Gajendra Thakur
A PARALLEL HISTORY OF MITHILA & MAITHILI LITERATURE- PART 14
Dalit Literary Criticism: Telugu, Gujarati, and Odia Dalit Literature in Maithili Translation
Annexure-2, A Critical Appraisal of Vidyapati's Bidesiya
A Critical Appraisal of *Vidyapati's Bidesiya*
As a professor of English literature trained in both Western critical theory and Indian aesthetic traditions, I approach this Maithili theatrical textor rather, this *performance script* rooted in Vidyapati's *padavali*with the methodological pluralism the work itself demands. What follows is a critical reading that draws upon postcolonial theory, feminist criticism, performance studies, comparative literature frameworks, and the Sanskrit *rasa* tradition, among other lenses.
---
I. The Problem of Genre and Categorization
The text announces itself as occupying "a parallel universe" to Vidyapati's *Bidesiya* tradition. This claim immediately raises a foundational question: is this a revival, a reconstruction, an adaptation, or something altogether more complex? The author oscillates between presenting the work as *documentation* (of troupes like Ramkhelavan Mandal) and as *creation* ("this conceived play is presented"). This generic instability is not a flaw but rather a productive tension that the text never fully resolves.
From a **poststructuralist perspective**, this indeterminacy reveals the impossibility of recovering an "authentic" folk tradition. The author's own framingnoting that "no research has been conducted" on figures like Salahes and Chudamalparadoxically undermines the archival authority the text simultaneously claims. The work becomes what Jacques Derrida might call an *archive fever*: the anxious desire to recover origins that were never stable to begin with.
**Formalist criticism** would note that the play adopts the structure of a *geet natya* (song-drama) but without consistent dramaturgical discipline. The stage directions are minimal, the relationship between the seven scenes remains ambiguous, and the presence of Vidyapati as a *character* who enters, explains meanings, and "dissolves into darkness" creates a Brechtian *Verfremdungseffekt* (alienation effect) that the text never theorizes for itself. Is Vidyapati a *sutradhara* (conductor/narrator) in the Sanskrit tradition? A Brechtian narrator exposing theatrical illusion? Or a devotional presence invoking the poet-saint's authority? The text refuses to decide, and this refusal, while potentially enabling multiple interpretations, also results in structural incoherence.
---
II. The Migration Narrative: Postcolonial and Subaltern Readings
At its thematic core, the play concerns *pravas*migrationand the gendered experience of waiting. The author draws a crucial distinction between the Bhojpuri *Bidesiya* tradition (exemplified by Bhikhari Thakur) and the Maithili context, arguing that migration in Mithila is "a recent phenomenon" while Bhojpuri has a longer, more deeply sedimented culture of labor migration.
From a **postcolonial perspective**, this distinction invites scrutiny. The author's claim that Bhojpuri literature is "less rich" than Maithili "in terms of quantity" but superior "in terms of quality" in certain domains rests on an implicit hierarchy that the text never deconstructs. Whose standards of "richness" and "quality" are being invoked? The comparison seems to valorize Bhikhari Thakur's *Bidesiya* for its "marmasparshi rupa" (poignant form) while critiquing Maithili for its "bojhil" (cumbersome) epic narratives. This is a valuable insight but one that requires more rigorous theorization. Why does Maithili literary culture privilege *mahakavya* (epic) forms over *lokgatha* (folk narrative)? The answer lies in the **sociology of literature**: the Brahminical prestige of Maithili (as the language of Pandits and the *Sarnat* elite) versus the more plebeian, laboring-class origins of Bhojpuri literary expression.
A **subaltern studies** reading would push further. The women in this playthe *yuvati* who waits, the sister-in-law who turns away travelers, the mother-in-law who dies offstageare voices within a patriarchal structure that the text reproduces without sufficiently interrogating. When the young woman sings, "I am all alone, my beloved is in a foreign land," she performs the *viraha* (separation) that is central to the *rasa* tradition. But does the text offer a feminist critique of this suffering, or does it aestheticize female waiting as sublime? The *rasa* framework would valorize *karuna* (pathos) and *vipralambha shringara* (love in separation), but a **feminist critic** like Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak might ask: can the subaltern woman speak here, or is she merely a vehicle for male-authored verses and a male poet-character who interprets her experience for the audience?
---
III. Rasa, Bhakti, and the Question of Aesthetic Distance
The text is explicitly grounded in Vidyapati's *padavali*, which participates in both the *shringara* (erotic) and *bhakti* (devotional) traditions. The selection of songs from the *Nepal Padavali*songs concerned with separation, longing, and the precariousness of the woman awaiting her lover's returnsituates the work within the *viraha* aesthetic that unites Sanskrit poetics with the devotional literatures of North India.
From the perspective of **Abhinavagupta's *dhvani* theory**, the *vyangya* (suggested meaning) of these songs transcends the literal narrative of a woman waiting for a migrant husband. The *bidesiya* becomes metaphor: for the soul separated from the divine, for the Mithila region alienated from its cultural roots, for the Maithili language itself in an age of displacement. When Vidyapati appears on stage to "explain the meaning," however, the text risks what the *rasa* tradition would consider a fundamental error: *vibhava* (determinants) and *anubhava* (consequents) are being made explicit rather than allowed to generate *rasa* through suggestion. The poet-character's hermeneutic interventions flatten the polysemy of the original verses.
A **Bhakti reading** would be more forgiving. In the devotional traditions of North India, the *rasa* of separation is itself a form of communion. The *yuvati* is Radha; the *pia desantar* is Krishna; the waiting is the soul's longing for union with the divine. The presence of Vidyapati as poet-saint reinforces this reading: he is not merely a commentator but a *sant* whose verses are themselves forms of *sadhana* (spiritual practice). The play's performance contextwith troupes named after Ram and groups staging these plays as acts of devotionsupports this interpretation.
Yet the text's own framing pulls against devotional closure. The final lines, spoken of the *concept* of *Piya Desantar*, "presented before the discerning audience" and "offered with deep respect," maintain a critical distance. The play is neither fully devotional theater (*bhakti rangmanch*) nor fully secular folk drama (*lok natya*). This hybridity is productive but also, at times, unstable.
---
IV. Intertextuality and the Anxiety of Influence
The text's relationship to Bhikhari Thakur's *Bidesiya* is its most significant intertextual engagement. Harold Bloom's *Anxiety of Influence* provides a useful framework: the Maithili text struggles to carve out a space distinct from its Bhojpuri predecessor while inevitably being shaped by it.
The author claims that Maithili lacks the *sukshma vivaran* (microscopic detail) of the Bhojpuri *Bidesiya*, citing *Salahes* and *Chudamal* as examples of narratives that "transcend regional boundaries" but have not been adequately researched. This is a claim about the *canon*: that Maithili folk literature has been neglected in favor of Sanskritized epic traditions. The present play can be read as an attempt to perform a kind of **canonical critique**, recovering what has been marginalized.
Yet the play's reliance on Vidyapatithe most canonized figure in Maithili literaturecomplicates this project. The author is, in effect, using the most prestigious Maithili literary figure to authorize a folk tradition that Vidyapati's own work may have historically marginalized. This is a **postcolonial** gesture of retrieval, but it also reveals the difficulty of accessing the "folk" without the mediation of elite literary forms.
A **reader-response** critic would note that the text's explicit framing of its own projectthe lengthy prose introduction, the detailed descriptions of troupes, the citation of Nagendranath Gupta's editioncreates a specific reading contract. The audience is not being invited to experience *rasa* unmediated but to understand the *process* of construction, the archival labor, the politics of regional literary traditions. This meta-theatrical dimension is the play's most distinctive contribution.
---
V. Performance Studies and the Question of Spectatorship
As a performance text, *Vidyapati's Bidesiya* exists in a liminal space. It is neither a complete script nor a performance record. The stage directions are minimal: "The poet Vidyapati enters," "The young woman opens a shop, symbolically," "Darkness spreads." A **performance studies** scholar would ask: what is being documented here? The *lila* (play) of a specific troupe? A reconstruction of a lost tradition? Or a *script for future performance*?
The text's detailed attention to the *raga* (melodic mode) of each songDhanashi, Malava, Kolara, Ghanashisuggests musical specificity. But without notation or performance instructions, these remain nominal. The playwright, or documenter, seems to assume a reader who knows these musical traditions intimatelya reader who is, in other words, already within the Maithili performance culture.
This raises questions about **audience address**. Who is this text for? The English translation that accompanies this critical exercise suggests an audience beyond Maithili speakers. Yet the text itself never translates the songs within the play; the Maithili original is presented, and the "meaning" is provided in Maithili prose (in the original document, which I have now translated into English for this response). The layering of languages and translations creates what **Homi Bhabha** would call a "third space"neither fully Maithili nor fully English, neither performance nor documentation, neither folk nor classical.
---
VI. The Politics of Literary Comparison
The author's comparative remarks about Bhojpuri and Maithili demand attention from a **sociocritical perspective**. "Bhojpuri literature is less rich than Maithili in terms of quantity," the text asserts, "but in terms of quality, it surpasses Maithili in several domains." This is a provocative claim that, if unpacked, reveals the entrenched hierarchies within north Indian literary cultures.
Maithili has a classical literary tradition dating back to Vidyapati (14th-15th centuries), a recognized grammar (*Maithili Vyakaran*), and a long history of scholarly production. Bhojpuri, despite its massive number of speakers, has been historically stigmatized as a *dialect* rather than a *language*, its literary traditions marginalized by both Hindi and Maithili elites. The author's claim that Bhojpuri is "superior" in certain *qualitative* domainsspecifically the *Bidesiya* traditionis a strategic inversion of these hierarchies. It claims for Bhojpuri what has been denied: aesthetic sophistication, emotional depth, and cultural value.
Yet the text does not fully theorize this inversion. It remains caught in the comparative framework it seeks to challenge. A truly **decolonial** criticism would ask: why compare at all? Why not allow each tradition its own aesthetic criteria, its own standards of value? The comparison risks reinscribing the very hierarchies it critiques.
---
VII. Unresolved Questions and Generative Ambiguities
The text leaves several questions unresolved, and these silences are, for the critic, productive:
1. **The status of Vidyapati**: Is he a character within the drama, the author of the source material, a *sutradhara* figure, or a devotional presence? The text's answer is "all of the above," and this multiplicity is both its strength and its weakness.
