BHIRGUISATION OF THE MAHABHARATA RECONSIDERED

Author(s): P.K. Choudhary

Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 1998, Vol. 59 (1998), pp. 163-168
Published by: Indian History Congress

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44146987

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

60.191.126.105 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:51:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BHIRGUISATION OF THE
MAHABHARATA RECONSIDERED
P.K. Choudhary

The theory of 'Bhirguisation of the Mahabharata M propou

V.S. Sukhthankar has been a major landmark in the study o
epic tradition. Several generation of historians have been deeply
influenced by his understanding about the authorship of the
Mahabharata. The echoes of his theory are still heard dominantly in
many academic exercises related to the composition of Indian epics
even after seven decades.2 However, a little careful investigation
reveals several gaps in his methodology as well as the theory itself
Here a modest attempt is being made to underline the same.
Sukthankar founded his contentions largely on the basis of
following four points: first, Bhargava figures are entirely foreign to
the original saga of the Bharatas;3 second, in this text, number and
frequency of the Bhrgu references and myths are the highest compared
to other brahmanic clans; third, in this epic Bhargava heroes are
magnified to the colossal proportion;4 and lastly the Bhrgus suddenly
came into prominence for the first time in the Mahabharata , since the
Vedic literature does not accord them any high status at all.5 The
main conclusion of all these arguments is that the Bhrgus possessed
the text in the period of the expansion of this epic. They, with the
ulterior motives, deliberately grabbed a pre-existing text and engrafted
the fabricated myths to boost their own social position and prestige.
The fundamental weakness of this hypothesis emanates from the
lack of sufficient discussion on the status of other brahmanic clans
and their position in the epic. The article discusses only the Bhrgus
unilaterally and declares them beneficiaries of unproportionate
representation in the text. There is almost a complete silence about
the Angirasas and especially their relationship with the Bhrgus,
regarding which only a passing remark is made.6
Let us first take up the question of the position of other brahmanic
clans represented in the Mahabharata . According to one computation7
"it was found that nearly 275 different names of the brahmanas
occurred 8500 times on the whole in the Mahabharata ... we find the
following to be the total individual references to these eight sages and
members of the families represented by them (i) Marici 175 (ii) Atri

This content downloaded from

60.191.126.105 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:51:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
164 I HC: Proceedings, 59th Session, 1998
60 (iii) Angirasas 3200 (iv) Pulastya 35 (v) Pulaha 20 (vi) Kratu 20
(vii) Vasistha 830 and Bhrgu 1500"8 "clearly Marici, Atri, Pulaha,
Pulastya and Kratu are not that important as the number of their
occurrences indicate".9 Moreover, "the family of Atri is connected with
that of the Angirasas by the matrimonial connection, i.e. by the
marriage of Bhadra with Utathaya Angirasa."10
Therefore it is very clear that the Angirasas are more prominent
in the Mahabharata than any other family and their echoes can be
heard more than even those of the Bhrgus, to use Sukthankar's
phraseology. Even Krsna is linked with the Angirasas through his guru
Ghora Angiras.
Secondly, it is obvious that three Angiran figures namely Drona,
Kripa and Asvatthama are more influential characters than any of the
Bhargava figures. Here one can argue that these three characters are
more humane personalities in contrast to mythical and supermanly
Bhargava figures, who may be taken as fabricated and bogus mythical
entity. Well, in that case we have to prove that the Pandavas, the
Kauravas and the Angirasas were historical characters and not creation
of the Indian myth makers.
Indeed, very soon this glaring gap became evident to the Poona
School of scholars and in 1943 itself N.J. Shende proposed a revised
theory about the Mahabharata being considered creation of a
composite group of Bhrgu-Angiran redactors. Others also supported
this thesis.11 But they did not take the entire implication of this
conclusion to the logical end regarding the authorship of the
Mahabharata , the position of Bhrgus and most importantly, treatment
given to the myth of Parasurama by Sukthankar.
On the basis of the aforesaid observation either we have to consider
that the Mahabharata is an Angiran text with the Bhrgus and Vasistas
as junior partners or if we accept that the Angirasas and the Bhrgus
are members of the unified clan then we cannot say that the Bhrgus
are entirely unconnected or external to the epic story .Rather we have
to accept that the Bhrgus are more closely associated with the
Mahabharata than what was proposed by Sukthankar.
Secondly one does need to reconsider such statements that "...the
Bhargavas spring into prominence all of a sudden in the Mahabharata.
We look in vein for any reflection of their phenomenal power and
glory in the vedic literature."12 It is a well known fact that the Bhrgus
alongwith the Atharvans were junior partner of the Angirases in not
only in the Atharva Veda but in many other vedic texts also.13 So there
is neither prominence of the Bhrgus in the Mahabharata nor complete

