Friday, December 10, 2021
VSS papers 2021 The Art of writing Drama using ‘Mukha- Saṃdhi’ -*1
Scope for improving --
1) This is an important subject to establish how hundreds of years back, the Indian scholars dwelved upon the शास्त्र (can be narrowly translated as science) of dramatics and suggested various parameters for Rasotpatti.
2) This article is more about describing and explaining the Saṃdhi, and Saṃdhyaṅgas than about using them for Rasotpatti in writing the dramas. Hence I think that the title could have been
The science of writing Drama using ‘Mukha- Saṃdhi’ and Saṃdhyaṅgas. To describe the ART, we need many more examples.
3) Who first classified the Saṃdhis in 5 types or each of them into their subdivisions? That has to be first clarified. It is not as if Bharat contributed some parts while Dhanañjaya some other and finally someone collated all of them into a chart as appears in page 4 and 5.
4) Where Sanskrit text is quoted eg from Ratnawali or Shakuntalam or Madhav Malati – its translation be given so that reader can judge whether the effect of Saṃdhi is indeed created as is defined in that Saṃdhi.
5) In one example -- Sāgarikā’s statement, 'Oh! is this the king Udayana whom I was offered by my father!' in the Ratnāvalī72 – how does it become a samdhi that is, a turning point? Same question arises in many examples.
6) To a common reader, it is not clear why a paricular subdivision (is it called उपसंधि?) is kept under a particular samdhi and not another. For example द्युति appear under विमर्ष and नर्मद्युति under प्रतिमुखसंधि.
7) Another related question -- the subdivisions of Mukha Samdhi appear to be creating same effect as is intended in the middle or end of drama. For ex. Smadhan. This name suggests that we have reached the end of the drama, while actually, it is still part of the opening section.
To answer question no 6 raised here, the scope of article has to be widened. So the author may skip it now but plan for a much bigger article later. If this kind of work is not done by others previously, then this is definitely a subject which deserves more attention.
...............................................................................................................
The Art of writing Drama using ‘Mukha- Saṃdhi’ and its Sub-Divisions (Saṃdhyaṅga) of Dramatic Plot: A Study.
Sandeep Dhikale
Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, Pune
dsagar.sandeep@gmail.com
Abstract:
Saṃdhi is a Joint or Juncture in dramatic plot. Sanskrit dramaturgy says that Saṃdhi- Saṃdhyaṅga are necessary for the dramatic form and plot. Saṃdhis are five in number: मुख (Mukha), प्रतिमुख (Pratimukha), गर्भ (Garbha), विमर्श/अवमर्श (Vimarśa/Avamarśa) and निर्वहण (Nirvahaṇa Saṃdhi). ‘Mukha-Saṃdhi’ is the first Saṃdhi having 12 sub-divisions. It is pertinent to understand and take a closer look at the principles and methods which guide the storytelling methodology of India. The paper also is an attempt to look at the Saṃdhi-Saṃdhyaṅga theory on a micro level with the perspective of different dramatists and Aācārya of Sanskrit Dramaturgy.
Keywords: Saṃdhi, Saṃdhi-Saṃdhyaṅgas, Dramatic plot, Sanskrit Dramaturgy, Dramatic Junctures.
Introduction:
Sanskrit dramaturgy has presented the scientific analysis of the plot of a drama. Plot is like a body of Drama, इतिवृत्तं तु काव्यस्य शरीरं परिकीर्तितम् ।1 It is also called as a ‘Kathāvastu’ (कथावस्तु) The plot (कथावस्तु) is of two kinds (a) ādhikārika आधिकारिक (principal plot) (b) prāsaṅgika प्रासङ्गिक (subsidiary plot).2 The action that is aimed for the fulfillment of the principal result (ie. The Hero’s object) is called as a ādhikārika kathāvastu आधिकारिक कथावस्तु (principal action), whereas the one other than this is called as a prāsaṅgika प्रासङ्गिक (subsidiary action).3 The principal plot revolves around the hero/protagonist and reveals his activities to attain desires. Subsidiary plot concerns some other characters but it ultimately helps in the fulfillment of the hero/protagonist’s desire.
Sanskrit dramatists like Bharata, Dhanañjaya-Dhanika etc. have presented five means of attaining the goals of the plot, which are known as ‘पञ्च-अर्थप्रकृति’ (Pañca-Arthaprakṛti) those are – (a) Bīja (बीज) (the Seed/Germ), (b) Bindu (बिन्दु) (Vital Drop), (c) Patākā (पताका) (Episode), (d) Prakarī (प्रकरी) (Episodic Incident), (e) Kārya (कार्य) (Achievement of desired objective/Fruit).4 Sanskrit dramaturgy also provides the five stages of Action or Plot. They are – (a) Aārambha (आरम्भ) (Beginning), (b) Prayatna (प्रयत्न) (Efforts), (c) Prāptyāśā/Prāptisambhava (प्राप्त्याशा/प्राप्तिसम्भव) (Possibility of Attainment), (d) Niyatāpti/Niyataphalaprāpti (नियताप्ति/नियतफलप्राप्ति) (Certainty of Attainment), (e) Phalāgama/Phalayoga (फलागम/फल-योग) (Attainment of Object).5 These five stages are called as ‘Pañcaavasthā’ (पञ्च-अवस्था). Sanskrit dramaturgy, further says that there are five ‘Saṃdhi’ (संधि) (Joints/junctures), corresponding to the five stages enumerated above. Saṃdhi’s are the combination of different phases of main action with its subsidiaries. ācārya Dhanañjaya in his ‘daśarūpakam’ says - अन्तरैकार्थसंबन्धः संधिरेकान्वयेसति ।6 The unification of the state of the objects of the parts of the story is called – Saṃdhi (संधि). ācārya Dhanika also explains Saṃdhi as एकेन प्रयोजनेनान्वितानांकथांशानामवान्तरैकप्रयोजनसंबन्धः संधिः ।7 śiṅgabhūpāla, while explaining the Saṃdhi, says, - एकैकस्यास्त्ववस्थायाः प्रकृत्या चैकयैकया । योगः सन्धिरिति ज्ञेयो नाट्यविद्याविचक्षणैः ॥8 ‘Saṃdhi’s mark the different phases of the germ like the one of its appearance or disappearance, its partial bloom and decay, and also its fulfillment at length.’9 sāgaranandin in his ‘nāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakośa’ explains ‘Saṃdhi’ as ‘fitting the different parts of the dramatic story into a mutually harmonious Connection’.10 ‘Saṃdhis’ are so called because ‘with their help the different matters in a dramatic plot are mutually joined together’.11 ‘संधि’ Saṃdhi’s (junctures) are Fivefold. They are as follows12: (a) mukhasaṃdhi (मुखसंधि) (Opening); (b) pratimukhasaṃdhi (प्रतिमुखसंधि) (Progression); (c) garbhasaṃdhi (गर्भसंधि) (Development); (d) avamarśa (अवमर्श)13 (Pause); (e) nirvahaṇa (निर्वहण)14 (Conclusion).
