See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325524157

Visualising the Rāmayāṇa: Power, Redemption and

Emotion in Early Narrative Sculptures (c. Fifth to Sixth
Centuries CE)

Article in Indian Historical Review · June 2018

DOI: 10.1177/0376983617748000

CITATION READS
1 1,941

1 author:

Seema Bawa
University of Delhi
19 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Seema Bawa on 10 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Visualising the Rāmayāna: Indian Historical Review

45(1) 92–123

Power, Redemption and © 2018 ICHR

SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
Emotion in Early Narrative DOI: 10.1177/0376983617748000
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ihr
Sculptures (c. Fifth to Sixth
Centuries ce)

Seema Bawa1

Abstract
This article seeks to explore the images based on the Rāmayān�a tradition within
archaeological, cultural and literary contexts in late fifth and early sixth century
ce. It uncovers elements of politico-religious agency, art and historical knowledge.
Narrative panels, spatially located largely in central and north India, narrativise the
episodes set in the forest represented in the Aran� ya and Kis� kindhākān�d� a. Evolution of
narrative complexities through placement, composition and representational devices
in terracotta and stone relief sculptures at sites such as Nachna Kuthara and Deogarh
is traced. Rāma’s idealised character, expressed through renunciation, benevolence,
ameliorative power, authority and dharma, emerges within the physical and emotional
landscape of Rāmayān�a imagery. Ideal and deviant behaviour is represented through
narratives based on Ahalya, Anusuyā, Śūrpan�akhā, Vālin and such characters. The con-
struction of the ‘other’ in form of monkeys and demons, vānaras and rāks�asas, in the
visual discourse, and the fascination with devotion, romance and heroism that is pro-
jected through these is seen as a thread that runs through the Rāmayān�a narratives.

Keywords
Forest, ascetic-warrior, terracotta, relief sculptures, sacred-landscape, gender

The article examines the early Rāmayāna panels found from central India during the
fifth and sixth centuries from a perspective which suggests that art historical knowl-
edge can be a significant source of information and interpretation, providing insights
into mainstream and alternate socio-religious beliefs, rituals and practices to validate
ideas about the same garnered from literary and epigraphic sources.
This reading of early Rāmayāna sculptural panels found within architectural set-
tings and independent terracotta plaques seeks to examine the layers of signification

1
Department of History, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India.

Corresponding author:
Seema Bawa, Department of History, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India.
E-mail: bawaseema@gmail.com
Bawa 93

therein, their relation to the core Rāma story, the personas depicted in the visual narra-
tive, their variations within and outside the depictions, narrative devices used, and most
importantly the temporal and spatial contexts within which these were conceptualised.
During the Gupta period, Rāmayāna becomes a focus of cultural production and dis-
semination, be it in the literary, oral or sculptural traditions. The Ramayana is an epic,
a kāvya and an ākhyāna2 unlike the Mahabharata which is an itihāsa, but on account of
noble ideals that are projected through the personas of the protagonists, it becomes a
popular vehicle of conveying ideals and emotions in literary traditions, inspiring many
later writers to compose Sanskrit dramas and poetry, and visuals. A certain degree of
familiarity with the literary works may therefore be presumed on part of the artist.
The resonances of the text with the visual narrative have been discussed below in detail
with reference to each panel. The visualisation of the Ramayana story as it came to be
manifested through the terracotta and stone panels along with other cultural produc-
tions such as kāvya and plays composed during and after the fourth century ce is selec-
tive both in terms of the episodes and scenes chosen for the same as well the ordering
of these3 elements, which are significant for the study of narrative structures and their
meanings. The Rāma story was and remains a very potent vehicle of conveying politi-
cal, emotional, religious and cultic ideas and functions, especially idealised behaviour
of the protagonists and dharmic precepts4 to regulate social and cultural life.
Pollock observes that a history of the Rāmayāna can be plotted in the domains of the
political and literary imaginations but with differing articulations. For a thousand years
from at least the fourth century ad, the literary imagination of India received undimin-
ished stimulation from the Rama legend.5 Alf Hiltebeitel locates the Epic tradition in
India to a time when the ‘Magadhan metropolitan states’ were established, suggesting
that the epic mode and vision was appropriated to revivify ‘contemporary Ksatriyas’
on the one hand and to establish a Hindu political grand narrative on the other hand.6
In terms of depiction, moments from Rāmayāna and Krsna lilā are most significant.
However, Rāmayāna alone is taken up in this article to recover the contexts, meanings
and experiences associated with its creation because its imagery recovered from the
period forms a more coherent and cohesive body of art. The article will discuss the
spatio-temporal context, the actual sculptural evidence and the social, political and
emotional landscape within which these can be located.
These panels have been noticed earlier in art historical research works in terms
of their stylistic affiliations7 or identifications8; however, a sociocultural analysis has
been missing in the extant body of literature. What follows is an attempt at not only

The Sanskrit words for the Rāmayāna text given in the text have been taken from Srimad Vālmīki Rāmayāna,
Geeta Press, Gorakhpur.
2
Kane, ‘The Two Epics’, p. 58.
3
Dehejia, Discourse in Early Buddhist Art, p. 6.
4
Kane, ‘The Two Epics’, p. 53
5
Pollock, ‘Rāmayāna and Political Imagination in India’, p. 263.
6
Hiltebeitel, ‘India’s National Epics’, p. 409.
7
Harle, Gupta Sculpture, p. 8; Majumdar and Altekar, The Vakataka-Gupta Age, pp. 410–19.
8
Kala, Epic Scenes in Indian Plastic Arts, pp. 1–15; Sinha, ‘Representations of Rāmayāna Scenes in an Old
Temple Wall at Apshad’, pp. 216–18; Dikshit, Paharpur.
94 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

interpreting the panels but also contextualizing the Rāmayāna narratives within
multiple contexts.
The study of the location, per se, along with contiguous patronage patterns, polities
and sub-polities reveals aspects of politico-religious agency that went into the con-
struction of the temples and the narratives. The spatial context of the narratives can
be read at three levels: first at a macro level, where the unit is the geopolitical region,
including the locale of the temples in relation with the sacred geography in the story
itself; second a micro study of the site as it reveals its relationship with the larger
region; and the third, the imagined and ritual spaces within which the Rāmayāna
narratives were visualised.
Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh have yielded a large body of terracotta plaques,
however since most of these are surface finds; therefore, the architectural embedding
of these plaques cannot be recovered with any degree of certainty. The other core area
of discovery of Rāmayāna relief sculptures is from ‘Gupta’ temple sites in present day
Madhya Pradesh.
There is not a single monument or a work of art that could have been attributed
directly to the Guptas. Only one monument of Gupta date at Bhitargaon stands in
what was the Brahmanical heartland during the period. Most Gupta inscriptions are
in outlying areas and confirm the influence of Guptas over most of Northern India.9
The temples, dēvakulas and prasādas in the areas, where the Rāmayāna panels have
been found, were not erected by Gupta rulers themselves, but by sub-kings or rulers
acknowledging Gupta suzerainty, namely, the Parivrājakas and Uccakalpas. Therefore,
the use of the term Gupta is based on stylistic similarities to the Gupta style which
informs the terracotta and stone reliefs. Second, chronologically, the inscriptions of
the area are dated as per the Gupta era. Further, paleographically, the inscriptions on
terracotta plaques are in early Gupta Brahmi script.
At a macro level, the temples containing early Rāmayāna panels, dateable to the
late fifth and early sixth century, are located in the region of Bundelkhand and parts of
Baghelkhand that borders the former, roughly the area between Jhansi and Jabalpur.
There is a profusion of architectural and sculptural remains in the aranyas and atavī
rājyas, relatively forested areas region, which are not necessarily under direct control
of the ‘imperial Guptas’ from the fourth to the sixth centuries ce. This is significant
given that the agrarian, core areas of Gupta Empire around the Gangetic plains have
not yielded either such a rich repository or a diversity of art and architecture. This is
not to say there were no village settlements; the land grant donations by the Uccakalpas
indicate that there were indeed craftsmen, and other specialists in the Bundelkhand10
region. Given this, there is an argument that the nomenclature of Gupta art may be over
stretching the boundaries of dynastic appellations. However, Harle is of the opinion
that a Gupta style did exist that emerged and flowered during the rule of Gupta kings,
which he dates upto 550 ce; and was even coextensive with their territory including
works that were ‘impregnated with Gupta ideals’. The entire period is of course not
homogenous and has been divided into early, mature and late phases.11

9
Harle, Gupta Sculpture, p. 2.
10
Fleet, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum III, pp. 120, 123, 128, 131–32.
11
Harle, Gupta Sculpture, p. 6.
Bawa 95