2. **The relationship between the seven scenes**: The scenes seem to present variations on a single situationa woman, a traveler, the memory of a departed beloved. But do they constitute a narrative progression? A ritual cycle? A series of aesthetic variations (*prakara*)? The text does not say.
3. **The politics of gender**: The young woman's voice dominates the songs, but her agency remains constrained. She cannot refuse the traveler, cannot leave, cannot speak directly to her husband. The text reproduces this constraint without commentary. Is this fidelity to the source material, or a failure of critical distance?
4. **The role of the sister-in-law**: In the later scenes, she disappears, replaced by the traveler and the young woman alone. What happens to this relationship? The text's silence is suggestive but also incomplete.
5. **The ending**: The final "dissolve" into *Piya Desantar* is ambiguous. Is it union with the beloved? Death? Theatrical illusion collapsing? The text withholds interpretation, perhaps deliberately.
---
VIII. Conclusion: Toward a Critical Reception
As a professor of English literature, I am trained to value certain things: formal coherence, thematic complexity, the productive tension between tradition and innovation. By these criteria, *Vidyapati's Bidesiya* is a work of considerable interest but also of unresolved contradictions.
Its greatest strength lies in its **interstitial position**: between folk and classical, Maithili and Bhojpuri, performance and text, devotion and critique. This position allows it to stage the very tensions that define modern Maithili identitycaught between a glorious literary past and a present of economic precarity, between Sanskritized prestige and folk vitality, between the ache of *viraha* and the demand for political recognition.
Its greatest weakness is its **theoretical under-elaboration**. The text knows what it wants to dorecover a tradition, honor Vidyapati, speak to the present moment of Maithili migrationbut it does not always know *how* it is doing it. The generic instability, the ambiguous staging, the unresolved role of Vidyapati as character: these are not flaws per se, but they demand a reflexive account that the text does not provide.
A **reception-oriented** critic would note that this text now exists in multiple contexts: for Maithili readers, it is a document of cultural memory; for English readers, a translated curiosity; for the scholar of Indian theater, a case study in the challenges of archiving performance traditions. Each reading context produces a different text.
Ultimately, *Vidyapati's Bidesiya* succeeds in what it perhaps most fundamentally attempts: to place the experience of the Maithili *bidesiya*the migrant, and the woman who waitswithin the most prestigious literary tradition Mithila possesses. In doing so, it makes a claim: that the suffering of labor migration deserves the same aesthetic attention as the *viraha* of Radha and Krishna; that the *lok* (folk) belongs within the *shastra* (classical tradition); that the contemporary moment of displacement demands the resources of a centuries-old poetic language.
Whether the text fully achieves this claim remains, for the critic, an open question. But the claim itselfand the labor of its articulationdemands respect.
Critical Reading of *Vidyapati's Bidesiya* Through Five Theoretical Lenses
---
I. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Can the Maithili Subaltern Speak?
Spivak's foundational question"Can the subaltern speak?"interrogates the mechanisms by which marginalized subjects are represented within hegemonic discourse, always already mediated by institutional and ideological structures that preclude authentic self-expression. *Vidyapati's Bidesiya* presents a compelling case study for Spivakian analysis precisely because it stages the very crisis of representation her work theorizes.
The *yuvati* (young woman) who dominates the play's songs appears, on the surface, as a subaltern figure: a rural woman whose husband has migrated for labor, left to negotiate the precariousness of her position within patriarchal and economic structures that offer her no agency. Yet her speechthe songs she singsis not her own. These are Vidyapati's verses, composed by a male poet of the 14th-15th centuries, mediated through multiple textual transmissions (the *Nepal Padavali*, Nagendranath Gupta's collection), and further mediated by the contemporary playwright/documenter who selects, arranges, and frames them. The *yuvati* speaks, but what she speaks is already a citation of elite male-authored literature.
Spivak's critique of the "epistemic violence" of colonialism extends here to the internal colonialisms within Indian literary culture. The playwright's framingthat Maithili lacks the "microscopic detail" of Bhojpuri folk narrativereveals an anxiety about authentic folk expression that the play attempts to resolve by recovering Vidyapati's verses as a kind of proto-folk archive. But Spivak would ask: what is erased in this recovery? The real Maithili women who have migrated, or waited for migrants, are replaced by a literary constructthe *virahini* (woman in separation) of Sanskritized poetics. The subaltern woman becomes a figure for something else: Maithili cultural identity, the prestige of the literary tradition, the authority of the poet-saint.
The play's final gesturethe ambiguous appearance of *Piya Desantar* (the beloved returned from abroad) emerging from darknessis particularly instructive through a Spivakian lens. Is this union? Liberation? The text leaves it unresolved. But Spivak would note that the subaltern woman's desire is ultimately displaced onto the *male* figure's return. The *yuvati's* waiting finds its fulfillment not in her own agency but in the beloved's arrival. Her subjectivity is constituted entirely in relation to his absence and his presence. She speaks, but she speaks of him, for him, to him. Her own voice, like her own desire, remains mediated.
The playwright's own position mirrors the problematic Spivak identifies. As an educated, presumably urban, presumably male or male-identified figure who documents and frames these rural performance traditions, the playwright performs the very act of representation that Spivak critiques. The lengthy prose introductionwith its archival details of troupes, villages, and performance historiesfunctions as a claim to ethnographic authority. But does this documentation enable subaltern speech or foreclose it? The *yuvati* sings, but her songs are annotated, translated, interpretedfirst by Vidyapati as character within the play, then by the playwright's framing, then by this critic. Each layer of mediation distances us further from any unmediated subaltern voice.
Spivak would remind us that the desire to "let the subaltern speak" is itself a Western-intellectual fantasy, a project of recovering authenticity that inevitably reproduces the structures it seeks to dismantle. *Vidyapati's Bidesiya* does not escape this paradox, but it stages it with unusual self-awareness. When Vidyapati the character appears to "explain the meaning" of the *yuvati's* songs, the play allegorizes the critic's own act. The question is whether the play recognizes this allegory as a problem, or whether it naively celebrates the poet's hermeneutic authority.
---
II. Dipesh Chakrabarty: Provincializing the Maithili Literary Imaginary
Chakrabarty's *Provincializing Europe* argues that historicismthe European mode of writing history that assumes a universal, linear temporalityhas structured modern South Asian thought in ways that foreclose other forms of temporal experience. Chakrabarty calls for a historiography that makes room for "the politics of the gods" and other modes of being that cannot be assimilated to secular, developmental time.
*Vidyapati's Bidesiya* offers a rich site for applying Chakrabarty's framework because it operates within multiple, incommensurable temporalities simultaneously. The play is about *pravas* (migration), which is a modern economic phenomenon: the text notes that migration in Mithila is "a recent phenomenon," that "villages stand deserted." Yet the play's aesthetic resources for representing this modern condition are drawn from Vidyapati's 14th-century *padavali*, which belongs to a pre-modern, devotional-erotic tradition. The *yuvati* who waits for her migrant husband is simultaneously a contemporary Maithili woman and Radha waiting for Krishna. The text does not choose between these temporalities; it inhabits both at once.
Chakrabarty would recognize this as a refusal of historicism's demand for chronological purity. The play refuses to say: "Here is the pre-modern *viraha* tradition; here is the modern migration narrative." Instead, it insists that the modern experience of labor migration *is* a form of *viraha*, that the contemporary precarity of the Maithili migrant *is* the eternal longing of the soul for its beloved. This is not a metaphorical substitution but a temporal superposition: two times existing in the same space.
The text's comparison between Maithili and Bhojpuri literary traditions also invites a Chakrabartian reading. The playwright claims that Bhojpuri's *Bidesiya* tradition is "superior" in certain qualitative domains, while Maithili remains tied to "bojhil" (cumbersome) epic narratives. This is, among other things, a claim about *literary time*. Bhojpuri, the argument implies, has produced a modern, responsive, vernacular realism (Bhikhari Thakur's poignant songs of migrant suffering), while Maithili remains mired in the "heavy" forms of the Sanskritic past. The play's projectusing Vidyapati to speak to the presentcan be read as an attempt to provincialize the historicist assumption that "modern" forms (realism, the novel, secular narrative) are the only adequate vehicles for representing modern experience.
But Chakrabarty would also caution against romanticizing this temporal hybridity. The play's invocation of Vidyapati's authoritythe poet-saint who validates the *bidesiya* traditionrisks reproducing the Brahminical prestige structures that have historically marginalized folk expression. The *yuvati's* songs become acceptable, perhaps, because they are *Vidyapati's* songs. The modern migrant's suffering becomes aesthetically legitimate because it is framed by a canonical literary tradition. Chakrabarty would ask: can we have a politics of the present that does not require the authorization of the pre-modern sacred?
The play's performance contexttroupes named after Ram, plays staged as acts of devotionsuggests an answer. For the practitioners of the Ramkhelavan Mandal, Vidyapati is not an authority invoked to legitimize modern concerns; he is a living presence within a continuous devotional practice. The distinction between "modern" and "pre-modern" may not exist for them in the way it exists for the literate critic. Chakrabarty would urge us to take this seriously: to recognize that the temporality of the *Ramkhelavan* tradition is not historicist time but ritual time, cyclical time, the time of *lila* (divine play). Provincializing Europe means provincializing the historicist assumptions that make us see Vidyapati's presence as an anachronism rather than a continuity.
---
III. A.K. Ramanujan: The Interplay of Folk and Classical Canons
Ramanujan's life work was devoted to challenging the hierarchical opposition between "folk" and "classical" traditions in Indian literature. He demonstrated that these categories are not fixed essences but dynamic, mutually constitutive formations. The "classical" continually draws on "folk" resources; the "folk" internalizes and transforms "classical" forms. Ramanujan's translations of *Speaking of Śiva*, *The Interior Landscape*, and *Folktales from India* exemplify his method: treating folk traditions with the same seriousness as canonical texts, attending to their formal sophistication and cultural complexity.
*Vidyapati's Bidesiya* is, in many ways, a Ramanujan-esque text. It explicitly concerns the relationship between Vidyapatithe most canonical figure in Maithili literatureand the folk performance traditions of the *bidesiya*. The playwright notes that Vidyapati's *padavali* includes "pure *Bidesiya*" verses, particularly those from the *Nepal Padavali*, suggesting that the classical poet was himself engaged with folk themes and forms. The performance troupes describedthe Ramkhelavan Mandal, the Ramraksha Choudhary Natyakala Parishadrepresent the ongoing life of these verses in popular performance contexts. The text refuses to separate the "high" literary tradition from the "low" performance tradition.