Sanskrit Dramaturgy conceives following purposes behind the use of Saṃdhi and Saṃdhyaṅga’s for a dramatic composition and its stage performance. By using Saṃdhi’s and its Sub-divisions in the plot construction, a dramatist is able..
To achieve a constructive, organized and harmonious positioning/arrangement which he intends to convey,
To see that the essential things in the plot are present and continuity of happenings is maintained,
To able to ensure things which are open, normal and pleasant are included and shown,
To present such matters as are likely to evoke surprise, wonder visually, (even though they may have been maintained in words or remembered before,
To secure attention, attraction and pleasure though the dramatic performance.
Aācārya Dhanañjaya in his ‘daśarūpakam’ formulates the ‘yathāsaṃkhya’ theory of Saṃdhi’s.15 The first ‘arthaprakṛti’ (बीज (the Seed/Germ)) gets connected to the first ‘avasthā’ - ārambha (आरम्भ (Beginning)), and so on. Saṃdhi’s (Junctures) are a chain of five stages of action with corresponding five elements of plot. It can be distinctively called as ‘Co-ambulation Theory’ of Saṃdhi’s. Aācārya Dhanañjaya in his daśarūpakam’, explains the ‘yathāsaṃkhya’ theory of Saṃdhi with respective connection between ‘पञ्च-अर्थप्रकृति’ (five arthaprakṛti) and ‘पञ्च-अवस्था’ (five avasthā). The proper mutual connection (samanvaya) is called as a ‘Saṃdhi’.
No.
Connection and Combination of arthaprakṛti & avasthā (अर्थप्रकृति & अवस्था)
संधि
Saṃdhi (Juncture)
1.
Bīja (बीज) (the Seed/Germ) + ārambha (आरम्भ) (Beginning)
Mukhasaṃdhi (मुखसंधि) (Opening)
2.
Bindu (बिन्दु) (Vital Drop) + prayatna (प्रयत्न) (Efforts)
Pratimukhasaṃdhi (प्रतिमुखसंधि) (Progression)
3.
Patākā (पताका) (Episode) + prāptyāśā (प्राप्त्याशा) (Possibility of Attainment)
Garbhasaṃdhi (गर्भसंधि) (Development)
4.
Prakarī (प्रकरी) (Episodic Incident) + niyatāpti (नियताप्ति) (Certainty of Attainment)
Vimarśa (विमर्श) (Pause)
5.
Kārya (कार्य) (Achievement) + phalāgama (फलागम) (Attainment of Object)
Nirvahaṇa (निर्वहण) (Conclusion).
Saṃdhi’s are known with following names (in English) as well.
No.
Saṃdhi (संधि) (Juncture)
Other Names
1.
Mukhasaṃdhi मुखसंधि
Opening / Introduction / Protasis
2.
Pratimukhasaṃdhi प्रतिमुखसंधि
Progression / Epitasis
3.
Garbhasaṃdhi गर्भसंधि
Development / Catastasis
4.
Vimarśa विमर्श
Pause / Crisis / Peripeteia
5.
Nirvahaṇa निर्वहण
Conclusion / Catastrophe
Sub-Divisions of Fivefold Saṃdhi’s संध्यङ्ग (Saṃdhyaṅga’s)
No.
संधि Saṃdhi (Juncture)
संध्यङ्ग (Saṃdhyaṅga’s) Sub-Divisions
Total
1.
Mukhasaṃdhi
(मुखसंधि)
(Opening)
upakṣepa, parikara, parinyāsa, vilobhana, yukti, prāpti, samādhāna, vidhāna, paribhāvanā, udbheda, karaṇa, bheda. (उपक्षेप, परिकर, परिन्यास, विलोभन, युक्ति, प्राप्ति, समाधान, विधान, परिभावना, उद्भेद, करण, भेद)
12
2.
Pratimukhasaṃdhi
(प्रतिमुखसंधि)
(Progression)
vilāsa, parisarpa, vidhuta, tāpana, narma, narmadyuti, pragayana (pragamana), nirodha, paryupāsana, puṣpa, vajra, upanyāsa, varṇasaṃhāra. (विलास, परिसर्प, विधुत, तापन, नर्म, नर्मद्युति, प्रगयन (प्रगमन), निरोध, पर्युपासन, पुष्प, वज्र, उपन्यास, वर्णसंहार)
13
3.
Garbhasaṃdhi
(गर्भसंधि)
(Development)
abhūtāharaṇa, mārga, rūpa, udāharaṇa, krama, saṃgraha, anumāna, prārthanā, ākṣipta, toṭaka, adhibala, udvega, vidrava. (अभूताहरण, मार्ग, रूप, उदाहरण, क्रम, संग्रह, अनुमान, प्रार्थना, आक्षिप्त, तोटक, अधिबल, उद्वेग, विद्रव)
13
4.
