National Seminar on Salvage Archaeology and Heritage Management in India held at Meenakshi College, Chennai on November 29th and 30th 2016 [First day proceedings]

National Seminar on Salvage Archaeology and Heritage Management in India held at Meenakshi College, Chennai on November 29^th and 30^th 2016 [First day proceedings]

Meenakshi-college-entrance-conference-banner

Two day National Seminar on Salvage Archaeology and Heritage Management in India: [NSSAHMI-16] was held at Meenakshi College for Women (Autonomous), Kodambakkam, Chennai, on November 29^th and 30^th 2016, at their college premises building at Homi J Bhaba Hall [First floor]. As per the brochure, they wanted to conduct the seminar with focus on the following objectives[1]:

1. To provide with an in-depth and sophisticated understanding of the major contemporary trends in Salvage Archaeology.
2. To highlight the heritage attractions.
3. To provide a platform for Historians and Archaeologists to present their findings.

They wanted to cover, Historic properties (as listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places), Older properties that may have cultural value, but may or may not be eligible for the National Register, Historic properties that have cultural value beyond their historicity, Archaeological graves and cultural items, Shipwrecks, Museum collections, Historical documents, Religious sites, Religious practices, Cultural use of natural resources, Folklife, tradition, and other social institutions, Theater groups, orchestras, and other community cultural amenities. Listing out “Thrust areas” as below, they suggested “who can participate” in the seminar[2]:

1.       Cultural resources management, 2.      Heritage interpretation 3.      Heritage railways 4.      Heritage tourism 5.      Historic preservation 6.      Listed buildings 7.      Monument historique

8.     Museology 9.      Rescue archaeology, 10.  Scheduled Ancient Monument 11.   Space archaeology 12.  World Heritage Sites 13.  Initiative for Heritage Conservancy

Meenakshi-college-building-where-conference-held

meenakshi-college-building-where-registration-done

salvage-archaeology-program

Though American archaeology was explained, the history and archaeology of Indians have not been salvaged and informed: On 29^th November 2016, the seminar was inaugurated by Dr Jagannathan IAS, Director of Museums, Government Museum, Chennai. He explained the importance of history and archaeology and emphasized that students should take up such subjects for research. His tone and tenor exhibited the anxiety of the subjects ignored due to the advancement of Science and technology, new subjects generated related to them, job market available in such fields etc. In facat, he was pointing out such facts by interacting with the students.  Then, S. Suresh[3], Convener for INTACH gave a “key-note” address through his US experience of “Fullbright” visiting scholar program about “salvage archaeology” there in USA. Referring to the “sons of soil” of America as “natives, tribals etc”, he was explaining “Industrial archaeology”, “Commercial archaeology”, “landscape archaeology” etc., obviously forgetting the archaeology of “Pre-Columbian” period! In other words, the history and archaeology of USA, before colonization has not been salvaged, rescued and brought out to the students. To dub indigenous “Native Americans, American Indians or Indians” as “natives, tribals” etc., cannot be justified when the colonial forces destroyed their culture, tradition, heritage and civilization and then starting archaeology to discover the same destroyed factors! The “Christian immigration” through their “Pilgrim fathers” and the horrors of “Pilgrim Progress” need not be explained, but the present generation of India may not be knowing the facts. In fact, the fact why Columbus claimed that he discovered “India” in the West instead of East, exposes many historical facts. Columbus discovered “India” in “America”, because, those West “Indians” looked like East Indians. They looked alike in the sense, most of their factors of tangible and intangible culture, tradition, heritage and civilization had been the same and similar. In fact the so called “East India Company” implies the existence of “West India” and that is nothing but America with the civilizations of Aztec, Maya and Inca. And their history and archaeology salvaged was not pointed by the “key-note” addressor!

conference-inaugurated-by-jagannathan-ias

conference-inauguration-29-11-2016-audience-lhs

conference-inauguration-29-11-2016-audience-rhs

meenakshi-college-2016-salvage-archaeology-seminar-inaguration-photo-courtesy-Mrs stella

Concept of Salvage Archaeology in Marine Archaeology – N. Athiyaman, Tamil University, Thanjavur: As I have been listening to him and reading his papers for the last 25 years, I could remember his joint paper on anchors discovered and published[4]. So, here he gave the following details about the anchors discovered by them [after explaining salvage archaeology]:

1. In 1986, a stock type iron anchor was salvaged off Thondi at a depth of 10 m,
2. A stock type stone anchor, similar to anchor 1, in heavily rusted condition was salvaged off Mullai Thivu Island near Rameswaram coast at a depth of 8 m,
3. The third anchor, made of black granite (Figure 9) found on shore, about 100 m from the sea, was used as a fencing stone near a mosque at Vedalai, 5 km west of Mandapam village.
4. The fourth anchor, made of sandstone, trapezoidal in shape having only one circular apical hole 15 cm from the top is found lying in situ near the backwater area called in Tamil as kappalaru (kappal > ship, aru > river) at the coastal village of Periapattinam.
5. A mooring stone, looking like an anchor, made of greywacke sandstone found at Threspuram, a suburb of Tuticorin, planted vertically in the beach about 15 m from the shore line, is even now used for mooring the fishing boats.

The weight of the anchors is calculated based on the computation of the volume of the anchor, deducting the hole portions and multiplying it with the density of the anchor. Kolunski has given the following equation for computing tonnage of vessel from the anchors recovered (assuming they served as the main anchor of the respective vessel) G = 9 D ^2/3, where G is the anchor weight in kilograms and D is displacement in tons[5]. Interestingly, all these anchors have been of later medieval period. Though, the Tamils were reportedly having the rich maritime tradition, none of the material evidences have been found. In fact, for the much acclaimed maritime activities of the Cholas, no such evidences have been found. No interaction / discussion were allowed after his presentation.

stone-anchors-athiyaman-from-his-paper

Keeladi Excavation – K. Amarnath Ramakrishna, Superintendent Archaeology, ASI: I was listening to him for third time. He and his team have discovered a habitat civilzation on the banks of Vaigai through “river based excavation”, after identifying 293 sites, and discovered about 170 sites for one year excavation conducted within five kilometres from the river on both the banks, starting from the place of Vaigai’s origin in Theni district to the very end of the river in Ramanathapuram district. The places were classified as granaries, trading points, ports, habitation sites and living or dilapidated temples. Excavations were carried out at Varushanad in Theni and Azhagankulam in Ramnad. Beads of agate, Carnelian and quartz indicate that they had trade link with countries like Rome. The Tamil Brahmi letters found on pottery is all names of individuals such as, Thisan, Aadhan and Udhiran. They are typical Sangam Age Tamil names. By discovering “habitat sites”, he proved the existence of city formation during the first centuries of current era in the ancient Tamizhagam.  “Through comparative dating, we place this site to be belonging to the 3rd Century B.C., which is over 2,500 years ago. However, the exact age can be arrived at only after carbon dating,” says Amarnath, who has worked on excavations in research of Indus Valley Civilization in parts of Gujarat. He answered the querries raised and points clarified.  He confirmed that the bricks used here did not follow decimal system and cannot be comapared with IVC, however, it was also a “rice based civilization.”