Ramanujan would be particularly interested in the play's treatment of *translation*not only linguistic translation but the translation between genres, registers, and social worlds. The *yuvati's* songs move between *shringara* (erotic) and *viraha* (separation), between the classical *raga* system (Dhanashi, Malava, Kolara, Ghanashi) and the vernacular idiom of the stage directions. Vidyapati the character appears to "explain the meaning," performing the function of the scholar-commentator who mediates between classical text and popular reception. Yet this mediation is not one-directional: the *yuvati* also interprets the verses, "elaborating on its meaning" after Vidyapati sings. Meaning is not fixed by the classical authority but emerges through dialogic performance.
Ramanujan's concept of "context-sensitive" meaninghis insistence that Indian literary forms must be understood within their performance contextsis crucial for reading this text. The play is not a "text" in the Western sense but a script-for-performance, a document that points toward an embodied, musical, ritual event. The detailed attention to *raga*, the stage directions that mark entrances and exits, the interactions between characters and audience (the traveler gestures toward the audience in Scene 7)all indicate a performance tradition that cannot be reduced to its literary content.
Ramanujan would also note the text's engagement with *regional* specificity. The playwright's careful documentation of troupes from Samastipur, Purnia, Supaul, Saharsathe naming of villages, panchayats, post officesis not mere antiquarianism. It is a claim about *place*: that this tradition belongs to specific communities in specific locations, that its meanings are embedded in local geographies and histories. This regional grounding challenges the universalizing tendencies of both classical Sanskrit aesthetics and Western literary theory.
Yet Ramanujan would also note the *absence* that haunts this text. The playwright laments that "no research has been conducted" on folk figures like Salahes and Chudamal, that Maithili lacks the detailed folk narratives found in Bhojpuri. This is, in Ramanujan's terms, a failure of the *canon* to recognize its folk sources. The classical Maithili tradition has, perhaps, absorbed folk materials without acknowledging them, transforming them into "bojhil" epic forms that obscure their vernacular origins. The play's projectrecovering the *bidesiya* within Vidyapati's *padavali*is an attempt to reverse this process, to show that the classical poet was also a folk poet, that the canonical text contains within it the voices of women, migrants, and the dispossessed.
---
IV. Rustom Bharucha: The Politics of Indian Theater and Performance
Bharucha's work has consistently challenged the appropriation of Indian performance traditions by both Western-oriented "modern" theater and state-sponsored "folk" revival movements. In *Theatre and the World* and *The Politics of Cultural Practice*, Bharucha argues for a rigorous attention to the specific contexts, communities, and power relations within which performance traditions exist. He is skeptical of "intercultural" theater that extracts aesthetic forms from their social moorings, and critical of the ways "folk" traditions are repackaged for urban, middle-class, or international audiences.
*Vidyapati's Bidesiya* exists precisely in the contested space Bharucha maps. The text documents performance traditionsthe Ramkhelavan Mandal, the Ramraksha Choudhary Natyakala Parishadthat have historically been rooted in rural Maithili communities. These troupes performed for local audiences, in village settings, as part of ritual and devotional cycles. Yet the text as we have it is a *documentation*, a translation, a presentation "before the discerning audience"which is to say, before an audience that is not necessarily the original village community. The play, in its current form, has been *extracted* from its original performance context and offered to a different public: readers of Maithili, perhaps, but also (through translation) English-speaking scholars and students.
Bharucha would ask: what is lost in this extraction? The stage directions in the text are minimal: "On stage, our *Bidesiya* is bidding farewell," "The young woman opens a shop, symbolically." For someone who has never seen the Ramkhelavan Mandal perform, these directions offer only the barest suggestion of what the performance might have looked like, sounded like, *felt* like. The *raga* are named but not notated; the movement is indicated but not choreographed; the audience interaction is noted but not described. The text becomes a kind of *ghost* of the performance, preserving some information while losing the embodied, sensory, communal dimensions that Bharucha insists are irreducible.
Bharucha would also question the *framing* of these traditions within a literary-critical apparatus. The lengthy prose introductionwith its comparisons between Maithili and Bhojpuri, its citations of Nagendranath Gupta's edition, its positioning of Vidyapati within the *bidesiya* traditionconstitutes an *academic* framing that may be alien to the original practitioners. The play is presented as "a parallel universe" to Vidyapati's *Bidesiya*, a phrase that suggests a literary-intertextual relationship rather than a living performance tradition. Bharucha would ask: who is this text for? And whose interests does it serve?
The play's relationship to the *Bidesiya* tradition of Bhikhari Thakur is particularly significant from Bharucha's perspective. The playwright notes that Bhikhari Thakur's *Bidesiya* emerged from his own experience as a migrant in Calcutta and his performances for Bhojpuri-speaking communities. It was, in Bharucha's terms, a *community-based* theater: rooted in the lived experience of its practitioners and audiences, responsive to their needs and concerns. The present text's attempt to create a Maithili *Bidesiya* through Vidyapati's verses is, by contrast, a *literary* construction: it draws authority from a canonical poet rather than from contemporary experience. Bharucha would ask whether this substitutionclassical *viraha* for modern migrationdoes justice to the specific suffering of contemporary Maithili migrants, or whether it aestheticizes that suffering in ways that distance it from its material reality.
The text's final gesture"This concept of *Piya Desantar* is thus presented before the discerning audience. Amidst the current plight of the Maithili migrants (*Bidesiya*), this offering is presented with deep respect to the great poet, Vidyapati"reveals the tension Bharucha identifies. The "plight" of migrants is acknowledged but then displaced: the offering is made to Vidyapati, not to the migrants themselves. The "discerning audience" is invited to appreciate the aesthetic concept rather than to respond to the social condition. Bharucha would insist that a truly political theater would not allow this displacement; it would insist on the primacy of the material suffering over the aesthetic framing.
---
V. Edward Said: Traveling Theory and the Question of Origins
Said's concept of "traveling theory" addresses how ideas, texts, and practices move across cultural and historical contexts, inevitably being transformed in the process. In "Traveling Theory" and its reconsideration in "Traveling Theory Reconsidered," Said argues that theories lose and gain force as they travel, that their meaning is shaped by the contexts they enter, and that the question of "origins" is always complicated by these movements. His later work on *late style* also offers resources for thinking about how traditions are received, adapted, and reanimated by later practitioners.
*Vidyapati's Bidesiya* is a text deeply concerned with origins and their complications. The playwright traces the tradition through multiple genealogies: the Ramkhelavan Mandal from Katghatra, the Ramraksha Choudhary Natyakala Parishad from Gayaghat, the *Piya Desantar* team from Purnia. These are claims to *authenticity*, to *origins* that ground the tradition in specific communities and places. Yet the text also acknowledges that the *bidesiya* tradition itself is a traveling one: it moves from Purnia to Supaul, Saharsa, Samastipur; it travels from Nepal (the *Nepal Padavali*) to Bihar; it travels from Vidyapati's 14th-century court to 21st-century village performances.
Said would be interested in how the text handles the *Bhojpuri* origin of the *Bidesiya* tradition. Bhikhari Thakur's *Bidesiya* is acknowledged as a prior, influential textso much so that the Maithili text must define itself against it. The playwright's claim that Bhojpuri is "superior" in certain qualitative domains is, in Said's terms, an acknowledgment of the *force* of the traveling tradition. The Maithili text cannot ignore Bhikhari Thakur; it must contend with him, absorb him, define itself through and against him. This is the anxiety of influence, but also the productive dynamic of traveling theory: the Bhojpuri *Bidesiya* travels to Maithili and forces a rethinking of what Maithili literary tradition can do.
The text's use of Vidyapatia figure from the 14th-15th centuriesto respond to a modern Bhojpuri tradition is itself a form of traveling theory. Vidyapati's *padavali* travels from its original courtly-devotional context to the contemporary performance context of the Maithili *bidesiya*. The poet-saint becomes, in this new context, something he never was: a chronicler of labor migration. This is not a "misreading" in any simple sense but a creative appropriation, a reanimation of a tradition to meet new needs. Said would recognize this as the vitality of traveling theory: ideas gain new force when they move into new contexts, even (or especially) when those contexts were not anticipated by their originators.
The text's concern with *research*its lament that "no research has been conducted" on figures like Salahes and Chudamalreveals a different kind of traveling theory: the movement of academic knowledge practices into folk traditions. The playwright, situated within or addressing a literate, academic context, brings the values of archival research, textual criticism, and historical documentation to bear on performance traditions that may not have operated according to these values. Said would note that this is not a neutral act; it transforms the traditions it seeks to document, subjecting them to criteria (like "research") that originate elsewhere.
Finally, Said's concept of "contrapuntal reading" offers a way to understand the text's multiple, overlapping origins. The play is simultaneously: a document of Ramkhelavan Mandal's performance tradition; a reconstruction of Vidyapati's *bidesiya* verses; a response to Bhikhari Thakur's Bhojpuri *Bidesiya*; a contribution to Maithili literary culture; a performance text for future stagings; and an object of academic study. These are not competing origins but coexisting ones, layered like musical lines in a contrapuntal composition. To privilege one origin over anotherto say that the "real" text is the Ramkhelavan Mandal's performance, or Vidyapati's verses, or the playwright's creationwould be to deny the text's fundamental condition as a traveling, transformed, multiply-rooted cultural object.
---
Synthesis: Convergences and Divergences
These five theoretical lenses, while distinct in their origins and commitments, converge on several key insights about *Vidyapati's Bidesiya*:
**1. The Problem of Mediation**: Spivak, Chakrabarty, and Said all, in different ways, emphasize that the subaltern, the pre-modern, the "original" are always already mediated. The *yuvati* does not speak except through Vidyapati; Vidyapati does not speak except through performance traditions; performance traditions do not speak except through documentation. The text is a meditation on mediation itself.
**2. The Politics of Recovery**: Ramanujan and Bharucha both question the project of "recovering" folk traditions through classical frameworks. For Ramanujan, the classical and folk are always already intertwined; for Bharucha, recovery can be a form of appropriation. The text's attempt to claim Vidyapati for the *bidesiya* tradition is simultaneously a radical democratization of the canon and a potential erasure of the distinctiveness of folk practice.