Vimarśa
(विमर्शसंधि)
(Pause)
apavāda, saṃpheṭa, vidrava (drava), yukti, dyuti, prasaṅga, vyavasāya, virodhana, prarocanā, vicalana, ādāna, cchedana (अपवाद, संफेट, विद्रव (द्रव), युक्ति, द्युति, प्रसङ्ग, व्यवसाय, विरोधन, प्ररोचना, विचलन, आदान, च्छेदन)
12
5.
Nirvahaṇa
(निर्वहणसंधि)
(Conclusion).
sandhi, nirodha, grathana, nirṇaya, paribhāṣaṇa, dyuti, prasāda, ānanda, samaya, upagūhana, bhāṣaṇa, pūrvavākya, kāvyasaṃhāra, praśasti. (सन्धि, निरोध, ग्रथन, निर्णय, परिभाषण, द्युति, प्रसाद, आनन्द, समय, उपगूहन, भाषण, पूर्ववाक्य, काव्यसंहार, प्रशस्ति)
14
Mukha-Saṃdhi मुखसंधि (Opening)
Mukha-Saṃdhi मुखसंधि (Opening) is a part of drama, in which the creation of the bīja (बीज) (the Seed/Germ) as the source of many objects and sentiments takes place, is called in relation to its body, the Opening.16 ‘Mukha-Saṃdhi’ is a juncture which discloses the origination of the germ and introduces a verity of matters and of sentiments. It also puts the principal characters to some action in furtherance of the main motif of the play.17 To illustrate, the first act of the ‘Vikramorvaśīyam be referred to, as it contains the germ of love between purūravā and Urvaśī, displays divers events, manifests different feelings of terror and comic, and the sentiment of pūrvaraṅga, and also opens the stage of the commencement of action.
Bharatamunī in his Nāṭyaśāstra while explaining ‘Mukha-Saṃdhi’ says –
‘यत्र बीजसमुत्पत्तिर्नानार्थरससम्भवा । काव्ये शरीरानुगता तन्मुखं परिकीर्तितम् ॥18
Dhanañjaya says – मुखं बीजसमुत्पत्तिर्नानार्थरससंश्रयाः । अङ्गानि द्वादशैतस्य बीजारम्भसमन्वयात् ॥19
‘Mukha’ is the source of diverse rasas, stories and sentiments. There are twelve divisions of this मुखसंधी and they are used for the commencement of the ‘Bīja’. While explaining this verse from ‘Daśarūpaka’, the commentator (of Avalokaka) Dhanika elaborates as – बीजानामुत्पत्तिरनेकप्रकारप्रयोजनस्य रसस्य च हेतुर्मुखसंधिरिति व्याख्येयम् । तेनात्रिवर्गफले प्रहसनादौ रसोत्पत्तिहेतोरेव बिजत्वमिति । अस्य च बीजारम्भार्थयुक्तानि द्वादशाङ्गानि भवन्ति ॥20
‘Sub-Divisions21 of ‘मुखसंधी’ Mukha-Saṃdhi’ संध्यङ्ग (Saṃdhyaṅga)
संधि Saṃdhi (Juncture)
संध्यङ्ग (Saṃdhyaṅga’s) Sub-Divisions
Total
मुखसंधि (Opening)
upakṣepa, parikara, parinyāsa, vilobhana, yukti, prāpti, samādhāna, vidhāna, paribhāvanā, udbheda, karaṇa, bheda.
(उपक्षेप, परिकर, परिन्यास, विलोभन, युक्ति, प्राप्ति, समाधान, विधान, परिभावना, उद्भेद, करण, भेद)
12
While describing ‘Saṃdhi’, Bharatamuni and other Sanskrit dramatists tell that each one of the ‘संधी’ has number of sub-divisions. ‘मुखसंधी’ of them is having twelve ‘संध्यङ्ग’ (Sub-Divisions)
उपक्षेपः परिकरः परिन्यासो विलोभनम् ॥
युक्तिः प्राप्तिः समाधानं विधानं परिभावना ।
उद्भेदभेदकरणान्यन्वर्थान्यथ लक्षणम् ॥22,23
upakṣepa (उपक्षेप) (Suggestion), parikara (परिकर) (Enlargement), parinyāsa (परिन्यास) (Establishment), vilobhana (विलोभन) (Allurement), yukti (युक्ति) (Resolve), prāpti (प्राप्ति) (Attainment), samādhāna (समाधान) (Settling), vidhāna (विधान) (Conflict of feelings), paribhāvanā (परिभावना) (Surprise), udbheda (उद्भेद) (Disclosure), karaṇa (करण) (Division) and bheda (भेद) (Resumption) these twelve are the Sub-Divisions of ‘Mukha-Saṃdhi’.
1. उपक्षेप (Suggestion)
Sowing of a seed or presentation of the germ is called ‘उपक्षेप’ (Suggestion). बीजन्यास उपक्षेपः ।24 It makes the first introduction of the hero’s desire, the central and most important part of the dramatic action.
यथा रत्नावल्याम् (१/६) – (नेपथ्ये)
द्विपादन्यस्मादपि मध्यादपि जलनिधेर्दिशोऽप्यन्तात् ।
आनीय झटिति घटयति विधिरभिमतमभिमुखीभूतः ॥
इत्यादिना यौगन्धरायणो वत्सराजस्य रत्नावलीप्राप्तिहेतुभूतमनुकूलदैवं स्वव्यापारं बीजत्वेनोपक्षिप्तवानित्युपक्षेपः ॥25
‘उपक्षेप’ (Suggestion) feature is a part of introduction wherein the essence of the action gets introduced.26 Germ/seed can be brought in by anybody and anything. In Abhijñānaśākuntalam, hero Duṣyanta himself suggests the germ of action; in Mudrārākṣasam, cāṇakya and in Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, the ratnāvalī suggests the germ/seed of action.
