Mahashweta Mukhopadhyay and Aparna Bandyopadhyay (eds.)., Nahi Samanya Nari: Itihase, Samaje o Chintay, Setu, Kolkata, 2018 (ISBN 978-93-80677-96-5), pp. 689-697., 2018
পাশ্চাত্যের ক্রীড়া-ইতিহাসে নারীর স্থান সুদীর্ঘকাল ছিল প্রান্তিক। এমনকী আধুনিক ওলিম্পিকের সূচনাপর্... more পাশ্চাত্যের ক্রীড়া-ইতিহাসে নারীর স্থান সুদীর্ঘকাল ছিল প্রান্তিক। এমনকী আধুনিক ওলিম্পিকের সূচনাপর্বেও নারী ছিল ব্রাত্য। অথচ, ভারত-ইতিহাসের আদিযুগের শিল্প ও সাহিত্য থেকে পাওয়া যায় এক ভিন্নতর চিত্র। প্রাচীন ও আদিমধ্যযুগের ভারতে কন্দুকক্রীড়ায় (ball games), যা আমাদের সমসাময়িক বিশ্বের জনপ্রিয়তম ক্রীড়ামাধ্যম, ছিল একান্তভাবেই রাজপরিবার ও অভিজাতশ্রেণীর নারীর একাধিপত্য। কী এর কারণ? ক্রীড়াক্ষেত্রে নারীর এই অগ্রণী ভূমিকা কি তবে নারীস্বাধীনতার সূচক? এই প্রবন্ধের মতে উত্তর সম্ভবত নিহিত আছে পুরুষতন্ত্রেরই গড়ে তোলা আদর্শ নারীদেহের কল্পনায়। পাশ্চাত্যে যেখানে বহুকাল ধরে উচ্চশ্রেণীর নারী কল্পিত হয়েছে দুর্বল কমনীয়তায়, আদি ভারতে সেখানে আদর্শায়িত অকৃশ, অস্থূল এক নারীদেহ যেখানে পীনোন্নত স্তন ও গুরুভার নিতম্বের সঙ্গে সমন্বিত তন্বী দেহবল্লরী, ক্ষীণ কটিরেখা ও বলিষ্ঠ পাদপেশী। নির্মেদ অথচ মাংসল এই দেহ নির্মাণ ও সংরক্ষণের জন্য প্রয়োজন পর্যাপ্ত শরীরচর্চার। কিন্তু পুরুষতান্ত্রিক সমাজে নারী ছিল সামরিক অনুশীলন ও প্রশিক্ষণ থেকে বঞ্চিত। বিলাসব্যসন ও রূপচর্চায় অতিবাহিত, অভিজাত ও রাজপরিবারের নারীর দাসীপরিবেষ্টিত জীবনে ছিল না সাধারণ নারীর মতো গৃহকর্ম বা কায়িক পরিশ্রমের সুযোগ। এই পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে কন্দুকক্রীড়া ছিল অভিজাত শ্রেণীর ও রাজপরিবারের নারী ও শিশুর জন্য এক নিরাপদ ও ঝুঁকিবিহীন শরীরচর্চার আয়োজন। কিন্তু পাশা খেলার মতো সম্পূর্ণ দেহসংসর্গহীন খেলাও, সম্পদ লাভ ও হারানোর ঝুঁকি থাকায়, যুদ্ধের মতই ছিল প্রাপ্তবয়স্ক পুরুষের কুক্ষিগত। নারীর একমাত্র ভূমিকা সেখানে হতে পারত বাজি রাখা পণ্যের। প্রাচীন ও আদিমধ্যযুগের ভারতে নারীর শরীরচর্চার প্রয়োজন ছিল আদর্শ নারীদেহের নির্মাণপ্রয়াসে, আর তার জন্য নির্ধারিত ছিল কন্দুকক্রীড়ার নিরাপদ, ঝুঁকিবিহীন ও গুরুত্বহীন পরিসর।
Uploads
Papers by Kanad Sinha
Gaya had been a sacred site for a long-time. While the Buddha had attained his Enlightenment at Bodh Gaya, the site had been awarded a special status in Purāṇic Vaiṣṇavism as the best place of ritual offerings for the deceased ancestors. Various inscriptions, from early Pāla period onwards, record donative activities at Gaya, both Brāhmaṇical and Buddhist. However, none of these donations had come from the political authority directly. Interestingly, Viśvarūpa’s building activities created the sacred landscape Gaya is known for today, as he constructed the most famous temples including the Janārdana Temple, the Gadādhara Temple and Vaṭeśa Temple (dedicated to the famous akṣayavaṭa), while Yakṣapāla’s constructions included the Phalgunātha Temple (Viṣṇu Temple by the river Phalgu), the Uttaramānasa Lake, and a free feeding centre near the akṣayavaṭa. Though all these are essentially Vaiṣṇava sites, there seems to be a grand design to incorporate all major strands of Purāṇic Brahmanism by building temples of Brahmā (Prapitāmaheśvara, Ambujabhava), Śiva (Gātheśa, Kanakeśvara, Gaṅgeśa, Someśvara, Kedāreśvara), Sūrya (Śuklabhānu, Maunāditya, Vijayāditya) and the Goddess (Kamalā). The importance of the appropriation of all the major Purāṇic sects is indicated by how the same ruler used different names to boost his Vaiṣṇava (Viśvarūpa) and Saura (Viśvāditya) affiliations and his claim to rulership (Viśvādhipa). Shrewdly enough, he has been compared to the Sun-god by his eulogist whereas he had named one of his Vaiṣṇava temples Viśvarūpeśvara. Curiously, there was one temple dedicated to Garuḍa (Gṛdhreśa), the vehicle of Viṣṇu, with whom the eulogists had consistently compared Paritoṣa, the first mentioned figure of the family. A comparison can be made with the Paschimbag Copper Plate Inscription of King Śrīcandra, where the king was creating a Brahmanical settlement at Candrapura by building temples for the followers of Brahmā, Viṣnu, Śiva and Vedic Brahmanism. The term used for such a Brahmanical settlement was brahmapura. Curiously, these inscriptions use the same term to describe Gaya, and point out how Viśvarūpa took the town out of the evils of the Kali Age. No wonder, the inscriptions (except the very last) are more assertive of the brāhmaṇa-hood of the family, than of their governorship.
The paper will also try to indicate why this process unfolded in this particular period. The Pāla kings had traditionally been major patrons of Buddhism and styled themselves paramasaugata, although they were generous in granting land to the brāhmaṇas, too. However, there was a major break to this policy during Nayapāla’s reign. The Bangarh Inscription indicates that Nayapāla became a disciple of the powerful Śaiva monks Śaivaśiva and Mūrtiśiva of the Golagi maṭha, who were major temple builders. The Siyan Inscription speaks of how Nayapāla built a number of temples dedicated to several major Purāṇic deities including Śiva (Purāri, Hetukeśa Śambhu, Kṣemeśvara, Śambhu Varākṣeśvara, Ghaṇṭīśa, Bhairava, Mātaṅgeśvara, Sadāśiva), the Goddess (Caṇḍikā, Carcikā, Śrī, Piṅgalāryā), Viṣṇu (Uccadeva and Rukmiṇī, Vaikuṇṭha), Sūrya (Ravi, Caṇḍāṃśu), Candra (Śaśin) and Gaṇeśa (Vighnanāyaka), alongside other pious activities. No doubt, Viśvarūpa – a pious brāhmaṇa – would have been a favourite of the king, who started emulating the king’s religious mission. However, Viśvarūpa and Yakṣapāla ended up recreating Gaya as a sacred Brahmanical pilgrimage site, which strengthened their position as the local rulers and possibly legitimised their position as the virtually independent hereditary rulers of the region. Carving out a Brahmanical pilgrimage site rite in front of a famous Buddhist site like Bodh Gaya, especially after a long history of pro-Buddhist rulers, would be a substantial achievement. The paper also raises the question if this achievement prompted the claim of rescuing Gaya from the evils of the Kali Age, in the eulogies of both Viśvarūpa and Yakṣapāla, especially when the greatest evil the Purāṇic idea of Kali Age speaks of is the ascendency of Buddhism.