**3. Temporality and History**: Chakrabarty and Said both challenge linear, historicist accounts of cultural development. The text's superposition of Vidyapati's *viraha* and modern migration, its insistence that the 14th-century poet speaks to the 21st-century condition, refuses the historicist assumption that each era has its own appropriate aesthetic forms. This is not anachronism but a different relationship to time.
**4. The Question of Audience**: Spivak asks who speaks; Bharucha asks for whom. The text's multiple audiencesvillage performance communities, Maithili readers, English-language scholarscomplicate any simple answer. The play exists in different forms for different publics, and these different existences are not reducible to a single "original."
**5. The Limits of Theory**: Each of these theorists would also remind us that theory has its limits. Spivak's subaltern cannot finally speak; Chakrabarty's non-historicist temporalities are difficult to represent within academic prose; Ramanujan's folk-classical synthesis cannot be fully captured by scholarly categories; Bharucha's embodied performance eludes documentation; Said's traveling theory always risks becoming another form of appropriation. *Vidyapati's Bidesiya* may succeed precisely in its refusal to resolve these tensions, its insistence on remaining multiple, partial, and unfinished.
---
Concluding Reflection
As a reader trained in these theoretical traditions, I find myself both illuminated and unsettled by *Vidyapati's Bidesiya*. The text offers itself as an offering to Vidyapati, as a document of folk tradition, as a response to contemporary migration, as a performance script. It resists the kind of theoretical mastery that would pin it down to a single meaning, a single origin, a single audience. Perhaps this is its greatest strength: not that it resolves the tensions between classical and folk, text and performance, past and present, but that it stages these tensions with an honesty that theoretical critique can only echo.
The five theorists I have invoked would, I think, each recognize something of their own concerns in this text. Spivak would see the subaltern's mediated speech; Chakrabarty would see non-historicist temporality; Ramanujan would see the classical-folk continuum; Bharucha would see the politics of performance documentation; Said would see traveling theory in action. But none would claim that the text is *reducible* to their framework. The text exceeds theory, as cultural objects always do. That excess is what makes it worthy of critical attentionand what makes the critic's work always provisional, always incomplete, always open to further reading.
Annexure-3 [Vidyapati, the Primal Poet of Maithili (Pre-Jyotirishvara)]
Translation from Maithili to English
Vidyapati, the Primal Poet of Maithili (Pre-Jyotirishvara)
**Original Maithili: Gajendra Thakur**
**Maithili to English: Gajendra Thakur**
---
Vidyapati: Refutation of Certain Prevalent Misconceptions
Vidyapati of the Parallel Tradition and the Pag (Headgear)
In Vidyapati's Sanskrit works, it is written "composed by Thakkura Vidyapati," and that Vidyapati is a Brahmin. My concern, however, is with the Vidyapati who wrote in Maithili Regarding this, I have discussed why he was made "our Vidyapati" by placing a *pag* (traditional headgear) upon him. This did not occur when the Brahmin community preserved Vidyapati for eight hundred years through the medium of *Bidapat Nach* (Vidyapati dance-drama). Rather, it happened when Bengal claimed Vidyapati and Govindadas as its own, and the Bengali scholar Rajkrishna Mukhopadhyay first stated that Vidyapati was a poet of the Maithili language, and Nagendranath Gupta of Bengal first stated that Govindadas was also a poet of the Maithili language. When this fact came to light, all of Bengal first rose up in opposition, then later accepted it. Thereafter, the scholars of Mithila were stirred into action, and drawing upon Vidyapati's Sanskrit works, and upon records available in the *Panji* (genealogical registers) under the names Govindadas and Vidyapati, they produced a Vidyapati Thakur and a Govindadas Jha (!!!)the superficial knowledge and limited perspective of Ramanath Jha's *Panji* caused considerable damage. Subsequently, inadvertently, Vidyapati (the Maithili poet, not the Sanskrit one) was made "our Vidyapati" by the Brahmin class, by placing a *pag* upon him. Some even began addressing him as the nephew of Jyotirishvara!
---
But there are many poets contemporary with or prior to the poet-king Jyotirishvara (c. 1275-1350) available in the *Panji*. And if the discrepancies in names that appear in Vidyapati's case (while a piece of evidence remains, suggesting all this was done with planning) do not appear in the case of Jyotirishvara, why is that?
---
Ram Thakur
When I went to Bengal and traveled to Purnia for the worship of village deities, I saw Ram Thakur (the Lord) worshipped as a deity in a plowed field, someone having lit a lamp there.
Prabhat Jha, a Rajya Sabha MP from Madhya Pradesh, who had traveled from Mithila to Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, once told me that when carpenters (*barhi*) from Mithila went there, people began calling them "Jhaji" because they were Maithili speakers, and now they bear the title "Jha." Prabhat Jha campaigned for them, and one candidate won by a single vote. My own experience tells me that regardless of one's title, people in Patna and elsewhere will call a person "Jhaji" or "Jhaua." In the Malda district of Bengal, there are four or five villages where the title for Maithil Brahmins is "Ojha," and in Aligarh, among Maithil Brahmins (Brajastha Maithils), the title is "Sharma."
---
How Many Entries of Vidyapati Are There in the Panji?
Numerous entries of Vidyapati are available in the *Panji*:
1. Vidyapatimarriage of Ramapati, son of Panichobha, to Vidyapatimother (devadasi)Dushan Panji
2. Maho Keshavo's son Mahamahopadhyaya Govind's daughter Maho Lakshminath Mahamahopadhyaya Vidyapati Mahamahopadhyaya Damodar
3. From Mahamaho Vidyapati Gangoliresidents of Manakudha, the poet-king Ganeshvara
4. From GhosautMahamahopadhyaya Govind's daughter Maha Lakshmidhara Mahamahopadhyaya Vidyapati
5. Royal Pandit Mahamahopadhyaya Vidyapati
6. From KaramahaDevnath's son, the poet Vidyapati
7. Gunapati's lineagePathonghi. VidyapatiPudarikaMachhadi. KeshavaAmaravati.
8. From SinghashramVidyapati, two: Bhagirath's sons Kuleshvara
9. Sidhuka's daughters were given to Vishvanath and Shrinath; from Singhashram, Vidyapati, two
10. From Mishra Jayadev's daughter Nagavad GhosautMahamahopadhyaya Vidyapati, two
11. Mahamahopadhyaya Govind's daughter Mahamaho Lakshminatha Paranamaka (209/05) Thakkura Mahamahopadhyaya Vidyapati
12. Twothus Thakkura Vidyapati Matrika Chakra
13. Mahamahopadhyaya Vidyapati's sons Aniruddha, Ananta, Achyuta; from Ekahara, to Kashi, two
14. Sadu's son Damodar's son Daluka; from Pavali, to Godhi, two; Dalu (34/06)'s son Vidyapati
15. Sons Shiru, Padam, Lakhu, Gaduka; from Ekahara, Shri Kar's son Chand, two; from Khaual, Bhule, two; Madhusudan's son Umapati (84/01) Vidyapati
16. From Musai, KhaualDalu's son Vidyapati, two; from Bhandarisam, Shubhe, two, Thakkura
17. From SodarpurChhotai, two (28/08); Basaun's son Pashupati Vidyapati
18. Kalyan's son from KaramahaVidyapati, two
19. From JalayaRameshvara's son Mahighara, two; from YamugamaGenai, two; Vidyapati's son Bhagirath
20. Harkhu Govinda's son Gune's son Vidyapati, two; from Suragana, Hore, two
21. Krishnapati's son Murari Vidyapati Prajapati; from Takabal, Ramakar, two
22. Kavindra-padankita Mahamahopadhyaya Raghunatha from KaramahaVidyapati, two
23. Vidyapati's son from MandarYagyapati, two
24. From TalhanpurGadhvaya, two; Vidyapati
25. Yashu's sons Ravipati, Rudrapati Vidyapati, Chandrapati
26. From NaraunVidyapati, two
27. Ravipati's son Krishnapati Vidyapati; from Ghusaut, Hore, two
28. Vidyapati's sons from BelaunchRam, two
29. Gune's sons Gauripati Vidyapati Lakshmipati Kulapatiya; from Dari, Divakar, two
30. Maternal grandfather of Mahipati Jha, the poet Kokila Vidyapati Thakkura; Damodar's son Pansadu Haridev; from Naraun, Mangani, two
31. Ganapati's son, the poet Kokila, Royal Pandit Mahamahopadhyaya Vidyapati; his sons Haripati Dhanapati
32. Mahamahopadhyaya Vidyapati's son Hrishikesh
33. Harapati's son Vidyapati; from Kashi, Damodara
34. Ratipati's son Sodara Vidyapati, two
35. Vidyapati's great-grandson, grandson Harishvara Dhaneshvara's son Gonduka; from Pali, Jnanada, two
36. Vidyapati, two; Veni's son Ravinath
37. Sodara Vidyapati, two; Nikara
38. Shripati's son Vidyapati; from Parana, Darihara
39. Sodara Vidyapati, two; Mishra Kamalnayan's daughter from Hariam, Bachhai, two
40. From Ravaual, Sone, two; Devnath's son, the poet Vidyapati; from Pachhi Sodarpur, Jagannath, two
41. Gopi's son Vidyapati Vachaspati Shiva; from Hariam, Narayan, two
42. Vidyapati Nidhi Pra. Dharapatiya
43. Tarauni from KaramahaMahidhara, two (46/03) Vidyapati (111/03)'s son Madhusudan
44. Kulananda Hridayanandana Kara; from Panai, two (109/106) Vidyapati (314/05)'s sons Pritinath, Shobhanath, Mahinath
45. Umapati's son Vidyapati's son Jayapati
46. Jago's sons Surapati, Haripati, Prabhapati, Girapati, Vidyapatiya
47. Hachalu's sons Harapati Vidyapati Maho Jnanapati Dinapati Manikamtha
48. Krishna's sons Ramapati, Shripati, Ratnapati, Vidyapati; from Budhval, Dhiru, two
49. Dase's son Dayori; from Khandabala, Gopinath, two (85/02) Vidyapati's son Jivanath
50. From NaraunVidyapati, two
51. Dharmadhika Ranika Batu's son Vidyapati
52. From SodarpurGayan, two; Vidyapati's sons Ramapati, Horila, Hararavu, Jivaika; from Mandar, Sodhu, two
53. From KhaualRaghunath, two (54/07) Vidyapati's son Janu
54. From TakabalVidyapati, two; Matinath
55. From KhandabalaVidyapati's son Jivanath, two
56. From KaramahaVidyapati, two; Vishvanath