Salvage Archaeology and epigraphical studies – S. Rajavelu, Tamil University, Thanjavur: Interestingly, he game many details about Indian history, the way it was written by the Britishers. He refuted that “real history work” is Rajatarangani, as the British did not use the data available in that work, but, partially.  He pointed out that the date of Asoka as per the work is datable to 700 BCE. As an expert epigraphist, he pointed out that “kovil” was known as “devakulam” and explained how the old inscriptions were preserved by the Chola rulers. One Pallava inscription mentions about Mahendra Varman’s personal doctor was preserved by the Cholas by incrporating in their temple and recording as “pazhangarpadi” [old inscription copy]. Inscriptions were also amended like “Constitution” according to times, pointing out as to how the Uttirameruur inscription dated 917 CE was amended in 921 CE. Sembian Madevi renovated many temples by converting them bricks to granite to withstand more time. She relocated Nandivarman-III inscription salvged from underwater. While Rajarajan renovated Kutralam temple, he changed the script of inscription from vattezhuthu to then current usage-script. The Allahabad pillar contains Asoka, Chandra Gupta and Shahjahan inscriptions proving the importance of the pillar. Really, he proved that salvage archaeology was followed in India by the Indian rulers.

Heritage management – Problems and perspectives – P. D. Balaji, HOD, Dept.of Ancient History and archaeology, University of Madras: After explaining Salvage archaeology, he started narrating how the renovating, preservation works were carried on to resurrect the monuments from Egypt to India. E listed put many factors for the slow decaying, crumbling and falling down of monuments –  Saline Action on Walls and stones, Sculptures, Roots and Vegetation, Trouble caused by Animals and Bats, fungus, Negligence, Humidity, vandalism etc. He gave the interesting example of Sambal where crumbled temples have been resurrected. He also pointed out the renovation work carried on by ASI and others through sand blasting, painting, white-washing,  plumbing, electrical wiring, covering walls and floor with mosaic, granite etc., virtually destroys the traditional aesthetics, mutilates inscriptions and rapes the sculptures.

salvage-conference-29-11-2016-paper-presentation

Technical-paper presentation: Afternoon, research scholars presented their papers. The “salvage archaeology” has confused some of them in general, as connotes, save, recover, rescue, retrieve, reclaim, etc. right inside Chennai, how many monuments are disfigured, misused and destroyed has been pointed out with some examples. Many times, the paper presenters either tried to bring varied issues together in the context or interpreting travel and tourism aspects giving data about tourism. However, how hundreds of temples in and around Chennai have been in ruins and they are neglected, while lakhs and crores are spent on the “European / colonial” monuments under the same bogey of “monuments”!

© K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

01-12-2016

salvage-conference-one-of-the-exhibits-prepared-by-the-students

[1] Four page brochure circulated at the “Rajendra Chola” seminar held at the Madras University on October 21^st and 22^nd 2016.

[2] http://www.tamilnaducollegeevents.in/2016/11/nssahmi-16-national-seminar-on-salvage.html

[3] 30-35 years back, he was my friend and we aere corresponding through letters in those days abut his articles appeared in newspapers. I have his letters in my files.

[4] N. Athiyaman and P. Jayakumar, Ancient anchors off Tamil Nadu coast and ship tonnage analysis ship tonnage analysis, CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 86, NO. 9, 10 MAY 2004.

[5]  The full paper can be downloaded from here: http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/may102004/1261.pdf

 

The 23rd Session of Tamil Nadu History Congress held at the Periyar University, Salem from September 30th to October 2nd, 2016

The 23^rd Session of Tamil Nadu History Congress held at the Periyar University, Salem from September 30^th to October 2^nd, 2016

Periyar University entrance – TNHC held

The Periyar University[1]: The Twenty Third Session of the Tamil Nadu History Congress was held under the auspices of the Department of History, Periyar University, Salem on 30th September, 1st and 2nd October 2016. The Government of Tamil Nadu established the Periyar University at Salem on 17^th September 1997, named after E.V.Ramasamy known as ‘Periyar”, as per the provisions of the Periyar University Act, 1997, covering the area comprising the districts of Salem, Namakkal, Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri. The University got the 12(B) and 2f status from the University Grants Commission and has been reaccredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade in 2015. The University aims at developing knowledge in various fields to realize the maxim inscribed in the logo “Arival Vilayum Ulagu” (Wisdom Maketh World).” The primary objective is the “Holistic development of the students”. It is located on the National Highway (NH7) towards Bangalore at about 8 Kms from New Bus Stand, Salem, well connected by frequent city bus services linking Salem and other places like, Omalur, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri and Mettur.

Periyar-university-guest-house where food arrangement was made. EC members and others were also accommodated

The History department of the Periyar University[2]: The Department of History has been established in the year 2015, i.e, just one year back, in the School of Social Sciences. The Department of History offers two year post-graduate M.A. programme under the guidance of Prof. (Dr.) C. Swaminathan, Vice-chancellor, Periyar University[3]. Incidentally, headed by a Tamil Professor Tamilmaran. As it has been started recently, only few students have joined to pursuit the study of history.

registration-membership – some Life member names found missing

registration-delegate-fees of Rs. 1,000/- collected

The Office nearers of TNHC[4]: The office bearers of the session are as follows:

General Secretary : Dr. N. Rajendran

General President: Dr. C. Balakrishnan  (did not attend)

Vice-Presidents : Dr. S.N. Nageswara Rao, Dr. V. Renganivas, Dr.P.Sabapathy, Joint- Secretaries : Dr. B. Maria John, Dr. T. Lakshmanamoorthy, Mr.D.Sandeep Kumar Treasurer : Dr. S.S. Sundaram

Editor : Dr. M. Raziya Parvin

Advisory Committee : Dr. P. Jagadeesan, Dr. A. Chandrasekaran, Dr.C.K.Sivaprakasam

Executive Committee Members:

1.       Dr. T. Abdul Khadar 2.      Dr. A.Chandra Bose 3.      Dr. C.Chandra Sekar 4.      Dr. Mohamad Nazar 5.      Dr. E. Mohan 6.      Dr. N. Muhamad Husain 7.      Dr. R. Muthukumaran 8.     Dr. P. Nagoor Kani

9.      Dr. M.C.Raja 10.  Thiru. K.V. Ramakrishna Rao 11.   Dr. S. Ravichandran 12.  Dr. R. Saravanan 13.  Dr. R. Stanislas 14.  Dr. K.M. Subramaniam 15.   Dr. A.Thanappan 16.  Dr. K.Venkatesan

General President for the Twenty Third Session: Dr. T.M.Kumaresan.