This content downloaded from

60.191.126.105 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:51:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 165

absence of them in earlier vedic

of sudden rise does not hold go
throughout these phases.
As far as the question of arrog
Bhrgu mythical figures are con
simplistic explanation. Instead
complexities of myth making p
was the property of the Bhrgu
manipulated the text to embold
Bloomfield had long back obse
even in the Atharva Veda where "
and the Bhrgus] the latter po
magnify their own importance"14
In this whole debate, the depiction of Parasurama in the
Mahabharata is made very crucial. According to Sukthankar,
Parasurama is given special favour in this text to declare him not only
a "perfect warrior' but guru of all eminent warriors .,5 However if we
carefully observe we find that there are several anti-Bhrgu or at least
anti- Parasurama myths also coexisting inside the Mahabharata. For
example, all the major achievements and deeds of Parasurama are
either ridiculed or, questioned. First of all, his image of undefeatable
warrior is demolished when Bhisma almost defeats him in the
Ambopakhyana. The humiliation suffered at the hand of Dasarathi
Rama, although not part of the critical text but in the vulgate version,
sage Lomasa narrates this story. Similarly in southern recension
[except grantha4] in the Sabha Parva, Parasurama's unsuccessful war
against Salva is described and a forecast is made that only Krsna will
be able to kill Salva. So in a way, Parasurama is made an entity who
loses most of the battles .

Similarly his claim about the extermination of kshatriyas has been

ridiculed by Paravasu, who was the grandson of Visvamitra and son
of Raibhya, in the kings court. This episode is recounted by Krsna in
the Santiparva. Parallel to the matricide episode there is another myth
associated with Chirkari Gautam of the Angiran clan, who refuses to
obey his father's command to kill his mother. Later on his father also
appreciates his non compliance. And lastly we have a more favourable
image of Kartavirya Arjuna in the Sri Krsna version of the Parasurama
story in the Vanaparva. Similarly Devayani daughter of an important
Bhrgu named Sukracarya became less popular in the later tradition
than Sarmistha daughter of rakshasa king Vrisparva due to her portrayal
in the Mahabharata.16 Therefore, the argument of giving a more
favourable image to the Bhrgus or to Parasurama is not true in all the

This content downloaded from

60.191.126.105 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:51:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
166 IHC: Proceedings , 59/Zz Session, 1998
cases as declared by Sukthankar.
In the context of the avatara status of Parasurama, Sukthankar
held the view that since the Bhrgus were redactors of the Mahabharata
and Parasurama was a Bhrgu therefore he was made an avatara.17 First
of all, all avataras are made, even Rama and Krsna are no different.
Secondly, the concept of avatara has certain inherent logic and the
notion of avatara does not depend on whims and fancies of redactors
alone. To accept some avataras as real and others as fake and spurious
will not give us a correct picture of religious and cultic formations. In
this context, we should also remember that Parasurama and Jamadagni
have several temples and holy places associated with their name in
the Himalayas and the Konkan. Renuka is still worshipped by many in
Orissa, Andhra, and Konkan as Kuladevi. It is also interesting to note
that Parasurama and Renuka are more popular among lower castes
than the higher ones in certain regions .Here is the hidden clue as to
why he was raised to the status of an avatara. All avataras have certain
characteristics in common. For example, all of them are destroyers of
oppressor or a saviour from crisis . It is not simply backing of a few
brahmana redactors but popular base which earned him a place in the
rank of avatara. Although to fully understand this long forgotten cult
a lot more has to be researched and written.