57. Krishnapati's son Umapati (Ba. 28/01) Vidyapati (302/03); from Pandua, Pan Bhagirath, two
58. Maho Harikrishna's daughter from KhaualVidyapati, two
59. Madhusudan's son Vidyapati; from Alaya, Aniruddha, two
60. From MandarDevasharma, two; Vidyapati's son from Naraun, Badani, two
61. Thakkura Shyama's son Purandara Paramananda; from MandarVidyapati, two
62. Vidyapati's sons from SodarpurJairam
63. Dharmeshvara from KhaualHarai's son Manohar, two; Rudra's son Rama; from GangoliDeve, two; from Vishfi, the poet Kokila, Royal Pandit Mahamahopadhyaya Vidyapati, two; Rama's son Bhiravuka; from Fanandaha, Lochan, two; from Pakaliya, Dinu, two; Bhiravu's son Haraika; from Sodarpur, Vira's son Harida, two; from Khaual, Shubhe, two; Harai's sons Mohan, Manohara, Kamala, Narayana; from Sodarpur, Jagannath's son Bhavani, two; Bhavani's son Haridev Sadayaka; from Hariam, Govind's son Shridhara, two; Sako Jage, two; Manohar's daughter from Karamaha, Ratnapati's son Krishnadas, two; Krishnadas's daughter from Sodarpur, Madhusudan's son Sundara, two (47/05); from Darihara, Mushai, two; Hari's son Pranapati; from Sodarpur, Narayan's son Nanu, two (110/01) (101/01); Narayan's son Nanuka; from Budhval, Bahuri, two (180/04); Damodar's son Bahurika; from Sodarpur, Paramananda's son Kangava, two; Paramananda's son Kangava; from Mandar, Halaghara's son Pitambara, two (58/05); from Karamaha, Shriram, two; Kangava's daughter from Karamaha, Shivadev's son Karama, two; from Mandar, Vavu, two; Dauhitra, two
64. Vavu Durgapati Singh's son Vavu Vidyapati Singh; from Karamaha, Harinath's son Taranath, two
65. From KhaualYuvaraj, two; Vavu Vidyapati Singh's son Vavu Girijapati Singh
66. Vavu Gangapati Singh's sons Bheshapati Singh, Vidyapati Singh
67. Vavu Bheshapati Singh's wife from another caste; their son Hansapati Singh; Vavu Vidyapati Singh's son Raman Kumar Singh
68. Bala's son Bhaiya Kalyanau; from KhaualVidyapati, two
69. Vishvanath Kashinath; from AlayaVidyapati, two
70. Pathaka Vidyapati's son Dukhamanjana Kalarau; from Asi Ekahara, Umananda, two
71. Narapati's daughter from Kalyanpur VishfiSundara, two; Kamalnayan's son Narayan's son Sundara; from KaramahaVidyapati, two
72. Murari's sons Damodara Vidyapati Mahighara Ananda
73. Vidyapati's sons Padmapati, Sabhapati, Adipati, Ganapatiya
74. Vidyapati's sons Chhitu, Paramananda; from Mandar, Narapati, two; from Baheradhi, Gadadhara, two
75. From AlayaKamala's son Nakatu, two; Vidyapati's son Jivanath's son Parama; from Dari, Rama, two
76. From KaramahaVidyapati's son Madhusudan, two
77. Mani from SodarpurVachaspati's son Vidyapati, two
78. From KhandabalaVavu Durgapati Singh's son Vavu Vidyapati Singh, two
79. From KhaualVidyapati, two; Thakkura Madhurapati's son Vachha Shivanandana
80. From SodarpurVaidyanatha, two; Harikrishna's daughter from KhaualMadhusudan's son Vidyapati, two
81. Madhusudan's son Vidyapati, two
82. From DariharaRamapati's son Veni, two; from AlayaKrishnapati's son Vidyapati, two
83. From AlayaVidyapati, two
84. Jyotishivanandana's son Vidyapati
85. From KhaualBhavadev's son Vidyapati, two
86. Pathaka Krishnapati's son Ushapati Vidyapati
87. Vidyapati's son Dukhabhanjana Kalaro; from Ekahara, Devananda's son Umananda, two
88. From AlayaVidyapati's son Kalaru, two
89. Karu's sons Pitambara Vidyapati Devakimana; from Sodarpur, Vaidyanath's son Jayi, two
90. Suraoi Pra. Sharadananda's daughter Gaurinandana Vachaspati Pra. Vidyapati Divakara Pra. Mandu Ratnakara Pra. Bh. Bholan Ji's Nag. from GhusautDamodar's son Ugramohana, two; from Ekahara, Shobhananda, two
91. From KhaualVidyapati, two
---
Now, to the Core Issue
Among the Royal Pandits and numerous other Vidyapatis who held positions such as Dharmadhikaranika (judicial authorities), including one who was the son of a devadasi, there is no doubt whatsoever about their being Brahmins. I am not speaking of Vidyapati Thakkura and *Kirtilata* or *Kirtipataka*, but rather of the Vidyapati of the *Padavali* (lyrical poetry). So let us not remain confused.
Now, let us consider the *Bidapat* sung by the *Gaer* Brahmins (a non-elite Brahmin sub-group), who existed prior to Jyotirishvara (possibly) within the Barber caste, and evidence for this is found in Jyotirishvara's description in *Ratnakara*, where he discusses this poet and his works.
Mahadeva was originally a deity of the *Gaer* Brahmins; gradually, he was adopted by other Brahmins. In any composition of Vidyapati's *Padavali*, there is no mention of him being a Sanskrit or Avahattha writer. But why is the pain for the proletariat, which is present in his compositions (as distinct from those of the other Vidyapati who was a Brahmin and wrote in Sanskrit and Avahattha), absent in the works of the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati? Consider this example.
---
Vidyapati's *Bidesiya* (The Exile's Song) *Piya Desantar* and *Bidapat Nach*
While Bhojpuri literature is less abundant in quantity than Maithili, in terms of quality, it surpasses Maithili in several domains. I make this statement in the context of Bhikhari Thakur's *Bidesiya* in Bhojpuri. Bhikhari Thakur lived as a migrant in Calcutta, and upon his return, he wandered from village to village, singing and narrating his sufferings in such a poignant manner that his *Bidesiya* play was born. In Mithila, migration is a contemporary phenomenon; entire villages have been rendered desolate. The people of Mithila have spread across various parts of the country. However, earlier, the kind of large-scale migration seen in the Bhojpuri region did not occur in Mithila. Migration was limited to Morang, which is part of the Mithilanchal region of Nepal. Consequently, there is a significant dearth of detailed folk narratives in Maithili. Whatever exists is not the detailed account of a folk hero but rather the description of epic heroes in Maithili, which is elaborate and cumbersome, and not comparable to Bhikhari Thakur's *Bidesiya*. Take the narrative of *Salahes*, for instance. It transcends regional boundaries: Salahes transforms from king to thief, and from thief to king. Similarly, Chuhadmal, in crossing regional boundaries, becomes a thief where Salahes becomes a king, and is known as a king/powerful figure where Salahes is called a thief. But no research has been possible on these subjects.
In this context, while examining the verses of Vidyapati's *Padavali*, various types of songs came before me. Most of these were descriptions of the separation of loversfar removed from the core concept of *Bidesiya*, which is migration born of economic necessity for sustenance and livelihood. It was then that I found some pure *Bidesiya* verses, which Vidyapati called *Piya-desantar* (Beloved gone to a foreign land). Most of these were naturally found in Vidyapati's *Nepal Padavali*, and one from Nagendranath Gupta's collection. Morang, being a part of Mithila located in Nepal and historically known for out-migration, is a likely reason for this.
Based on this foundation, Vidyapati's *Piya Desantar* was performed on stage.
Thus, *Bidapat Nach* and *Piya Desantar* are two plays based on Vidyapati's *Padavali*.
---
Amidst the current plight of the Maithili migrants (*Bidesiya*), this offering is presented with deep respect to the great poet, Vidyapati.
Is this pain present in the Vidyapati of Avahattha and Sanskrit?
The *Padavali* is a symbol of a parallel culture. In the same era, the same author could write in both Sanskrit and Avahattha, and he suffered because scholars mocked him for writing in Avahattha. But is there even a trace of this pain in the Vidyapati of the *Padavali*? In him, there is joy and sorrowthe joy and sorrow of the proletariat. That Vidyapati who wrote in Sanskrit and Avahattha was a Royal Pandit, a scholar; people ridiculed him for writing in Avahattha as well. But the Vidyapati of Maithili, who belongs to this parallel tradition, was far removed from such concerns. This parallel tradition has existed since the time of the Rigveda (the *Narashamsi* songs belong to that era). Whether this Vidyapati of the parallel tradition belonged to the Barber caste or the Brahmin caste remains a matter on which history is silent. However, folk tales and tradition, *Bidapat's* deep connection with the proletariat, and the traditions of Vishfi suggest he was a *Gaer* Brahmin. No verse in Sanskrit or Avahattha discusses this Vidyapati's *Padavali*, nor does the *Padavali* mention the Sanskrit or Avahattha compositions of Vidyapati. Sanskrit and Avahattha lament Muslim invasions, the defilement of the sacred thread, and the desecration of temples, but the *Padavali* embodies the joy, celebration, and struggle of the proletariat; such an outcry is absent there. And if the question arises whether the Vidyapati of Maithili was a Brahmin or not, what intention are we all fostering by placing a *pag* on his head? Was "Vidyapati" not ours? If Vidyapati was not a Brahmin, would he cease to be ours? Would his songs of migration, *Piya Desantar*, become insignificant? Is there a conspiracy behind discussing only his erotic songs? How appropriate is it to bind a poet like Vidyapati within caste strictures by placing a *pag* on his head? Vijay Kumar Thakur writes in *Medieval Mithila*: "The influence of this feudal-era religious ideology in the religious sphere of Mithila was so pervasive that even today, the following remnants of this tradition persist in society: (d) The *pag* is also associated with tantric ideology." (p. 26) So, this too is linked to tantra and ritual. Why then was this Vidyapati of the parallel tradition confined within this? Whether he belonged to the Barber caste or was a Brahmin (if he was a Brahmin, then more so, given the orthodoxy of 21st-century Brahmins), if a Brahmin of a thousand years ago belonged to a parallel tradition, then the feudal remnants like the *pag* were used only in tantric religious rituals, not placed upon Vidyapati's head).