Epigraphic records found from the three sites of Khoh, Nachna Kuthara (Nachne ke
Talai) and Deograh suggest that these temples were erected in areas that border the Gupta-
Vākātaka empires. The Parivrājakas inscriptions, dated in the Gupta era declare ‘in the
enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta king, Gupta nrparājya bhuktau’.12 These areas
were ruled by dynasties identified from their inscriptions as the Parivrājakas (forest-
ascetics kings, from the status of the founder of the dynasty). Parivrājaka literally
means ‘a wandering religious mendicant, and ascetic in the fourth and last religious
order or stage of life’; nr◦ pati Parivrājaka, a kingly ascetic,13 is in the same class with
rājar◦ si, a royal saint, a saint of royal descent.14 The fourth Parivrājaka king, Hastin
derives family origins from Susharman.15 The other dynasty whose plates have been
discovered from the areas around modern Unchhehra is that of the Uccakalpas.
In line with the developments in religion during the Gupta period, when there was
an expansion of Brahmanical—Śaiva, Vaisnava and Śākta sectarian and cultic prac-
tices, this area also witnessed a similar interest and patronage. Though the inscrip-
tions of Mahārāja Hastin at the end of the fifth century suggest he was a Śaiva, his
successor Samksobha, left two Vaisnava inscriptions, dedicated to Vasudeva; one of
which says that the Parivrājakas territory included the kingdom of Dabhālā, the eight-
een forest kingdoms,16 and Tripurī, probably the same as the later Kalacuri capital near
Jabalpur. It is the eighteen forest kingdoms, astādaśa ātavī rājya, that are of geopoliti-
cal interest, as these represent the tribal area to the southeast bordering on Mekalā and
Dahālā corresponding to the modern Bundelkhand. The other politically active family,
the Ucchakalpa may have been feudatories of the Vākātaka family whose inscriptions
have been found from a wide area including Nāchnā area. They made Vaisnava dona-
tions, especially a king named Śarvanātha whose dedications included Kumāra, Sūrya-
Nārāyana (Visnu and the Sun), and twice a Vaisnava goddess called Pistapūrīka.17
That the two families were linked to one another through territory, is attested to by
an inscribed pos, a boundary stone, dating from ad 508 found near Bhumara,18 which
refers both to Hastin and to Śarvanātha.
Deogarh, too, remained a forested area well into the early medieval period and is
referred to as atavīka area in the inscriptions issued by Śaiva monastic centres such as
Kadwaha, Terahi and Mahua nearby.
The forest described in the Rāmayāna, the forest of Madhukas, Panchvati and
Kraunchalaya (also called Damdaka) forest, extends continuously from Citrakuta,

12
Fleet, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum III, pp. 107,114.
13
.
Ibid., p. 107; Singh, ‘The Power of a Poet’, p. 189; The Raghuvam śa’s description of the king’s relation-
ship with his guru (family preceptor) and Brāhmana ◦rsi clearly places them on a pedestal of great respect.
The relationship between king and Brāhmana ◦rsi is presented as one of reciprocity and mutual respect rather
than hierarchy. Kings are frequently called on to protect the sacrifices in the āśramas of ◦rsi s, and it is empha-
sized that the sacrifices, mantras, blessings and advice of the ◦rsi s in turn help maintain the well-being of the
kingdom.
14
This may be compared with rājadhirājar◦ si, applied to Chandragupta II in Udaigiri Cave inscription, in
Fleet, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum III. No. 6, p. 35, Line 3.
15
Fleet, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum III, p. 114
16
Ibid., pp. 112–16.
17
Ibid., pp. 132, 136–39.
18
Ibid., pp. 110–12; Banerji, The Temple of Siva, p. 2.
96 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

across Jumna, over and around the south end of the doab. Thus, travelling east after
crossing Ganga at Śringaverapura, all is forest land. Damdaka appears to have been a
general name, comprising all the forests from Bundelkhand down to the river Krsna
where the only people described are ascetics and rāksasas. Chitrakut is located on the
borders between Baghelkhand and Bundelkhand region.19 The atavī rājyas mentioned
in the Parivrājas inscriptions lie in this geographical zone. That the first visualisation
and construction of actual Rāmayāna panels appears to take place in the geographical
area that is contiguous with the imagined forests within which the actions/karma/lilā
of Rāma takes place in the Rāmayāna and under the patronage of kings described as
ascetic-kings is significant. Even more significant is that their subject/context relates to
the forest episodes in the Rāmayāna. The text depicts Ayodhya and the Gangetic area
as the core comprising of cities and palaces such as Ayodhya, and the forest and it’s
dwellers as the periphery.
Given their forested and relatively isolated locale 1500 years ago (and even today),
who were the intended audience of the temples and the art? Vats is of the opinion that
Deogarh lay on an ancient trade route that connected Pawaya in the north with Sanchi,
Vidisha and Eran in the south and from there to Varanasi in south east and Ujjain in
south west.20 Nachna and other sites in that area were also connected to the trade route
that linked northern India to the Deccan; it is no wonder that many ancient Buddhist,
Jain and Hindu pilgrimage sites are in its vicinity. Political elites, sculptors, walls and
artisans, merchants, travellers and pilgrims along with the local populace must have
visited and viewed these temples.
A site level analysis of the sculptures based on their inter-se location, given that the
evidence is heterogeneous, is necessarily partial because of the very incompleteness of
the evidence recovered so far. Nevertheless, one can say that the narratives, whether
on terracotta panels or on stone steles, were part of the alamkāra or decoration scheme
embellishing either the plinths or the śikharas. The iconography of multitude of gods
and figures within a unified iconographic programme depicted on temples crystallised
during the Gupta period, with innovations and regional variations, as can be seen at
Deogarh and Nachna as well as in the terracotta panels.21
The six Rāmayāna panels at Nachna Kuthara at present are lying in the sculpture
shed, but it is safe to say that they may have formed a horizontal frieze on the ved-
ibandha or adhisthāna, which is now lost, of a Vaisnava temple
According to Alexander Cunningham,22 who first recorded the site of Deogarh, in
district Lalitpur, there were two bands of narrative sculptural panels of two separate
sizes on the plinth of the Gupta temple currently known as the Daśāvatāra temple.
He calculated that each face of the plinth of the Deogarh temple had

16 alto relievo sculpture two feet six inches in height by one foot 10 inches in breadth sepa-
rated by nine inch pilasters with side grooves. In the middle of each face leading up to the
platform there was a staircase flanked by side walls with alto-relievo on the outer faces.

19
Pargiter, ‘The Geography of Rama’s Exile’, p. 242.
20
Vats, The Gupta Temple at Deogarh, p. 1.
21
Harle, Gupta Sculpture, p. 7; Huntington, The Art of Ancient India, p. 190.
22
Cunningham, Report of Tours in Bundelkhand and Malwa, pp. 108–09.
Bawa 97

Therefore, there must have been twenty separate sculptural panels on each face,
making eighty in all. He recorded that four of the panels, two on the south face and two
on the west face, were still in situ. The ones pertaining to the Rāma legend, namely
the Śūrpanakhā panel and ‘the two men with bows’ adorned the south face. Another
series of smaller sculptures made up the heavy coping.23 The main temple is decorated
with myths of Visnu, but the plinth is decorated with the events from the life of Krsna
and Rāma, who were by this time considered to be avatars of Visnu. The larger panels
depicting the direct actions of the protagonists, Rāma, Sītā and Laksmana while the
smaller ones associated with monkeys or the vānaras are positioned in a hierarchal
relationship in terms of placement.
From the brick temple at Bhitargaon, only one sculpture related to Rāmayāna sur-
vives and that is found on the śikhara. The four terracotta Rāmayāna panels from Saheth
Maheth were recovered from the north wall of the rectangular plinth (presumably of
a temple?), height 12″ and width 15″ during an excavation conducted by Vogel.24
These bas reliefs were meant to form a continuous band and are therefore numbered.
Vogel observes that during the Gupta period, terracotta sculptures were used for the
decoration of brick buildings.
Finally, notice may also be taken of ritual significance of the temple and worship
therein, not only in the archaeological contexts but also through literary references to
the creation and worship of images in dynastic temples and rituals attached to the same
in context of the dramatis personae from Rāmayāna story. While no extant temple
dedicated to Rāma has been recovered from the period, there is a reference to the erec-
tion of the image of Sarangin called Kumarasvamin,25 by Skandgupta, who is referred
to as resembling Rama in righteous conduct.26 However, it is difficult to say whether
a cult of Rāma with separate cult temples was in existence during the fifth and sixth
centuries in South Asia, despite the existence of visual narratives from Rāmayāna story
at Deogarh and Apshad.27
The title of Bhāsa’s play Pratimā Nāṭakam is based on Bharata’s visit to the sculp-
ture gallery or pratimā grha where the images of his ancestors are enshrined and his
seeing his father, Daśaratha’s statue there. Thereafter as the play unfolds, the events
leading to Rāma’s exile are recalled leading Bharata to follow Rāma, Laksmana and
Sītā into the forest to entreat with them to return. The Raghuvamśam narrates that
Rāma ‘performed the worship (the Vāstu-ceremony, a ritual for entering a new or
repaired dwelling-place), attended with the offerings of animals of the capital contain-
ing splendid temples (pratimāgrha, lit. abodes of images) by the priests versed in the
rites of Vāstu-ceremony …’.28
The controversies with regard to dating of the Rāmayāna do not fall within the pur-
view of this article; though the dating of both the Epics is controversial, there is a con-
sensus among most historians that the form in which Vālmikī’s Rāmayāna is currently

