A Further note on Bharatavakya
Summary
The author responds to Vibhutinath Jha’s critique of their earlier work on Bharatavakya, arguing that Jha misinterprets their thesis and fails to substantiate his claims. The author highlights that Jha’s objections overlook key evidence and that other scholars, like Manomohan Ghesh, have indirectly supported their original argument. They contest Jha’s assertion that early dramaturgy references Bharatavakya, noting the absence of such references in works by Abhinavagupta, Saradatanaya, Rimacandra, and others. The author suggests the term *Bharatavakya* may have been a stage-direction for applying the *Prasasti*, though its first usage remains unclear. Jha’s attempt to link the *Prasasti* to drama through phrases like *fashapadam* is dismissed as inconsistent with the verse’s context. The author defends relying on traditional commentaries (e.g., Prthvidhara, Righavabhatta) in the absence of counterproof. Jha’s confusion about separate *BVs* for different parties is deemed irrelevant, as the same logic could apply to concluding verses. The text then shifts to a separate note on Meherunissa and Jehangir, where Dr. Beni Prasad rejects the historical accuracy of Jehangir’s alleged affair with Meherunissa, citing its absence in contemporary records.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This document underscores the persistent ambiguity surrounding the *Bharatavakya*'s role in early Indian dramaturgy, challenging claims of its direct influence on foundational texts. By highlighting the absence of references to *Bharatavakya* in key works like Abhinavagupta’s commentary, Saradatanaya’s *Bhivaprakibana*, and Rimacandra’s *Nityadarpana*, it reinforces the argument that the term may have functioned merely as a stage-direction rather than a substantive text. The critique of Vibhutinath Jha’s objections further exposes methodological flaws in linking the *Prasasti* to the *Bharatavakya*, emphasizing the lack of textual evidence and inconsistent application of such claims. Ultimately, the analysis advocates for cautious reliance on traditional commentary in the absence of conclusive proof, while leaving room for further investigation into the term’s historical usage and potential evolution. The findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of India’s dramaturgical heritage, urging scholars to adopt rigorous textual-collation and contextual