---
Two Vidyapatis: Some Legends and Some Facts Bodhi Kayastha and Ugna Mahadev
**Vidyapati, the Primal Poet of Maithili (Pre-Jyotirishvara)**
(Vidyapati's portrait by Pankalal Mandal, awardee of the Videh Chitrakala Samman)
Prior to the poet-king Jyotirishvara (c. 1275-1350)because Jyotirishvara's works mention himthe primal poet of Maithili. Distinct from Vidyapati Thakkura, who wrote in Sanskrit and Avahattha. Possibly the son of Shri Mahesh Thakur, of the Barber caste from Vishfi village. In the *Bidapat Nach* of the parallel tradition, the Vidyapati *Padavali* (from the pre-Jyotirishvara era) is performed through dance and drama.
Pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati: Abhinavagupta of Kashmir (late 10th to early 11th century) mentions Vidyapati in his work *Ishvara Pratyabhija Vimarshini*. Shridhar Das's *Sadukti Karnamrita* (composed February 11, 1206, *Medieval Mithila*, V.K. Thakur) cites five verses by Vidyapati, which are in the language of Vidyapati's *Padavali*:
*Jāva na mālato kara paragāsa*
*Tāve na tāhi madhukara vilāsa.*
And
*Mundalā mukula kataya makaranda*
Jyotirishvara (1275-1350) mentions him in the Sixth Kallola "Atha Vidyāvanta Varṇanā" and in the Eighth Kallola "Atha Rājya Varṇanā."
In the *Bidapat Nach* of the parallel tradition, the Vidyapati *Padavali* (from the pre-Jyotirishvara era) is performed through dance and drama.
Vidyapati Thakkura (1350-1435), of Vishfe village, of the Kashyapa gotra, courtier of King Shivasimha, and author in Sanskrit and Avahattha. Author of timeless works including *Kirtilata*, *Kirtipataka*, *Purusha Pariksha*, *Goraksha Vijaya*, *Likhanavali*, among others. He is distinct from the primal poet of Maithili, Vidyapati (pre-Jyotirishvara).
Bodhi Kayastha
In Vidyapati Thakkura's *Purusha Pariksha*, the story of his attainment of the Ganges is narrated. This story was also in circulation regarding the great poet Vidyapati (the author of the pre-Jyotirishvara Maithili *Padavali*), and later became associated with Vidyapati Thakkura (the author in Sanskrit and Avahattha).
Ugna Mahadev
Mahadeva (in the form of Ugna) would disguise himself as a servant named Ugna to hear Vidyapati's songs at Ahitham. This story of Ugna became famous in connection with both the primal poet of Maithili, Vidyapati (pre-Jyotirishvara), and Vidyapati Thakkura (the author in Sanskrit and Avahattha, courtier of King Shivasimha).
The Sacred Thread Ceremony and *Pag* Installation by the Mithila Sanskritik Parishad
The "Mithila Sanskritik Parishad" and those associated with it, like "Kishori Kant Mishra," either failed to understand or chose not to understand the distinction between Vidyapati Thakkura (of Sanskrit and Avahattha) and the poet Kokila Vidyapati. There is historical written evidence that Gonu Jha lived around 1050-1150, yet Usha Kiran Khan depicts him engaging in scholarly debate with the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati (in the Hindi historical novel *Sirajanhara*, Bharatiya Jnanpith). Virendra Jha states that Gonu Jha lived 500 years ago, while Taranand Viyogi believes Gonu Jha lived 300 years ago (both have published books on Gonu Jha in Hindi, from Rajkamal Prakashan and National Book Trust respectively), while Vibha Rani's Hindi book on Gonu Jha (Vani Prakashan) considers Kunal Gonu Jha to have lived during the reign of Bhava Simha (14th century). When the written records in the *Panji* document Gonu Jha ten generations prior to the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati, this is the situation.
Regarding the Vidyapati of the parallel tradition and the *pag*in Vidyapati's Sanskrit works, it is written "composed by Thakkura Vidyapati," and that Vidyapati is a Brahmin. My concern is with the Vidyapati who wrote the Maithili *Padavali*. Why was he made "our Vidyapati" by placing a *pag* upon him? This did not occur when the Brahmin community preserved Vidyapati for eight hundred years through the medium of *Bidapat Nach*. It happened when Bengal claimed the *Padavali* of Vidyapati and Govindadas as its own, but the Bengali scholar Rajkrishna Mukhopadhyay first stated in 1875 AD that Vidyapati was a poet of Mithila, and Nagendranath Gupta of Bengal first stated that Govindadas was also a poet of Mithila. When this fact came to light, all of Bengal first rose up in opposition, then later accepted it.
When Rajkrishna Mukhopadhyay said Vidyapati belonged to Mithila, he was referring to the Vidyapati of the *Padavali*, not the Vidyapati Thakkura of Sanskrit and AvahatthaBengal never claimed the latter as its own.
The Maithili songs included in Jyotirishvara's Sanskrit play *Dhurtasamagama* and in the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati's *Goraksha Vijaya* are indicative of the ancient tradition of the *Padavali*, and the influence of the Maithili *Padavali* can be observed on both these authors.
Then, the scholars of Mithila were stirred into action, and drawing upon Vidyapati's Sanskrit-Avahattha works and records available in the *Panji* under the names Govindadas and Vidyapati, they produced Vidyapati Thakur and Govindadas Jha (!!!), where the superficial knowledge and limited perspective of Ramanath Jha's *Panji* caused damage. Subsequently, inadvertently, by placing a *pag* on him (the Mithila Sanskritik Parishadthis organization, after India's independence, committed the reprehensible act of declaring Vidyapati a Brahmin by placing a *pag* on him), the Vidyapati of Maithili (not the Sanskrit one) was made "our Vidyapati" by the Brahmin class. But there are many poets contemporary with or prior to Jyotirishvara available in the *Panji*. And if the discrepancies in names that appear in Vidyapati's case (while a piece of evidence remains, suggesting all this was done with planning) do not appear in the case of Jyotirishvara, why is that?
Now, let us consider the *Bidapat* sung by the *Gaer* Brahmins, who existed prior to Jyotirishvara (possibly) within the Naua Thakur caste, and evidence for this is Jyotirishvara's description in *Ratnakara*, where he discusses this poet.
Vidyapati never mentions being a Sanskrit/Avahattha writer in any of his *Padavali* compositions. But why is the pain for the proletariat, which is present in his compositions (as distinct from the other Vidyapati who was a Brahmin and wrote in Sanskrit and Avahattha), absent in the works of the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati? The Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati indeed despises the proletariat and is, in written form, an orthodox Brahmin.
But the Vidyapati of the *Padavali* is innocent; some orthodox verses have been inserted by orthodox Brahmin editors (laughably so).
The concept of *Piya Desantar* (Vidyapati's *Bidesiya*) is now before the discerning audience, and amidst the current plight of the Maithili migrants, this offering is presented with deep respect to the great poet, Vidyapati. Is this pain present in the Vidyapati of Avahattha and Sanskrit?
However, folk tales and tradition, *Bidapat's* deep connection with the proletariat, and the traditions of Vishfi suggest he was a *Gaer* Brahmin. No verse in Sanskrit or Avahattha discusses this Vidyapati's *Padavali*, nor does the *Padavali* mention the Sanskrit or Avahattha compositions of Vidyapati. Sanskrit and Avahattha lament Muslim invasions, the defilement of the sacred thread, and the desecration of temples, but the *Padavali* embodies the joy, celebration, and struggle of the proletariat; such an outcry is absent there. During his time, Muslims rarely even resided in Mithila. And if the question arises whether the Vidyapati of Maithili was a Brahmin or not, what intention are we all fostering by placing a *pag* on his head? Was "Vidyapati" not ours? If Vidyapati was not a Brahmin, would he cease to be ours? Would his songs of migration, *Piya Desantar*, become insignificant? Is there a conspiracy behind discussing only his erotic songs? How appropriate is it to bind a poet like Vidyapati within caste strictures by placing a *pag* on his head? Vijay Kumar Thakur writes in *Medieval Mithila*: "The influence of this feudal-era religious ideology in the religious sphere of Mithila was so pervasive that even today, the following remnants of this tradition persist in society: (d) The *pag* is also associated with tantric ideology." (p. 26)
So, this too is linked to tantra, marriage, and the sacred thread ceremony. Why then was this Vidyapati of the parallel tradition confined within this? And this reprehensible act was carried out by Kishori Kant Mishra's Mithila Sanskritik Parishad. If the language and culture of Mithila survive today despite such people who claim to be its protectors, it is due to the unique characteristics of that language and culture.
In the Chetna Samiti's journal, Maneshwar Manuj wrote in a biased statement that Jagdish Prasad Mandal had written only four novels!!!
If Jagdish Prasad Mandal did not have the title "Mandal" but was simply Jagdish Prasad, the followers of Ramanath Jha would have declared him a Shrotriya, the followers of Amar-Ramdev Jha would have declared him a Brahmin, and Mr. Verma, the author of "Laldas's Souvenir," would have declared him a Kayastha.
And if a photograph of Jagdish Prasad Mandal were not available, the reactionary Mithila Sanskritik Parishad of Kishori Kant Mishra would have performed his sacred thread ceremony, placed a *pag* on him, and repeated the same reprehensible act they committed with Vidyapati after a thousand years. And some elderly person, seeing a clay pot, would have concocted a fictional genealogy for Jagdish Prasad "Jha/Thakkura" and declared it so.
The writings of Malangiya's son, Ramdev Jha's son, and numerous pseudonyms have been published in *Videha* without any editingthose that could be printed have been, and those that could not have not been. And out of fear of repercussions, historians of Maithili and Mithila have, to this day, only hinted at this subject but not advanced further.
Thus, it is again proven that there was a Vidyapati who preceded Jyotirishvara (1275-1350). The songs, dances, and kirtans of Jayadeva (c. 1200) align with the *Padavali* of the pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati, but do not align with the poetic sophistication of the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati.