1. Periyar Auditorium, 2. Pride Building – Senate Hall, 3. Pride Block – Economics Hall, 4. Old science building – Periyr-university-location-google-map

Sectional Presidents[5]: The Political and Administrative History, Social and Economic History, Historiography, Archaeology, Art and Cultural History sections were held as follows: The locations 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been marked in the Google map as shown above.

Sl.No	History section	President	Location
1	Political and Administrative History	Dr. C.Thomas	Arts  block seminar hall
2	Social and Economic History	Dr. H.Munavarjan	Pride block – Senate Hall
4	Historiography	Dr. Shankar Goyal	Pride RHS – Economics seminar Hall –
3	Archaeology, Art and Cultural History	Dr. P.D. Balaji	Old Science block

stage-compering-30-09-2016

30-09-2016-stage-lhs

30-09-2016-stage-rhs

30-09-2016-audience-view

30-09-2016-audience-view-lhs

30-09-2016-audience-view-lhs-backside

The Conference was inaugurated by C. Swaminathanan, as Y. Sudharshan Rao, Chairman of ICHR could not come due to health reasons. T. M. Kumaresan was made the General President. Dr.V.Balambal, Former Professor, Department of Indian History, University of Madras, was honoured by the THNC-2016 as “Historian”. The proceedings volume of the last session was released by C. Swaminathanan. The inagural session was going on till 1.30 pm. After lunch, the paper-reading sessions started at the places as shown in the table above.

TNHC endowment lecture by Maria John and Venkatrman

endowment-lecture-30-09-2016-audience

endowment-lecture-30-09-2016-audience-rhs

Endowment lectures (30-09-2016, evening): Evening, the TNHC Endowment Lecture established by the Government Arts College, Coimbatore, was delivered by Dr. B. Maria John, Former Professor & Head, Department of History, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli on “Linguistic states and National Integration in India”. Dr. G.Viswanathan, Endowment Lecture established by the Dr.G.Viswanathan, Former Vice-Chancellor, Education University, Chennai, was delivered by Dr. G. Venkataraman, Former Professor & Head, Department of Indian History University of Madras, Chennai on “Contribution of women to India’s Freedom Movement”. It was followed by the cultural programme performed by the local college students.

01-10-2016-socio-ecomic-with-sandeepkumar-dasari

socio-economic-paper-reading-30-09-2016

socio-economic-30-09-2016

The second day proceedings (01-10-2016): The paper-reading sessions went on at the places as indicated above. The listed papers were as follows:

Sl.No	History section	No. of papers
1	Political and Administrative History	49
2	Social and Economic History	49
4	Historiography	17
3	Archaeology, Art and Cultural History	34

Many did not turn out and some of the new comers joined the fray to present their papers hurriedly. Most of them presented topics of the nature of rehassing the stuff already available.

1. General nature of papers like Sarojini Naidu, Velu Nachiyar (two papers), Muthulakshmi Reddy, P.J.Abdul Kalam.
2. While some complained about their papers missing in the “List of papers”[6], though sent two months back some papers were listed twice e.g., –
   1. Muhammed Ameen – “Political and Administrative History, Madhuri Sultanate” (sic) [p.no.2 and 4].
   2. Sivasankari’s paper was listed twice in Political-Admn (p.no.6) and Archaeology-Art (p.n0.20).
   3. Anthonysamy in historiography (p.22 and 23)
   4. Selvakumar – two in English and another in Tamil (p.no.5, 6 and 7)
3. Some papers had been of repetitive nature appearing same.
4. Incidentally, Dr Shankar Goyal from Jodhpur does not know Tamil, but, papers were presented in Tamil in his session not only the listed ones. But also, later added from other sections e.g, “Social and Economic History”. Either the sectional presidents should be chosen properly or the papers listed, distributed and accommodated suitably.

01-10-2016-symposium evening

01-10-2016-symposium-stage-another-view

01-10-2016-symposium-audience

01-10-2016-symposium-audience-another-view

ICHR sponsored symposium (01-10-2016): The symposium on “Evolving Kongu society and economy from pre-modern to modern state” was held on October 1^st evening at Senate Hall from 5 .30 to 7.30 pm and the following presented their papers against the topic mentioned[7]:

Sl.No	Person spoke / delivered lecture	Topic
1	Dr. N. Rajendran	Situating Freedom Movement in the Kongu Region
2	Dr. N. Athiyaman	Kongu Region during early Historic period in the light of Vienna Papyrus Document
3	Prof. N. Kanakarathnam	-Did not turn up –
4	Dr. S. Rajavelu	Migration of Kongu Vellalas and their original home on the light of inscriptions
5	Chinthanai Kavingar Dr. Kavidasan	Kongu Society and Culture

Imitation of a Venetian coin, made in India, c.1675-1850 – holed and used as pendant

A Discussion about “Roman coins in India”: When Adhiyaman presented his paper, the question of “Roman coins” in India had again cropped up[8], as there was a discussion about it in the 9^th National Conference on Maritime Archaeology of Indian Ocean Countries held at the Tamil University on February 20^th and 21^st 2016. At that time when Roberta Tumbler presented her paper there, the question was discussed. As for as the Roman coins were concerned, first she mentioned that “……….the few items of similar value ……….was gold and silver – which was traded in the form of coinage”, however, “In most cases these coins were not used monetarily, but as bullion.” This was pointed out by many scholars[9]. In other words, Indians purchased or exchanged them as scrap for melting and rarely used as pendants. That is why some coins found had holes, but, interestingly, they were duplicate and manufactured dated to 18^th cent. CE. Her over emphasis about the usage of vessels by Indians and forceful interpretation about them were also intriguing. P. L. Gupta pointed out about the bullion value of circulation of Roman coins in India along with wine and women. Very often, faithful Indian women were contrasted with venal Roman women[10]. Of course, many western scholars have also pointed out as to how the Roman women were so crazy about Indian beryls for their ear-drops[11]. How pepper import from India drained their annual bullion – 50 million sesterces[12] – was also well known. Contact with India affected bullion prices within Roman territories and Eastern trade developed, the Roman monetary system became less representative of actual bullion values on the Roman market[13].  When the Roman Empire collapsed, their coins were traded for metal value. As barter system was there, the European, Arab and African merchants were using metals as means of buying India goods. It has to be noted that when the ancient civilizations rose, fell and disappeared, the Indian civilization has been continuing attracting the other civilizations.

Roman-coins-treated-as-bullion-and-not-as-currency

The Third day proceedings (02-10-2016): The paper-reading session went on up to 11am. Then, there was general body meeting held the Senate hall till 12.00 pm. The valedictory function started immediately. Prof Dr M. Bhaskaran, VC of Tamil Nadu Open University was the Chief guest facilitated. In his speech, as usual the dilemma of the question of “history” subject haunted, as he was explaining about the development of Science and Technology in the digital domination. After lunch, the delegates started going to their destinations.  Thus, the 23^rd session of TNHC was over, but, the members would be meeting again in 2017 at Pondicherry as decided.