काव्यार्थस्य समुत्पत्तिरुपक्षेप इति स्मृतः ।27 बीजन्यास उपक्षेपः ।28 बीजस्योप्तिरुपक्षेपः ।29 बीजन्यास उपक्षेपः ।30 बीजन्यास उपक्षेपः ।31 उपक्षेपस्तु बीजस्य सूचना कथ्यते बुधैः ।32 काव्यार्थस्य समुत्पत्तिरुपक्षेप इति स्मृतः ।33 काव्यार्थोत्पत्तिरुपक्षेपः ।34
2. परिकर (Enlargement)
‘परिकर’ also called as a ‘परिक्रिया.’ ‘परिकर’ is a statement which explains the situation with the amplification of the germ/seed is ‘परिकर’ (Enlargement).35 Aācārya Viśvanātha in his Sāhityadarpaṇa, defines it as a feature showing the expansion and the sprung up of the matter. In Abhijñānaśākuntalam, the expression of king Duṣyanta’s sympathy for śakuntalā presents the element of ‘परिकर’.
समुत्पन्नार्थबाहुल्यं ज्ञेयः परिकरस्तु सः ।36 (बीजन्यास उपक्षेपः) तद्बाहुल्यं परिक्रिया ।37 स्वल्पव्यासः परिक्रिया ।38 (बीजन्यास उपक्षेपः) तद्बाहुल्यं परिक्रिया ।39 बीजस्य बहूपकरणं परिकरः ।40 परिक्रिया तु बहूलीकरणं मतम् ।41 समुत्पन्नार्थबाहुल्यं ज्ञेयः परिकरस्तु सः ।42 समुत्पन्ने अर्थे अर्थानां बाहुल्यं स परिकरः ।43
3. परिन्यास (Establishment)
‘परिन्यास’ (Establishment) is a feature, which displays the development of the ‘बीज’ where it takes a concrete and tangible shape.44 Aācārya Viśvanātha and some other Aācārya states that the settlement of the matter is so far sprung up in ‘परिकर’ (Enlargement) is the feature of परिन्यास (Establishment)45 In bālarāmāyaṇa, the entry of śunaḥśepa, which narrates the attempts of Lord Rāma to punish and torment the demons with the help and able guidance of Rishi Viśvāmitra establishes the motif of the play and gives a concrete and tangible shape.46
तन्निष्पत्या तु कथनं परिन्यासः प्रकीर्तितः ।47 (बीजन्यास उपक्षेपः तद्बाहुल्यं परिक्रिया) तन्निष्पत्तिः परिन्यासः ।48 विनिश्चयः परिन्यासः ।49 (बीजन्यास उपक्षेपः तद्बाहुल्यं परिक्रिया) तन्निष्पत्तिः परिन्यासः ।50 तस्य निष्पत्तिन्यासः परिन्यासः । संशुद्धार्थ बीजनिष्पत्तिः परिन्यासः ।51 बीजनिष्पत्तिकथनं परिन्यास इतीर्यते ।52 तन्निष्पत्तिः परिन्यासः ।53
भाषणं यत्परिन्यासः ।54
4. विलोभन (Allurement)
The विलोभन means fascination. The attractive description of some merits of the main characters of the pay or a presentation of the good points belonging to the purpose in hand is called विलोभन. It is the exposition of the good points, naturally of the fruit. Here the particular attraction or fascination which the principal characters feel towards the फल would be seen and it is this allurement which actuates them. विलोभन might occur somewhere near (or after) the परिन्यास. The well-known description from Veṇisaṃhāram that Draupadī praising the resolve of bhīmasena is a point of विलोभन.
गुणनिर्वर्णनं यत्तु विलोभनमिति स्मृतम् ।55 गुणाख्यानं विलोभनम् ।56 विलोभनं स्युतेर्गाथ्यम् ।57 गुणाख्यानं विलोभनम् ।58 बीजगुणवर्णनं विलोभनम् ।59 नायकादिगुणानां यद् वर्णनं तद् विलोभनम् ।60 गुणाख्यानं विलोभनम् ।61 अर्थस्य गुणनिर्वर्णनं विलोभनम् ।62
5. युक्ति (Resolve)
युक्ति here means a minute survey or examination of the incidents or circumstances (संप्रधारणम्) The summary of actions are previously adopted or of those which are to be adopted in continuance of the dramatic idea is called Yukti, as is evident in the announcement ‘the fire of Yudhishthira's anger is all burning in the great woodland of the race of Kurus'. 63
Viśvanātha, Singabhūpāla, Vidyānātha and Srīkṛshna Kavi seem to believe that the determination of the purpose (or purposes) of action is the characteristic of this sub-division.
संप्रधारणमर्थानां युक्तिरित्यभिधीयते ।64 संप्रधारणमर्थानां युक्तिः ।65 युक्तिः कृत्यविचारणा ।66 संप्रधारणमर्थानां युक्तिरित्यभिधीयते ।67 बीजानुकूलसंघट्टनप्रयोजनविचारो युक्तिः ।68 सम्यक् प्रयोजनानां हि निर्णयो युक्तिरिष्यते ।69 संप्रधारणमर्थानां युक्तिः ।70 अर्थानां संप्रधारणं सा युक्तिः ।71
6. प्राप्ति (Attainment)
Getting pleasure is defined as Prāpti. Sāgarikā’s statement, 'Oh! is this the king Udayana whom I was offered by my father!' in the Ratnāvalī72; or the statement of Draupadī, experiencing joy when Bhīma announces that he would crush the era of the Kauravas in the battlefield and so on, presents an illustration.73
According to Sāgaranandin a mention of the central thought is Prāpti. His view is seemingly based on some variant reading of Bharata, and if it is accepted, the connotation of Prāpti would very much overlap in essence that of Samādhāna.