23
Vats, The Gupta Temple at Deogarh, p. 5.
24
Vogel, ‘Excavations at Saheth Maheth’, p. 96.
25
Bhandarkar et al., Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum III, pp. 315–17
26
Ibid., pp. 318–19
27
Pollock, ‘Rāmayāna and Political Imagination in India’, p. 266.
28
Nandargikar, The Raghuvamśa, XVI. 39.
98 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

circulated was composed between fourth century bce to the third century ce. There was
a definitive textual tradition regarding Rāma and his exile that found literary expres-
sion in kāvya literature such as the Raghuvamśam of Kālidāsa, in the Purāņas and in
the Rāmayāna itself by the fifth century ce. By the third century ce, it seems that the
Rāma story was well known and widely dispersed, in ways that make multiple oral and
literary renditions, with regional and linguistic variations, possible. Not only is there a
shorter version, with considerably different interpretation of familial relationships, in
the Buddhist Daśaratha Jātaka,29 but regional and language traditions of the Rāma story
are in circulation by the early medieval period.30
According to Pollock even the Bālakānda, considered to be a later interpolation, is
believed, by some, to have been completed by the beginnings of the fifth century bce,
while the oldest parts are considered to have been completed by the middle of the sixth
century bce.31 That the story of exploits and ideals propagated through the person and
life of Rāma was a popular source of entertainment and enlightenment is exemplified
in the number of plays written on the subject. Bhāsa has used the exile and victory
of Rāma in Pratima Natakam as well as the Vālin and Sugrīva struggle in Abhisheka
Nāṭakam. These plays are rūpaka, meant to be seen, in which the plot is derived from
the Epic tradition; they are prakhāyata or famous, and the hero is of the Dhirodatta type
where the love of heroism is predominant and in which the hero in this case, Rāma,
is an anukūla nāyaka, a monogamist lover. The panels echo similar heroism of the
protagonist and also portray him as a steadfast husband, lover and friend.
Another important source of understanding the Rāmayāna imagery is the kāvya
Raghuvamśam (Raghuvamśam hereafter RV using the Nandargikar edition, 1897),
attributed to Kālidāsa. M.R. Kale32 dates the text to the first century bce, but the widely
accepted date is circa fourth century ce. In any case, by the time of the Gupta Empire
came to its fruition, Kālidāsa’s composition of the Raghuvamśam was in existence.
It speaks of the lineage and legend of the house of Raghu including many legendary
kings such as Dilipa and Raghu while Cantos X to XV deal with the life and times of
Rāma Dasarathi, the hero of Rāmayāna. That the Raghuvamśam includes episodes like
Ahalyaudhāra, derived from the Bālakānda, suggests that almost the entire Rāmayāna
was in circulation in the Gupta period. According to Pollock, dramas and other nar-
rative forms, relating to the Rama story, were commissioned in ‘Sanskrit, Prakrit and
regional languages’ for over millennium attesting to the close traction between the epic
and ‘political symbology.’33
It is essential to take cognisance of the source of the narrative in order to understand
the visualisation of the narrative. Though a correlation between text and image with
reference to Gupta era panels from central Indian temples cannot be recovered, this
gap in our knowledge can be bridged to an extent by the terracotta finds from Haryana.
These finds include a panel from Nacharkheda that will be discussed below, for its

29
For a discussion on relationship with Ramayana, see Kane, ‘The Two Epics’, p. 45.
30
Richman, Many Rāmayānas, Introduction.
31
The Rāmayāna, Goldman and Sutherland, trans., Vol. I, p. 22.
32
Kale, The Raghuvamśa, xiv.
33
Pollock, ‘Rāmayāna and Political Imagination in India’, p. 262.
Bawa 99

artistic and narrative value, and an inscription in early Gupta Brahmi script with quotes
from Aranyakānda of Vālmīki Rāmayāna.34
The following section is devoted to an enumeration, description, identification and
analysis of the corpus of narrative sculptures dateable to the fifth and sixth centuries
ce. The posture, attire and positioning of the characters in the depictions are signifiers
of power and gendering in terms of their relational arrangement.35
Narratives based on popular tales, epics and romances, sacred myths and legends,
were translated into oral, literary and especially visual presentations36 since first cen-
tury bce; beginning from Bharhut, continuing to inform the panels during the Gupta—
Vakataka art. The panels demonstrate linearity and are largely monoscenic or conflated
in terms of the devices used. Monoscenic is a mode of narration that is used to depict
the primacy of the protagonist, using a decisive or culminating moment from the epi-
sode of a story, where the content of the narrative is reduced. The other modes used
were the synoptic mode that shows multiple episodes, or the conflated mode where the
figure of protagonist is conflated37 ; however, these were sparingly applied in Gupta art.
Given the usual hierarchy of Indian art historical methodology stone sculptures
should be mentioned at the beginning of an analysis of Rāmayāna narratives. However,
I would like to discuss the terracotta panels first as they carry additional information in
the form of epigraphs that not only help identify the scene38 but also the source/s and
knowledge that the sculptors were drawing upon. Gupta terracottas are mould made,
and have reliefs almost in the round, both in plaques and bricks and tiles used on exte-
riors of monuments.39
The village of Nacharkheda (district Hisar, Haryana) has yielded numerous terra-
cotta panels, the most significant being a plaque that depicts a female and a bow and
arrow carrying male in the rear (Figure 1), identified with Sītā and Laksmana.40
The female face, with the face in three fourth profile, bears resemblance to the Pārvati
bust from Ahichhatra now in the National Museum41 both having fine incised parallel
hair, falling in a bun behind the neck, dhammilla, with a string of flowers in the hair
for decoration. The ears seem to be adorned with leaf earrings. The downward looking
face with wide-open eyes and full lips reinforce a late fourth and early fifth century
dating for the terracotta (Figure 2). The male figure has two tiered matted locks associ-

ated with yogi or forest dweller figures such as Siva in ekmukhalingas from Khoh and

34
Virjanand, Prachin Bharat mein Rāmayāna ke Mandir, p. 36; Shastri, Prachin Bharata Mein Yaudheya
Ganrajya, plate 67; Sinha, ‘Representations of Rāmayāna Scenes in an Old Temple Wall at Apshad’,
pp 216–18.
35
For methodology of this process of identifying discourses of power and engendering, see Bawa, Gods,
Men, & Women, pp. 8–9.
36
Dehejia, Discourse in Early Buddhist Art, p. 3.
37
Ibid., pp. 12–25.
38
Pollock, ‘Rāmayāna and Political Imagination in India’, p. 265, has observed that Calukya temples of
Viriupaksa and Papanath at Pattadakal, which are among the first to attempt any kind of systematic narration
(some even provide identifying labels in Prakrit).
39
Harle, Gupta Sculpture, p. 29.
40
Virjananda, Prachin Bharat mein Rāmayāna ke Mandir, p. 35, fig 1.
41
Agarwala, ‘Terracottas of Ahichchhatra’, plate XLV.
100 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

Figure 1. Meeting between Sītā, Laksmana, Rāma and Jatāyu on way to Panchvati, Terracotta,
Fourth and Early Fifth Century, Nacharkheda (District Hisar, Haryana) now in Haryana
Prantiya Purattatva Sanghralaya, Gurukul Jhajjar
Source: Author.

Bhumara.42 He is shown holding the bow with one and a quiver with the other hand.
He wears a chhanavira, suggesting his warrior status, a dhoti and uttarīya. Rāma must
have been the leading figure (along with Jatāyu, the great vulture, placed in the right),
but unfortunately that portion is broken off.
The entire composition, 32 × 33 × 7.5 cms, is inset within a raised frame with a
square rosette at the end and smaller rosette in the middle of the side of the frame.
The coiffures of the figures project onto the upper border. The top part of the frame has
the inscription incised into it, perhaps with a reed pen, in Gupta Brahmi characters.

42
Banerji, The Temple of Siva, plate XVc; Chandra, Stone Sculptures, plate LXVI.
Bawa 101

Figure 2. Detail of Sītā, Laksmana, Terracotta, Fourth and Early Fifth Century, Nacharkheda
(District Hisar, Haryana) now in Haryana Prantiya Purattatva Sanghralaya, Gurukul Jhajjar
Source: Author.

It reads ‘…chan antarā raghunandanah, āsadassāda mahāgridhaeh’. This resembles

śloka from the Aryanakānda of Vālmīki’s Rāmayāna (Aranyakānda hereafter Ark)
describing the first meeting between the trio and Jatayu on way to Panchvati (Ark13.1).43
The great vulture mentioned in this seems to be broken off now.
From the same find spot another inscribed plaque, measuring 42 × 44 × 9 cms, pre-
sents a more complete representation of a scene from Aranyakānda. It shows the three-
headed demon, Triśira rāksasa, seated on a low couch, in conference with two compan-
ions, probably Khara and Dūśana (Figure 3). The figure on the right is kneeling on one
knee while the other is partially hidden behind the main figure’s arm that seems to be
in readiness to draw out a sword. Interestingly, the setting is of a palace or a mansion’s
pavilion with a roof held up by four pilasters, having a ghata pallava design, perhaps of
the palace at Janasthāna. In keeping with the pattern of the plaques from Nacharkheda,
the top knot or crown on the principal head is superimposed on the upper border which
is also decorated with flower rosettes. The inscription on the lower border in early
Gupta Brahmi characters reads…caturdaśa rāksasā sujitva Rāmadheyaśa.44 It is allu-
sion to an episode from Aranyakānda where Śūrpanakhā summons her brother Khara

43
Srimad Vālmīki Rāmayāna, Vol 14.1; As the delighter of the Raghus was travelling to Pancavati, he
encountered on the way a huge vulture of awesome strength. The Raghuvansam knows of the Jatayu in
context of the abduction of Sītā but does not mention the initial meeting.
44
Virjanand, Prachin Bharat mein Rāmayāna ke Mandir, p. 37.
102 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

Figure 3. Triśira, Khara and Dūśana Rāksasas, Terracotta, Fourth and Early Fifth Century,
Nacharkheda (District Hisar, Haryana) now in Haryana Prantiya Purattatva Sanghralaya,
Gurukul Jhajjar
Source: Author.

to avenge the insult and disfiguring meted out to her. He along with Dūśana and four-
teen other fearsome rāksasas including the three-headed demon set out to do so, and
the rāksasas are killed (Ark 19). 45 Here perhaps the scene before the battle is depicted.
In subsequent episodes, Dūśana sets out with 14,000 rāksasas only to be defeated.
The same protagonist Triśira (mentioned in Ark 22.33, RV 12.47) figures in yet another
fragmentary composition from Nachikhera measuring 40 × 30 × 9 cms, in this case
riding a swan shaped chariot with centaur like horses in harness. In another plaque from
the same site (Figure 4) measuring 33 × 36 × 10 cms, with rosettes on the borders, the
three-headed demon, of which one head remains, having six arms, is frontally seated
cross-legged on a chariot (Ark 25.23)46 The figure holds the reins of the chariot with
lower hands, and a sword is visible in another hand, the other weapons can no longer