K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

04-10-2016

02-10-2016-valedictory-function

02-10-2016-valedictory-function-audience

[1] http://www.periyaruniversity.ac.in/?page_id=7

[2] http://www.tnhc.org.in/docs/circulars/circular2_2016.pdf

[3] http://www.periyaruniversity.ac.in/?page_id=2973

[4] http://www.tnhc.org.in/docs/circulars/circular1_2016.pdf

 

[5] http://www.periyaruniversity.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Invitation-Final.pdf

[6] List of Papers issued by the hosting Department of History, Periyar University of 23 pages.

[7] http://www.periyaruniversity.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Invitation-final-1.pdf

[8] https://kvramakrishnarao.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/the-proceedings-of-the-9th-national-conference-on-marine-archaeology-of-indian-ocean-countries-held-at-the-tamil-university-thanjavur-on-february-20th-and-21st-2016/

[9] Steven E. Sidebotham,   Roman Economic Policy in the Erythra Thalassa: 30 B.C.-A.D. 217, Leiden E. J. Brill, 1986, p.28.

[10] Grant Parker, The Making of Roman India, Cambridge University Press, London, 2008, 91.

[11] Michael Grant, Roman History from Coins: Some Uses of the Imperial Coinage to the Historian, Cambridge University Press, 1968, p.84

[12] A silver or bronze coin of ancient Rome equivalent to one fourth of a denarius

[13] Raoul McLaughlin, Rome and the Distant East: Trade Routes to the Ancient Lands of Arabia, India and china, Continuum, New Zealand, 2010, p.169.

The Mahabharatam conference concluded at Tirupati on 11th January 2014 that started on 7th – the proceedings (3)

The Mahabharatam conference concluded at Tirupati on 11^th January 2014 that started on 7^th – the proceedings (3)

 

Manohar (the driver), K. V. Ramakrishna Rao (myself), Venkatesh (transport coordinator)

The first two postings of the conference have been posted under captions as follows and their internet links are given in the footnotes:

 

1. The proceedings of the international conference on Mahabharatam held at Tirupati from 7^th to 11^th January 2014[1].
2. The International conference on Mahabharatam held at Tirupati from 7^th to 11^th January 2014 – the proceedings (2)[2].

 

On the last day of the conference, the vehicle came to Vishnu Nivasam by 8.40am and the transport co-coordinator Sri Venkatesh, as he himself introduced so, had been indifferent in informing the delegates about the schedule. He said that the persons in Room.no.530 were informed about it and they would have in turn informed the delegates in the rooms. By 9.00 slowly the delegates started coming out. The Bengali group came from Calcutta immediately started enquiring about “Tirucchanur” and went away leaving only dozen delegates to reach the conference venue. The dozen delegates were taken to the venue for breakfast and further proceedings of the day.

 

Vishnu Nivasam – the majestic, grand and God’s gift, where the delegates were accommodated

Last day paper-reading sessions (11-01-2014): The crowd, seen at the breakfast, was not seen at the paper-reading session. In fact, one of the organizers was questioning the registered delegates of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Tirupati as to why and how they were coming and going without attending the sessions[3]. As few paper-presenters were there, there was delay in deciding to hold the sessions. Therefore, all the three sections were decided to be held at nearby places instead of the printed schedule. Thus, the Sanskrit and Telugu sections continued at the ORI Hall and SVU Arts block Auditorium and the English was accommodated at one class room of ORI, first floor. 5-7 delegates were at the “Sanskrit”, 10-12 at the “English” and more than 50 in the “Telugu” sections. Neither of the Sanskrit or the Telugu paper presenters never cared to brief about their paper in English.  They were interested in presenting papers and going away. Only the outstation delegates (Calcutta and Chennai) were present to listen to them till valedictory function.

 

Narashiman, Gynana Prakash and others can be seen after breakfast on 11-01-2014

Narashiman, Gynana Prakash and others can be seen after breakfast on 11-01-2014 – the place of paper-presentation was discussed.

The building where Sanskrit and English sessions were held on 11-01-2014

The building where Sanskrit and English sessions were held on 11-01-2014 – here, five institutes / centres have been accommodated – Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, ORI, Centre for Gandhian Studies, Centre for Human Rights and Centre for Peace and non-violence.

Delegates standing to go after confirmation of the hall

Delegates standing here and there to go after confirmation of the hall.

4-5 delegates sitting in the Sanskrit section on 11-01-2014 morning

4-5 delegates sitting in the Sanskrit section on 11-01-2014 morning before the paper-presentation started.

4-5 delegates sitting in the Sanskrit section on 11-01-2014 morning during paper-presentation

4-5 delegates sitting in the Sanskrit section on 11-01-2014 morning during paper-presentation – the position did not change! The delegate who was sitting was now presenting his paper.

The sectional president Dr Krishna Reddy came by 9.48 am and thus he apologized for the delay and started presenting his paper Dr Krishna Reddy came by 9.48 am and thus he apologized for the delay and started presenting his paper “Influence of Mahabharat on inscriptions”. 

Dr Krishna Reddy came by 9.48 am and thus he apologized for the delay and started presenting his paper “Influence of Mahabharat on inscriptions”.

Krishna Reddy presenting paper at the English section

Krishna Reddy presenting paper at the English section – the sitting audience can also bee seen. Only 8 delegates were there and all were paper presenters!

Telugu section was held at SVU Arts block Auditorium where 34 delegates were there

Telugu section was held at SVU Arts block Auditorium where 34 delegates were there and it continued up to 1.30 pm. The paper-presenter was virtually giving some sort of religious discourse! Dr Sri Sayee Kamalakara Sharma was chairing the session.

Audience / delegates sitting at the Telugu section on 11-01-2014

The view of the audience from the podium and behind the paper-presenter at the Telugu section.

Audience / delegates sitting at the Telugu section on 11-01-2014

Audience / delegates sitting at the Telugu section on 11-01-2014 – another view.

Dr Mukharanna started but suddenly concluded!

Dr Mukharanna started but suddenly concluded! – he was presenting a paper on Swami Vivekananda and Bhagawat Gita.

The sticker pasted on the car provoked me and its presence here!

The sticker pasted on the car with “International Conference on Mahabharatam” and “Dharmo rakshcita raksitaha” logo provoked me and its presence here!

