Danielle Feller

Adding Insult to Injury

Introduction

Adding insult to injury. Discover how whipping is depicted in the Mahābhārata, from animal cruelty to human insult. Uncover unequal justice for kings vs. brahmins, highlighting social hierarchy.

Abstract

In the Mahābhārata (MBh), whipping is mainly resorted to by charioteers while driving their horses and the terms designating whips are therefore frequently found in the war-books. Used metaphorically, the expression “whip-like words” designates cutting, hurtful speech. Excessive whipping of draught-animals is considered cruel and is seen as a sign of low birth. When humans are whipped, this is regarded as particularly insulting, since such treatment is usually reserved for animals, but the outcome for the offenders is unequal: kings who whip brahmins are swiftly punished and cursed, whereas brahmins who flog kings get away with it scot-free. Such tales are most frequently found in the MBh’s Anuśāsanaparvan, where they serve to underscore the brahmins’ superiority.

Review

This paper, aptly titled "Adding Insult to Injury," presents an intriguing examination of the concept and practice of whipping within the Mahābhārata. The abstract clearly delineates the scope, exploring both the literal application of whips by charioteers and its metaphorical use to denote "whip-like words" – hurtful speech. A particular strength lies in its focus on the social and hierarchical implications of whipping, highlighting how excessive animal cruelty signifies low birth, and how human flogging is inherently insulting due to its association with animal treatment. The promise of exploring the unequal outcomes for kings and brahmins in such scenarios is particularly compelling, suggesting a nuanced study of power dynamics within the epic. While the abstract effectively establishes the central argument regarding the Anuśāsanaparvan's role in underscoring brahminical superiority through these tales, it would benefit from a more explicit mention of the analytical approach. For instance, will specific textual examples be meticulously analyzed to demonstrate how "kings who whip brahmins are swiftly punished and cursed" versus how "brahmins who flog kings get away with it scot-free"? A brief indication of the *types* of curses or punishments, or the *specific justifications* for brahminical impunity beyond general "superiority," could further enrich the abstract and provide a clearer roadmap for the paper's argumentation. Similarly, a touch on the broader cultural significance of this unequal justice, beyond just brahminical supremacy, might offer additional depth. Overall, this appears to be a valuable and original contribution to Mahābhārata studies, offering fresh insights into social stratification, justice, and the nuanced uses of language and violence within the epic. The central thesis is clear, and the chosen focus on the Anuśāsanaparvan suggests a targeted and potentially profound analysis. Given the well-defined scope and the intriguing nature of the topic, I recommend this paper for publication, noting that the points raised above might serve as helpful areas for refinement in the full manuscript, particularly concerning the explicit detailing of analytical methods and specific textual evidence.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.