45
Srimad Vālmīki Rāmayāna, Vol. 1., 3.20.
46
Ark sarga 26 is devoted to his battle entirely; Virjananda, Prachin Bharat mein Rāmayāna ke Mandir,
p. 38.
Bawa 103

Figure 4. Triśira Rāksasa Riding a Chariot, Terracotta, Fourth and Early Fifth Century,
Nacharkheda (District Hisar, Haryana) now in Haryana Prantiya Purattatva Sanghralaya,
Gurukul Jhajjar
Source: Author.

be recognised. The face on the right seems to be falling off as if it has been cut; as
narrated in the Rāmayāna, Rāma lopped off the three heads with three arrows.
A number of terracotta plaques with Rāmayāna depictions have been recovered
from Katinghara, district Eta, one of which is a depiction of a male figure seated on a
chariot, 50 × 38 × 16 cms, which may be also of Triśirā because of similarity of compo-
sition with the one at Nacharkhera, though the head is no longer visible. A plaque from
Sirsa is inscribed on its upper border, triśiravadhe (namah)? kr◦ tihantā …ranasya,47
however because of rather crude attempts at restoration, the workmanship on the piece
itself is indistinct and does not render a stylistic analysis tenable. The Brahmi script

47
Shastri, Prachin Bharata Mein Yaudheya Ganrajya, pp. 198–99, plate 74, fig 99.
104 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

Figure 5. Mārīca Deer Episode with Sītā, Laksmana, Rāma, Terracotta, Fourth and Early Fifth
Century, Nacharkheda (District Hisar, Haryana) now in Haryana Prantiya Purattatva Sanghralaya,
Gurukul Jhajjar
Source: Author.

does conform to the other terracotta plaques of the Gupta period discovered from the
Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh.
The Mārīca deer episode is depicted on a remarkably fine terracotta from
Nacharkheda, 43 × 44 × 8 cms (Figure 5), which is perhaps the most complete of all
the plaques with only the right-hand corner with the front part of the leaping deer and
Laksmana (?) broken off. A male and female figure, presumably Rāma with a bow and
arrow and Sītā are seated in the centre and the left, respectively, of the composition
(Ark, sarga 41, RV 12. 53). The coiffure and the modelling of the figures as well as
the rosettes on borders on the plaque and the top knot on Rāma’s hair protruding onto
the border match the Panchavati episode depicted on another plaque at the same site.
An abraded terracotta from Ahicchatra, a site that has yielded a wide variety of ter-
racotta antiquities belonging to the fourth and fifth centuries, shows a woman seated
on a man’s lap and has been interpreted as Sītā’s kidnapping by Rāvana.48 A similar

48
Virjanand, Prachin Bharat mein Rāmayāna ke Mandir, p. 40.
Bawa 105

attribution has been made for a piece from Kausmabi presently (along with many other
teracottas) in the Jhajjar Musuem.49 Kausmabi has also yielded other examples of a
demonic figure carrying a relatively diminutive female figure with an arm upraised
and two or three pearl ornaments scattered on the ground, which has led to the sugges-
tion that it depicts the abduction of Sītā.50 The terracotta is dateable to the first century
ce and may well depict a yaksa, or a scene from the play Mr cchakatikam. A fragment
◦
from Katinghara is dateable to the late fourth and fifth century ce in the north Indian
terracotta tradition, shows a woman’s head hanging down touching the frame that may
be a depiction of a lamenting Sītā in Rāvana’s ratha or vimāna (Ark 48, Geeta 49.22).
One such depiction, now in San Francisco Asian Art Museum, of Rāvana abducting
Sītā, with Jatāyu trying to rescue her can be seen in a panel set within a semi ovoid
frame shows a woman on the right and the male on left with upraised arm, holding a
sword aimed at a bird, possibly a vulture (Ark 50, Geeta, 51, RV 12. 54). Both the male
and female can be seen from the waist upwards as if seated or standing in a vehicle.
Sītā seated disconsolate in Aśoka vātikā (Ark, 53.4–5) has been identified in a plaque
found from Bhind.51
Three monkey-faced figures with faces upturned are shown seated in a rocky,
mountainous landscape in a fragmentary plaque from Katinghara, 44 × 38 × 6. Perhaps
there were more, as the label inscription reads Sugrīva, Jāmbavanta, Hanumāna, …
li (Vālin?).52 These may be identified with the five monkeys sitting on a mountain
peak who witnessed Sītā’s leaving markers during her abduction (Ark 52.1). Monkeys,
divine or heroic, seem to be an oft depicted theme, occurring in two plaques from
Katinghara and Ahicchatra showing three monkeys, probably Hanumāna, Sugrīva and
Bali receiving Rāma during his quest for the kidnapped Sītā.
Virjananda has published a remarkably well preserved plaque from Jind, with two
monkeys in combat, illustrating Vālin and Sugrīva’s struggle for power and supremacy
two sword wielding monkey figures in combat have been clearly delineated in a square
plaque set within well-articulated borders53 from Saheth Maheth, now in Lucknow
Museum.54
In a partially broken plaque 41 × 40 × 10 cms, from Katinghara, a man drawing his
bow is seen on the right of a tree, while another figure whose face is now broken off is
seen to the left (Figure 6). This has been identified with the killing of Vālin by Rāma
described in the Kiskindhākānda (Kiskindhākānda hereafter Kik.16.36–37, RV 12.58).
Virjananda has noticed a short epigraph in Brahmi near the right figure’s hand spelling
out the name Rāma.
In a terracotta sculpture from north western India now in Honolulu Museum of
Art, two figures are shown in an orchard or garden setting with the female touching
her bangle and the monkey-faced figure with his hands folded in salutation, an allu-
sion to Hanuman’s visit to the Aśoka vātikā to reassure Sītā of her impending rescue

49
Ibid.
50
Kala, Epic Scenes in Indian Plastic Arts, fig 16.
51
Ibid., fig 20.
52
Virjanand, Prachin Bharat mein Rāmayāna ke Mandir, p. 41.
53
Ibid., p. 42, fig. 12.
54
Vogel, ‘Excavations at Saheth Maheth’, plate XXVII.
106 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

Figure 6. Killing of Vālin by Rāma, Katinghara, terracotta, fourth and early fifth century,
Nacharkheda (district Hisar, Haryana) now in Haryana Prantiya Purattatva Sanghralaya,
Gurukul Jhajjar
Source: Author.

by Rāma. The episode of Hanumāna destroying Aśoka vātikā in Lanka, as described

in Sundarakānda (Sundarakānda, hereafter Suk 41.14–15) has been published by
Virjanand55 who reads the inscription as Hanumāna Aśoka vātikā hantā. In a badly
damaged plaque from Nacharkheda of a chariot riding male figure in battle mode, part

55
Virjanand, Prachin Bharat mein Rāmayāna ke Mandir, pp. 43–44, plate 15.
Bawa 107

of a Brahmi inscription that reads Indrajit has been identified.56 Besides this, a number
of figures that may represent the monkey army have been found from Haryana and
Uttar Pradesh.57
The plethora of terracotta, most of which are now housed in the Jhajjar Museum,
confirm the popularity of the visualising of the Epic in North India in clay. That
many of these are inscribed with either the śloka or a label inscription identifying the
depiction provides us with an insight into its consumption patterns. These may have
been the earliest pictorial representations of the story and the inscription helped the
viewers identify the narrative with which they were perhaps being confronted in a
pictorial form for the first time. Each plaque is usually mono-scenic (depicting a single
moment from a story or episode); however, these were probably put together to form
a continuous narrative.
Most of the Rāmayāna narratives in stone are from Central India. The earliest of
these are the six panels in the sculpture shed at Nachna Kuthara (as mentioned above)58
that must have formed a sculptural band that decorated the plinth of a Vaisnava temple.
Most of the panels are from the Aranya and Kiskindhākānda of the Rāmayāna that
form significant or critical narrative moments as these have been narrated in the kāvya
and nātaka of Kālidāsa and Bhāsa. The Rāma and Laksmana figures are depicted in
ascetic-warrior attire.
The first relates to the Mārīca deer incident and is a rare piece as it is distinguished
by the use continuous narrative device where the same figure appears thrice, and
(Ark, 42–43), we see a woman and a man seated under the boughs of a tree. In the first
moment, the woman has her right hand pointing towards the man, who has his right
arm upraised in abhaya like mudra (Figure 7). In central part of the composition, the
pair is standing with the man holding up his hands to cover his ears. In the left quarter
of the panel a man, presumably the same man is seen moving outwards. This can be
read as Sītā and Laksmana hearing Rāma call out during his chase of the Golden Deer.
Sītā rebukes Laksmana for his unwillingness to help his brother; Laksmana holds his
ears in chagrin unwilling to disobey his elder brother who had asked not to leave Sītā
unprotected but finally goes off in search of Rāma. This incident is also narrated in the
Vanaparva of the Mahabharata.59
At Udaygiri (Orissa) Rani Gumpha Cave, a frieze above the door shows a king hunt-
ing a deer, and then the same king and deer along with a woman on the left side hiding
in the branches of a tree. This has been interpreted as Mārīca episode from Rāmayāna.
However, given the early date and the archaic style, I feel this may be identified with
Rurumrga Jātaka60 which had also been depicted at Bharhut. It may be noted in this
context that the stories of both the Mārīca episode and the Ruru Jātaka have similarities
in the description of the golden deer and the desire of respective queens for this deer
who urge the kings to hunt it.