---
Now, once again, to the platform of the Mithila Sanskritik Parishad. This Parishad did not perform Vidyapati's sacred thread ceremony; it performed the sacred thread ceremony of the Maithili language itself. The *pag* they placed on Vidyapati caused the disappearance of Bindhyeshwar Mandal and Shrikant Mandal from Calcutta, and the sacred thread ceremony of the Maithili language was thus completed.
Consider the caste orthodoxy of the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati:
In *Kirtilata*: Marriage between castes is considered low and foreign.
In *Purusha Pariksha*, while narrating a story, the author comments that Rajput women are characterlessthis is akin to the statement in the Atharvaveda that a Shudra's wife can be taken by anyone without consent. In fact, no such statement ever appeared in the Atharvaveda or any Veda.
*Shukla Yajurveda (26.2)*: *Yathemaṃ vācaṃ kalyāṇīmāvadāni janebhyaḥ brahmarājanyābhyāṃ śūdrāya cāryāya ca svāya cāraṇāya ca *We shall speak this sacred Vedic speech to all: to the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Shudra, the Arya, to our own people, and to the stranger (i.e., to everyone). But contrary to this Vedic statement, the Manusmriti sought to prohibit the study or hearing of the Vedic speech for certain sections of society. However, even the Smriti accepts the Vedic word as authority (verbal testimony), so its own directive given in opposition to it becomes invalid.
But in *Purusha Pariksha*, it is present. And can you believe that the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati stooped so low as to write thus about the women of his own patron's caste?
The Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati places special emphasis on caste and purity of blood; caste is important to him. He says that those of low lineage are not worthy of any compassion!! Beauty is also the monopoly of the wealthy and the elite!! The Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati (the one whose sacred thread ceremony and *pag* were celebrated by Kishori Kant Mishra's Mithila Sanskritik Parishad) says: Caste is the ultimate determining factor in social life. One born in a bad lineage can only become a snake with a vile mind!! The Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati (the one with the sacred thread and *pag* of Kishori Kant Mishra's Mithila Sanskritik Parishad) says: The country where caste rules are not enforced is a barbarian country. (*Aspects of Society and Economy of Medieval Mithila* Upendra Thakur)
I have not found any description of the *pag* prior to Amir Khusrau.
But the pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati (author of the *Padavali*) says:
*Nṛpa ithi kāhu karathi nahi sāti*
*Purakha mahata saba hamara sajāti*
Thus, the king punishes no one. And all the great men are of one kin.
Govindadas's verses were complex and lacked such a parallel tradition (likely due to circulation only among the upper castes), which is why they could not be preserved in the soil as *Bidapat Nach* was. The *Tattvachintamani* of Gangesh Upadhyaya is discussed, but where are the poems of Vardhamana, who calls him *sukavikairava kānānenduḥ* (the moon in the lotus grove of fine poets)? Those who were partisan imposed restrictions on writing, but Raghunath Shiromani and his disciples memorized the works of Udayana and Gangesh and carried on, and with the establishment of the Navya-Nyaya school in Navadvipa, the influx of students from Bengal ceased.
(*Medieval Mithila*, Vijay Kumar Thakur)
Jyotirishvara (1275-1350) Sixth Kallola "Atha Vidyāvanta Varṇanā": *Vidāota āsthāna bhītara bhaū. Takā pachā telangī. marahaṭhī. vi.daotinī dui citrakaī gānga jauna nihāli aisani deṣuaha. cuacari cirī ekahoṅka parihane .......se kaisana deṣu. jaise prayāgakṣetra sarasvatīkeṅ gaṅgājamunāka samvāhi. kā ho taise tā vidāotake duao samvāhikā ho bhaūaha. daśaundhī rājā avadhāna karāu. vidāota āsthāna vaisu.*
(Vidāota (the male performer) entered; after him, Telangi, Marathi. The female performers (*vidaotinī*) appeared as if bathing in the two-colored Ganga and Yamuna. They wore a single cloth with four hems. How did they appear? Just as in Prayag, Sarasvati unites with the Ganga and Yamuna, so did both unite with Vidāota. The king paid attention; Vidāota sat in the assembly.)
Eighth Kallola "Atha Rājya Varṇanā": *Vidāota ta.nhika gīta. nṛtya. vādya. tāla. ghāghara pariṭharaiteṁ āha...*
There were songs, dances, instruments, rhythms, and the performers wore *ghaghra* skirts.
Ugna Mahadev: Mahadeva (in the form of Ugna) would disguise himself as a servant named Ugna to hear Vidyapati's songs at Ahitham. This story of Ugna became famous in connection with both the primal poet of Maithili, Vidyapati (pre-Jyotirishvara), and Vidyapati Thakkura (the author in Sanskrit and Avahattha, courtier of King Shivasimha).
Bodhi Kayastha: In Vidyapati Thakkura's *Purusha Pariksha*, the story of his attainment of the Ganges is narrated. This story was also in circulation regarding the great poet Vidyapati (the author of the pre-Jyotirishvara Maithili *Padavali*), and later became associated with Vidyapati Thakkura (the author in Sanskrit and Avahattha) as well.
The Sanskrit literature of Vidyapati Thakkura came to light after the decline of the scholarly tradition in Mithila, and there is no significant mention of Vidyapati Thakkura in Sanskrit literature. The influx of students from Bengal also decreased, and for those who continued to come, the Sanskrit and Avahattha works of Vidyapati Thakkura were part of the contemporary scholarly tradition that was fading away, and it continued to be written, but the pre-Jyotirishvara *Padavali* had already gained fame. Whether the *pag* existed during the time of Gonu or Vidyapati is also uncertain, as Amir Khusrau (1253-1325) is the only one who mentions it. Vijay Kumar Thakur considers it a feudal symbol associated with tantric rituals. It may have been worn by subordinate feudal lords after the Muslim invasions, and it also resembles a Muslim cap. Only Brahmins and Kayasthas were feudal lords in Mithila after the Muslim invasions (not Rajputs), and even today, it is used among these two classes in certain rituals like black marriages.
Great poet Vidyapatiprior to the poet-king Jyotirishvara (c. 1275-1350) (because Jyotirishvara's works mention him), is the primal poet of Maithili. Distinct from Vidyapati Thakkura of Sanskrit and Avahattha. Possibly the son of Shri Mahesh Thakur of the Naua Thakur caste from Vishfi village (according to tradition). In the *Bidapat Nach* of the parallel tradition, the Vidyapati *Padavali* (from the pre-Jyotirishvara era) is performed through dance and drama.
Phanishwar Nath Renu wrote a reportage on *Bidapat Nach*, which was published in the weekly *Vishvamitra* on August 1, 1945 AD. This reportage is significant because it was written 700 years after Jyotirishvara's account on this subject, and during those 700 years, the parallel tradition kept Vidyapati alive. And those who kept it alive had Vidyapati unwittingly taken from them. Bideshwar Thakur, while singing Vidyapati's songs and crying out in anguish, met his death when the Brahmins took Vidyapati away by placing a *pag* on him. Kanungo Badri Prasad Thakur of Brahmapura, Binod Thakur of Pokharibhinda, Saryug Thakur of Rudrapur, Jairam Thakur of Menhath, and the people of Sonse village near Vishfi still chant this lament. Shaligram Yadav and Avadhia Thakur are witnesses to the tradition of Vishfi village. In the ritualistic appropriation of Vidyapati, all sorts of baseless arguments about his birth and origins have been presented, but no research paper has even discussed his parallel tradition. This article is dedicated to thousands of people of the parallel tradition like Bideshwar Thakur who kept Vidyapati alive between the accounts of Jyotirishvara and Phanishwar Nath Renu.
---
The Tradition of Mithila's Shatapatha Brahmana and Mithila's Parallel Tradition
Language must have existed even before the Rigveda, the most ancient text of Vedic Sanskrit. Many oral literatures, such as *gāthā* (songs), *nārāshaṃsī* (heroic ballads), *daivata kathā* (divine tales), and *ākhyāna* (narratives), were composed within it. Terms like *gāthin* (singer), *gātuvid* (knower of songs), and *gāthapati* (master of songs) are used in the Rigveda for such singers. From the Vedic period onward, *gāthā* and *nārāshaṃsī* existed in parallel forms.
Did Prakrit emerge from Vedic Sanskrit, or Vedic Sanskrit from Prakrit? The folk narratives called *nārāshaṃsī* in the Vedas prove that both continued in parallel for a long time. This parallel tradition influenced both. Now consider the Rigvedawhat does the use of *durlabha* for *dūlabha* (Rigveda 4.9.8) signify? What does *paścāt* for *paścā* (Atharvaveda 10.4.10) signify? What does *pratisaṃdhāya* for *pratisaṃhāya* (Gopatha Brahmana 2.4) signify?
The Aryas came to Mithila from the western part of India, and before their settlement, some parts of the Vedas were already extant. That is why many words and many pronunciations found in Maithili are present in Vedic Sanskrit but not in Classical Sanskrit. Concepts such as *avidyā* (ignorance), the doctrine of karma, the cycle of birth and rebirth, and *mokṣa* (liberation) were transmitted to the Aryans from non-Aryans. Hence, the Upanishads speak of the path to *mokṣa*, not to heaven. How is *mokṣa* attained? Through sacrifices? No, it is attained through knowledge, reflection, contemplation, and meditation. Under the patronage of King Janaka, Yajnavalkya composed the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad in the non-Aryan region of Tirhut.
Vachaspati Mishra, while commenting on the *Sāṃkhya Kārikā*, says: Can one say that the unconscious milk nourishes the calf, and through the operation of the unconscious Prakriti, the soul attains knowledge of liberation? If God is complete in Himself, for what purpose would He create the universe? And if He creates for the sake of souls, then souls would only be created after creation; before creation, there is no question of their being bound. So, where is the question of compassion for souls? Thus, creation occurs through Prakriti, and the soul attains liberation through its own efforts. Dissolution occurs through discrimination. This is not theism but atheism in Vachaspati's interpretation. If God participates in the operation of Prakriti, it would be a conscious process undertaken with some purpose, and such a purpose cannot be ascribed to God. Gautama of Mithila, the author of the *Nyāya Sūtras*, discusses the attainment of the highest good for the soul through knowledge of sixteen categories, but there is no mention of God as the means of liberation. The *Vaiśeṣika Sūtras* state that the Vedas were composed by learned men, not by God. Kumarila Bhatta says that any discussion of God prior to creation is impossible to verify.
