Bulletin of SOAS, 71, 2 (2008), 279–296. E School of Oriental and African Studies.

doi:10.1017/S0041977X08000542 Printed in the United Kingdom.

The Mahābhārata as national history and allegory

in modern tales of Abhimanyu
Pamela Lothspeich
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ploth@email.unc.edu

Abstract
During a renaissance of Hindu mythology in the late colonial period,
the Mahābhārata in particular was embraced as the essential account
of the nation’s ancient past. In the many literary retellings of the
period, epic history is often recast as national history, even as the epic
narratives themselves are inscribed with allegorical significance. Such
is the case in the many poems and plays on the subject of Abhimanyu
and his nemesis Jayadrath, including the most famous example in
Hindi, Maithilisharan Gupta’s narrative poem, Jayadrath-vadh (The
slaying of Jayadrath, 1910). In this essay I situate Gupta’s poem
within the genre of paurānik or mythological literature and read the
˙
poem against the Abhimanyu-Jayadrath episode as found in the
critical edition of the Sanskrit Mahābhārata to illustrate how Gupta
both modernizes the poem and imbues it with nationalist ideology. I
ultimately argue that Gupta’s Abhimanyu is like a freedom fighter
battling an imperial goliath, and his wife, Subhadra, a model for
women dedicated to the cause. I also discuss some of the subsequent
literature on Abhimanyu which was inspired by Gupta’s classic work,
and which also re-envisions the story in terms of contemporary
political circumstances.

India has a long history of reimagining and retelling, in all manner of

cultural production, narratives from its treasury of mythic lore. Interest in
Hindu mythology surged especially in the late colonial period, here
conveniently designated 1910–47, as the period saw a spate of literature and
art featuring mythic themes.1 Hindi critics sometimes refer to such literature
as ‘‘paurānik’’, in contrast to other genres such as aitihāsik (historical) and
˙
sāmājik (social). The same term is also used in Bengali, Marathi
and Gujarati. Paurānik is typically translated as, ‘‘that which relates to
the Purānas’’ (a class˙of Sanskrit literature that tells the ‘‘old’’ sacred lore of
the gods,˙ especially Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, and their divine consorts). In
this essay I use the term ‘‘paurānik’’ interchangeably with ‘‘mythological’’,
not in the sense that it is untrue,˙ but in the way that ‘‘mythological drama’’
is described in the Oxford Companion to Indian Theatre (Ananda Lal 2004:
288). That is, I use the terms adjectivally to refer to modern (since the
nineteenth century) literature based on traditional Hindu lore – primarily

1 I have chosen 1910 as an opening date given that it was the year in which
Maithilisharan Gupta published Jayadrath-vadh.
280 PAMELA LOTHSPEICH

narratives from the Mahābhārata, Rāmāyana and Purānas – and even

˙
Buddhist lore – in all their textual and oral manifestations. ˙2
Paurānik literary works of the late colonial period often tell martial tales
of brave˙ and noble Hindu heroes defeating wicked enemies. Many such
works may be read as allegories of colonial oppression and the desired
release from it. Epic heroes often seem to represent India, and epic villains,
the British. This is particularly the case in reworkings of the Mahābhārata.
Since the main story of the epic is about the great battle between mostly-
good cousin brothers (with God – Krishna – on their side) and mostly-evil
cousin brothers, it could conveniently capture the essence of the struggle
between Indian nationalists and the British Raj. The Mahābhārata is also a
story about land unfairly lost and valiantly regained, and thus analogous to
the colonial situation. Then too, the epic recounts the legendary history of
the nation’s original inhabitants. For these reasons, it is not surprising that
of all of the texts from India’s classical period, the Mahābhārata was
perhaps most subject to literary appropriation in the late colonial period.
One of the main outcomes of colonial-era paurānik literature was that it
˙
directly affected Hindu perceptions of national identity and the nation’s
history. The genre worked to conflate the legendary history of India’s epics
with her materialist history. Part of the reason for the popularity of
mythological and quasi-historical literature in the late colonial period was
that it provided both an alternative, nationalist, history for Hindus, and a
powerful sense of national identity at a moment of intense cultural and
political crisis. This kind of literature attempted to bring together all that
was culturally shared by Hindus and conveniently ignored ‘‘alien’’
influences from Muslims, Parsis and Christians. It spoke of a shared
cultural past and a glorious golden age before two colonial conquests.
Many scholars have written about how myths have been employed to
assert different national identities. Steven Kemper (1991), for example, has
shown how Sinhalese nationalists utilized the Mahāvamśa as a national
narrative and source of Buddhist identity in Sri Lanka.˙ And it is not just
former Asian colonies like Sri Lanka and India that have reinterpreted
legends, epics, sagas and myths in ways that foster national identities: this
has also been the case in many other countries including Finland, Iceland
and Serbia, to name only a few. What Dan Ben-Amos says about Finland’s
Kalevala could just as easily apply to the Mahābhārata or the Rāmāyana in
India: ‘‘Providing a past, either mythological or historical, the Kalevala˙ has
served as a focus for the formation of the Finnish national identity. For
Finns, who strove to establish their cultural and political independence, the
Kalevala offered a poetry in a language they could call their own’’ (Ben-
Amos 1999: foreword). In India, the epics have served a similiar function in
the modern period; their epic landscapes have been fully incorporated into
the national identity.
When Hindi writers began to appropriate narratives from the epics and
Purānas in the late colonial period, they were in large part taking their cues
˙

2 As a noun, the ‘‘mythological’’ refers to a genre. Throughout I use the term

‘‘mythic’’ in a more general, conventional way.
 T H E M A H Ā B H Ā R A T A A S N A T I O N A L H I S T O R Y A N D A L L E G O R Y 281

from Bengali writers. Bengalis such as Michael Madhusudan Dutt,

Girishchandra Ghosh and Rabindranath Tagore gave both new life and
new form to such narratives.3 Like their Bengali counterparts, Dutt
notwithstanding, Hindi writers often wrote paurānik poems and plays with
a didactic and nationalistic purpose. The overriding˙ messages in this
literature might be summarized as devotion to God, and duty to family and
nation. In general, there is an unshakeable faith in what is presented as the
natural Hindu order in this world and beyond. It is this perceived natural
order which binds the Hindu community of Bharatvarsh in a profound
way. Hierarchical relationships and power structures – within family and
within society – are absolutely affirmed. Those who violate this order, or
the bounds of society (maryādā), are duly punished; they are cursed,
tortured, or put to death. Those who adhere to their dharma or worldly
duties and propitiate God are rewarded with boons: wealth, glory, long life,
sons, heroic husbands and beautiful wives.
While the themes and characters of paurānik literature in the late
colonial period are pan-Indian in nature, certain ˙ ones are favoured more
than others in different regional literatures. In the Hindi heartland, the
slayings of Jayadrath, Duryodhan, and Duhshasan are among the most
prominent themes of the nationalist period. In works relating to atrocities
committed against Draupadi – works such as Badrinath Bhatt’s Kuru-van-
dahan nātak (1912), Ramcharit Upadhyay’s Devı̄ Draupadı̄ (1920),
˙
Maithilisharan Gupta’s Sairandhrı̄ (1927), Kailashnath Bhatnagar’s Bhı̄m-
pratijñā [1934], and Rameshvar Chaumuval’s Bhı̄m-vikram [1935] – the
heroine is typically deified and associated with ‘‘Mother India’’ in allegories
about the figurative rape of the nation under the British. Other favourite
heroes include the sage, sacrificing Bhishma, and of course, the epic gods
Ram and Krishna. Then too even ‘‘minor’’ mythic figures like the great
Vishnu bhakt Prahlad, Krishna’s childhood friend Sudama, and the
unrestrained king Nahush, figure prominently in paurānik literature of
the period. Highlighting devotion to dharma, many of these ˙ modern stories
feature plots about virtuous heroes slaying evil enemies, dutifully serving
family and God, winning the hand of chaste maidens, and/or safeguarding
the honour of esteemed heroines.
After independence Manichaean retellings of the Mahābhārata became
less popular. Writers, for the most part, no longer used the epic simply to
celebrate the nation and voice protest. Now they began to reimagine the
epic to project visions of, and hopes for, an independent India. Many of
their works critique rather than merely celebrate the Indian nation,