56
Ibid., p. 45, plate 20.
57
Ibid., fig 26–30, 36–43.
58
Williams, The Art of Gupta India, figs 165–70.
59
Kane, ‘The Two Epics’, p. 44.
60
Cowell, Jataka, No 482.
108 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

Figure 7. Mārīca Deer Episode, Sītā and Laksmana, Sītā Rebukes Laksmana for His Unwillingness
to Help His Brother and Laksmana Holding His Ears, Sandstone, Fifth Century ce, Nachna
Kuthara, now in Sculpture Shed as the Site
Source: Author.

Read sequentially, the next panel at Nachna must have been the one in which a
female figure is seen standing in the forested and rocky environs of a hermitage, lit.
leaf hut or parnasālā. She is holding out a bowl in the right hand. Facing her is a loin
cloth clad ascetic male with a cap like cloth covering his hair, carrying a bundle tied to
a stick in one hand and the other hand is outstretched towards the woman (Figure 8).
The monoscenic representation depicts Sītā being approached by Rāvana disguised
as a mendicant; and her subsequent abduction by Rāvana (Ark 44, 2–4j), while Rāma
and Laksmana (not seen) are on the hunt for the Golden Deer are to be imagined by
the viewer. A similar scene is also represented in a terracotta panel on the śikhara of
Bhitargaon temple in which the heads of the figures are broken off. It seems that the
woman is coming out of a hut, with a parrot on the roof in front of it, carrying a vessel
in her hand. Standing opposite her is a slightly pot-bellied male figure wearing a short
skirt like loin cloth tied at the waist with a belt with a rosette buckle, with a bundle on
his back, like a mendicant.
Continuing with the panels at Nachna; in a monoscenic representation, a male
figure with one hand upraised in abhaya mudra and the other resting on his folded knee
along with another male figure are shown seated on a stone couch under a tree with two
monkey-faced figures standing behind them and a monkey-faced figure kneeling in
front of them. This may be identified with the scene of Hanuman beseeching and greet-
ing Rāma and Laksmana at the behest of Sugrīva, when they reach the Pampa Lake in
search of the abducted Sītā (Kik 3-3-23). In the next panel, we see two bow-carrying
figures, leaning back a trifle defensively, as they watch two monkey-faced figures with
Bawa 109

Figure 8. Sītā being approached by Rāvan�a disguised as a mendicant, sandstone, fifth century
CE, Nachna Kuthara, now in Sculpture shed as the site
Source: Author.

tails curling behind them ready to throw large rocks or boulder at each other (Figure 8).
The depiction is of Vālin and Sugrīva fighting, while Rāma and Laksmana watch, una-
ble to distinguish them (Kik12.17–20) (Figure 9). A very similar composition exists,
but in worse state of preservation, that must have been next in the series. The leading
male figure is shown drawing his bow, and one of the monkey figures is wearing a long
garland (the gajapuspi creeper) put around his neck by Laksmana (Kik12.36) and an
expression of concentration is observable on the countenance of the figures. This is the
next episode in the sequence of events where Sugrīva is distinguished by the garland
enabling Rāma to shoot his brother Vālin (Kik 16.25–26). Compositionally, the Nachna
panel is very similar to the terracotta from Katinghara except that the tree behind which
Rāma hid is missing in this depiction. To these corpora of the known narrative panels
from Nachna one may add a fragmentary scene from Nachna in the Ramvan Museum
in which the central bow-carrying male, Rāma, is seated on a rocky seat, surrounded
by five figures, one of whom seems like a sage. This may allude to Bharata’s visit to
Panchavati but this attribution is tentative given the abraded condition. There is also
a very disparate stele which depicts a palace-garden scene,  in which crowned male
figure, presumably Rāvana, in is seated in his palace in Lankā, into whose presence
Hanumāna is being dragged from a park setting perhaps the Aśoka Vātikā.
The ascetic-warrior attire is seen also in a relief slab from Shringverpur, 61 × 63
cms61 that shows somewhat mutilated figures of Rāma and Laksmana wearing a
chhanavira, holding long bows, and carrying quivers full of arrows on their backs.

61
Chandra, Stone Sculptures, plate LXXXIX.
110 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

Figure 9. Vālin and Sugrīva fighting, while Rāma and Laks�man� a watch, unable to distinguish
them, sandstone, fifth century CE, Nachna Kuthara, now in Sculpture shed as the site
Source: Author.

On the left are two monkey-faced crowned figures with diminutive monkeys below
(Figure 10). On the top of the composition one can see nagakesata, aśoka and babul
trees. The panel probably represents the meeting of Rāma and Laksmana with Sugrīva
and Hanumāna in rsyamuka forest. Stylistically, it can be dated to the Gupta period
and interestingly the find spot has great significance in Ayodhyakanda as this is where
a Rāma, Sītā and Laksmana cross the Ganga with the help of the Nisāda king Guha
(Ayodhyakānda, hereafter Ayk.89).
The other significant body of sculptures comes from the Dasavatāra temple at
Deogarh which had at least two bands of reliefs from Rāma and Krsn a legends, and which
provide us with the most varied narrative scheme from the Gupta period. A description
of the panels in the sequence in which they occur in the Rāma story and presumably may
have also been similarly arranged on the plinth is being attempted here.
In one of the more complete depiction, three males and one female figure are shown
(Figure 11). Reading clockwise, in terms of size a dominant figure is a bow-carrying,
chhanavira wearing male seated in ardhpralambapāda on a rocky seat, hair tied in three
tiers of jatās or matted locks and he extends one arm to lay his hand on that of the
woman seated below. Next is a similar bow-carrying figure but standing and shorter
in stature. The quiver of arrows is visible behind him. Seated to his right is a bearded
ascetic figure with a rosary in one hand and a flower (?) in the other. He wears a shawl
around one shoulder and a pleated dhoti that falls between the legs. In the centre, but at
the bottom of the composition is a seated female figure wearing a mekhalā, arm bands,
necklace and a diadem along with thick earrings. Her hair is arranged in a thick plait
Bawa 111

Figure 10. Rāma and Laks�man� a, with crowned and other monkey figures, sandstone, sixth
century CE,  Shringverpur, Allahabad Museum
Source: Author.

that falls down her back. She holds a flower in her hand, which she seems to be holding
as an offering to the dominant figure at whose feet her gaze is fixed. The two warrior-
ascetic figures stand under a bow of leaves of a flowering tree, which forms a prabhā or
umbrella above them. Thus, the setting of a forest or a garden is reinforced. The panel
may be read, as the episode of Rāma redeeming Ahalya from the curse by Gautama ◦rsi
that is narrated in the Bālakānda of Vālmīki’s Rāmayāna, and in the Raghuvamśam.
A visit from Rāma to the hermitage of Gautama ◦rsi, whose wife has been cursed to
become a stone/ash due to her infidelity with Indra, who in the guise of Gautama, leads
to her redemption at the touch of Rāma’s feet. The 47th sarga (Bālakānda of Vālmīki’s
Rāmayāna, hereafter Bak, 47.28–30) tells of the curse, that Ahalya shall remain invis-
ible, adr◦ sya, have air for food, suffering, lying on ashes till the time that Rāma came to
112 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

Figure 11. Rāma redeeming Ahalya from the curse by Gautama rs� i, sandstone, sixth century,
˚
Deogarh, now in the National Museum, Delhi
Source: Author.

purify her. In the next sarga, not only does Indra get back his virility in form of a ram’s
testicles, but Ahalya becomes visible again at the coming of Rāma and Laksmana, as
predicted by Gautama (Bak 48. 16). She then welcomes them, offers them hospitality
and washes their feet. The celestials too celebrate the event and Gautama reunites with
his wife who is again submissive to his control, vaśa (Bak 48–20). This panel is closer
to the Vālmīki Rāmayāna’s version insofar as Ahalya is shown offering hospitability
to Rāma after being freed from the curse. The event is related in a much-abbreviated
form in the Raghuvamśam where Ahalya turns to stone rather than to ashes (RV 11.33).
Another panel that must have been the same size, but is slightly damaged now,
shows two bow-carrying male and one dimunitised female figure behind them.
The heads of the two male figures are broken off, and the smaller of the males has
the bow slung on the shoulder while the larger carries it in his hand (Figure 12) as it
has been described in literary texts too (RV12.26). This may be a reference to Rāma,
Laksmana and Sītā heading towards the forest for the exile period or any moment
during their varied travels. Perhaps they are moving towards the hermitage of Atri
where Sītā is presented with ornaments and unguents for her adornment by the sage’s
wife Anusūyā (12.27). This incident is represented in one of the bigger steles, with three
Bawa 113

Figure 12. Presentation of jewelry and cosmetics by Anusūyā to Sītā in the presence of
Rāma, Laks�man� a and Atri, sandstone, sixth century, Deogarh, now in Sculpture shed, Deogarh
(Courtesy: AIIS)
Source: Author.

male figures and two female figures. Reading clockwise, there is a seated dominant male,
chhanvira wearing figure, then a standing male figure holding a bow and another
male seated in pralambapada. The latter has matted locks falling over his shoulders
and holds a pothi or a book in one hand; the other hand is too damaged to identify its
attribute. Next is a standing female with both her hands on the head of another female
seated in the centre as if blessing or anointing her. A bough of a branch forms a frame
or an umbrella above the composition while on the right is a pair of birds at the bottom.
This may be interpreted as the presentation of ever fragrant and beautifying cosmetics,
malyā and angarāga to Sītā by Anusūyā in the presence of Rāma, Laksmana and Atri
(Ayk 110.17–21).
A very interesting and illustrative panel is one that somewhat reverses the order
of the figures. Reading clockwise, one sees a female figure in the left-hand corner
half kneeling with one arm upraised and the other touching her thigh, the hair are
being pulled by the standing male figure behind her making her head lean towards
the left (Figure 13). Along with other ornaments she wears a chhanvira suggesting
114 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