The valedictory function was to be held at 11.00 am

Sessions started slowly, but completed by noon: The sectional president Dr Krishna Reddy came by 9.48 am and thus he apologized for the delay and started presenting his paper “Influence of Mahabharat on inscriptions”. Here, I asked him about the Aihole inscription mentioning about the date of Mahabharat, as he did not mention it. He accepted about the inscription. Two days back, when I pointed out about it, Dr Kiran Kranth Chaudary refuted that there was no such inscription[4]. Therefore, I questioned (Dr Krishna Reddy here) and he said the inscription was there. Of course, I too know that it is there. The point is why Dr Kiran Kranth Chaudary should have denied its existence.  Then, others followed the suit, but, they took more than 20 and 30 minutes, whereas, hitherto only 5 to 10 minutes were given. It is ironical that the abstract, discourse-sermon type papers were given more time and they went on reading without looking at the audience, talking repeating what others had already said, singing verses, showing off their eloquence of Sanskrit and Telugu languages instead of giving importance to the subject matter. Such type of scholars, pundits and sermonizers came in traditional dress with all paraphernalia, but wasted time in addressing the organizing to chairman and others and tanking all. After five minutes, they started introducing their subject matter, which was just rehash and then started reading their papers!

Vyasa Mahabharatam sidelined: None (with the exception of a few out of more than 500) bothered about the Vyasa Mahabharatam or the critical edition of BORI[5]. In the Telugu session, more than 90% depended upon only Telugu version and reciting telugu verses and poetry also. Some of them were performing some sort of religious discourses. Therefore, their presentation could not go with the textual, contextual, chronological and historical perspectives. One scholar at the Telugu session pointed out the irrelevance of the papers presented due to the lacking of authority, as the paper presenters resorted to present some sort of apocryphal stories. The rehashing exercises led to compound, confound, confuse, mix, and remix so many things without any plan or plane of reference in any angle. Had they followed the critical edition, the presentation would have led to some new interpretations, discoveries and solving the historical puzzles. Incidentally, in spite of the label “International Conference”, no foreign delegate was found, as has already been pointed out. Coming to the level of “National Conference”, the papers presented in Sanskrit and Telugu could not be followed by the delegates who do not follow or understand these two languages. In fact, the proceedings of the international conferences have to be conducted in English for understanding. Even national conferences have to be conducted in English, as delegates from different states of India do not know Sanskrit and Telugu[6].

 

1. Prof Samudram Lakshmayya, Special Invitee.
2. Dr Kiran Kranth Chaudary.
3. Dr Sathiyavelu Reddy, Registrar, Chief Guest.

The valedictory function held on 11-01-2014: The valedictory function was to be held at 11.00 am and the conference was to be wound up by lunch, but for the reasons (of course, the organizing director of ORI suddenly fell ill), it was started by 2.42 pm and concluded by 4.16 pm. Unlike the inaugural function, it was confined to the Senate Hall, where English section was held. Only the following were there to conclude the conference with the valediction:

 

1. Prof Samudram Lakshmayya, Special Invitee.
2. Dr Kiran Kranth Chaudary.
3. Dr Sathiyavelu Reddy, Registrar, Chief Guest.

 

Kiran Kranth Chaudary, Samudram Lakshmayya, Sathiyavelu Reddy addressing at the valedictory function

Sri Gynana Prakash invited the delegates, informing that the Director Venkata Ramana Reddy suddenly developed fever running to 104⁰C and thus, he could not attendand asked Dr Kiran Kranth Chaudary to conduct the proceedings of the valediction. He was expressing that the conference went on smoothly and quickly without knowledge, deliberations went on well in all sections, and the food was tasteful for all delegates and so on. He congratulated the ORI members and staff for the successful conduct of the conference. He requested the delegates to point out the lapses, if any, so that they could be set right in future conferences.

Registrar’s generalized speech: Sri Sathiyavelu Reddy spoke that he understood that a lot of discussion had taken place in the proceedings. Recalled about the Acharyas important messages given during the inaugural session about the Mahabharat. He thanked the Director Venkata Ramana Reddy and his team for the successful conduct of the conference.

 

The view of the audience attending the Valedictory function out of more than 600 registered delegates

Advice to the researchers by the Special Invitee: Samudram Lakhamayya in his speech pointed out some nuances of Mahabharat critically. Expressing that “the Vedas are proof”, he said, “do thing that is applicable to human-beings and not any other thing” i.e, doing good thing to humanity is welcome in any form. Thus, the conduct of the conference was also a good thing, as Vedas had prescribed. “As Valmiki claimed that his work would be there as long as the mountains, rivers and other are on the earth, Vyasa also said as long as the human and moral values are there, his work would continue on the earth. We all know that the Mahabharta enlarged to the present version. Ramayana contains 24,000 verses, Mahabharat – 1,00,000 and Puranas – > 4,00,000. When modern facilities were not available, how could they have composed, written down and preserved among the humanity? Whjen 40 lakh soldiers were standing face to face to fight, how the two persons Krishna and Arjuna could have gone on discussing about philosophy on the battle field? Therefore, the Bhagawatgita was interpolated one into Maharabharata. Who gave authority to enlarge the text? God himself, because, Vyasa himself did that as per the directions of God for the welfare of the humanity[7]. Krishna claimed that he was Vyasa. Therefore, researchers should investigate the Mahabharat to bring out more truth about it, instead of worshipping it as “Panchama Veda”. (The Fifth Veda). [In fact, he has given the research methodology for the researchers in choosing the source material, consulting the primary sources and then come for paper presentation[8]].

 

Another view of the audience attending the Valedictory function out of more than 600 registered delegates

The feedback, reaction and response of the delegates: As decided, he started calling names of the chosen delegates from his list to come and feedback. When the feedback, reaction and response of the delegates were called for, the following responded as follows:

 

Dr Mrs Ratna Basu, Calcutta: Her speech had been full of appreciation [Generally, those who were taken care of would not criticize the organizers, as has been the practice and I have been noticing this more than 35 years attending more than 500 national and international conferences, seminars, workshops etc.].

 

Yet another view of the audience attending the Valedictory function out of more than 600 registered delegates

Dr Sri Sayee Kamalakara Sharma: He pointed out that more than 600 papers were presented and urged that they should be brought out in the form of book, after separating them into different groups. As many papers had been repetitive and not up to the mark, they should be thoroughly scrutinized, reviewed and edited before publication. Those papers which were not properly presented should be sent back for revision and resubmission. If some topics were left out, papers can be invited and included in the book. Just like the Mahabharata conference conducted for five days, a conference on the Puranas can be conducted and for 18 days, as each Purana could be discussed for one day [He was conducting the Telugu section and appreciating all paper presenters and papers positively. When I pointed out the critical edition should be followed to avoid repetition, chronological confusion etc., he defended that even for the Telugu versions critical editions should be prepared and papers presented. Except these two, the following delegates have responded differently as could be noted from their speech].

 

Yet another view of the audience attending the Valedictory function out of more than 600 registered delegates

Dr Mrs Malayavilasini, Visakapatnam: “Really, it was strange that the conference was held for five days, when the marriages completed within five hours nowadays. Here, for paper presentation, it was unfortunate that only 5 minutes were given that was not at all enough[9]. If the organizers had already decided that only 5 to 10 minutes would be given for presentation, then they should have been asked to come with such summary earlier to comply with the time limits. Not only time factor, but also quality of papers was not good, as many papers delved upon the same subject again and again” [perhaps. She was given 5 to 10 minutes and thus, she pointed out, but, this has been the experience of others also. I was also given only the same time, though I touched upon historicity of Mahabharat].

 

Dr Mrs Sathyavani, Chennai: “One should tell that all is good, but also should tell that everything is not good. Therefore, I decided to tell the drawbacks observed in the conference, for which I seek the apology and indulgence from the organizers. I sat in all the Telugu, Sanskrit and English sections, but I found that paper-presenters were simply going out, the moment their papers were over. They should have courtesy to sit back and listen to others also. They should not behave in such manner, as if others did not have work or they were also in urgent and thus could have gone away, instead of sitting and listen to others. If anyone wanted to chide me on this account, he can and come do so, she challenged. Many papers were presented without any references or sources, ironically papers presented based on the stories of cinema, drama, TV serials and so on” [But, sizeable papers presented had been just on such topics without caring for the original source].

 

Sri Khetrapal Reddy, Student: “Many papers appreciated that Mahabharat contained everything and so on, but its other side also should subjected to study. He asserted that Mahabharata contained many blunders, mistakes and incorrect things, which also should be subjected to study and discuss. Claiming that he was questioning others in the session pointing out such blunders, he wanted that they should be distinguished for research separately” [he was talking something tangentially or keeping something in mind that was not revealed explicitly].

 

The other side of story of accommodation of papers: Responding to the criticism of the quality and quantity of the papers, Dr Kiran Kranth Chaudary confessed that there was a lot of pressure from VC, Registrar and others to accept papers of particular individuals and they had to accommodate. In fact, as I pointed out already, on p.no.101, there were 7 names listed, but their titles missing / not appearing, obviously, they did not sent or their names listed and accommodated, because they happened to be VIPs, e.g,  – the Liasion officer of Southern Railways, Managing Director of BASIL, Bangalore[10]. Even on last day, they received papers and they had to be accommodated them accordingly. Another representative of the organizers clarified that the recedived papers had been listed subject wise only, as could be noted from the “Schedule” booklet, but the papers received late, on spot-registration  and as well as from the “recommended categories” only disturbed the schedule confusing the subject wise categorization. Also, there were delegates, who wanted them to be accommodated on a first slot, so that they could present paper and go away on the pretext that they had to leave immediately, as they had to catch their train or bus.

 

Leaving Tirupati: After the valedictory session, the left-out delegates disappeared immediately as usual. The outstation delegates were waiting for the bus. They were informed that first the bus would come at Senate Hall then they informed it would come the venue where the valedictory function was held, but they were asked to go to the place where food was served. Sri Gynana Prakash contacted the driver and informed that the bus would come within ten minutes. After 15 minutes, some other person came and informed that the bus would come within 15 minutes! Already it was 4.50 pm. As the time was ticking away and my train was at 5.55 pm, I decided to take an auto and go. I went to Vishnu Nivasam by taking an auto, vacated the room immediately, retuned the key, and proceeded to station to catch my train. Sri Mukkaranna (a lecturers in Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidhyapeeth and nowadays I am meeting him in APHC etc) accompanied me till the train started moving.

Myself- sitting in the front row, taking photos and writing down the notes of the proceedings including this!

---

[1] https://kvramakrishnarao.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/the-proceedings-of-the-international-conference-on-mahabharatam-held-at-tirupati-from-7th-to-11th-january-2014/

[2] https://kvramakrishnarao.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/the-international-conference-on-mahabharatam-held-at-tirupati-from-7th-to-11th-january-2014-the-proceedings-2/

[3] When enquired, it was learnt that they were working as teachers etc., in different organizations, schools etc. and as they did not give leave, they had to come for presentation and go away.

[4] He presented a paper on the sculptural representation of “Kritarjunaiyam” and dating thereof, chairing session at the Senate Hall. At that time, I asked him about the inscription and dating of the sculptures.

[5] http://www.bori.ac.in/mahabharata_project.html

[6] Most of the proceedings were conducted in Telugu and the speakers also delivered their speeches in Telugu.

[7]  8,800 verses attributed to Vyasa, Bharata with 24,000 verses as recited by Vaisampayana, and finally the Mahabharata as recited by Ugrasrava Sauti with over 100,000 verses.

[8] My comments are given in the square brackets.

[9] As mentioned elsewhere, some took more than half an hour, even though their papers had been of repetitive nature, rehashing and uninteresting.

[10] Perhaps, they might have sponsored something or donated for the souvenir etc.

The International conference on Mahabharatam held at Tirupati from 7th to 11th January 2014 – the proceedings (2)

The International conference on Mahabharatam held at Tirupati from 7^th to 11^th January 2014 – the proceedings (2)

 

Paper reading session – Telugu – Psychology seminar hall

The myth of International Conference: No foreign delegate was found anywhere, at any time of the proceedings of the Conference. As already mentioned that one name Nicolas de Jenne had been mentioned as a delegate from France but she did not turn up though one summary-paper was found in the souvenir[1]. On enquiry from the delegate of French Institute of Indology, Pondicherry, it was learned that she came to Pondicherry for some purpose and she left India in December 2013 itself. Therefore, the nature and position of “International status” was not there in the conduct of the conference. However, for “Mahabharatam”, it is not required, yet the delegates could not have done justice academically as discussed below.

 

Paper reading session – English – Senate hall

The academic / paper-reading sessions: The first day / inaugural function details have been posted here. From 2.30 to 3.30 pm, a special lecture was arranged in which Prof S. A. R. P. V. Chatuvedi Swamy spoke again as usual as in the inaugural session. Now, the academic proceedings are discussed. As has been already mentioned, a Souvenir containing the abstracts of the papers was published and distributed to the delegates. It also contained the names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail of the registered delegates. A booklet was also there containing the “Schedule of parallel session”. The paper reading sessions were listed as LXVII / 68 with the number of papers listed as follows:

 

Paper reading session – English – SVU Arts Block Auditorium

Sl. No	Language in which the papers submitted	No. of papers listed
1	English	102
2	Sanskrit	175
3	Telugu	142
Total		419

 

Paper reading session – English – Senate Hall

It was reported that more than 500 delegates registered themselves with the Conference, but ironically in the paper-reading sessions, hardly 20-30 delegates were seen on the first day. From the second day onwards, the strength dwindled down to 3-4 delegates at each session, where they happened to be paper-presenters only. In other words, the last paper-presenter was left with the sectional president only. Incidentally, the paper-presenters had been lecturers, Assistant Professors, professors, readers etc., but they too did not have the patience of sitting and listening to others, but preset papers and walk out of the halls. The sessions were held in different halls as follows:

 

Paper reading session – English – Senate Hall

1. SUV Senate Hall (Administrative building)
2. ORI building (Tirupanalwar Bhawan).
3. SVU Arts block Auditorium (Vamana Rao Bhawan).
4. Psychology Seminar Hall.

