What makes oral history different – Some discussions.

What makes oral history different – Some discussions.

This article of anthropology led me to think about the evolution and recitation of the great epics Ramayana and Mahabharat and their role in the cultural history of India.

Background: The constructed history of India by the British begins with the discovery of Indus valley civilization (3500 BC- 1500 BC), followed through a logical temporal sequence of Vedic civilization (1500 – 600 BC), Buddhism (600 BC – 600 AD), Hinduism and medieval period (600 AD to 12oo AD), Islam and Moghul rule (1200 AD to 1800 AD), British Rule (1800 to 1947) and India’s independence. Throughout the construction of the history, a scientific approach was the basis – importance on documentation, written sources, archaeological evidence, carbon dating and so on.

For the discussion of this article, the period of ‘Vedic Civilisation’ is highly unique in India’s history. There are no archaeological remains or ruins of those times to ‘cross – check’ or validate the oral accounts of the history that has happened in those times. Thus, it remains a mystery as to what exactly had happened. But, the greatest contribution of this period of Vedic Age is the birth of India’s oral literature. All rituals and religious traditions have a underlying connection with vedic literature. Prominent among the literature that was created are the hymns, composed in 4 different categories or the Vedas. These are followed by compositions of epics Ramayana and Mahabharat and finally mythological tales – the Puranas.

The authenticity of the epics as a valid source of history is a highly and eternally debatable topic amongst Indians. The power of recitation, the rich contents, the story plot, the ideas, conflicts of morality and ethics and the rule of Life – all make the epics so captivating, that Indians are hurt, if someone blatantly argues that the epics are just a figment of imagination and there’s nothing historical about it because the events in the epics can’t be proved. To be honest, the central event in the epic – the war is a factual event, in which the narrator obviously would have been involved in some ways. The war seems to have had a morally devastating effect on the people involved and around this factual event, moral duties, code of conducts, responsibilities of citizenry, kings, queens, roles of husband, wife, son, daughter, aspects of life, divinity, religion, faith, and so on have been woven. There isn’t a single aspect of life that has been left untouched and therefore, most people prefer to call it the fifth Veda. The Mahabharat as an epic and oral history reflects all the observations noted in the article. You can’t prove it. But it is filled with myth, legend, morality and values of life. When initially composed, the epic started and concluded only within 8000 verses. As the epic was recited, retold throughout the geographical regions of India for successive centuries, the verses expanded to 150,000. There are also variations in the epics in terms of characterisations of the people involved as one reads different oral sources procured from different parts of India. It is interesting to see how come such a mammoth creation came into being. How it has lasted for more than 1500 years and how it still remains very much relevant to Indians for giving guidance on dilemmas of life. The power of such oral historical source, is its adaptability or interpretability in all times of history and in contemporary period as well. Therefore, as far as the Indians are concerned, there exists no time gap between the ‘oral history’ as depicted or believed to have occurred in Mahabharat (literal translation of the word– Great India) and the Present times. The epic also shows abundant data on culture of the society, the landscape of India, flora, fauna and the seasons. The epic itself has evolved with time, added by different nameless (but obviously influential or popular) narrators by adding more characters, devising stories within stories. My guess is that the ‘growth’ of the story has been organic, i.e. in all directions and not necessarily in a linear sequence. It would have expanded forwards as well as backwards to validate certain essential features. The ‘written’ account of this epic and the Vedas started to occur permanently (or on durable manuscripts or other mediums) sometime after 100 AD. Till that time period, it is believed to have existed strictly orally and by repeated recitations and memorizations, and spontaneous development of the epic, it was conveyed to successive generations for centuries. In that respect, it is a marvel that the epic could survive the onslaughts of time.

As mentioned in the article, the historical, poetical, legendary material has got mixed up. It is highly value ridden, yet it talks of the geography and history of important events as well. It also demonstrates the statement that ‘the personal ‘truth’ (of the narrator(s)) has coincided with shared ‘imagination’. The epic must have been retold again and again and has got a formal structure by discussing with the communities in India. Looking from a different perspective, the epic also demonstrates in some implicit ways the power relation of the narrator(s) and the ‘factual’ event of the war and the prominent personalities associated with it. Just as contemporary questions try to deal with the issue of knowledge production for what purpose, similarly, the article made me think why has the epic being told in this way? What could have been the power relations at play between the personalities depicted (warrior class as an upper caste) and the narrators (Brahmin as the supreme upper class). Was it meant to give authenticity to narration? Was it meant to act as an Order for the ‘other castes’? Was it meant to be the official source of all knowledge and history anyone who wanted to know at that time? Interestingly, as later forms of oral histories and mythological tales came into being, they were connected in turn, to this epic to lend continuation of authenticity. The most interesting part (and this is for recent historians) is that majority of the kings of medieval period have shown some relation of their lives (or a physical connection) with the personalities present in the epics, so as to link the contemporary king’s greatness and authenticity of his actions with the moral lessons of the epic! In this way, very much upto the 12^th century, a continuous connection of historical events have been linked to the epic.

                The epic remains the most popular story of all times in India. When it was broadcasted as a serial on national television in 1988 on every Sunday, the Indian city roads used to be completely deserted and the newspapers used to publish snaps of deserted roads indicating people’s fascination for this great epic by cuddling up in their homes.  The newspaper snaps were an important point of talk in the city because to observe a ‘deserted Indian road’ is equivalent to say that one can walk on water. Because of its emotional and intellectual and moral appeal, it refuses to be refuted by scientific approach towards authenticity. Its relation to temples is also strong, as in most narrative incidences shown or carved in temples have important events of Mahabharat. To exaggerate, I doubt if there can be any learned Indian who did not hear about Mahabharat. This would be interesting to see, how people respond during my case study of the Hindu temple and how do people relate to this intrinsic part of Hinduism and what do 2^nd generation immigrants have to say on this.