Figure 13. The disfiguring of Śūrpan�akhā, by Laks�man� a while Rāma and Sītā look on,   sand-
stone, sixth century,  Deogarh, now in the National Museum, Delhi
Source: Author.

her ability to fight. This male figure is in the usual ascetic-warrior attire with some
additional ornamentation in form of pearl string around the middle roll of the matted
locks. His right arm is raised with a sword as if ready to strike while the other holds
forcibly pulls at the hair of the woman below. Standing next to him, in the centre,
is a female, Sītā, wearing a mekhalā, diadem, heavy earrings, necklace, armbands,
bracelets, and a dhoti. One hand is positioned in front of her breasts and other points at
the female below. Dominating the composition is a bow and quiver carrying, warrior-
ascetic figure seated on a rock on the left looking downward towards the woman
below. The usual Aśoka tree forms a frame at the top. The disfiguring of Śūrpanakhā,
the woman with a nose like a winnowing fan, by Laksmana is graphically depicted
here through a monoscenic narrative device. The humiliation and the laughter at her
expense by the two brothers because of her open lustful advances may be imagined.62
A terracotta from Saheth Maheth63 depicts an abbreviated version of the same scene.
Another large panel shows a small male bending a bow while another larger male
figure is holding up his bow as if drawing its string (Figure 14). Both wear chhanavira

62
RV 12.39. Laksmana, first hearing her speech, as sweet as that of a cuckoo, and afterwards terribly howling
like a jackal, knew her to be a deceitful spirit. 40. Then be, with a drawn sword (in hand) immediately entered
the leaf-hut and attached to her terrible form a repetition (or superfluity) of hideousness (i.e., made her more
ugly than before). 41. Going up and making her footing in the air she threatened them (two) with her finger
which bore curved nails, and whose joints knots were as tough and hard as those of a bamboo, and which
therefore looked like (lit. had the form of) a goad (of:) of an elephant-driver.
63
Vogel, ‘Excavations at Saheth Maheth’, Pl XXVII.
Bawa 115

Figure 14. Rāma and Laks�man� a as warriors with bows, sandstone, sixth century, Deogarh,
now in Sculpture shed, Deogarh (Courtesy: AIIS)
Source: Author.

and a small loin cloth; additionally, the larger figure wears a waist band. The head of
the larger figure is broken off but the smaller male has matted locks. A small tree is
shown in the background, and the composition represents Rāma and Laksmana during
one of their punitive expeditions against the demons or against Rāvana’s army.
The smaller panels, all in a varying fragmentary state, are mainly concerned with
the monkey folk with episodes from Kiskindhākānsa dominating the steles. None of
these have a bower of leaves on top that marks the larger steles that deal with the
exploits of Rāma, Laksmana and Sītā.
In a fragment that shows two monkey-faced figures armed with clubs, the figure
in front is moving leftwards and may perhaps allude to the entry into the cave of a
demon by Vālin while Sugrīva stood outside (Kik10). In one of the more complete
representations, three male figures are shown standing. The two on the left are wearing
chhanavira and carrying bows, the one towards the centre of the composition is holding
a garland. The figure on the right is monkey faced and wearing a garland. The depiction
116 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

probably represents the scene of Laksmana presenting a garland made of gajapuspa

or nāgapuspa to Sugrīva to distinguish him in the combat with Vālin. The narrative is
presented in two moments, one in which Laksmana is holding the garland and the other
in which Sugrīva is wearing the very same garland.
In another piece, four monkey-faced figures, three male and one female are shown.
The main figure holds a flower in his hand and is reclining against the female figure
that holds him by the shoulders. On the left of is a much-abraded figure who is also
supporting him. On the extreme right a figure whose face is now broken off touching
his upper arm as if to support him? Vats believes the scene represents an inebriated
Sugrīva being supported by his wife Rumā, Angada and Hanumāna who are urging
him to get up and greet the unseen figure of Laksmana.64 I feel that an alternate expla-
nation may be offered that this is the moment when Vālin is fatally injured by Rāma
and questions Rāma’s whether his actions may be considered righteous. (Kik 17) or
it may be Tārā trying to raise the dead Vālin while Angada, Sugrīva and Laksmana
look on. (Kik 20)
Some smaller and fragmentary pieces have also been found in the site that has been
dated to the later Gupta period. One such fragment shows the bust of a monkey figure
looking to the right; holding up his right hand with the palm outwards and the left
hand across his waist. This is probably Hanumāna greeting Rāma. Another small stele
depicts the fight between Vālin and Sugrīva with Hanumāna standing behind with a
club in his hand. One of the monkey figures, probably Vālin has thrown the other on
the ground. The last in this series shows a monkey figure with a club in his right hand
and his left hand with an upraised index finger suggesting surprise. This probably rep-
resents Sugrīva’s astonishment at the sight of Rāma amazing feats.65
There are two scenes depicting Sītā and Rāvana, the first being the abduction of
Sītā66 and the other of Rāvana in Aśoka Vatika threatening Sītā for spurning his advanc-
es.67 The former is a very mutilated panel of 1′ 2″ height and shows the bust of a female
figure, seemingly terrified; from over her right shoulder, a giant arm is seen in the act
of seizing her. The second is a much-abraded stele in which a female figure standing
to the left can be discerned. A larger male figure to the right is mainly broken off; thus,
any identification offered is tentative. From her pose the female figure appears to be
turning away from the larger male figure. Another very fragmentary piece shows the
upper part of a monkey carrying a mountain, no doubt alluding to Hanumāna carrying
the mountain with the sanjīvanībūtī to save the injured Laksmana.
The tradition of sculpting the Rāmayāna on temples continued into the later and
post-Gupta periods. A significant example being a series of reliefs made in stucco
affixed to a temple at Aphsad in Nawada district in Bihar.68 Though these have been
dated to the seventh century, a brief catalogue of the panels is illustrative of the contin-
uing popularity of the story of Rāma in the religio cultural matrix. One notices an elab-
oration of themes with addition of reliefs depicting King Guhā and Rāma, Laksmana

64
Vats, The Gupta Temple at Deogarh, p. 17.
65
Vats, The Gupta Temple at Deogarh, pp. 26–27.
66
Ibid., p. 17.
67
Ibid., Pl XVII, d.
68
Huntington, The Art of Ancient India, p. 228.
Bawa 117

and Sītā crossing a river in a boat, Rāma, Laksmana and Sītā with Bhārdavaja ◦rsi in his
hermitage who gifts them a bull, another of the same characters crossing a river this
time using a raft of logs, and with Vālmikī in his āśrama, Sītā resting on Rāma’s lap
with Laksmana looking on after a goat and deer hunt, Bharata and his visit to Chitrakut
and his meeting with the Rāma.69
The popularity of the Rāmayāna gets manifested in the visual and literary tradition
beginning with Gupta art and architecture. It appears at the elite political level and
among the popular classes with the dissemination of the Rāma story through liter-
ary, bardic and the oral tradition. Beyond broad generalisations, while it is difficult to
establish the identity of patrons and producers of terracotta, patronage of temples in
Central India may be posited with some certainty. As explained earlier, these temples
are termed as Gupta based on stylistic70 and chronological conformities; art production
in the area around Nachna Kuthara was not directly patronised by the Gupta-Vakataka
kings but by their feudatories, the Parivrājakas and the Ucchakalpas. There are refer-
ences to the establishment of a dēvakula for goddess Pistapūrīka, and the efforts at
maintaining social order, varnasrāma sthapana, by these kings.71
Elements of the Gupta style, in terms of the modelling of the figures, the coiffures,
adornment and attention to expressive and emotional delineation of figures can be
observed in terracotta and stone sculptural panels. The Gupta style, in the period under
consideration, depicts bodies as slender and sinuous, light in weight; however, the
vigour and refinement of the earlier period diminishes. Overall the Gupta style is
marked by highly idealised, introspective manner and smoothness of form. The faces
are shown as oval with sharp features, wearing elaborate coiffures marked by corkscrew
arrangement of hair or coils of hair arranged in a bun or tiers and a proportionate
amount of jewellery. The eyes are well shaped and half closed, downward looking in a
manner that communicates a higher spiritual state and an elegance of style. 72
Narrative panels during this period are marked by perfectly balanced compositions
where the entire scene is a unit.73 Growing narrative complexity is observed in com-
position, placement and narration. Chronologically, the early panels from Nachna and
also the terracotta plaques from Nacharkheda and Katinghara have a more horizontal
orientation and simpler composition in terms of placement, posture and characters.
The reliefs from Deogarh, dateable to the sixth century, demonstrate considerable
dexterity in handling composition in terms of hierarchal scaling without disturbing the
essence of the tableaux.
While analysing the imagery, content and thematic of the narratives, it is important
to remember the fragmentary and partial nature of evidence. To give us an idea of the
magnitude of this incompleteness, from a single site at Deogarh, there must have been at
least twenty more depictions that are lost to us, so any interpretation offered has to take
cognisance of this incompleteness which is characteristic of ancient Indian art history.