 

Paper reading session – English – English department class room

While the first has been little bit away from the ORI, the other three have been nearby. They were held at the following timings:

• 9.30 to 11.00 am;
• 11.00 to 11.30 – Tea break;
• 11.30 to 1.00 pm;
• 1.00 to 2.00 pm – lunch;
• 2.00 to 3.30 pm;
• 3.30 to 4.00 pm – tea break;
• 4.00 to 5.30 pm.

 

Paper reading session – English – English department class room

Cultural programmes:  On the first day (07-01-2014) “Sangita Geyadhara” Vocal Karnatic programme was held from 7.00 to 8.00 pm. Sri Sai Krishna Yachendra, Maharaja of Venkatagiri sang according to the words and expressions proposed by others in the context of Mahabharat, and connected epic characters etc. The Second day evening (08-01-2014), Sri Sathyanarayana demonsrated his painting skills according to the suggestive descriptions given orally and through singing. He could draw the drawings, sketches within minutes depicting the suggestions given by the audience.

Sri Sathyanarayana demonsrated his painting skills according to the suggestive descriptions given orally and through singing

It was followed by Sri Muni Raju’s Yoga demonstration. He also responded to the querries raised by the audience about Yoga. Third day (09-01-2014), some Bharatanatyam programme was organized, but as only four persons were there on the audience side, it was cancelled. The artists who came there to perform went away with disappointment. Actually, there was communication gap between the organizers and the delegates and the latter too had been very indifferent in attending the conference.

 

Sri Sai Krishna Yachendra, Maharaja of Venkatagiri sang according to the words and expressions proposed by others in the context of Mahabharat

The number of delegates: Though the strength of the registered delegates increased to more than 500 on the fourth day, the attending delegates had been 50-100 only. 170 registered from Rastriya Sanskrit Vidhyapeeth, Tirupati, but, they did not attend the sessions. The organizers were seen questioning them about their nature of not-attending the sessions. Another reason attributed to the sudden surge of the local delegate registration had been due to the attraction of the credit marks obtained.  As some marks were given for the M.Phil / Ph.D students, they registered, presented papers, got certificate and went away. Thus, it is evident that they attended the Conference just for the sake of getting certificates only.

 

Srinivasam Hall where inuagural and cultural programmes were held

Srinivasam Hall

Sri Srinivasam Hall – full view

Standard of the papers presented: A careful reading of the summaries of papers contained in the Souvenir showed that many papers had been of the nature of repetitive, delving upon the same subject-matter and uninteresting. Even the titles of the papers had been same, similar and identical too. For example – the encyclopedic nature of Mahabharata, Science in Mahabharata, ethics and moral values in Mahabharata etc., In the English session, under the guise of joint papers, “in absentia” type presentation was allowed and it is not correct. In fact, in one session, a paper was read by a student, while the author did not attend the conference. The editor of the Souvenir did not take care to scrutinize, but simply taken them up for printing accommodating everything. In fact, on p.no.101, there were 7 names listed, but their titles missing / not appearing, obviously, they did not sent or their names listed, because they happened to be VIPs, e.g,  – the Liasion officer of Southern Railways, Managing Director of BASIL, Bangalore.

 

Senate Hall – here English sessions held

Suggested Topics for Presenting Papers: In the brochure, the following topics were suggested for paper preparation and presentation:

 

Paper presenting session – English – Senate Hall

THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE SRIMAD MAHABHARATA

(Some of the Suggested Topics for Presenting Papers)

 

Paper presenting session – English – Senate Hall

TEXTUAL STUDIES

 

Paper presenting session – English – Senate Hall

1. The Uniqueness of Mahabharata and its Widest Popularity as an Indian Epic.

2. The Connotation of the word “ITIHASA” and its justification in the context of

Mahabharata.

3. Why the Mahabharata has been called as “PANCAMSVEDA”?

4. The concept of “UPABRMHANS” and the Mahabharata Itihasa.

5. The disciples of Vyasa – PAILA, SUMANTA, JAIMINI AND VAISAMPAYANA –

their contribution for the growth of the corpus of Mahabharata text.

6. As an epic writer Vyasa his Unique Personality and a multi – faceted genius.

7. Bharatadesa and Mahabharata became synonymous its mutual identification with the

heart of the epic.

8. The Vaisampayana version of Mahabharata, the Corpus of the text as it is available

today and its validity.

9. Jaimini Bharata text and its relevance with that of Vaisampayana version.

10. An Encyclopedic character of Mahabharata – A Study.

11. The Critical Edition of Mahabharata of B.O.R.I., PUNE, – Methodology followed in

the Critical Edition – Corpus of the critically edited text – An assessment.

12. The prolegomena of the Critical Edition of Adiparva of Prof. V.S. SUKTHANKAR –

his major contribution towards the Indian Textual Criticism.

 

13. UR – MAHABHARATA – ‘JAYA’ – Redection of the text of 1,25,000 Slokas and

8800 slokas – The Critesice of principles followed in redection.

14. The growth of the text of Mahabharata – JAYA – BHARATA – MAHABHARATA –

whether the historical necessity or the narrative techniques or both, that promoted for

the growth – Justification.

15. Whether the interpolation theory is valid and accepted with present day Indological

research in the textual criticism of an epic like Mahabharata and the Ramayana?

16. The Contribution of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune towards the

Ancley of Mahabharata.

17. Different Critical Edition of MBH before the BORI Critical Edition and its solvent

features.

18. Index of the Names in Mahabharata by N. SORENSEN – A Study.

 

SCHOLARS ON MAHABHARATA – INDIA AND ABROAD

1. Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. P.V KANE, on the Indian Epics especially on Mahabharata.

2. Sri Aurobindo on vyasa on Mahashavak.

3. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan on Mahashavak.

4. Dr.S.N. Das Gupta on Mahashavak.

5. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy on Mahashavak.

6. Prof. V.S. Sukthankar on the Meaning of Mahabharata.

7. Prof. V.S. Agarvala on the Mahabharata.

8. Mm. Gopinath Kaviraj on Mahabharata.

9. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa on Bharathadesa and Mahabharatha.

10. Swami Vivekananda on Mahabharatha.

11. Mahatma Gandhi on the Mahabharata.

12. Swami Ranganatha Nanda on the Mahabharata.

13. Bhagawan Sri Satya Saibaba on Mahabharata.

14. Prof. Kapila Vatsayana on Mahabharata.

15. Prof. Satyavrat Sastri on Mahabharata.

16. Prof. R.N. Damodar on Mahabharata.

17. Prof. V. Raghavan on Mahabharata.

18. Critical Edition of BORI Mahabharata Edition, Pune.

 

WESTERN SCHOLARS ON MAHABHARATA

19. F. Max Miller on Mahabharata.

20. Sir William Joules on Mahabharata.

21. Wintexnotoz on Mahabharata.

22. H.G. Wells on Mahabharata.

23. A.B.Keith on Mahabharata.

24. Edwin Arnold on Mahabharata.

25. Mower Williams on Mahabharata.

26. A.K. Warder on Mahabharata.

27. David Frowley (pt. Vamadeva Sastri) on Mahabharata.

28. Arthor Aralon on Mahabharata.

 

HISTORICAL STUDIES

1. Sri krishna as depicated in Mahabharata – An assessment of his personality.

2. Historicity of Sri Krishna on the basis of the text of Mahabharata.

3. The recent Marine Archarolopice evidences of the “Lost City of Dwaraka” with

special reference to Bhagavatam and Mahabharata.

