded by Dronacharya so that the position of Arjuna as a supreme archer remains unchallenged and Krishna killed him to ensure the victory of the Pandavas.
However Yudhisthira, the eldest Pandava appears to more human and accommodating. After the death of Ghatotkacha he wonders at the happiness of Krisna. He also performs the last funeral rites of Ghatotkacha. Some consolation to the inferior Rakasha from ‘the great, moral and pure’ Aryan.
Conclusion- The Aryans were so hypocritically obsessed with the idea of racial superiority and in that also purity of the Brahminical caste that ‘Varnasankara’7 i.e. mixture of ‘Varna’ (caste) was looked upon as a very heinous crime. Bhagavad Gita says,
“The mixture of castes in the family only leads its destroyer to hell; their ancestor falls (from Heaven), for they are deprived of the offerings of funeral cakes and drink.” ( The Bhagavad Gita, Ch I)
Many restrictions were laid down on the union between man and women. But how artificial restrictions can control the natural desire of man and women to unite? So the ‘Varnasankara’ was taking place all the time not only within the ‘Chaturvarna’ of the Aryan society but also with those who were outside the fold of the Aryan system of Chaturvarna. So those who considered themselves as regulators of the society (Brahmins and Kshatriyas) were always riddled with this problem of the children born out of the union between different ‘Varnas’ and with the people outside the ‘Varna’ system.
The Aryan and the ruling elite among them i.e. the Brahamana and the Khatiryas were obsessed with maintaining racial purity and in that also the purity of the upper Varnas. Many restrictions were laid down on the sexual union between the men and the women. But the conflict between instinct and the superimposed social norms is eternal. In spite of many restriction the union between men and women of different caste as well with those who were outside the pale of caste system were taking place like the union between Bhima and Hidimba. The cunning Brahminical mind also found out the ways of using the offspring born out of the so called undesirable union for their own benefit. In the Anushasan Parva (Section XLVII, XLVIII and XLIX), Bhisma gives a long discourse about how the children born out of the union of the different caste to be treated. His following utterance gives an indication of the attitude of the higher caste towards the lower caste,
“The son that is begotten by a Brahmin upon a Sudra wife is called Parasara, implying one born of cropse, for the Sudra women’s body is as inauspicious as a corpse. He should serve the person of his father’s race.---------. Adopting all means in his power, he should uphold the burden of his family. Even if he happens to be elder in age, he should still dutifully serve the other children of his father who may be younger to him in years”
If this is an attitude towards the lower caste wife, what to say about the women who is outside the spell of Chaturvarna. The children born to the lower caste wife of the higher caste is denied any share in the property of the father.
“It is through compassion that something is given to the son of Sudra wife (of a Brahmin)”(Anusasana Parva Section XLVII)
No wonder that the same attitude is shown by the Pandavas towards Ghatotkacha. He was only used and denied the rights of the Son.
At the time when the Mahabharata was written and many plots and subplots were added to it, many alliances across the castes were taking place. Many children born out of these alliances had already earned the place of respect in the society by their talent and hard work and also earned their place in the epic. Probably when the epic was at its initial stage of development, the society was not as phobic about ‘Varnasankara’ as they became later.
Satyavati was a daughter of a fisherman. She was dark-skinned and even referred as Kali. Shantanu, the king of Hastinapur married her and she became his queen. The children born out of this union Chitrangad and Vichitrvirya were accepted as princess. Similar is the case with the Birth of Kripacharya and his sister Kripi, they were narrated to born out of semen of a sage on reed stalk. Same is the case with Dronacharya. He was also being narrated as being born without mother in the pot made up of tree leaves called ‘Drona’. This cannot be true, a child cannot be born without a womb of a mother. Probably these three people i.e. Drona, Kripacharya and Kripi were born out of the union between Brahmin sage and a forest aborigine woman. To hide the identity of their mother the story of their birth was cooked up and added. Dronacharya marrying Kripi also strengthen this hypothesis that they found it suitable to get married as their mothers were non-Brahmins. Had the children being born to a Brahmin women, there would have been no need to hide the identity of mother. In Indian mythology, there were many instances of children born to the sages who were staying in the forest for study or doing penance. It is most likely that unable to control their carnal desires these sages had relation with the forest women and had children from them. But ashamed of their deeds, they contrived a story and propagated a theory that these children were born without mother or to celestial nymph who abandoned them.
Arjuna, the third Pandava prince also married two non-Aryan princess i.e Ulupi, the Naga princess and Chitarngadha, the Manipuri princess. Both of them were not brought to Indraprastha, the capital city of the Pandava initially. However later on, after the Great War they were brought to Hastinapur and given honor.(Ashwamedah Parva Section LXXXVIII) . But here also nobody seems to be remembering Hidimba. It is also likely that Manipuri princess Chitarangadha and Naga Princess Ulupi were fair skinned, though belonging to different racial stock and could be tolerated but not a dark skinned, cannibal Rakashasi Hidimba. This indicates that those who are different than us are treated as inferior and so their life, values and emotions are less important. It is also probable that Hidimba, after waiting for few years had married or cohabited with somebody else. This had broken up her channel of communication with the Pandavas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanatory Notes-
1. This period is given by Pande G.C. in his essay ‘Socio-Cultural Milieu of the Mahabharata: An age of change’ in ‘Reflections and Variations on the Mahabharata’ Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi, 2009. However the period of composition and development of the Mahabharata still remains a contentious issue.
2. The term ‘Aryan’ meaning noble, represented a particular racial group who invaded India and are considered as the authors of the Vedic civilization. However in the process they assimilated many pre-Aryan socio-cultural practices and later on the term ‘Aryan’ denotes a linguistic-cultural group, having different racial groups or of mixed blood.
3. Muni-Sage who is having control over himself. The word is originated from Sanskrit word Maun means silence. The Hindu and Jain sages had a practice of observing silence for particular days. This was their attempt of obtaining self-control. Here Bhima calling himself Muni is indicating that he is having firm control over himself. In modern history Mahatma Gandhi also used to practice Maun i.e. silence.
4. Ulupi was a Naga princess, whose husband was dead. She took fancy of Arjuna and took initiative in uniting with him for one night stand. Iravat was born out of this union. He was also killed in the great Mahabharatra war fighting on the side of the Pandavas. By the description of the Nagas in the Mahabharata, it is obvious that they were some group of people may be Pre-Aryan. There are numerous examples of the marriage alliances between the Aryans and the Nagas. The story of Ulupi is in Adi Parva, Section CCXVI.
5. Though Swayamvara is quoted as an evidence of women were given choice while selecting their mate. But many times they hardly had any choice. Take cases of Sita and Draupadi, the two heroines of two epics. In both the cases they had no choices. Sita was married to a person who could tie bow-string of the Shiva’s bow and Draupadi was married to a person who had shown a remarkable skill in archery. It was also common to forcibly carry a women from Swaymvara after defeating the other suitors, as it was done by Bhishma, who carried away three princes of Kashi after defeating other assembled kings.
6. This is narrated in Gita press edition of the Mahabharata, which is not considered as authentic, but is more popular. Apart from this all other quotations and references to the Mahabharata is taken from ‘The Mahabharata’ Translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi,2008. In this the words of the Rakasha Alayudha are as follows,
“What shall I say more, the virgin Hidimva was formerly deflowered by him, disregarding us and the other Rakashasas” Here he does not mentioned that Bhima had raped Hidimba.
7. ‘Varna’ literally means colour. Initially the fair skinned Aryans separated themselves from the dark-skinned Non-Aryans. However later the society came to be divided into four ‘Varnas’ i.e Chaturvarna. Here now Varna became synonym with the group indicating ones profession i.e Priest (Brahmin), Warrior (Kshatriya), Cultivator and Businessmen (Vaishya) and Serving class ( Shudra).
References-
1. ‘Srimanmaharashi Vedvayasapranit Mahabharata’ (Hindi) (In six parts), Gitapress, Gorakhpur.
2. ‘The Mahabharata’ Translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi,2008.
3. Arvind Sharma, ‘Essays on the Mahabharata’, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2007.
4. Sharma TRS, ‘Reflection and variations on the Mahabharata’, Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi,2009.
5. Singh K.S., ‘The Mahabharata in the Tribal and folk Traditions of India’ IIAS, Shimla,1993.
6. S.Radhakrishnan, “The Bhagavadgita” HarperCollins, New Delhi, 2004.
7. “Srimad Bhagavad-Gita” translation by Swami Vireswarananda, Sri Ramkrishna Math, Publication department, Madras-600004.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Submitted By-
Dr. Ravi Khangai
Asst. Prof. & HOD
Department of History
Ambedkar College, Fatikroy
Dist- North Tripura
Tripura-799290
E mail- ravikhangai@gmail.com
M- 9402168854
Whose son is Ghatotkaccha? what is the name of son of Nagkanya? and what is the name of son of Hidamba?
ReplyDelete