69
Kala, Epic Scenes in Indian Plastic Arts, pp. 20–23, figs 3–7.
70
Williams, The Art of Gupta India, p. 4.
71
Fleet, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum III, pp.110, 114.
72
Harle, Gupta Sculpture, p. 8; Huntington, The Art of Ancient India, p. 190.
73
Gupta and Asthana, Elements of Indian Art, p. 87.
118 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

The visually portrayal of the main protagonists Rāma and Laksmana is a significant
unifying element between the terracotta and stone sculptures. This applies to episodes
that occur in Bālakānda, in the Ahlaya story, when the two are going with Visvamitra
on a mission to kill Tārāka rāksasa and also of later episodes from the Rāmayāna with
or without Sītā.
Most of the episodes illustrated in these panels relate to the time spent by Rāma,
Sītā and Laksmana in exile; during which the men are described as wearing matted
hair and bark garments, bearing bows and arrows and swords, and the trio is referred to
as two ascetics with a young woman (Ark, 2.10cd–11ab.11cd). How they took up this
appearance is illustrated in Sarga 33 of Ayodhyakānda where Kaikeyī insisted that the
brothers and Sita put on barkcloth garments in public and later through a recollection
by Nisāda king Guha (Ayk 80.24-25), who poignantly describes to Bharat how at the
beginning of their exile, the two young princes matted their hair and wore garments of
bark, carrying splendid bows and arrows and swords boarded a boat. Śūrpanakhā com-
menting upon this ascetic-warrior contradiction says to Rāma, ‘your hair is matted in
the hair of ascetics, yet you have a wife with you and bear bow and arrow.’ (Ark 16.11)
The appearance then is a physical marker of the acceptance of the exile, the renuncia-
tion of worldly luxuries, the life of princes, living in forests like ◦rsis, foraging for food.
However, the retention of weapons, symbols of ksatriya virility, signifies their ability
to protect, fight, survives and are very visible reminders of their potential power and
prowess, even in the forest.
In the Rāmayāna if Ayodhya, is the ideal space, then aranya or the forest is played
out as the ‘other’ space74; where mendicants, ◦rsis, sages and seers have their asramas
and practice austerities to gain power and knowledge, not necessarily in that order.
Somraj Gupta avers that this ‘civilization …may be called aranyakā-grāma or for-
est-polis civilization…. For the creative centre of this civilisation is not the grāma or
the nagara… but the aryanakā, the forest’.75 The forest is thus the tapovana or purga-
tory where the heroism of the satpurusa ascetic king will come to ‘be’. The ascetics
and other dwellers are often threatened, obstructed and violated in this endeavour by
rāksasas,76 demons that also live in forests along with other untamed beings such as
animals. Rāma and Laksmana ksatriya-rājanya protectors are repeatedly called upon to
vouchsafe this haven or locus of rejuvenation for the ◦rsis and their sacrifices from the
predations of the rāksasas. As pointed out by Som Raj Gupta,

the Indians… interiorised the forest into the grāma … or the nagara…. For the forest was
not merely the home of the birds and bees but also of ◦r sis and seers. Virtually three fourth
of a noble āryana’s life was spent in the forest—as a student, forest dweller and as a
renunciate.77

74
Ingalls, ‘Kālidāsa and the Attitudes of the Golden Age’, pp. 22–23, refers to the dichotomy between the
royal court and the āśrāma but describes the latter as the antidote to the court.
75
Gupta, Som Raj, The Word Speaks to The Faustian Man, Vol II, p. vii.
76
Pollock, ‘Rāmayāna and Political Imagination in India’, p. 282, suggests that rāksasas can be viewed from
a psychosexual perspective, as representing all that certain traditional Indians-within a Sanskrit cultural
formation-might most desire and most fear, concretized both together in a single symbolic form.
77
Gupta, Som Raj, The Word Speaks to The Faustian Man, Vol III, p. 175.
Bawa 119

The vision eschews the man—nature opposition—but sees the forest dweller and king
participating in the ◦rta the law informing the world process in plants, birds, beasts and
human life and breath.
In the early imaging of the Rāmayāna, except for Rāvana and Vālin/Sugrīva, the pro-
tagonists are always shown in forested spaces with scenes derived from the Bālakānda,
Aranyakānda and Kiskindhākānda dominating the visual narrative discourse. The pal-
ace remains present in its absence, a reminder of the renunciation of power and power
of renunciation, a power that is transferred to the personages depicted. It is interesting
that the more popular devotional section of the Sundarkānda or early Ayodhayakānda
were not narrativised through art.78 These portions of the Rāmayāna especially Aranya
kānda, reveals the fascination of romance, individual sensational episodes, marvels
and miracles; the piety of the protagonist, idealised love and fraternal loyalty, friend-
ships and fealty, sexual deviance of the ‘other’, loss of the heroine, her recovery after
adventures couched in didactic idiom (Ark pp. 10–11). Imaginative, rich in narrative
possibilities were the first moments to be imaged in these Gupta era plaques and ste-
les. Further phenomenal reality is not imagined, in the works of Bhāsa, Kālidāsa and
Bhavabhuti in terms of domains of man, nature or god but becomes man-cosmos-divinity
continuum79; a vision that finds reflection in sculptures described above.
The supremacy of Rāma as the hero/protagonist/warrior prince is acknowledged in
the composition through positioning and posture of the main figure who is a seated,
dominant figure; a fount of benevolence, redemption, power, dharma that flow from
this figure. Rāma as the arbiter of dharma is an element that is quite well delineated
though the sculptures. When he does become part of the action, it is to mete out justice
or punishment. This may be in case of the killing of Vālin or a rāksasa. Laksmana per-
forms deeds such as cutting off the nose and usually it is other beings such as monkeys
Hanumāna, Vālin, Sugrīva and others who offer devotion, fight and build bridges.
Since the monkeys seem to have excited the imagination of both the patrons and
artists of terracotta and stone relief sculptures, given the number of scenes in which
they are depicted either with Rāma or in his service; it would be appropriate to dwell
on the understanding of vānaras in the Rāmayāna and the narrative panels. In the
text the vānaras play a pivotal role in the war with Rāvana and recovery of Sita from
Kiskindhākānda onwards, extending not only their friendship but also their active
help and labour, deploying their inherent magical powers such a changing form. In the
Rāmayāna, they are represented as monkeys who jump and leap but also as human in
terms of speech, preoccupations, problems and conflicts (Kik p. 37). Rāma calls Vālin
a tree animal (Kik 4.18.36). In the imaging of the human-monkeys, this dual identity is
maintained, through their monkey faces and human bodies. Vis-á-vis Rāma, Laksmana
and even Sitā, there is deference in posture and action, kneeling, bowing and showing
marks of respect even though the discourse is of friendship, there is an inherent posture

78
Singh, ‘The Power of a Poet’, p. 196. Kālidāsa’s representation of the kingdom seamlessly knits together
city, palace, forest and tapovana into an interacting and interdependent whole. These locales are also imbued
with enormous politico-cultural significance, and the ways in which they are represented may reflect not
only an acknowledgement of their importance but an attempt to transform dangerous or problematic spaces
into benign ones.
79
Gupta, Som Raj, The Word Speaks to The Faustian Man, Vol III, p. 176.
120 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

of devotion or bhakti in the depiction.80 In this regards, reference may be made to the
panel at Deogarh that shows the court or the death of Vālin, and the composition is
imagined in a very emotional, human and theatrical manner.
Rāma stands for Dharma in the sense of appropriate moral behaviour and his response
to tests and tribulations where he is forced to choose a moral path of Dharma is the thread
that runs through the Rāmayāna. An overview of some of the early narrative sculptures
of the Gupta Age emphasises his choice of moral solutions, and these episodes highlight
Rāma’s nobility of character, with final moral victory.
Rāma as an avatāra (extensively used in the Purānas) does not occur in the text
of the Vālmīki’s Rāmayāna in the sense that is popularly understood though in later
passages is he identified with Visnu. He is referred to as man, god-like-man, the
man who is part-god, and the god in man-like form which is how he is imagined in
sculptures. In the terracottas, Nachna and Deogarh, he is not depicted as holding up
one hand in abhaya hasta or with a halo associated with divine figures. In any case
in Gupta temples, the use of halo to indicate the divinity of figures is limited and
disguised. Haloes appear in the form of a bower of flowers, branches or even nāgas.
At Deogarh, though, neither Rāma nor Krsna are placed in the niches of the main
temple, their association with Visnu as avatāras seems to be strongly suggested through
the placement on the plinth of the temple. Iconographic descriptions from the slightly
later Visnudharmottara Purāna (hereafter VDM in the notes), too, enjoin that Rāma,
the son of Daśaratha, should be marked by marks of a king. Bharata, Laksmana and
Satrughna should all be represented similarly but devoid of crowns. Sītā, Sri, a part
of the Supreme Being, carrying a padma (sacred lotus) in her hand and with the left
hand resting on the waist, should be standing between Rāma and Krsna.81 Such is the
importance of sages and seers in the epics that Viśvamitra and Vālmīki are also given
iconographic prescriptions.
Power, devotion and emotion are the axis on which the narratives stand. Above
all the Rāmayāna is also a deeply emotional tale of human sacrifice, familial bonds,
redemption and bravery that struck a chord with the viewers. This discourse of redemp-
tion, preservation and surrender underlies the narrative panels with its ideological
basis of bhakti during the period.82 Besides the power to protect, command and punish,
Rāma’s power to ameliorate and free from bondage are shown in the Ahalya episode.
One may also engender the panels, through reading the relational placement, pos-
tures and attire. Sītā is the oft-recurring character; she is shown as receiving blessings/
ornaments in the Anusūyā episode that have a symbolic and ritual association besides
a social one. Sītā’s subservient and passive nature is portrayed, with prescribed behav-
iour for a perfect wife illustrated in her positioning in the depiction and also in the