This debate in fact has thrown some very interesting questions

about mythical identities of the Bhrgus on the one hand and place of
myths in texts like the Mahabharata on the other. Sukthankar had
sought an answer in the Bhrgus being the redactors of this text. But
that doesn't provide us comprehensive explanations. Because the
question remains, why redactors of other families who composed
numerous other texts do not reveal similar tendency and secondly why
even such texts which are not composed by Bhrguites also contain
similar kind of mythical depictions of the Bhrgus .
Apart from that, understanding Bhrgu's place in overall Indian
tradition is also very important. They have a prominent place in many
of the Puranas. It has been suggested that the Bhrgus were a very open
minded group which accepted many outsiders in their fold happily. At
least two examples can be given in this regard. First, in the vedic
literature it is said that if someone has no particular gotramantra then
he should recite Bhrgu mantra. Secondly Bhrgus and Kaundinyas
played a crucial role in the brahmanisation of several south Indian
communities . More importantly they experimented with many new
ideas which changed the entire nature of vedic religion . They are
supposed to be the group to have launched the concept of Vrata, puja,
dana and tirthas in the place of usual vedic sacrifice. Therefore they

This content downloaded from

60.191.126.105 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:51:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 167

could become a link between var

common identity. The importan
being redactors of a few texts but
to geographical and social ex
undermines these aspects com
historical criticism only.
On the other hand it seems th
group deriving ancestry from s
conflict and victory over kshat
where their victory over Srnjay
association with black magic an
death made their myth sound su
In the domain of myths an im
the stereo type is cast, not nece
entire community perpetuates
aggression is one such example
communities did not feel thr
sometimes ridiculed others' m
extravagant myths but there is n
This brings us to another as
Mahabharata as a text, especiall
in it . Even a casual reading of th
significant component of the M
myths flowing in different dir
for a particular kind of myth but
of it, he will remain empty han
nature of the text but in this p
nature nor origin of the text.
least three thematic layers of
becomes core. Second, when tho
lastly when the entire text is r
varnasrama dharma where vari
dharma, tirtha, etc., became par
for parity of all myths belonging
kings, heroes, brahmanas, naga
myth is mostly the core of any
similes and the Mahabharata
therefore one should focus m
demeaning, ridiculing and purg
Lastly we would like to sub
through various phases of devel
Bharadwajas, Bhrgus and Angir

This content downloaded from

60.191.126.105 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:51:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
168 IHC: Proceedings , 59th Session, 1998
far as the final redaction of the text is concerned it occurred around
the themes of dana, dharma, tirtha, varnasrama, rajadharma etc. In
this phase kula identity had given way to the common cultic and
territorial identity of the brahmanas. Myths of all brahmanic families
became a common property of all brahmanas. With the rise of cult
related identities brahmanas. of all gotras were perhaps consolidating
under new banners. Considering these dimensions we may conclude
that the Mahabharata was not the property of one clan but entire
brahmanic tradition during its expansion. Attributing it mainly to the
Bhrgus will amount to giving them more importance than the
Mahabharata actually gives them.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 . V.S. Sukthankar, "Epic Studies vi : The Bhrgus and the Bharatas : A Te

Study", Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute ( ABO
Oct. 1936, pp. 1-76
2. D.D Kosambi, "The Emergence of National Characteristics Among T
European Peoples", ABORI, VOL.20 1938-39, pp. 192-206 . Suvira
her monograph The Origin and Development ofVaisnavism , Muhshiram
Delhi, 1981, has dismissed Parasurama as avatara under the influen
Sukthankar 's view about the authorship of the Mahabharata. Also
Goldnman, ' Valmiki and the Bhrigu Connection' Journal of the America
Society, 96. 1976
3. Sukthankar, op. cit, pp.70
4. Ibid., pp.64
5. Ibid., pp.66
6. Ibid., pp.67
7. N.J. Shende , "The Authorship of The Mahabharata" ABORI , 24 ,1943 pp. 67-82
8 Ibid., pp.70
9. Ibid., pp.70
10. Ibid., pp.70
1 1 . V.M. Bedekar, "Sukracharya in the Mahabharata:a composite personality Poona
Orientalist , vol.24, 1959, pp.101
12. Sukthankar, op. cit, vi, pp.65
13. V.S. Pathak, Ancient Historians of India , 1966 pp. 12
14. Bloomfield, Atharva Veaa , Sacred Books of the East, vol. xlii pp.9
15. Sukthankar, op. cit., pp.65
16. As parting blessing to his daughter Kasyapa said to Sankuntala Be thou highly
honoured of thy husband , as was Sarmistha of Yayati'.
1 7. Sukthankar, op. cit., pp. 64-65.

This content downloaded from

60.191.126.105 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:51:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms