Competing Equalities: Law and the Backward Classes in India

By M. Galanter. 1984

tion are more promising areas of inquiry because they do not depend for their explanatory power on our ability to pinpoint precise historical settings. The limitations of this approach is that the myths and rituals appear to be in free fall, suspended somewhere in the historical process without clear and specific contexts, thus giving the interpreter more license to read contemporary interpretive concerns into the texts. The historical contexts are important in principle; it is simply the case that there is so little to go on and that a more interesting conversation with the materials of the tradition is to be found in thematic, structural and theological areas'. Well all right, but the weakness of this method is that everything comes out the same; everything is a 'myth' from the stories in the oldest Puranas to the sectarian inventions of quite recent mahatymyas and sthalapuranas which are likely to be as much the product of individual invention as is Paradise Lost. The Gdtha of Namadeva which works the celebration of Ganesecaturthl into the Balakrsna story, translated not entirely accurately on pp. 148—9, is in such modern-sounding Marathi, is without antecedents and yet so obviously calqued on the usual Krsna mouth story, that it is palpably the creation of some latter-day Namadeva. The well-known tale from Gurucaritra on p. 138 is only well known since Gurucaritra. Although the account given is taken from Ghurye's Gods and men, there is no mention of Ghurye's, I think correct, opinion that the introduction of Ganesa into this episode, which of course has parallels in other linga stories, was a specific invention of Sarasvati Gangadhara. You need an obstacle to stop Ravana taking Siva's pranalinga back to Lanka. Who better than Vighnesvara? Turn him into a small boy to get under Ravana's guard. When Ravana finds that Ganapati has set the linga down and it is now immovable he can do nothing but clout the child and then Ganapati cries and rolls on the ground and dashes off saying 'I'll tell my dad'. The whole episode is comic, verging on the ribald. Admittedly Courtright is careful to refer to this only as a story, but when it is embedded in these chapters devoted to the 'Mythology of Ganesa' one feels that one must be constantly alert to the nature of the evidence offered. Incidentally Mahabalesvara does not, of course, mean 'the great child-lord' and it is never made clear that Gokarn is the place involved. Chapter iv, 'The worship of Ganesa', deals with the god as invoked by poets at the beginning of their works, with the festival of Ganesacaturthl and a modern katha in which Krsna and the syamantaka jewel are laid under contribution to justify a bit of Ganesa-and-themoon story—'an important myth of Ganesa in Maharashtra'. There follows a valuable and detailed account of ganesapuja as recently conducted in a Brahman household in Ahmadnagar (pp. 172-88) and a description of the public Ganesotsava in the same town. The final chapter surveys Ganesa in Maharashtra, the Ganapatya sampradaya of Morgaon and Theur, and finally, the revival of trie Ganapati festival as a political weapon by Lokamanya Tilak. This last is less interesting, rather sketchy and drawn largely from Cashman (The myth of the Lokamanya—more myths!). It has quite a few errors. "The rise of the Maratha empire under SivajT' (p. 224) can hardly be contemporary with Narayana Deva and the demise of Moghul rule; Vishnushastri Chiplunkar is split in two and mixed up with his father Krishnashastri (pp. 228-9) and Khadilkar's play Ktcakavadha, in which I must declare an interest, was not really of any direct relevance to the Ganesotsava as is implied (pp. 241-2). It may be no coincidence that the proof-reading seems a great deal worse at this end of the book. However, these are mere niggles. Professor Courtright has turned his 1974 thesis into a most interesting and useful book. With its good index and bibliography it will be the primary reference work on Ganesa for many years.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. A. Subramanian
  2. Pratik Gajane
  3. S. Corbridge

Citations in the corpus