The so-called mainstream of the *Shatapatha Brahmana* and its parallel mainstream: Brahminism and non-Brahminism have existed in Mithila from the very beginning. Jyotirishvara writes: The Buddhist path is fearsome in appearance. Due to the seeming similarity with the stagnant *Shatapatha Brahmana* tradition, there is an obstacle to venerating the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati. The ṛk and the *nārāshaṃsī*, the great poet Vidyapati and the Vidyapati of the *pag*, *mokṣa* and heaven-hellthese two opposing ideologies have coexisted in Mithila.
The Videgha Mathava of the *Shatapatha Brahmana* and the Nimi of the Puranas both have the same priest, Gautama, so they are one, and from this, the Videha kingdom began. Mathava's priest Gautama initiated the *mitravinda* sacrifice/offering, and it was re-established during the time of Mahajanaka II by Yajnavalkya. By constantly invoking Maitreyi, Yajnavalkya, Sita, and Janaka, this tradition quickly carried out Vidyapati's sacred thread ceremony and *pag* installation, which aligned with the so-called mainstream of the *Shatapatha Brahmana*.
After the order of the *Shakha Panji* in 1760 AD by Madhav Singh, neo-litism spread among Brahmins and Kayasthas in Mithila, leading to the emergence of the *Battisgamiya* sub-caste among the Karn Kayasthas and the *Shrotriya* sub-caste among Maithil Brahmins. Physical and mental illnesses increased severely within these two sub-castes, along with a dramatic rise in polygamy, child marriage, and the number of widows. The peaceful and rapid manner in which this occurred was in keeping with the so-called mainstream of the *Shatapatha Brahmana*.
---
Views on Vidyapati by Dineshwar Lal Anand and Ramvriksh Benipuri
Dineshwar Lal Anand was under a misconception. At that time, the *Panji* was a secret document. The Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati, belonging to Vishfe village, had been recorded in the *Panji* under the *Jayavar* (lowest category) section. The *Shakha Panji* did not exist before 1760 AD, as evidenced by the fact that the descendants of Ayachi Mishra's original lineage are found both in the Shrotriya sub-caste and in the broader Brahmin sub-caste. It is akin to the existence of buffaloes in the Indus Valley civilization (on seals), but not cowshow could buffaloes exist without cows? Anand did not have access to all the facts of the *Panji*. Propaganda conflating the Vidyapati of the *Padavali* with the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati likely led him to believe that if the Vishfe resident could be linked to the *Jayavar* status in the *Panji* for writing in Avahattha, then Vidyapati Thakkura's revolutionary nature could be explained. However, Anand himself admits that there is no recordlet alone in his own handwritingof the *Padavali* from Vidyapati's time. But how is that possible when the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati begins and ends all his Sanskrit and Avahattha works with declarations, mentioning which king or queen inspired him, who his patrons were, all in a fully authorial style, boasting of both Saraswati and Lakshmi? Why would he not do the same in the *Padavali*? Anand is perplexed. The Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati wrote about his patrons, but in no Sanskrit or Avahattha work did he write anything about himself. He experienced pressure to write in Avahattha, which was the literary language of the mainstream at the time. But the influence of the pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati was so profound that the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati was compelled to include Maithili songs in his Sanskrit play *Goraksha Vijaya* (just as Jyotirishvara, the first to report on *Vidāota*, was compelled to include Maithili songs in his Sanskrit play *Dhurtasamagama*).
Govind Jha recognizes the tradition of Vidyapati in Jyotirishvara's *Vidāota* and discusses it, but why does he not advance the case for a pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati, especially when Bideshwar Thakur gave up his life singing? When a thirst for Vidyapati arises in a Vidyapati play, how does the playwright's village become involved? Everyone is writing plays about "our Vidyapati" according to their own understanding.
Ramvriksh Benipuri also did not have access to the *Panji* facts. Based on the fabrication of a sub-caste and legend, he writes humorously about Keshav Mishra and Vidyapati. This Keshav Mishra of the Dvaita appendix is the grandson of Vachaspati II (1400-1490). There is another Keshav Mishra (c. 1150) who wrote *Tarkabhāṣā*, which was critiqued by Vardhamana, son of the *Tattvachintamani* author Gangesh, in *Tarkaprakāśa*. Benipuri could not advance a single step beyond the research conducted by Ananda Coomaraswamy in 1915 AD, nor could any other mainstream researcher in the hundred years since Coomaraswamy. Benipuri narrates the story of Ugna, but he is unclear whether Mahadeva danced on the *Śaivasarvvasvasaara* of the orthodox Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati in Kailash, or on the dance floor of the pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati. Like Coomaraswamy, Benipuri was aware that a manuscript of the *Bhagavata* in the hand of the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati exists, and also that Vidyapati attained the Ganges, with the Ganges merging him into herself. Like Coomaraswamy, Benipuri had heard of the *Purusha Pariksha* written by the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati but had not read it; otherwise, he would have understood that the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati wrote the story of the attainment of the Ganges in relation to Bodhi Kayastha. This story, along with the Ugna story, was prevalent regarding the pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati and was later ritually attached to the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati, with the Bodhi Kayastha story in *Purusha Pariksha* being evidence of this. Benipuri calls *Kirtipataka* a collection of Maithili songs!! Is research conducted through inquiry? Why has the mainstream, which dried up after the foundation laid by Coomaraswamy a hundred years ago, not advanced? Because this *Shatapatha Brahmana* mainstream does not permit it. Yet, without any evidence, they declare Purāditya, a friend of Shivasimha, a Bhumihar Brahmin, just as Ramanath Jha declared Govindadas (Jha) a Shrotriya (Sukumar Sen finds this laughable), and Ramdev Jha is proven a Brahmin, and Kalidasa is proven a Kayastha by Varmaji (in the Laldas souvenir).
The Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati begins and ends his books with full ritualistic pomp, mentioning kings, queens, and patrons, but does not mention himself. Why did the *Padavali* survive in the mouths of the people, and why was it not given the same treatment of bookish pomp? Because it was composed centuries before him, at a time when the *pag* had not yet originated in Mithila. Names like Rupanarayan, Shivasimha, Lakhima, Deva Simha, Hara Simha, Padma Simha, Vishvas Deva, Arjuna-Amar, Raghava Simha, Rudra Simha, Dhira Simha, Bhairava Simha, Chandra Simha, etc., were inserted into the *Padavali* at a later date, which is clearly discernible as it affects the rhythm of the songs. The Sanskrit-Avahattha Vidyapati's works*Bhuparikrama* (Deva Simha), *Kirtilata* (Kirti Simha and Vira Simha), *Kirtipataka*, *Goraksha Vijaya* (Shiva Simha), *Likhanavali* (Purāditya), *Dānavākyāvalī* (Queen Dhiramati)were clearly royal patronages. *Goraksha Vijaya* was written for a Bhairava worship ceremony, and like *Dhurtasamagama*, it contained Maithili songs, which were a result of the profound influence of the pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati. If there were no discrepancy in names, Jyotirishvara would have been made into a pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati.
---
Conclusion
Gangesh, the author of the *Tattvachintamani*, wrote a work equivalent to 12,000 texts. Professor Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya writes in his *History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithila*: "The family which was inferior in social status is now extinct in Mithila... Gangesha's family is completely ignored and we are not expected to know even his father's name." And he states that all this information was provided to him by Prof. R. Jha (Ramanath Jha)!
Now, let us turn to the facts described in the *Panji*. It is clearly written there that Gangesh, the author of the *Tattvachintamani*, was born five years after his father's death and that he married a *charmakāriṇī* (a woman of the leather-worker caste). Why did Ramanath Jha conceal this from Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya? The story of how a sub-caste transformed him from a fool into a scholar was fabricated, and a conspiracy was hatched to eliminate him.
Vardhamana, Gangesh's son, calls him *sukavikairava kānānenduḥ* (the moon in the lotus grove of fine poets). The fact that the poetry of a famous scholar like Gangesh is not available today, under whose conspiracy, is evident from the examples given above. Vasudeva Pakshadhara Mishra of Bengal was a classmate of his. He came to Mithila to study, passed the *shalaka* examination, and received the title *Sarvabhauma*. Vasudeva memorized Gangesh's *Tattvachintamani* and Udayana's *Nyāyakusumājali* verses. Pakshadhara and other Mithila teachers did not allow the copying of the *Tattvachintamani*! Vasudeva's student Raghunath Shiromani defeated his own teacher Pakshadhara Mishra in debate to establish his authority. The Navya-Nyaya school was established in Navadvipa by Vasudeva and Raghunath. With Raghunath, the influx of students from Bengal to Mithila ceased.
Grierson called the Vishfi copperplate grant given to the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati by Shivasimha a forgery because he was familiar with Vidyapati's *Padavali* and understood that it would have been impossible for that Vidyapati to receive such a grant. But that copperplate was indeed received by the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati, and Grierson could not conceive of the distinction between the two. However, Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad Shastri understood this and declared the copperplate genuine.
In Shridhar Das's *Sadukti Karnamrita*, there are songs in praise of the Ganges by the Kaivarta Papiha. There are songs of Radha-Krishna. The court poet of Lakshmana Sena was Dhoyi (a weaver).
Lakhima Thakurani did not write a *Padavali*; she wrote verses in Sanskrit (Grierson). Shridhar Das's inscription is at Andhara Thadi, and he was a minister of Nanyadeva and Gangadeva. His descendant Amiyakara was contemporary with the Sanskrit and Avahattha Vidyapati. Upendra Thakur considers Gangadeva a Kalachuri. Vijay Kumar Thakur acknowledges the Vidyapati songs in the *Sadukti Karnamrita* (by Shridhar Das) as praising the Kalachuri Karna. The opinion of Radha Krishna Choudhary differs from this.
Under no circumstances could this Vidyapati be pre-Jyotirishvara.
"Ramacharita"Vigrahapala III defeated Karna. In this connection, Radha Krishna Choudhary found two Pala inscriptions from Naulagarh, 16 km north of Begusarai. Karna lived in the 11th century.
The *Padavali* of the pre-Jyotirishvara Vidyapati is famous in Bengal. Jyotirishvara's *Dhurtasamagama* is famous in South India. After that, the influx of students from Bengal to Mithila ceased, and with it, the outward flow of Mithila's plays and *Padavali*.
अपन मंतव्य editorial.staff.videha@zohomail.in पर पठाउ।