सुखार्थस्योपगमनं प्राप्तिरित्यभिसंज्ञितम् ।74 प्राप्तिः सुखागमः ।75 प्रापणं सुखसंप्राप्तिः ।76 प्राप्तिः कोऽपि सुखागमः ।77 बीजसुखागमः प्राप्तिः ।78 प्राज्ञैः सुखस्य संप्राप्तिः प्राप्तिरित्यभिधीयते ।79 प्राप्तिः सुखागमः ।80 मुखार्थस्य यदुपगमनं सा प्राप्तिः ।81
7. समाधान (Settling)
The re-appearance of the main point or the germ is another sub-division of Protasis. the feature of Samadhana is used to bring back the detracted visitors to the main subject. The hero's statement that he was carried away by the tune of the tabor in the Mālavikā is an illustration of this feature.82
बीजार्थस्योपगमनं समाधानमपीष्यते ।83 बीजागमः समाधानम् ।84 पुनर्न्यासः समाहितिः ।85 बीजागमः समाधानम् ।86 बीजसंनिधानं समाधानम् ।87 बीजस्य पुनराधानं समाधानमिहोच्यते ।88 बीजस्यागमनं यत्तु तत्समाधानमुच्यते ।89 बीजार्थस्योपगमनं यत्समाधानम् ।90
8. विधान (Conflict of feelings)
The blending of pleasure and pain is called Vidhāna. This feature is meant to avoid an absolute enjoyment of pleasure and thus contribute reality to the dramatic action. It makes one realize that every phase of life has two sides the pleasant and the sad. The substratum of this conflict of feelings should always be the one and the same individual, e.g., the twofold feeling that Mādhava experiences after finding Mālatī in love with himself presents a pleasant conflict91.
सुखदुःखकृतो योऽर्थस्तद्विधानमिहोच्यते ।92 विधानं सुखदुःखकृत् ।93 विधानं सुखदुःखाप्तिः ।94 विधानं सुखदुःखकृत् ।95 बीजसुखदुःखहेतुर्विधानम् ।96 सुखदुःखकरं यत्तु विधानं बुधा विदुः ।97 सुखदुःखकृतो योऽर्थस्तद्विधानमिति स्मृतम् ।98 सुखदुःखकृतो योऽर्थस्तद्विधानम् ।99
9. परिभावना (Surprise)
Paribhāvanā is an element which limits the mind with a feeling of wonder in respect of the main object by reasons of some attractive description. Paribhāvanā is an expression which fills the mind with curiosity is enough to present this feature according to Bharata and Viśvanātha. Siṅgabhūpāla believes that the expression which appeals as striking on account of the presentation of certain praiseworthy qualities denotes the element of Paribhāvanā, an appreciative description of Sītā by Rāvaṇa in the Bālarāmāyaṇa100 or in the speech of the gambler, what, a wooden image!' in the second Act of the mṛcchakaṭika is an illustration of Paribhāvanā.101
कौतूहलोत्तरावेशो भवेत्तु परिभावना ।102 परिभावोऽद्भुतावेशः ।103 विस्मयः परिभावना ।104 परिभावोऽद्भुतावेशः ।105 बीजविषयाश्चार्यावेशः परिभावनम् ।106 श्लाघ्यैश्चित्तचमत्कारो गुणाद्यैः परिभावना ।107 कूतूहलोत्तरा वाचः प्रोक्ता तु परिभावना ।108 कूतूहलान्तरदायी स्यादर्थः परिभावना ।109
10. उद्भेद (Disclosure)
An element, that discloses something which is (till then) unknown. It displays the sprouting up or a slight progress of the germ.
Example: Bhīmasena promises the princess of the Pāñcāla that she would not see once again Vṛkodara without having exhausted the Kauravas.110
बीजार्थस्य प्ररोहो य उद्भेदः स तु कीर्तितः ।111 उद्भेदो गूढभेदनम् ।112 उद्भेदो गूढभेदनम् ।113 स्वल्पप्ररोह उद्भेदः ।114 गूढबीजप्रकाशनमुद्भेदः ।115 उद्घाटनं यद् बीजस्य स उद्भेदः प्रकीर्तितः ।116 बीजार्थस्य प्ररोहः स्यादुद्भेदः ।117 बीजार्थस्य प्ररोहो यः स उद्भेदः इति स्मृतः ।118
11. करण (Division)
Bheda is an element which encourages some action tending to foster the main cause.
प्रकृतार्थसमारम्भः करणं परिचक्षते ।119 करणं प्रकृतारम्भः ।120 करणं प्रस्तुताक्रिया ।121 करणं प्रकृतारम्भः ।122 बीजानुगुणप्रस्तुतकार्यारम्भः करणम् ।123 प्रस्तुतार्थसमारम्भः करणं परिचक्षते ।124 करणं पुनः प्रकृतार्थसमारम्भः ।125 प्रकृतार्थसमारम्भः करणम् ।126
12. भेद (Resumption)
It is an element to demonstrate that the characters have begun engaging themselves in the execution of their undertaking. If some task originally started but intervened by some subsidiary or casual action is resumed, then it presents the feature of Bheda.
संघातभेदनार्थो यः स भेद इति संज्ञितः ।127 भेदः प्रोत्साहना मताः ।128 भेदनं पात्रनिर्गमः ।129 भेदः प्रोत्साहना ।130 बीजानुगुणप्रोत्साहनं भेदः ।131 बीजस्योद्भेदनं भेदो यद्वा संघातभेदनम् ।132 भेदः संहतभेदनम् । केचित्तु भेदः प्रोत्साहनेति वदन्ति ।133 संघातेन मिलितस्य अर्थस्य भङ्गो भेदः ।134
The first ‘saṃdhi’ amongst five Joints or Juncture in dramatic plot according to Sanskrit dramaturgy is ‘Mukha-Saṃdhi’. ‘मुखसंधि’ is the first ‘संधि’ having 12 sub-divisions of it. This paper is an effort to understand it and I have pertinently taken a closer look at the principles and methods which guide the storytelling methodology of India. I also tried to look at the संधि-संध्यंग theory on a micro level with the perspective of different dramatists and Aācārya of Sanskrit Dramaturgy.
Taking the ‘मुखसंधि’ into consideration at a glance, the Start, then the attendant circumstances and the completion of the Bīja (बीज), would come as the motive for the struggle for the attainment of the end. Manifestation of the bīja with greater intensity would clear all doubts about the bīja. Skillful survey of circumstances would precede the deliberate step and as a result, there would be the approach of a pleasurable circumstance. After that may begin the brooding consequent on the glamour of the unknown, and afterwards a situation might occur which would be the sprouting up of the bīja, and after a situation which elucidates a complex of facts, a step towards the end may be taken and the play might begin.135
Thus all these saṃdhyaṃga give a gradual development within the ‘Saṃdhi’ itself, and in this way, it can be seen that saṃdhyaṃga are the ‘avayavas’ of the saṃdhi’ although not all may be necessary in any drama.