80
Hiltebeitel, ‘Mapping Bhakti through Friendship in the Sanskrit Epic’, p. 95, observes that in the Rāmayāna,
relationships of friendship are defined as relationships of servitude, and in some cases could be said to
redefine or transform them from one to the other.
81
VDM III.85.1–79 (pp. 114–16).
82
Agarwala, ‘A Survey of Gupta Art and Some Sculptures’, pp. 544–45. The invisible Lord should be cast in
a concrete form to bestow fixity on Him in time and space. This function is served by the shrine, the image
and the worship there, all three being enriched with the devotional and meditational powers of the human
mind. The carved reliefs p. 545 depicting themes from Puranic legends were documentaries replete with
symbolic significance.
Bawa 121

literary telling; and her reverence towards the elder woman Anususya and aspects of
respect and gratefulness as becoming behaviour from an ideal woman are reinforced in
the dimunized figure of Sītā seated at the elder woman’s feet.83 Anusūyā and Sītā are an
antithesis to Śūrpanakhā, both of whom are the very epitome of ideal wives with whom
they are compared in the Rāmayāna (Ayk 110–12).
In the visual from Deogarh, one sees violent punishment being meted out to
Śūrpanakhā rather than her overwhelming sexual desire or her humiliation or indeed
her hideousness that has been described in Vālmīki Rāmayāna and Raghuvamsam.
Her claim to be a skilled fighter is borne out by the channavira, which is in contrast
to Sītā’s firmly feminine attire. Śūrpanakhā’s contestation of the physical, moral and
social space is controlled by patriarchal norms articulated through her actions, attire
and dialogue with the two brothers, and is deftly dealt with by Rāma and Laksmana,
the keepers of righteous order.
That some of the scenes chosen are clearly imprecatory from a patriarchal point
of view is apparent, be it Ahalya, or Śūrpanakhā; moral, social and religious injunc-
tions against transgressing patriarchal codes of sanctioned behaviour can be recovered
within the text/narrative 84 itself along with contextualising the same within the broad
visual/textual code of norms and behaviour that define the period.
In its spatio-temporal contexts, that is, the fifth and sixth century ce and largely
in present day Bundelkhand/Baghelkhand (though not excluding other areas), the
Rāmayāna, especially the kāndas relating to the aranya/exile, becomes a significant
subject for visual narrative depiction. The visual and literary forms adapt Vālmiki’s
Rāmayāna through narrative devices such as summarising, abstraction, highlighting
certain episodes or emphasising particular characters.
In visual form, certain moments/archetypes such as the ascetic king, the relationship
with the vānāras seem to hold greater fascination for the artist-patron-viewer. That
the region where many of the important panels are found were ruled by self-claimed
Parivrājakas (ascetics kings) appears to be broadly in line with the sacred geography
and the region where actions/karma/līlā of Rāma are seen to occur. The fascination
of the audience for the forest episodes, too, may be based on the moral, prescriptive,
didactic nature of these passages that privilege the power of Rāma, the rājanya or
kshatriyā who partakes the action, only to arbiter justice or punishment. The projection
of Rāma and his companions as ideal characters who as passages par excellence
espousing dharma attest, makes significant moral choices, including renunciation.
Such choices are projected through the deployment of kāma or desire, which is seen as
deviant in the person of Śūrpanakhā, and therefore to be punished while it is restrained
in Anusuyā and Atri and thus to be celebrated. Thus, the position of Rāma as the
benevolent ameliorator of suffering his redemptive power or authority manifested in
the Ahalyā episode as he vouchsafes mokshā for the multitude, human or animal, is
reinforced through visual narratives. Finally, the fantastic, magical and romantic world
of the forests holds greater appeal or connect with the viewers as it corresponds to a
shared cultural matrix of aranyakā-grāma or forest-polis where the forest becomes the
renunciative, rejuvenative, creative and purgatorial ‘other’ space.

83
Sutherland, ‘Sītā and Draupadī’, p. 75.
84
For various versions of this episode see Erndl, ‘The Mutilation of Śūrpanakhā’, pp. 67–88.
122 Indian Historical Review 45(1)

Acknowledgements
Financial assistance under Research and Development Grant from University of Delhi has
facilitated the preparation of this article.

References
Agarwala, V.S. ‘A Survey of Gupta Art and Some Sculptures from Nachna Kuthara and Khoh’,
in Kapila Vatsayana and Sahitya Akademi, eds, Vasudev Sharan Agarwala: A Selection,
pp. 542–661, New Delhi, 2015.
———. ‘Terracottas of Ahichchhatra’, Ancient India, 4, 1947–1948, pp. 108–79.
Banerji, R.D. The Temple of Siva at Bhumara, MASI No. 16, Delhi, reprint [1924] 1998.
Bawa, Seema. Gods, Men, & Women: Gender & Sexuality in Early Indian Art, New Delhi, 2013.
Bhandarkar, D.R., B. Chhabra and G.S. Gai. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum III: Inscriptions
of the Early Gupta Kings, New Delhi, 1981.
Chandra, Pramod. Stone Sculptures in the Allahabad Museum, New Delhi, 1970.
Cowell, E.B., ed., Jataka Stories, Vols. 3–4, New Delhi, 1990.
Cunningham, Alexander. Report of Tours in Bundelkhand and Malwa in 1874–75 and 1876–77,
Calcutta, 1880.
Dehejia, Vidya. Discourse in Early Buddhist Art: Visual Narratives of India, New Delhi, 2005.
Dikshit, K.N. Paharpur, MASI No. 55, ASI, Delhi, 1938.
Erndl, Kathleen M. ‘The Mutilation of Śūrpanakhā’, in Paula Richman, ed., Many Rāmayānas:
The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 67–88.
Fleet, J.F., ed., Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum III: Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and
Their Successors, Calcutta, 1888.
Gupta, S.P. and Shashi Prabha Asthana. Elements of Indian Art: Including Temple Architecture,
Iconography and Iconometry, New Delhi, 2002.
Gupta, Som Raj. The Word Speaks to The Faustian Man, Vol II, New Delhi, 1995.
———. The Word Speaks to The Faustian, Man Vol III, New Delhi, 1999.
Harle, J.C. Gupta Sculpture: Indian Sculpture of the Fourth to the Sixth Centuries A.D.,
New Delhi, 1996.
Hiltebeitel, Alf. ‘India’s National Epics’, International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 2 (3),
1998, pp. 387–421.
———. ‘Mapping Bhakti through Friendship in the Sanskrit Epic’ in Pollock Sheldon, ed.,
Epic and Argument in Sanskrit Literary History: Essays in Honor of Robert P. Goldman,
pp. 91–116, New Delhi, 2010.
Huntington, Susan, The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, New Delhi, 2014.
Ingalls, Daniel H.H. ‘Kālidāsa and the Attitudes of the Golden Age’, Journal of the American
Oriental Society, Vol. 96 (1), 1976, pp. 15–26.
Kala, Jayantibala, Epic Scenes in Indian Plastic Arts, New Delhi, 1988.
Kale, M.R., ed. and transl., The Raghuvamśa of Kālidāsa, Cantos I–X, Bombay, 1922.
Kane, P.V. ‘The Two Epics’, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol 47. (1/4),
1996, pp. 11–58.
Kramrisch, Stella, ed. and trans., The Vishnudharmottara, (Part III) A Treatise on Indian
Painting and Image-Making, Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, Calcutta University
Press, Calcutta, 1928.
Majumdar, R.C. and A.S. Altekar, The Vakataka-Gupta Age (circa 200–550 ad), New Delhi,
[1946] 1954.
Nandargikar, Gopal Raghunath, ed. and trans., The Raghuvamśa of Kālidāsa, Bombay, 1897.
Pargiter, P.E. ‘The Geography of Rama’s Exile’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain and Ireland, 1894, pp. 231–64.
 Bawa 123

Pollock, Sheldon. ‘Rāmayāna and Political Imagination in India’ The Journal of Asian Studies,
Vol. 52 (2), 1993, pp. 261–97.
Richman, Paula, ed., Many Rāmayānas: The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia,
New Delhi, 1997.
Sastri, C.S.R., ed. and trans. Pratimā Nātaka of Bhāsa, Madras, 1951.
Shastri, Yoganand. Prachin Bharata Mein Yaudheya Ganrajya, New Delhi, 1999.
Singh, Upinder. ‘The Power of a Poet: Kingship, Empire and War in Kālidāsa’s Raghuvamśa’,
Indian Historical Review, Vol. 38 (2), 2011. pp. 177–98.
Śivaramamurti, C. ‘Sanskrit Literature Illumines Art’, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental
Institute, Vol. 53 (1/4), 1972, pp. 1–52.
Srimad Vālmīki Rāmayāna, Part 1, Gorakhpur, 2014.
Sutherland, Sally J. ‘Sītā and Draupadī: Aggressive Behavior and Female Role-Models in the
Sanskrit Epics’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 109 (1), 1989, pp. 63–79.
The Rāmayāna of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India. Vol. I: Bālakānda, Robert Goldman and
Sally J. Sutherland, trans., New Delhi, 2007.
The Rāmayāna of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India. Vol. II: Ayodhyakanda, Sheldon Pollock,
trans., New Delhi, 2007.
The Rāmayāna of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India. Vol. III: Aranyakānda, Sheldon Pollock,
trans., New Delhi, 2007.
The Rāmayāna of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India. Vol. IV: Kiskindhākānda, Rosalind Lefeber,
trans., New Delhi, 2007.
Vats, M.S. The Gupta Temple at Deogarh, MASI No. 70, New Delhi, 1952.
Virjanand, Devkarni. Prachin Bharat mein Rāmayāna ke Mandir, Gurukul Jhajjar, 2000.
Vogel, J.P. ‘Excavations at Saheth Maheth’, ARASI, 1907–8, pp. 81–131.
Williams, Joanna Gottfried. The Art of Gupta India: Empire and Province, New Jersey, 1982.

View publication stats