Gaya had been a sacred site for a long-time. While the Buddha had attained his Enlightenment at Bodh Gaya, the site had been awarded a special status in Purāṇic Vaiṣṇavism as the best place of ritual offerings for the deceased ancestors. Various inscriptions, from early Pāla period onwards, record donative activities at Gaya, both Brāhmaṇical and Buddhist. However, none of these donations had come from the political authority directly. Interestingly, Viśvarūpa’s building activities created the sacred landscape Gaya is known for today, as he constructed the most famous temples including the Janārdana Temple, the Gadādhara Temple and Vaṭeśa Temple (dedicated to the famous akṣayavaṭa), while Yakṣapāla’s constructions included the Phalgunātha Temple (Viṣṇu Temple by the river Phalgu), the Uttaramānasa Lake, and a free feeding centre near the akṣayavaṭa. Though all these are essentially Vaiṣṇava sites, there seems to be a grand design to incorporate all major strands of Purāṇic Brahmanism by building temples of Brahmā (Prapitāmaheśvara, Ambujabhava), Śiva (Gātheśa, Kanakeśvara, Gaṅgeśa, Someśvara, Kedāreśvara), Sūrya (Śuklabhānu, Maunāditya, Vijayāditya) and the Goddess (Kamalā). The importance of the appropriation of all the major Purāṇic sects is indicated by how the same ruler used different names to boost his Vaiṣṇava (Viśvarūpa) and Saura (Viśvāditya) affiliations and his claim to rulership (Viśvādhipa). Shrewdly enough, he has been compared to the Sun-god by his eulogist whereas he had named one of his Vaiṣṇava temples Viśvarūpeśvara. Curiously, there was one temple dedicated to Garuḍa (Gṛdhreśa), the vehicle of Viṣṇu, with whom the eulogists had consistently compared Paritoṣa, the first mentioned figure of the family. A comparison can be made with the Paschimbag Copper Plate Inscription of King Śrīcandra, where the king was creating a Brahmanical settlement at Candrapura by building temples for the followers of Brahmā, Viṣnu, Śiva and Vedic Brahmanism. The term used for such a Brahmanical settlement was brahmapura. Curiously, these inscriptions use the same term to describe Gaya, and point out how Viśvarūpa took the town out of the evils of the Kali Age. No wonder, the inscriptions (except the very last) are more assertive of the brāhmaṇa-hood of the family, than of their governorship.
The paper will also try to indicate why this process unfolded in this particular period. The Pāla kings had traditionally been major patrons of Buddhism and styled themselves paramasaugata, although they were generous in granting land to the brāhmaṇas, too. However, there was a major break to this policy during Nayapāla’s reign. The Bangarh Inscription indicates that Nayapāla became a disciple of the powerful Śaiva monks Śaivaśiva and Mūrtiśiva of the Golagi maṭha, who were major temple builders. The Siyan Inscription speaks of how Nayapāla built a number of temples dedicated to several major Purāṇic deities including Śiva (Purāri, Hetukeśa Śambhu, Kṣemeśvara, Śambhu Varākṣeśvara, Ghaṇṭīśa, Bhairava, Mātaṅgeśvara, Sadāśiva), the Goddess (Caṇḍikā, Carcikā, Śrī, Piṅgalāryā), Viṣṇu (Uccadeva and Rukmiṇī, Vaikuṇṭha), Sūrya (Ravi, Caṇḍāṃśu), Candra (Śaśin) and Gaṇeśa (Vighnanāyaka), alongside other pious activities. No doubt, Viśvarūpa – a pious brāhmaṇa – would have been a favourite of the king, who started emulating the king’s religious mission. However, Viśvarūpa and Yakṣapāla ended up recreating Gaya as a sacred Brahmanical pilgrimage site, which strengthened their position as the local rulers and possibly legitimised their position as the virtually independent hereditary rulers of the region. Carving out a Brahmanical pilgrimage site rite in front of a famous Buddhist site like Bodh Gaya, especially after a long history of pro-Buddhist rulers, would be a substantial achievement. The paper also raises the question if this achievement prompted the claim of rescuing Gaya from the evils of the Kali Age, in the eulogies of both Viśvarūpa and Yakṣapāla, especially when the greatest evil the Purāṇic idea of Kali Age speaks of is the ascendency of Buddhism.
The Bhāgavata Purāṇa: Sacred Text and Living Tradition (Columbia University Press, 2013).