3 Dutt’s mythological magnum opus, Rāvan-vadh (1866), is atypical of the genre in

that it demonizes the traditional heroes, and ˙ elevates the traditional villains of the
Rāmāyana. Ghosh’s mythological works include Buddhadev (1885), Daksayajña
(1883), ˙Dhruvcarit (1883), Laksman varjan (1881), Māyā-kānan (1897), ˙ Nal-
˙ ˙(1882), Pāndav-gaurav (1899), Prahlād-caritra
Damyantı̄ (1883), Pāndaver ajñātvās
˙˙
(1884), Rāvan-vadh (1881), ˙ ˙ Sı̄tār-vanavās (1881). Tagore’s
Sı̄tāharan (1881), and
˙
other works include ‘‘Bhāsā o chand’’˙ (1881), Citrāṅgadā (1892), Kālmrgayā (1882),
˙
‘‘Karn-Kuntı̄ samvād’’ (1899), ‘‘Patitā’’ (1897), Rājā o rānı̄ (1889), ˚Tapti (1929),
˙ pratibhā ˙(1881), and Vidyā abhiśāp (1894).
Valmı̄ki
282 PAMELA LOTHSPEICH

problematizing the condition of women and low-caste/outcaste groups in

particular. Paurānik literature, especially that produced between 1947 and
˙ attempt figuratively to bring everyone – regardless of
1960, shows a clear
caste and gender, and including those on the margins of respectable society
– into the Indian nation. Female characters like Draupadi and Gandhari
are more outspoken and visible in post-independence literature. Low-born
and otherwise stigmatized characters are also more prominent and
independent. Important Mahābhārata-inspired works which illustrate these
points include Dinkar’s Raśmirathı̄ (1952), Dharmavir Bharati’s Andhā-yug
(1953), Ramkumar Varma’s Ekalavya (1958), and Narendra Sharma’s
Draupadı̄ (1960).

A nationalist kāvya
Returning to the late colonial period, the first major paurānik work in
˙
Hindi is certainly the ‘‘neo-epic’’ narrative poem Jayadrath-vadh (The
slaying of Jayadrath, 1910) by Maithilisharan Gupta. The poem depicts the
martial feats of Arjun and his son Abhimanyu, and culminates in Arjun’s
dramatic slaying of Jayadrath, the main culprit in Abhimanyu’s death.
Although he is a relatively minor character in the Sanskrit Mahābhārata,
Abhimanyu is one of the most important characters in colonial-era
paurānik literature in Hindi.4 A remarkable number of plays and narrative
poems˙ were written on the subject of Abhimanyu in the nationalist period
and slightly beyond – and not only in Hindi.5 In such literature,

4 Deviprasad Baranval, Abhimanyu parākram (1940); Ganeshdatt Sharma Gaur,

Abhimanyu (1913); Durgaprasad Gupta, Vı̄r Abhimanyu-vadh nātak (1921), Vı̄r
Abhimanyu nātak (1924); Brajmohan Jha, Nar-śārdul Abhimanyu ˙ (1915);
˙
Radheshyam Kathavachak, Vı̄r Abhimanyu nātak (1916); Nandram Mishra,
˙
Abhimanyu-vadh natak (1915); Raghunandanlal Mishra, Abhimanyu-vadh (1925);
Shridharprasad Mishra,˙ Vı̄r Abhimanyu (1940); Mahendranath Pandey, Jayadrath-
vadh-dı̄pak (1930); Sitaram and Mahadev Prasad, Vir Abhimanyu (1931);
Ghaneshyam Sharma, Vı̄r Abhimanyu nātak (1937); Hanumant Simh, Vı̄r bālak
˙
Abhimanyu kā jı̄van-caritra (1910); Ramnarayan Shukla, Vir Abhimanyu (1927);
Ramshankar Tripathi, Vir Abhimanyu (1926); Veniram Tripathi [Shrimali, pseud.],
Vı̄r Abhimanyu: vı̄r-ras-pūrn paurānik nātak (1935); Kamlaprasad Varma,
Abhimanyu kā ātmadān (1918); ˙ and Paripurnanand
˙ ˙ Varma, Vı̄r Abhimanyu: sacitra
aitihāsik nātak (1926).
5 In Assamese: ˙ Ramkant Chaudhari, Abhimanyu-vadh kāvya (1875); and
Bharatchandra Das, Abhimanyu-vadh nātak (second printing, 1925). In Bengali:
Girishchandra Ghosh, Abhimanyu-vadh˙ (1881). In Gujarati: Chandrashankar
Manishankar Bhatt, Vı̄r Abhimanyu (1932); Mansukhlal Maganlal Jhaveri,
Abhimanyu (1929); and Manjulal Ranchodlal Majmudar, Abhimanyu-pūrv kathā-
nveśan (1944). In Oriya: Kartikkumar Ghosh, Vı̄r Abhimanyu (1940);
Krishnachandra Kar, Abhimanyu (1928); Rajkishor Mahanti, Abhimanyu-vadh
(second printing, 1920); and Lingraj Mishra, Bālvı̄r Abhimanyu (1927). In Sindhi:
Dvarakprasad Rochiram Sharma, Survı̄r Abhimanyu (1928). In Telugu:
Chakravadhanul Manikyasharma, Padmavyūhamu, [lek], Abhimanyu (sixth printing,
1930); Bhograju Narayanmurti, Abhimanyudu (second printing, 1920); Puranam
Piccayyashastri, Abhimanyuni yuddhamu: vacanakāvyamu (1950); Somraju
Ramanujravu, Padmavyūhamu: vı̄r Abhimanyā (1933); Utukuru Satyanarayanaravu,
Vı̄r Abhimanyu (1950); and Dronamraju Sitaramaravu, Abhimanyudu (1925).
 T H E M A H Ā B H Ā R A T A A S N A T I O N A L H I S T O R Y A N D A L L E G O R Y 283