4. Historical Date and genealogies of kings in Mahabharata.

5. Assronomical date as evidenced by Mahabharata.

6. Cultural life on revealed in Mahabharata.

7. The date of Mahabharata war based on Astronomical date and different View points.

8. Flora and Fauna in the Mahabharata

9. The Mahabharata War fare – different Vyuhas and their inner meanings

10. Weapons used in the Mahabharata

11. Arts and Architectural Techniques and skills in Mahabharata

12. Ethics and Moral values in Mahabharata

13. Purusharthas and Mahabharata – An indepth study of the problem of Mahabharata

14. Political Ideas as depicted in Mahabharata

15. Politics v/s Ethics in the Mahabharata

16. Educational System in the Mahabharata Period

17. Fine Arts as described in Mahabharata

18. Paintings, Mural Art on Mahabharata Theme in Royal Palaces, Temple and Mutts in

India

19. Sculptures on Mahabharata Theme especially Kiratarjuniya Sculptures and its

significance.

20. History and Religious Ideas as dealt in the Mahabharata – ie., the orgin and

development of Vasudeva, Sattvata, Bhagavata and Pancaratra Cults emerged during

Mahabharata period.

 

COMMENTARIES ON MAHABHARATA

1. Nelakantha Bhasya on Mahabharata and its Unique place.

2. Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya of Ananda Tirtha according to Madhva Philosophy

3. Uttara Gita Vyakhya of Goudapadacharya

 

STUDIES IN ETHICS & MORALS IN MAHABHARATA

1. Contextual wise – sayings of Vyasa in the Mahabharata

2. Vidura Niti of Mahabharata

3. Kanika Niti of Mahabharata

4. Dhaumya Niti of Mahabharata

5. Yakshaprasna of Mahabharata

6. Stutis & Stotras in Mahabharata

7. Bhismastava Raja of Mahabharata

8. Sanatsujatiya of Mahabharata

9. Spiritual sayings in Bhagavad Gita

10. Human Values in Mahabharata

11. Values of Righteousness (Dharmica) in Mahabharata

12. Philosophical sayings in Mahabharata

13. Arthavadas in Mahabharata

 

MAHABHARATA AND BHAGAVAD GITA

1. Bhagavad Gita as an essence of Mahabharata – ie., as a nucleus of an itihasa and its

central philosophy of life.

2. Among the 18 chapters of Bhagavad Gita, which yoga is held supreme in the context

of Mahabharata

3. Balagangadara Tilak on his Gitarahasya commentary of Bhagavad Gita who

advocated Karma yoga as the supreme message of Gita during the Indian

Independence Movement.

4. Adisankara and Gitabashya – A Study.

5. Srimad Ramanuja and Bhagavadgita – A study.

6. Mula granda of Ananda tertha on Bhagavadgita.

7. Nimbarka, Vallabha and Chaitanya on Bhagavadgita.

8. Sri Arabindo on Mahabharata.

9. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa on Bhagavadgita.

10. Swami Vivekananda on Bhagavadgita.

11. Bakthi Vedanta Swami prabhupada on Bhagavadgita.

12. AbhinavaGuptas Commentry on Bhagavadgita called as “Gitartha Sangraha” – A

Study.

13. Prof. S.K. Belvalkars critical edition of Bhagavadgita.

14. Different Schools of Phylosophy on Bhagavadgita.

15. Edvin Arnold on Bhagavadgita – “The Light of Asia”.

16. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan’s translation of Bhagavadgita and Gitartha in his own words.

17. Mr. P.V. Kane on Bhagavadgita

18. DR. S.N. Dasgupta on Bhagavadgita

19. Dr. V.S. Agarwal on Bhagavadgita

20. Dr. Anand K commentary on Bhagavadgita

21. Uttaragita and its significance with that of Bhagavadgita

22. Uttaragita and its different commentaries

 

SYMBOLICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES ON MAHABHARATA

1. Dream Psychology in Mahabharata – (or) Analysis of different dreams in

Mahabharata

2. Kriya and Duryodhana – is it a dream or symbolical study of the Psychology of

Duryodhana?

3. Symbolical study of Mahabharata

4. Psychological studies in the characterization of certain characters in Mahabharata –

Ex : Sanskrit, Duryodhana, Karna, Drona, Dharmaraja and Draupadi etc.

5. Psychology v/s Human Behaviour (Pourusha) as depicted in the Mahabharata

character.

 

JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND PROCEDURE IN MAHABHARATA

1. Judicial system and Justice in Mahabharata

2. Crime and punishment in Mahabharata

3. The origin of crime in the itihasa of Mahabharata

4. Pastimes in Mahabharata i.e., Dicing, gambling etc.

5. Dharmasastra and Mahabharata

6. Arthasastra and Mahabharata

7. and Mahabharata

8. Is Balarama a green revolunist? i.e., “Nadimatrika Vyavasaya” is the constitution of

Balarama.

 

LITERARY STUDIES AND ALANKARASASTRA

1. Upkhyana in Mahabharata

2. The Narrative Technique of story telling in Mahabharata

3. Anandavardhana’s Dhuvyaloka in Mahabharata and Abhinavagupta locana on it.

4. Whether the primary sentiment of Mahabharata is santarasa substitute the major

sentiment.

5. Who is the real hero of Mahabharata of Vyasa? Whether Srikrishna or Dharmaraja

Elucidate the viewpoint

6. Different types of Upakhyana’s in Mahabharata

7. Characterization in Mahabharata – Different characters major and minor characters.

 

In fact, the person (s), who prepared the suggested topics had applied his / their mind(s) in deep in selecting the titles, but the paper-presenters had not taken efforts to select different topics, instead, they had chosen to confide the repeated topics. The papers concerning “Historical studies” were found only few.

 

Most of the paper-presenters in spite of their status as lecturer, guest lecturer, Academic counselor, Assistant Professor, Professor, or research scholar, research officer, or B.A, M.A, M.Phil, Ph.D students or Sanskrit / Telugu teacher etc., had not bother to sit, attend and participate in the sessions. They came, presented papers got certificates and went away and they were not seen again. Ironically, some came in batch / group of 3-5 and did the same, of course duly taking photographs.

K. V. Ramakrishna Rao with Venkata Ramana Reddy

---

[1] Nicolas de Jenne, The Contribution of French Indologist Smt Madeleine Biardeau (1922-2010) to Mahabharata studies, p.19