The Kathmandu Post KATHMANDU, OCT 28 , 2012

Much has been written about Draupadis strange marriage to five men in the Mahabharata. But actually, this is not the only sexual anomaly in Mahabharata, which is full of stories of strange attachments. For example, let us look at this sorrowful dialogue drenched with love. Alas, reft of Govinda, what have I to live for, dragging my life in sorrow? As soon as I heard that Vishnu had left the Earth, my eyes became dim and all things disappeared from my vision. I dare not live, reft of the heroic Janardana. (Maushal Parva, Section 8) Guess who utters these words of utmost grief at the death of Krishna? His lover Radha? His wife Rukmini? His girlfriends the Gopinis? Actually, none of them. It is his dear cousin and pupil Arjun who feels that his life is over after Krishna is dead. Why is Arjun ready to die once Krishna is dead? Is there more to the story than meets the eye? These words are just an example of an immeasurably deep attachment between Krishna and Arjun. For example, after Krishnas death, Arjun is asked to go to Krishnas city and fetch his wives. On the way back, he is attacked by robbers. Arjun, who defeated major Kaurava warriors singlehandedly, is unable to combat a few petty robbers. The robbers kidnapped many women as Arjun watched helplessly. That was when Arjun realised that without Krishna, he is nothing. His entire prowess came from Krishna. It is clear from these two scenes that Krishna is the central figure in Arjuns life, and the relationship went much beyond a normal friendship, or even brotherhood. When we dig deeper, we find even stranger little nuggets about their intense attachment. For example, when Arjun and Krishna help Lord Agni to devour the forest of Khandav, he is pleased and grants them a boon each. Krishna asks that his affection (preeti is the exact word) for Arjun may remain forever (Adi Parva, chapter 225). It is also notable that when this incident takes place, Arjun and Krishna were on a solo vacation together. Together, they are called Nara and Narayana, and also Vishnu and Jishnu. They are often called the two Krishnas (Arjun, being very dark, was also called Krishna), especially when they are on a chariot. The tendency to give names to couples together is usually found for heterosexual couples. In fact, most of the times that Krishna is mentioned, Arjun is mentioned alongside as his complementary. Their relationship is so hyped in the Mahabharata that I was surprised that one of them never rose from a demigod status, while the other went on to become a central deity. But that is a different discussion altogether. To get back to Arjun and Krishnas relationship, it is often idealised as that of teacher and pupil (based on the Bhagawat Geeta), but a teacher-student relationship does not cover these statements: Vasudev and Dhananjaya were highly pleased after they won the war, and they deported themselves with great satisfaction, like Indra and his consort (wife) (Ashwamedha Parva, section 15). Why are Krishna and Arjun being compared to a married couple? Elsewhere, Krishna is found commenting that Arjun is dearer to him than his life, and that everything he owns, including his wealth, kingdom, and wives, are for Arjun. It is certainly

not normal for a man to offer to share his wives with another. And actually, their closeness is not hidden from the world, as Yudhishthira, who never lies, is found commenting time and again that Krishna and Arjun cannot live without each other. Taken individually, none of these incidents are enough to prove homosexuality. But all the incidents together, combined with Arjun and Krishnas extremely loving endearments to each other, put this relationship firmly within the bounds of homo-erotica. We will never know the complete picture, because Ved-vyas Mahabharata speaks no more about the nature of their relationship. But folklore is rife with stories of Arjuns transformation into a woman so that he can enjoy Krishnas love as a woman for a day. In the Mahabharata, there are plenty of other incidents which suggest homosexuality. There are many eminent offspring born of a couple of males: rishi Agastya is the child of Mitra and Varuna (now forgotten deities). Urvashi is born from the thighs of Nara and Narayana. Whether they were born from test tubes, or some other alternate methods, is not known. But what is known is that two men are the parents of a child, possibly suggesting a romantic relationship therein. Alternate sexuality does not stop at homosexuality. In the story of Pandu who shoots a deer, the common perception of this story is that a Rishi and his wife have transformed into deer. The original text, however, is different. I was engaged in sexual intercourse with this deer, because my feelings of modesty did not permit me to indulge in such an act in human society. In the form of a deer I rove in the deep woods in the company of other deer (Adi Parva, Chapter 118) says the muni Kindama clearly to Pandu. This act of bestiality was probably not accepted in society, as the muni himself laments. But then, it suggests that such phenomena has existed in our culture since time immemorial and is not a byproduct of Western culture. It is also notable that in the Mahabharata, while there is an abundance of subtle references to alternate male sexuality, there is little expression of female sexuality. This may have various interpretations (alternate female sexuality did not exist), but it is more likely that this happened because the Mahabharata was not written by females. The male writers were probably just ignorant of entirely female phenomena. Many of us assume that any kind of sexual perversity is the result of Western influence, but our literature says otherwise. Sexual diversity has always existed and the question is only of how well it is integrated into mainstream society. And Mahabharata is just a sample of our vast mythological corpusI have heard of other, more graphic references, in other texts. Anyone who thinks that Western influence is corrupting our youths and leading them to perversity, needs to pay more attention to our myths. Posted on: 2012-10-28 08:34

The Kathmandu Post, Abhi Subedi KATHMANDU, OCT 28 - 2012 Modes and methods of interpreting situations and events in Nepal over the last several years have struck me as the most intriguing development. The Nepali society after the huge political transformation of 2006 opened up multiple possibilities for change and experimentations. Politics and ideologies invited interpretations more than any other subjects. For good reasons, interpretative culture has dominated the subject of politics. Nearly every other person has become an interpreter in Nepal. As far as my own experience goes, I hear everyone attempting interpretations of daily events especially that happen in politics. It has become a country of interpreters. People in offices, educational institutions, streets, teashops, buses and daily hubs can be heard interpreting. What do they interpret? There is no single topic. Most commonly, they interpret the actions of governments, policies adopted by a particular political party about reconciliation, coalition, constitution making, Nepali history and most important of all, sharing power, positions, posts and facilities. Such interpretations can be either conciliatory or very harshly critical. Though a positive development, it is also creating serious challenges. It seems we have begun to fall in love with interpretations that do not lead us anywhere. The interpreters have classes and groups. The greatest interpreters are the political leaders, party cadres, media and commentators. They make predictions about political change, downfall of some and rise of the others. They give reasons for that. They set dates for the downfalls and enthroning, and for each of these predictions they glibly offer interpretations. But the interpretations turn out to be mere gossips. The civil society also saw gradually that the interpretations they offered did not seem to be working. Most important of all, parties of different ideological orders have been doing nothing but interpreting the current political situation, bases of relations with neighbours and domestic policies. For example, interpreting the works of Lenin, Mao and Marx is naturally the task of the Marxist parties, but interpreting Marxism and economy of that order by capital market standard is either post-structuralist or post-political interpretation of political economy. Interpretation is the most vulnerable activity for those who cannot easily match history with reality. The old Nepali Congress party leaders speak profusely about their socialist ideology. They pick up its bones, track its fossils in the silent corners of this countrys history and offer new interpretation of the subject. I have read Nepali Congress ideologues interpreting that mode of socialism by evoking various Western thinkers like Rosa Luxemburg or Karl Marx and BP Koirala. But that appears to have been made for the sheer luxury of interpretation. The greatest burden of interpretation seems to be experienced by foreign scholars, friends, visitors and lovers of this land. They have developed their own kind heuristics for that. The categories though little outdated have become the yardstick for such interpretations. Edward Said in his book Orientalism says that in earlier times Western travellers, colonial officials and scholars created standard for interpreting the situation, culture and norms of the East and gave it to academicians and politicians back home by putting it on a silver platter. Such standards became norms for interpretation for a long time. It has not changed. What we can notice clearly is that many foreign interpreters of Nepal go by the book. They look at certain group of people, certain developments only from their set outlook. Nepali sociologist and thinker Chaitanya Mishra says there cannot be just one standard of looking at developments, just as there can not be a fixed model of human persona whose actions could be decided by

somebodys fiat. That an individual is a complex entity with many roles stands ignored by many. But happily enough in the surfeit of interpretations that get published in the media, we find some quite well presented. But the dismal part is that right interpretations of the situation do not find audience, which means homogenous interpretations are manufactured for each group and faction to suit its own kinds of needs. Interpretation is the most important tool of literary and cultural analysis. Literary writers now appear to play the role of interpreters. They have chosen fiction and essay writing as the favourite genres for putting their interpretations of history. Novelists interpret history by turning real events into fictionality. Their great love for interpretation could make the fictional work weaker. Though interpretation is a free subject, it loses relevance if it loses its own generic identity. That is, if a literary work reads like a political interpretation and if political, economic interpretations become fantasy works they would all lose their relevance. What is this phenomenon of interpretations happening in Nepal today? Why have people chosen to be interpreters on such a scale? I guess the answer is clear. The big political change that saw the dethroning of the institution of age-old monarchy and made people vocal about their identities and rights.Additionally, the historical election of the Constituent Assembly and its fiasco turned everybody into vocal interpreters one way or the other. But by the same token, the plethoras of interpretations have lost believing audience. So, the interpreting rush has become a nearly meaningless echolalia by loosening bonds between speaker and audience. Such situation could be farcical, but at the same time, democratically desirable and indicative of public awareness. The intelligentsia could train itself to become sensitive to the important issues of the day from political to cultural. But too many interpretations without audience, and for that reason without positive results in the society, could turn the country into a society of gossipmongers where everybody talks and nobody listens. I hear very important people like the President and Prime Minister of the republic simultaneously interpreting the political situation, and political leaders of different parties producing semi-serious and burlesque interpretations of serious historical moments as the citizenry is getting enamoured in its own solipsistic interpretive charm. Posted on: 2012-10-28 08:34