Abhimanyu is invariably depicted in complimentary superlatives – as a

dutiful son, devoted husband and brave warrior. He is a young soldier lauded
for his dedication to duty and heroism in battle. Depicting the noble young
hero bravely fighting a villainous enemy, outnumbered and surrounded, I
contend, was a way to articulate displaced frustration and resentment. The
heinous manner in which the Kauravs rout and kill Abhimanyu must have
seemed the perfect allegory for the political, economic and cultural violence
perpetrated against India by the British. Moreover, Abhimanyu’s dutiful wife
Uttara could conveniently serve as a role model to Indian women, less visible,
though highly valuable to the nationalist cause.
The ideological tone of Jayadrath-vadh is very much in keeping with that
of Gupta’s more explicitly nationalist poetry. Despite using ancient themes,
and a time-honoured form, prabandh-kāvya (narrative poetry), with
precedents in Sanskrit literature, Gupta writes poems that speak very
much to the political circumstances of his time and reveal a modern Indian
aesthetic. I illustrate this point by reading Jayadrath-vadh against the
corresponding episodes in the critical edition of the Sanskrit Mahābhārata.
I also describe the reception of the poem and of subsequent literature on
Abhimanyu which followed in the wake of Gupta’s watershed poem. Many
of these works likewise advocate Hindu devotionalism, patriotism and anti-
colonialism.
Jayadrath-vadh was only Gupta’s second major poem. Before being
published in its entirety in 1910, two extracts of the poem were published in
Sarasvatı̄ (Srivastava 1998: 240). Only six-hundred copies of Jayadrath-
vadh were printed in 1910 (Statement of Particulars 1911, quarter 1: 40), but
the poem was so well received that the first edition was sold out within a
few months (Srivastava 1998: 240). The poem was then reprinted several
times with print runs in the thousands. It went through five printings by
1917, fourteen by 1925, and thirty-two by 1948. In 1976 it was printed for
the sixty-third time by Gupta’s press, Sahitya Sadan, founded in 1917. Two
years after Jayadrath-vadh was first published, Bhārat-bhāratı̄ (The voice of
India, 1912) heightened Gupta’s stature further. Espousing deeply felt
nationalist sentiments, the poem was extremely popular. Bhārat-bhāratı̄ is
perhaps the most explicitly nationalist and therefore historically significant
of Gupta’s works.6 The text quickly gained institutional authority. As one
of the definitive statements of Indian national consciousness in Hindi, it
continues to be taught in many Indian schools and universities. The British
were aware of its insurrectionary potential. They temporarily proscribed
the last section of Bhārat-bhāratı̄ called ‘‘Vinay’’ (Petition).
It would be incorrect to divide Gupta’s oeuvre into strictly nationalist
and paurānik works. Even in his works on mythic themes, one can sense his
profound ˙devotion not only to God, but to nation as well. Sudhir Chandra
aptly writes:

True to his title of ‘‘Rashtrakavi’’ – he even went to jail in the course

of the national movement – Maithilisharan’s poetry always remained

6 For a concise reading of this work, see Orsini 2002: 192–203.

284 PAMELA LOTHSPEICH

imbued with the nationalist cause. What he wrote directly about the
state of the country was, of course, intended to promote national
awakening. But even when he borrowed his themes from Pauranic or
mythical stories, his poetry was informed by patriotism. (Chandra
1986: 2227–28).

In its own way, Jayadrath-vadh was an insurgent text. Ambadatt Pande

confirms this view when he says,

The young poet used to hear stories about the cruel exploitation of the
British, and his rage found expression in Jayadrath-vadh…If one reads
Jayadrath-vadh objectively, then it will just seem like a story from the
Mahābhārata. But if one reads it by putting himself in the prevailing
environment created in the wake of the partition of Bengal, then he
will understand how Gupta captured very well the fury of India’s
young generation of that time with his immortal writing in the form of
Jayadrath-vadh (Ambadatt Pande: 103).

Both Jayadrath-vadh and Bhārat-Bhāratı̄ were written early in Gupta’s

career, when he was more sympathetic to revolution than satyāgraha. As
Nagendra argues:

Before Mahatma Gandhi came into Indian political life, Guptaji’s

young mind was influenced by extremist and revolutionary ideology
of that time. In works like Jayadrath-vadh and Bhārat-bhāratı̄, written
before Anagh [1925], the poet wasn’t a proponent of non-violence and
peace, but of revolution. Later, because of his association with
Gandhi, Rajendra Babu, the late Jamnalal Bajaj, Jawaharlal Nehru,
and Vinoba Bhave, he became an advocate of a pragmatic brand of
Gandhism and various reform movements (Nagendra 1987: 6).

One should bear this in mind when reading Jayadrath-vadh. Although

allegorical, the poem is radical, even revolutionary, in its treatment of the
Abhimanyu-Jayadrath episode.
One should also remember that in 1910 Gupta’s desire for rāstra jāgaran
˙˙
(national awakening) may have been tempered by a lingering appreciation ˙
of British ‘‘munificience’’. Sudhir Chandra makes a similar point, as he
traces the development of Gupta’s political consciousness from Bhārat-
bhāratı̄ to Hindū, his two most explicitly nationalist poems (Chandra 1986:
2227–30). Chandra argues that, in 1912, circumstances were such that
Gupta, like most Indian intellectuals, did not fully equate nationalism with
independence. This was only natural. However, by the time he wrote Hindū
in 1927,7 Gupta had become radicalized to the point that he was
uncompromising on the question of svarāj (self-rule). Chandra asserts that

7 Chandra actually gives the date of publication as 1928. I have followed Nagendra
and Shri Satyendra in assigning the date as 1927 (Nagendra 1987: 8, Vasudevsharan
Agraval, 627).
 T H E M A H Ā B H Ā R A T A A S N A T I O N A L H I S T O R Y A N D A L L E G O R Y 285

‘‘While ideologically he remained under Gandhi’s spell, he [Gupta] could

sympathise with the revolutionaries and argue for the morality of violence
in exceptional circumstances (the latter more easily than Gandhi would)’’
(1986: 2228).
The only other work on the Hindi literary scene which comes close to
Jayadrath-vadh in terms of subject matter, language and style was
Hariaudh’s narrative poem on Krishna, Priyapravās (Sojourn of the
beloved, 1914). Published four years after Jayadrath-vadh, it too is an
example of a neo-kāvya that tells a familiar mythological story in
Sanskritized Khari Boli Hindi. However, according to Nagendra, it was
Gupta even more than Hariaudh who gave poetic expression to the spirit of
the Dvivedi period (Nagendra 1981: 232–3). Both texts have an agenda of
social reform and religious revivalism, but it was Jayadrath-vadh that
established the genre of paurānik literature in Khari Boli Hindi and set the
˙
style for the modern prabandh-kāvya, a verse form borrowed from classical
Sanskrit kāvya. Raṅg mem bhaṅg (Flawed Valour, 1909), published the
˙ moderately successful. Indeed Shrikrishna Lal
previous year, had been only
is correct in asserting that Jayadrath-vadh ushered in prabandh-kāvya to
Hindi literature (Nagendra 1987: 52). Even Hariaudh acknowledges that
Jayadrath-vadh is the first original khandakāvya (‘‘fragmentary’’ kāvya)8 in
˙˙
Khari Boli. His intent, he says in his introduction, is to remedy the lack of a
suitable mahākāvya (Hariaudh [1964]: 2).

Dharma in Jayadrath-vadh
At the outset of Jayadrath-vadh, we are expected to know that it is the
twelfth day of the eighteen-day war between the Pandavs and the Kauravs
at Kurukshetra. The Pandavs are fighting to regain land lost to their
cousins in a rigged dice game thirteen years earlier. Arjun has already killed
Bhishma, his dear great-uncle and the first Kaurav general in the war. The
Kauravs have regrouped under the command of the formidable warrior
and military guru Dronacharya. Accused of partiality towards the Pandavs,
Dron has vowed to kill a major Pandav hero that very day. He has
instructed his forces to create the circular battle formation (cakravyūh) in a
diabolical plan to rout Abhimanyu. Only four people have the ability to
pierce this formation: Arjun, Abhimanyu, Krishna and Pradyumna (the
son of Krishna and Rukmini). Arjun and Krishna are not available since
Dron has arranged for the Shaptakas to engage them in battle far away, on
the southern end of the battlefield. So Yudhishthir calls on Abhimanyu to
pierce the battle formation and clear a path for the Pandav troops to enter.
This is where Jayadrath-vadh begins. Abhimanyu eagerly accepts his
mission and prepares for battle. Entering the fray, he quickly penetrates the

8 Khandakāvyas are generally based on episodes within larger source narratives like
˙˙
the epics, and are incomplete in that they do not tell the whole story. However they
are still independent works that can stand alone. Khandakāvyas themselves are not
necessarily shorter than mahākāvyas, but their scope is˙ ˙ more limited. The term is a
loanword from Sanskrit that appears in Hindi and other regional languages.
286 PAMELA LOTHSPEICH

cakravyūh, but alas! Jayadrath prevents other Pandavs from entering

the breach, with the help of a boon from Shiv. Unfortunately, Abhimanyu
has not learned how to exit the cakravyūh. Alone and trapped, he is
soon surrounded by Dron, Kripa, Karn, Ashvatthama, Brhadbal and
Kritavarma. The Kauravs then mercilessly attack Abhimanyu,
Duhshasan’s son Lakshman striking the fatal blow. That evening on his
return to camp, Arjun sees bad omens. His fears confirmed, a grief-stricken
Arjun vows that he will kill Jayadrath by sundown tomorrow or else enter
the fire. No matter who comes to Jayadrath’s defence, Arjun declares, he
will cause his head to roll ‘‘like a lotan pigeon reeling on the ground’’
(Gupta [1966]: 38).9 Learning of Arjun’s˙ vow, Jayadrath begs Duryodhan
for protection. He complies, having his men stand guard over Jayadrath.
After a full day of fierce fighting, Arjun finally fulfils his vow just before
sunset, with a bit of trickery. Krishna causes storm clouds to cover the sun,
so that the Kauravs think the sun has set and Arjun has failed.10 Jayadrath
then emerges from cover and taunts Arjun. But immediately Arjun shoots
Jayadrath with his Gandiv bow, decapitating him. Incredibly, the head flies
a great distance and lands in the lap of Jayadrath’s father, Vriddhakshatra.
Startled, Vriddhakshatra stands up, and at that moment his own head falls
off, thanks to a previous boon.11
The plot of Gupta’s Jayadrath-vadh is very much in line with the episode
as found in the Dronaparva (The book of Dron) in the critical edition of the
˙ (VII.32–121).12 The changes Gupta makes are on the
Sanskrit Mahābhārata
surface subtle, having much to do with tone and perspective, though
together they have dramatic consequences. Overall, there are strong
humanizing tendencies; characters are more human, though not quite
‘‘realistic’’. Abhimanyu, for example, is vulnerable as an affectionate
husband but, as a noble warrior, he approaches the iconic. At the same
time, Gupta does not expunge supernatural elements in his poem – the
journey to heaven, the conjured storm cloud, an airborne head, and various
boons – but somehow these elements do not seem incredible at all. In his
account of Abhimanyu, Gupta manages to normalize and historicize the
incredible.
It is clear that Gupta had a very practical objective in writing Jayadrath-
vadh and indeed many of his narrative poems: to educate his compatriots

9 The lotan pigeon is an Indian variety known for rolling and tumbling on the
ground.˙
10 In the critical edition of the Mahābhārata there is no mention of Krishna’s sleight of
hand in the slaying of Jayadrath. Krishna merely recounts to Arjun the story of
Vriddhakshatra—how he won his boon, and how he later renounced the world.
Arjun, he says, must decapitate Jayadrath in such a way that his head lands in the
lap of Vriddhakshatra, seated in meditation (VII.121.16–29).
11 Vriddhakshatra once won a boon according to which whoever caused his son’s head
to fall on the ground would himself be beheaded. Alf Hiltebeitel and Madeleine
Biardeau have conjectured that the beheading of Vriddhakshatra (old ksatriya) in
the Sanskrit Mahābhārata symbolizes the passing of the former ksatriya ˙ order
(Hiltebeitel 2001: 181–2). ˙
12 For a discussion of this episode in the critical edition of the Mahābhārata, see Katz
1989: 137–54.
 T H E M A H Ā B H Ā R A T A A S N A T I O N A L H I S T O R Y A N D A L L E G O R Y 287

about the heroism and glory of India’s great Hindu kings and gods from
myth and history. Gupta saw an instructive role for the Mahābhārata in
contemporary Indian life. For him, the epic was a textbook relevant to the
present political crisis. From the outset he establishes a moralizing tone and
describes his utilitarian purpose.

O narrator, first proclaim ‘‘Victory to Ram!’’ in all quarters!

Then float on the edifying waves of our ancestors’ virtues!
Patiently endure whatever suffering or sorrow befalls you.
If you are steadfast on the path of duty, you will surely be
successful.
It is a great sin to sit by idly when you’ve lost your rights.
It is your duty to punish even a relative for the sake of justice.
On this principle, the Pandavs waged war with the Kauravs,
their battle spelling the end of a glorious era for India.
Come together everyone! Renounce your jealousy of each other!
India would not be seeing dark days, if it were not for the
Mahābhārata.
Perhaps all valor suddenly vanished forever like a dream.
Alas! Alas! Everything was burned to ashes in the fire of that war!
If wicked Duryodhan had not been so intransigent,
if only he had warmly accepted the Pandavs’ authority,
he wouldn’t have plunged India into a bloodbath of war,
like a sinner sinking his boat midstream!
Alas! Men died at the hands of their own kinsmen!
Alas! Fathers maliciously slaughtered sons, and disciples murdered
gurus!
The brave Pandavs reluctantly got drawn into war!
Tell me, what won’t wise men do when compelled by duty?
This very unprecedented story merits our attention.
Its related subject matter is worth understanding.
Thus a glimpse of it is given here.
A lot can be inferred from just a little (Gupta [1966]: 5–6).

The jealous culprits in the Mahābhārata, Gupta makes clear, are the
Kauravs. Yet Gupta’s narrator seems to identify them indirectly with the
British, and suggests that the predicament of the Pandavs is analogous to
that of Indians in 1910. Readers are enjoined to fulfil their duty and reclaim
their lost rights in the ‘‘dark days’’ of the British Raj. They must forget their
differences and unite against the covetous British. While the bloodbath of
the epic war was fated in order to restore cosmic order, Gupta suggests that
the figurative bloodbath of the present should not be mutely accepted.
Gupta is not so much interested in the moral reformation of the British
as in the spiritual transformation of his fellow Indians. His narrator urges
his readers to fulfil their duties to support the uplift of India and resist
oppression, in a spirit of fraternal co-operation and enlightened self-
interest. Like Krishna sermonizing to Arjun in the Bhagavad-gı̄tā, he urges
them to be stoic in the face of adversity and fight. His goal is to awaken his
288 PAMELA LOTHSPEICH

fellow Indians to their deplorable condition under the yoke of colonial rule
and prompt them to act by reminding them of their past glory. He holds up
Abhimanyu as the model adherent of ksatriya dharma. Here is how
Abhimanyu explains ksatriya dharma to his˙ wife Uttara before going into
battle. ˙

How wrong and unjust is it not to retaliate against one’s enemy?

One should never let his enemy grow more emboldened.
One should swiftly take revenge against his foes in battle.
One should always give sinners their due punishment.
This has always been the duty of the great heroes in the ksatriya
line. ˙
How much grief – alas! – have those Kauravs caused us?
You have heard everything about how they have sinned!
Even so, if we go on living without killing them, just imagine
what all the heroes of the world will say to us?’ (Gupta [1966]: 10).

Abhimanyu is convinced of the moral imperative to fight. Victory alone is

not adequate: the enemy has sinned and must therefore be destroyed. But
there is also the matter of saving face. Ksatriyas must not appear weak;
˙
good soldiers do not retreat from battle. Here we see perhaps a glimpse of
Gupta’s anxiety over the political and cultural emasculation of India. It
should also be borne in mind that the times were such that it was politically
risky for writers to make overt statements of revolution and calls for
independence. India’s freedom was not yet imminent.
Later in the poem, there is further mention of covetous sinners. It is an
eerie moment, just after Arjun and Krishna return from the heavenly abode
of Vaikunth in their nocturnal wanderings. Dawn is about to break and
usher in another day of war.

In a short while, the east became visible in the morning light.

Nature breathed freely, in the guise of a fresh breeze.
A śyāmā bird began to sing in a melodious voice full of emotion.13
Rousing the world from its slumber, a rooster declared,
‘‘Wake up! Get up! Look! The heavens are raining strings of
pearls!’’
Owls and other creatures of the night that were screeching in the
dark were concealed.
Night time alone is when evil-doers (adham jan) roam under the
cloak of darkness.
Can constellations shrivel up like dried flowers?
Can worthless people leave their mark on other people’s land?
You [Lord] were the light when there was no sun in the sky.
You came and immediately dispelled all of the darkness!
Great men accomplish everything with their meritorious valour.

13 A śyāmā bird is a small songbird. As its name indicates, the plumage on the head
and upper body are black, at least on the male.
 T H E M A H Ā B H Ā R A T A A S N A T I O N A L H I S T O R Y A N D A L L E G O R Y 289

All obstacles naturally disappear for the gifted ones (Gupta [1966]:
57–8).

The rooster and the śyāmā bird here seem intent on rousing Bharat from
her deplorable condition, intent on inspiring rāstra jāgaran. The Kauravs
˙˙
are, of course, the deceitful ‘‘creatures of the night’’ who˙ lie in ambush,
waiting for their chance to strike. Even before the fateful dice game they
hatch several treacherous plots to kill the Pandavs. They are the ones who
cannot ‘‘leave their mark’’ and hold on to confiscated land. How analogous
they are to the British! The Pandavs, conversely, are compared to
constellations; they are as luminous as the stars in their heroic glory.
These are Gupta’s heroes for modern-day India. Krishna, of course, is the
light that dispels the eternal night of Kaurav tyranny. It is as if Gupta’s
narrator is pleading for a messiah to remove the ‘‘cloak of darkness’’ and
repel the ‘‘evil-doers’’.
There is less moral ambiguity in Jayadrath-vadh than there is in the
critical edition of the Sanskrit Mahābhārata. In the former the Pandavs are
shown to be virtuous beyond measure while the Kauravs are demonized,
even though both parties are responsible for committing atrocities.
Consider the following exhortation, in which the narrator describes
Arjun just before he fulfils his vow:

Blessed is Arjun’s character. Blessed is his dharma.

How could anyone possibly be more virtuous?
Look narrator! Alas! The scene is so poignant!
Tell me, have you ever seen such a virtuous person anywhere else?
Don’t just envision it. Really think about it, and take it to heart.
The key to immortality is found in the wealth of good deeds.
Consider this – you should respect your own dharma (Gupta [1966]:
82).

The narrator, through his praise of Arjun, insists that readers effect their
own moral conversion by respecting their own dharma, which undoubtedly
involves ones’s duty to the larger community or nation. The dharmavı̄r
Arjun is the standard placed before readers.
The subtle ethical divide between Jayadrath-vadh and the Sanskrit
Mahābhārata comes into sharper relief when we consider their respective
treatments of Arjun’s controversial slaying of Bhurishravas prior to that of
Jayadrath. Both texts concur that an exhausted Satyaki is losing a fight
against Bhurishravas when Arjun, from a concealed position, cuts off the
right arm of Bhurishravas to save his friend from a sure death. At this point
Bhurishravas departs to perform yoga, and while thus engaged in
meditation is beheaded by Satyaki. However, the reaction to Arjun’s
behaviour is rather different in the two texts. Gupta’s poem hardly censures
Arjun at all – there is only this brief rebuke:

When Bhurishravas’s hand, still holding a sword, fell like Ketu,

all the enemies started saying that it was a very bad deed.
290 PAMELA LOTHSPEICH

Vrishasen, Karn, Kripa and the rest cursed Arjun:

‘‘Damn you Arjun! Damn you! You’ve committed a very grave
sin!’’
(Gupta [1966]: 78).

Jayadrath-vadh even seems to endorse this heinous act by Arjun. In a long

diatribe against the Kauravs, a furious Arjun gets the last word, silencing
the Kauravs:

What’s wrong with protecting one’s own people?

My rule is this: whenever possible, I use my arrows
to keep my people out of harm’s way.
Just as non-believers submit to God when they’re in danger,
so too you’re deliberately appealing to religion now.
Sermonizing about religion – don’t you have any shame?...
Look! Even horrible wolves are shedding tears today!
Alas! You who have been the ultimate degenerates
your whole lives are now resorting to religion! (Gupta [1966]: 78).

Although the scene is more compressed in Jayadrath-vadh, there are

relatively more verses devoted to Arjun’s defence, and a validation of the
Pandavs’ moral authority. And there is no debate about the propriety of
Satyaki’s subsequent beheading of Bhurishravas. The narrator simply
states, ‘‘Then Satyaki slew Bhurishravas with his sword, saying these fitting
words: ‘you dug your own grave!’’’ (Gupta [1966]: 79).
This scene is different in the critical edition of the Sanskrit Mahābhārata,
where we find Krishna, Arjun, and even the assembled soldiers praising
Bhurishravas’s valour in battle (VII.117.48–9, 55–6, 57–9, and VII.118.19).
Arjun even tells Bhurishravas that he loves him like a brother, immediately
after cutting off his arm (VII.118.29). Although the Sanskrit text vacillates
between commendation and condemnation of Arjun and Satyaki, it
ultimately leans towards the latter, until the moral ambiguity of the
incident is neutralized by the explanation of a boon accrued by Satyaki’s
father.14 In short, the Sanskrit Mahābhārata shows considerable discomfort
about the Pandavs’ behaviour in this incident, while Jayadrath-vadh
vindicates the Pandavs completely.
One of the notable ways in which Gupta departs from the Sanskrit
Mahābhārata is by expanding the relationship of Abhimanyu and his wife
Uttara, pregnant with their first child. Before Abhimanyu enters the fray,
Uttara pitifully begs her husband not to go into battle, for she has seen bad
omens. After Abhimanyu’s death, we see her grieve as a devastated wife.
Significantly, Gupta gives greater scope to female points of view and
develops female characters ignored by earlier poets. Yet like many male
writers of his generation, he approaches female characters with a measure

14 In VII.119 Sanjay explains that once, when Satyaki’s father was insulted by
Bhurishravas’s father, he won a boon according to which Satyaki would defeat
Bhurishravas in battle.
 T H E M A H Ā B H Ā R A T A A S N A T I O N A L H I S T O R Y A N D A L L E G O R Y 291

of paternalism. He assigns a deferential role to idealized female characters.

He exalts them for their unfailing devotion and service to men. He is
especially interested in showing the private pain of women abandoned by
their husbands for great causes and forgotten by the chroniclers of myth and
history. Sāket (1931), Yaśodharā (1932), and Visnupriyā (1957), for instance,
depict the suffering and sacrifice of the wives of˙Lakshman,
˙ the Buddha, and
Chaitanya, respectively. These men, as is well known, renounce domestic life
and leave their wives (Urmila, Yashodhara and Vishnupriya) in order to
pursue religious asceticism or, in the case of Lakshman, to fulfil royal and
fraternal duties.
In Jayadrath-vadh the traditionally aesthetic and religious concept of
virah (the pain of separation from one’s beloved) is desexualized and recast
as a noble virtue of selfless historic women. And given contemporary
circumstances, one can also see how such depictions justify female sacrifice
in the name of service to the nation. That is, it was a woman’s civic duty to
support men in the battle for independence and to help reform Hindu
society. For many writers and intellectuals of Gupta’s generation, these
were inseparable goals. Just as Abhimanyu is a model of ksatriya dharma
for young Indian men, so too is Uttara an example for young ˙ women, the
embodiment of strı̄ dharma (women’s duty). Women, Jayadrath-vadh tells
us, are not to be warriors, that is, active participants in Indian public life.
Rather, they are to be the emotional supports of male agents. They are, like
Uttara, to be unconditionally devoted to their husbands.

The aftermath of Jayadrath-vadh

After the publication of Maithilisharan Gupta’s Jayadrath-vadh in 1910,
Hindi poets and playwrights continued to be drawn to the subject of
Abhimanyu throughout the late colonial period. At least eleven works
called Vı̄r Abhimanyu (Hero Abhimanyu) and five called Abhimanyu-vadh
(The slaying of Abhimanyu) were published between 1900 and 1947.15
Moreover, one of the first Hindi ‘‘talkies’’ was the film Vı̄r Abhimanyu
released in 1932.16 Besides Gupta’s poem, one of the most important works
on Abhimanyu was Radheshyam Kathavachak’s play Vı̄r Abhimanyu
(Heroic Abhimanyu, 1916). It was Kathavachak’s first major play, and the
one which launched his profitable career as a playwright for the Parsi
theatre. The play debuted to a standing-room-only audience on January 4,
1916 at the Sangam Theatre in Delhi.
Contemporary reviewers praised the play highly. A reviewer in
Bhāratmitra, for example, called it a ‘‘Hindu classic’’ (Kathavachak 2004:
67–8). Even Premchand was smitten. He claimed that people ‘‘had more
respect for it than any other previous play of the Parsi theatre’’ (Lal 1973:

15 See note 4.
16 According to a contemporary reviewer of this film, the script was originally written
in Gujarati by Chatrabhuj Anandji and translated into Hindi by Niranjansharma
‘‘Ajit’’. The film was made by Sagar Movietone in Bombay, and directed by Ghosh
Mahoday. The unnamed reviewer praises the film and encourages ‘‘the company to
make even more useful religious films for the Hindi world’’ (Mañc: 24).
292 PAMELA LOTHSPEICH

45 and Kathavachak 2004: 129). Kathavachak himself reports in his

memoirs that Vı̄r Abhimanyu was so popular ‘‘In all of India there was no
[dramatic] club that had not staged the play’’ (Kathavachak 2004: 65). He
describes running into posters advertising local productions of his play in
Chennai, Bangalore and Kolkata. The play also did exceptionally well in
published form. Over a hundred thousand copies of the play had been
printed by the time Kathavachak wrote his autobiography in 1957. In 1924
alone (third printing), ten-thousand copies were printed, a very high print
run for that period. Almost a half century later in 1971 (fifteenth printing),
six years after Kathavachak’s death, five-thousand copies were printed.
Inspired by Gupta’s Jayadrath-vadh and Mahavirprasad Dvivedi’s
Sacitra Mahābhārat: mūl ākhyān (The illustrated Mahābhārata: the
principal story, 1908), both of which he reportedly read, Kathavachak,
like Gupta, drew on the idiom of virah and developed the relationship
between Uttara and Abhimanyu in his play.17 And as with many other
commercial playwrights of the period, Kathavachak satirized aspects of
Indian society, in this case, the zamı̄ndārı̄ or landed gentry, in a humorous
subplot. More importantly, however, just as Gupta’s poem heralded a trend
for narrative poetry on classical themes in elite Hindi literature, so too did
Kathavachak’s play help initiate a trend for the so-called ‘‘mythological’’
on the Hindi commercial stage. Kathavachak and others, most notably
Narayanprasad Betab, wrote many such plays about gods, kings, saints and
devotees for the Parsi theatre in the 1910s, 20s and 30s. In doing so,
Kathavachak was especially motivated by a desire to reform what he
considered the lewd and decadent excesses of the commercial stage by
recourse to traditional Hindu themes and the use of a more Sanskritized
register of Khari Boli Hindi.
In the Prologue of his play Kathavachak introduces his reformist
agenda. Here the fictional director of the play (sūtradhār), an actor (nat)
and an actress (natı̄) discuss the topic of the play they are about to stage –˙ a
˙
convention borrowed from Sanskrit drama. Significantly, they describe
how Vı̄r Abhimanyu will depart from the debauchery of previous plays for
the Parsi theatre, and in doing so will rehabilitate depraved theatre-goers.
As the actress says to the director (sūtradhār):

Sir, it’s true that indecent plays have ruined the main purpose of
theater and corrupted the audience’s sphere of amusement.
Dramaturgy is an ancient art of the Aryan race. People sometimes
behave badly, but they can be reformed in some measure through
drama. That which can’t be imparted through singing and lecturing
can be imparted through acting (Kathavachak 1971: 8).

The actor responds that, just as one must offer sweets to a child before
chastizing him, one must first delight an audience member before preaching

17 Dvivedi’s Sacitra Mahābhārat is actually a translation of a Bengali abridgement of

the Mahābhārata, penned by Surendranath Thakur (Tagore), Rabindranath’s
nephew.
 T H E M A H Ā B H Ā R A T A A S N A T I O N A L H I S T O R Y A N D A L L E G O R Y 293

to him (setting him on a pure path). However, the actress counters that
nowadays there is no need to offer ‘‘sweets’’ – undoubtedly an allusion to
lewd theatrical antics – since tastes have changed. ‘‘Dhārmik (religious)
performances are currently in style. At such a time we should think about
staging an excellent play that along with being entertaining, will benefit
both our nation and our society’’ (Kathavachak 1971: 8–9).
The actor suggests Kathavachak’s Vı̄r Abhimanyu since it is full of vı̄r
and karunā rases, rather than śrṅgār ras (the sentiment of erotic love)
˙
(Kathavachak ˚ actress remarks, ‘‘If the audience hears
1971: 9). Pleased, the
us sing the praises of the valorous hero, and becomes imbued with vı̄r ras –
if the people of this pleasure-loving (rasik)18 society go to the battlefield
to crush Bharat’s enemies on behalf of the Indian government…’’
(Kathavachak 1971: 9–10). The actor then interrupts, saying that the
problem is that Indians are too lazy. She agrees, adding that torpor has
made them cowardly and sickly (Kathavachak 1971: 10). The actor
concludes with a comment on the language of the play: ‘‘And listen ... This
is a Hindu play. Hindi language is predominant in it. Explain to the actors
that they should be sure to honor both Hindi and Hindus in their
mannerisms and diction because we have to show the glory of Aryan
heroes’’ (Kathavachak 1971: 11). This opening dialogue thus urges engaged
political action. That is, vı̄r ras and not śrṅgār ras is the antidote for the
nation’s ills. Moreover, the national culture˚ should be one characterized by
Hindi and Hindu-ness.
Another Hindi play with the title Vı̄r Abhimanyu was that by
Paripurnanand Varma. This play was printed at least five times between
1926 and 1937 with print runs totalling at least 11,500. Varma too uses the
stock framing device of a conversation involving the play’s supposed
director. In this he hints at his purpose in writing the play: to rouse India’s
youth out of their self-indulgence and torpor, and to engage them in the
nationalist struggle. A generic king appears on stage lamenting that his heir
to the throne is a lazy, pleasure-seeking rogue not at all interested in
protecting the kingdom from enemy forces. Three sadhus advise the
director to stage a play about Abhimanyu in order to instil masculine
virtues in the king’s son, and incite him into action.
The author of yet another play called Vı̄r Abhimanyu [1935], Veniram
Tripathi, was very liberal in imitating the style of Kathavachak. In fact, this
and two of his other plays, Śravankumār: paurānik nātak (n.d.), and
Bhaktavar Prahlād: ek paurānik nātak ˙ (The supreme ˙ devotee
˙ Prahlad: a
˙
mythological play, n.d.), all bear ˙
resemblance to Kathavachak’s plays on
the same subjects. In his own Vı̄r Abhimanyu, Tripathi, like Kathavachak,
develops the relationship between Abhimanyu and Uttara, but Tripathi
brings slightly more of the traditional idiom of śrṅgār ras (the sentiment of
romantic love) into their relationship. He also˚ includes a comic subplot

18 The term ‘‘rasik’’ here alludes to the literary ethos surrounding courtly poetry
written in Braj Bhasha. Kathavachak’s implication is that a rasik society is one
more concerned with the beauty of art than with the function of art, and more
concerned with personal indulgence than with public welfare.
294 PAMELA LOTHSPEICH

about a brow-beating wife who tries to shame her cowardly husband into
fighting for the Kauravs. Although obscure, Tripathi was a prolific writer
who published numerous plays on mythic and historical themes. Many of
his plays were reprinted as cheap paperbacks in the late 1970s, perhaps as a
tribute to Tripathi upon his death.
One of the most blatant imitations of Gupta’s Jayadrath-vadh is
Radheshyam Dvivedi’s Vı̄r Abhimanyu (1940) which, like its predecessor,
is composed in harigı̄tikā metre. As Dvivedi himself admits, he is heavy-
handed in his poetic borrowing from Jayadrath-vadh, sometimes lifting
whole verses. Dvivedi’s intent was to make a shorter, simpler poem that
would be more accessible to young readers. In the Preface to his poem
Dvivedi explains, ‘‘I wrote this short poem on one of our India’s young,
ideal heroes in order to edify and inspire those of our youth who appreciate
poetry’’ (Radheshyam Dvivedi: unnumbered Preface). In his poem Dvivedi
emphasizes the connection between the sacred geography of the Mahābhā-
rata and the contemporary nation-state of India. At the same time, Dvivedi
calls for the spiritual reformation of India through his understanding of
sanātan dharma or the eternal religion (of Hinduism) in order to reclaim
what was once a proud empire.

Conclusion
Gupta was the first poet writing in Khari Boli Hindi truly to exploit mythic
and epic themes, and he has remained one of the most prolific. His
frequently imitated poem Jayadrath-vadh may rightly be called the first
major paurānik work in modern Hindi. Gupta’s imitators were many, but
his narrative˙ poem Jayadrath-vadh remains a ground-breaking classic, one
which inspired a generation to look for modern heroes and political
solutions in the Mahābhārata, and one that urged national awakening by
recourse to the epic. Through this and his other mythological works,
Gupta embraced India’s legendary past and effectively appended it to
her then emergent national history. This helped change public
perceptions of a text once considered too inauspicious to store in one’s
own home. Now it had become national literature and national history
simultaneously.
Significantly, Gupta cast Abhimanyu as an ideal Hindu character to
inspire India’s male youth both to reform Indian society and to engage in
the struggle for independence in some capacity. As I. N. Choudhuri writes:

In ‘‘Jayadrath-vadha’’ Abhimanyu represents the new generation of

young men in India, and due credit should be given to
Maithilisharana for arousing Indian youth from a life of apathy.
His songs touched the hearts of young men, awakened in them a
feeling of self-pride and an irresistible attraction for the age of
legendary valour (Choudhuri 1981: 117).

At the same time, Abhimanyu in this and other, subsequent, works

conveniently represented actual rebels who, like the memorable Bhagat
 T H E M A H Ā B H Ā R A T A A S N A T I O N A L H I S T O R Y A N D A L L E G O R Y 295

Singh, were martyred at young ages. Uttara, meanwhile, was also called
upon to play a role in the epic struggle, implying that real Indian women
were to take part in the nation’s quest for sovereignty. While not active
agents in the public battle, they were to be sacrificing and supportive wives
and mothers, as well as spiritual bulwarks in the private sphere.
Gupta crafted his poem to articulate effectively India’s prevailing
sentiments about contemporary political conditions. In doing so, he made
gestures towards both political insurgency and societal transformation.
Jayadrath-vadh vilifies the Kauravs and elevates the Pandavs in an allegory
of violation and retribution. In the end Arjun, with the help and blessing of
Krishna, slays Jayadrath so that the Pandavs’ victory is both a military and
a moral one. Engaged political action, ethical behaviour, and devotion to
God are the means to escape the present cakravyūh. God is on the side of
the righteous Pandavs – and of India.

References
Ben-Amos, Dan. 1999. ‘‘Foreword’’ to Juha Pentikäinen, Kalevala Mythology (Ed.
and trans. Juha Pentikäinen and Ritva Poom). Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Bharati, Dharmavir. 1977. Andhā yug. 1953. Allahabad: Kitab Mahal.
Bhatnagar, Kailashnath. 1955. Bhı̄m-pratijñā: vı̄r-ras kā advitı̄ya nātak. [1934.] 8th
printing. Lucknow: Bharatiya Gaurav Granthmala. ˙
Bhatt, Badrinath. 1912. Kuru-van-dahan nātak: ek gadya-padya-may, vı̄r-ras-pradhān
nātak. Agra: Agra, Microfilm, CRL. ˙
˙
Chandra, Sudhir. 1986. ‘‘Maithilisharan Gupta and the idea of Indian nationalism:
a centenary critique’’, Economic and Political Weekly 31, no. 51, 2227–30.
Chaumuval, Rameshvar [Kaviratna, pseud.]. [1935]. Bhı̄m-vikram: raṅg-nātak.
Microfilm, Library of Congress. Kolkata: Hindi Pustak Agency. ˙
Choudhuri, I.N. 1981. ‘‘National trends in Maithilisharan’s poetry’’ in Nagendra
(ed.), Maithilı̄śaran Gupta: An Anthology. (Contours and Landmarks of Hindi
Literature.) Delhi:˙ Bansal and Co.
Dvivedi, Radheshyam. 1968. Vı̄r Abhimanyu: prernāprad saral laghu kāvya. 1940.
2nd printing. Mathura: Vijay Prakashan. ˙
Gupta, Maithilisharan. [1958]. Bhārat-bhāratı̄. 1912. 27th printing. Cirgamv:
Sahitya-Sadan.
———. 1910. 52nd printing. Cirgamv: Sahitya-Sadan, [1966].
———. Tripāthagā: Vak-samhār, Van-vaibhav, aur Sairandhrı̄ nāmak kāvyom kā
˙ Chirgamv: Sahitya-Sadan, [1955].
saṅgraha. 1927. 2nd printing. ˙
Hariaudh [Ayodhyasimh Upadhyay]. Priyapravās: Kharı̄ Bolı̄ kā sarvaśresth mahā
˙ [1964].
kāvya. 1914. Rev. ed. Varanasi: Hindi Sahitya Kutir, ˙˙
Hiltebeitel, Alf. 2001. Rethinking the Mahābhārata: A Reader’s Guide to the
Education of the Dharma King. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kathavachak, Radheshyam. 2004. Merā nātak-kāl. 1957. Delhi: Bahavalpur
House. ˙
———. 1971. Vı̄r Abhimanyu nātak. 1916. 15th printing. Bareilly: Shriradheshyam
Pustakalay. ˙
Katz, Ruth Cecily. 1989. Arjuna in the Mahabharata: Where Krishna Is, There Is
Victory. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
296 PAMELA LOTHSPEICH

Kaviraj, Sudipta. 1995. The Unhappy Consciousness: Bankimchandra Chatto-

padhyay and the Formation of Nationalist Discourse in India. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Kemper, Steven. 1991. The Presence of the Past: Chronicles, Politics, and Culture in
Sinhala Life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lal, Ananda (ed.). 2004. Oxford Companion to Indian Drama. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Lal, Lakshminarayan. 1973. Pārsı̄-Hindı̄ raṅgmañc. Delhi: Rajpal and Sons.
Mañc. 1932. 1, no. 1.
Mishra, Shivdatt. n.d. Bhı̄m-śakti: sāmājik nātak (Mahābhārat kālı̄n dhārmik evam
˙
aitihāsik miśrit nātak) 193?. Varanasi: Thakur Prasad.
˙
Nagendra. 1981. Maithilı̄śaran Gupta: An Anthology. (Contours and Landmarks of
˙
Hindi Literature.) Delhi: Bansal and Co.
———. 1987. Maithilı̄śaran Gupta kāvya-sandarbh koś. Delhi: Prabhat Prakashan.
˙
Orsini, Francesca. 2002. The Hindi Public Sphere, 1920–1940: Language and
Literature in the Age of Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pande, Ambadatt. 1986. ‘‘Rāstrı̄ya bhāvnā aur Gupta-kāvya’’, Ālocanā 35, no. 79:
98–106. ˙˙
Srivastava, Satyendra. 1998. ‘‘The Mahabharat and Maithilisaran Gupta’s
Jayadrath-vadh’’, in Rupert Snell and Ian Raeside (eds), Classics of Modern
South Asian Literature. (Khoj Ser. 6.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Statement of Particulars Regarding Books and Periodicals Published in the United
Provinces. 1894–1953. Allahabad: The United Provinces of Agra and Oudh,
Microfiche, CRL.
Tilak, Bal Gangadhar. 1986. The Hindu Philosophy of Life, Ethics and Religion.
(Trans. Bhalchandra Sitaram Sukthankar.) 7th ed. Pune: [Tilak Brothers].
Trilochan. 1986. ‘‘Ādhunik Hindı̄ kavitā aur Maithilı̄śaran Gupta kā kāvya’’,
Alocanā 35, no. 79: 84–7. ˙
Tripathi, Veniram [Shrimali, pseud.]. [1978]. Vı̄r Abhimanyu: vı̄r ras pūrn paurānik
nātak. [1935]. Varanasi: Thakur Prasad and Sons. ˙ ˙
˙
Upadhyay, Ramcharit. 1920. Devı̄ Draupadı̄: paurānik ākhyāyikā. (Ed. Smriti.)
(Ganga Pustakmala Ser. 29.) Lucknow: Ganga ˙ Pustakmala Karyalay,
Microfilm, CRL.
Varma, Dhirendra et al. (eds). 1958–63. Hindı̄ sāhitya koś. 2 vols. Varanasi:
Jnanmandal Limited.
Varma, Paripurnanand. 1932. Vı̄r Abhimanyu: sacitra aitihāsik nātak. [1925] 4th
printing. Varanasi: Baijnathprasad Bookseller. ˙