To conclude, I would prefer to quote the statement of Prof. Dr. T.G. Mainkar that ‘Any attempt at locating the Saṃdhyaṅgas is bound to be a subjective one and hence a comparative study of the analysis given in the commentaries and the illustrations from the textbooks, shows that at times a situation which amounts to one Saṃdhyaṅga according to one authority, has been taken to from another Saṃdhyaṅga by another; similarly in the same play a Saṃdhyaṅga is located at different places by different authorities; and lastly one and the same authority finds two different Saṃdhyaṅgas in one and the same place in a play.’136
Thank you.
Wednesday, December 1, 2021
संस्कृत संख्याएँ
पुल्लिङ्ग स्त्रीलिङ्ग नपुंसकलिङ्ग
1. प्रथम: (पहला) प्रथमा प्रथमम्
2. द्वितीय: (दूसरा) द्वितीया द्वितीयम्
3. तृतीय: (तीसरा) तृतीया तृतीयम्
4. चतुर्थ: (चौथा) चतुर्थी चतुर्थम्
5. पञ्चम: (पाँचवाँ) पञ्चमी पञ्चम्
6. षष्ठ: (छठा) षष्ठी षष्ठम्
7. सप्तम: (सातवाँ) सप्तमी सप्तमम्
8. अष्टम: (आठवाँ) अष्टमी अष्टमम्
9. नवम: (नौवाँ) नवमी नवमम्
10. दशम: (दसवाँ) दशमी दशमम्
11. एकादश: (ग्यारहवाँ) एकादशी एकादशम्
12. द्वादश: (बारहवाँ) द्वादशी द्वादशम्
13. त्रयोदश: (तेरहवाँ) त्रयोदशी त्रयोदशम्
14. चतुर्दश: (चौदहवाँ) चतुर्दशी चतुर्दशम्
15. पञ्चदश: (पन्द्रहवाँ) पञ्चदशी पञ्चदशम्
16. षोडश: (सोलहवाँ) षोडशी षोडशम्
17. सप्तदश: (सतरहवाँ) सप्तदशी सप्तदशम्
18. अष्टादश: (अठारहवाँ) अष्टादशी अष्टादशम्
19. एकोनविंश: (उन्नीसवाँ) एकोनविंशी एकोनविंशम्
20. विंश: (बीसवाँ) विंशी विंशम्
21. एकविंश: (इक्कीसवाँ) एकविंशी एकविंशम्
22. द्वाविंश: (बाईसवाँ) द्वाविंशी द्वाविंशम्
23. त्रयोविंश: (तेईसवाँ) त्रयोविंशी त्रयोविंशम्
24. चतुर्विंश: (चौबीसवाँ) चतुर्विंशी चतुर्विंशम्
25. पञ्चविंश: (पञ्चीसवाँ) पञ्चविंशी पञ्चविंशम्
26. षड् विंश: (छब्बीसवाँ) षड्विंशी षड्विंशम्
27. सप्तविंश: (सत्ताईसवाँ) सप्तविंशी सप्तविशंम्
28. अष्टाविंश: (अट्टाईसवाँ) अष्टाविंशी अष्टाविंशम्
29. एकोनत्रिश: (उन्तीसवाँ) एकोनत्रिंशी एकोनत्रिंशम्
30. त्रिंश: (तीसवाँ) त्रिंशी त्रिंशम्
Thursday, December 31, 2020
Mahabharat Proposal -- Unfinished
Mahabharata Proposal
bori
|  2 सित॰ 2010, 7:06 am | | ||
| ||||
Respected Madam,
This is to send to you, at the instance of Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan, the scanned copy of the undated proposal found in the project file for Mahabharata project prepared by Prof. Saroja Bhate.
It is yet to be confirmed whether the same was ever submitted to the relevant authorities.
No soft copy of the same is reportedly available in the BORI office.
With best regards,
Yours sincerely,
Shreenand
This is to send to you, at the instance of Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan, the scanned copy of the undated proposal found in the project file for Mahabharata project prepared by Prof. Saroja Bhate.
It is yet to be confirmed whether the same was ever submitted to the relevant authorities.
No soft copy of the same is reportedly available in the BORI office.
With best regards,
Yours sincerely,
Shreenand
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Meeting 2010 February 15
ड्राफ्ट की पक्की ?
Regulating Council Meeting No. 04 of 2009-2010, (२ ड्राफ्ट)
Tata Hall, BORI, Friday, January 15, 2010; 11.00 a.m.
Members Present:
(1) Smt. Leena Mehendale (Chairman) (2) Prof. P. G. Lalye
(3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande (4) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan
(5) Prof. Hari Narke (6) Shri. V. L. Manjul
(7) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale (8) Smt. Nalini Dhadphale
(9) Dr. G. T. Panse (10) Prof. Shailaja Bapat
(11) Smt. Kalyani Namjoshi (12) Prof. S. D. Joshi
(13) Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar (14) Shri. Arun Barve
(15) Prof. Shobhana Gokhale (16) Prof. Sadanand More
(17) Pt. V. A. Gadgil (18) Shri. B. G. Joshi
(19) Shri. Shyam Satpute (20) Prof. Saroja Bhate
(Hon. Secretary)
Dr. A. B. Marathe, Dr. A. H. Salunkhe, Prof. S. S. Bahulkar, and Smt.
Rucha Mulay had communicated their inability to attend the meeting.
Shri. Shreenand L. Bapat was present for preparation of minutes of the
meeting and Shri. S. J. Rajarshi for information.
______________________
Item 1: Vision BORI:
The recommendation of the EB (EBR/3a/13.01.2010) with regard to the
proposal received from Dr. Veena Mandrekar, for a museum, digitization of
manuscripts and a website was taken up. Deshpande, Patwardhan, Dhadphale,
Gadgil and Dhavlikar participated. The discussion of the RC meeting held on
December 15, 2009, was pointed out. It was explained that the proposal does not
speak of any money concern but only assistance in the form of expertise from the
Michigan State University. This issue is also linked to the proposal from RGSTC
which is only for the Museum of Ancient Indian Science and the digitization
proposal earlier submitted to the DIT which has the scope for a grant of Rs. 2
Crores which will not be approved by the govt of India till BORI gives the
clarification.
The following Resolution was passed:
i) A letter be sent to Dr. Mandrekar saying that “We are
interested in a museum, which among other things will exhibit
manuscripts. Let us know in what manner you are going to help us and
what will be the role of the BORI. Also, what will be the cost to BORI
for your help and the cost to BORI from implementing other aspects”
ii) In the meantime BORI should study requirements of
finance, technical support, space and staff, and issues like credit and
revenue gains from the project.
iii) website and digitization can be started early, but the
museum has to be integrated with all construction projects of BORI
iv) BORI should, also start dialogue with RGSTC and revive
the proposal with DIT
Item 2: Recommendations of the EB: Mrs. Dhadphale, Shri Patwardhan Shri.
Arun Barve Shri. B. G. Joshi
The Chairman: Chart of the recommendations of the EB is prepared. This
demonstrates that some important items are not brought before the RC in the
past, at the same time we appreciate that all items of EB need not be brought to
RC.
At present there is no method by which to ensure that authority of the RC is not
violated
Earlier a procedure was suggested that the resolutions of the EB be referred to
the RC Chair within 15 days or they become null and void. This is not to delay
implementation but for information only.
Members opined that this should be taken as a resolution. Dr More moved the
resolution as follows: All resolutions of the EB be informed to the Chairman of the
RC within 15 days and they should not be implemented before that. Financial
responsibility of resolutions that are not informed to the Chairman of the
Regulating Council will be that of the Hon. Secretary, Executive Board and the
Treasurer.
The resolution was put to vote. Except Prof. Nalini Dhadphale, Prof. M. K.
Dhavalikar and Shri. Arun Barve all members supported; and the above
resolution was passed:
______________________
______________________
Item 3: Deputy-Chief- Editorship of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index: Dr. Panse,
Prof. Dhadphale, Prof. Dhavalikar, Shri Patwardhan and Prof. Joshi participated.
The Chairman proposed that she is willing to work as the Deputy-Chief-
Editor of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index. She left the Chair and requested Pt. V.
A. Gadgil to assume it. Pt. Gadgil assumed the Chair and the business of the
meeting continued.
The related issue was that the EB had passed resolution dated .... to appoint
Smt. Bhate as Chief Editor, for Mahabharat project for which EB did not seek
approval of RC and the resolution became ultra-vires. In RC meeting of June
2009, a ref was made to such step and the action of EB was resolved as ultra-
vires and it was agreed that Dr Mehendale would continue as general-editor and
Dr Panse as superintendent. Accordingly a report was made to the GB
mentioning Dr Mehendale as Editor-general and Dr Panse as superintendent.
Thus as of this date there are only these two posts which are validly created and
filled.
Prof. Bhate stated that Dr. Mehendale informed his inability to work further and
thus the position was created. This plea was unacceptable as Dr Mehendale still
continues to work on the project of Mahabharata.
Prof. Joshi felt BORI should have two positions, the General Editor and a Joint
General Editor as in the Sanskrit Dictionary Project in the Deccan College. Dr.
Panse opined the same.
Other members urged that while this decision was pending Dr Panse should go
ahead with publication of the work done so far.
Prof. Dhadphale said that for such publication only the name of the scholar who
wrote the entry should be given under the entry.
Smt. Mehendale stated that the project needs support, both academic and
administrative, she was offering the administrative help while the aademic
assitance can be provided only by those whom Dr Mehendale approves as
academician.
Smt. Bhate said that she had done the work of the letter “A” in the Index of
Proper Names, while Dr Mehendale has been requested to work on “Aa”, and a
fascicule of the work of “A” will be ready by February.
Shri Patwardhan and Dr Panse again urged that the work cannot be accepted
unless approved by Dr mehendale. It was pointed out that the opinion of Prof. M.
A. Mehendale was not sought before appointing the Chief Editor.
Prof Bhate again claimed that Dr. Mehendale has desired that she should be in
that position and there shall be a setback if members did otherwise.
This remark was strongly resented and the chairman ruled that since meeting
was coming to end status quo as before the EB resolution be maintained till
further decision.
______________________
The Chair was again assumed by Smt. Leena Mehendale and the
business of the meeting continued.
The letter received from Pt. V. A. Gadgil regarding the articles published
one after the other in the Daily Loksatta was read.
Dr. Deshpande: Due action on the complaints expressed in the said articles was
already taken by the EB, and a statement on the same is decided to be brought
before the EB by Prof. Bhate.
Prof. M. G. Dhadphale and Shri. Shyam Satpute: No statements should be made
in the press, only improvement of the BORI should be done.
The Chairman: May information be given to the RC. Stock of bound books and
forms in the Press should be taken.
Pt. Gadgil: I and Shri. Patwardhan may be allowed to work for that.
Shri. Patwardhan: I would work only if allowed to work. It should not be the case
like the opposition faced in cleaning of the garbage in the campus.
Shri. B. G. Joshi: The institutional setup should not be disturbed even for a noble
cause.
The Chairman: May the Hon. Secretary prepare a report on the publications of
the BORI within a month, with the help of 2-3 members if she requires their help.
______________________
Prof. M. G. Dhadphale circulated a letter containing his police complaint
on the receipt of a letter of threat. The Chairman said that the police may do their
work.
______________________
The meeting was declared to be adjourned.
Saroja Bhate Leena
Mehendale
Hon. Secretary Chairman
Members Present:
(1) Smt. Leena Mehendale (Chairman) (2) Prof. P. G. Lalye
(3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande (4) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan
(5) Prof. Hari Narke (6) Shri. V. L. Manjul
(7) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale (8) Smt. Nalini Dhadphale
(9) Dr. G. T. Panse (10) Prof. Shailaja Bapat
(11) Smt. Kalyani Namjoshi (12) Prof. S. D. Joshi
(13) Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar (14) Shri. Arun Barve
(15) Prof. Shobhana Gokhale (16) Prof. Sadanand More
(17) Pt. V. A. Gadgil (18) Shri. B. G. Joshi
(19) Shri. Shyam Satpute (20) Prof. Saroja Bhate (Hon.
Secretary)
Dr. A. B. Marathe, Dr. A. H. Salunkhe, Prof. S. S. Bahulkar, and Smt.
Rucha Mulay had communicated their inability to attend the meeting.
Shri. Shreenand L. Bapat was present for preparation of minutes of the
meeting and Shri. S. J. Rajarshi for information.
______________________
Item 1: Vision BORI:
The recommendation of the EB (EBR/3a/13.01.2010) with regard to the
proposal received from Dr. Veena Mandrekar, for a museum, digitization of
manuscripts and a website was taken up. Deshpande, Patwardhan, Dhadphale,
Gadgil and Dhavlikar participated. The discussion of the RC meeting held on
December 15, 2009, was pointed out. It was explained that the proposal does not
speak of any money concern but only assistance in the form of expertise from the
Michigan State University. This issue is also linked to the proposal from RGSTC
which is only for the Museum of Ancient Indian Science and the digitization
proposal earlier submitted to the DIT which has the scope for a grant of Rs. 2
Crores which will not be approved by the govt of India till BORI gives the
clarification.
The following Resolution was passed:
RCR 1/15.01.2010:
Resolved that:
(i) A letter be sent to Dr. Mandrekar saying that “We are interested in a museum,
which among other things will exhibit manuscripts. Let us know in what manner
you are going to help us and what will be the role of the BORI. Also, what will be
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: January 15, 2010
Page 2 of 4
the cost to BORI for your help and the cost to BORI from implementing other
aspects”
(ii) In the meantime BORI should study requirements of finance, technical
support, space and staff, and issues like credit and revenue gains from the
project.
(iii) Website and digitization can be started early, but the museum has to be
integrated with all construction projects of BORI
(iv) BORI should, also start dialogue with RGSTC and revive the proposal with
DIT
______________________
Item 2: Recommendations of the EB: Mrs. Dhadphale, Shri Patwardhan
Shri. Arun Barve Shri. B. G. Joshi:
The Chairman: Chart of the recommendations of the EB is prepared. This
demonstrates that some important items are not brought before the RC in the
past, at the same time we appreciate that all items of EB need not be brought to
RC.
At present there is no method by which to ensure that authority of the RC is not
violated
Earlier a procedure was suggested that the resolutions of the EB be referred to
the RC Chair within 15 days or they become null and void. This is not to delay
implementation but for information only.
Members opined that this should be taken as a resolution. Dr More moved the
resolution as follows: All resolutions of the EB be informed to the Chairman of the
RC within 15 days and they should not be implemented before that. Financial
responsibility of resolutions that are not informed to the Chairman of the
Regulating Council will be that of the Hon. Secretary, Executive Board and the
Treasurer.
The resolution was put to vote. Except Prof. Nalini Dhadphale, Prof. M. K.
Dhavalikar and Shri. Arun Barve all members supported; and the above
resolution was passed:
RCR 1/15.01.2010:
Resolved that all resolutions of the EB be informed to the Chairman of the RC
within 15 days and they should not be implemented before that. Financial
responsibility of resolutions that are not informed to the Chairman of the
Regulating Council will be that of the Hon. Secretary, Executive Board and the
Treasurer.
______________________
Item 3: Deputy-Chief- Editorship of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index:
Dr. Panse, Prof. Dhadphale, Prof. Dhavalikar, Shri Patwardhan and Prof. Joshi
participated.
The Chairman proposed that she is willing to work as the Deputy-Chief-
Editor of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index. She left the Chair and requested Pt. V.
A. Gadgil to assume it. Pt. Gadgil assumed the Chair and the business of the
meeting continued.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: January 15, 2010
Page 3 of 4
The related issue was that the EB had passed resolution dated .... to
appoint Smt. Bhate as Chief Editor, for Mahabharat project for which EB did not
seek approval of RC and the resolution became ultra-vires. In RC meeting of
June 2009, a ref was made to such step and the action of EB was resolved as
ultra-vires and it was agreed that Dr Mehendale would continue as general-editor
and Dr Panse as superintendent. Accordingly a report was made to the GB
mentioning Dr Mehendale as Editor-general and Dr Panse as superintendent.
Thus as of this date there are only these two posts which are validly created and
filled.
Prof. Bhate stated that Dr. Mehendale informed his inability to work further
and thus the position was created. This plea was unacceptable as Dr Mehendale
still continues to work on the project of Mahabharata.
Prof. Joshi felt BORI should have two positions, the General Editor and a Joint
General Editor as in the Sanskrit Dictionary Project in the Deccan College. Dr.
Panse opined the same.
Other members urged that while this decision was pending Dr Panse
should go ahead with publication of the work done so far.
Prof. Dhadphale said that for such publication only the name of the
scholar who wrote the entry should be given under the entry.
Smt. Mehendale stated that the project needs support, both academic and
administrative, she was offering the administrative help while the aademic
assitance can be provided only by those whom Dr Mehendale approves as
academician.
Smt. Bhate said that she had done the work of the letter “A” in the Index
of Proper Names, while Dr Mehendale has been requested to work on “Aa”, and
a fascicule of the work of “A” will be ready by February.
Shri Patwardhan and Dr Panse again urged that the work cannot be accepted
unless approved by Dr mehendale. It was pointed out that the opinion of Prof. M.
A. Mehendale was not sought before appointing the Chief Editor.
Prof Bhate again claimed that Dr. Mehendale has desired that she should
be in that position and there shall be a setback if members did otherwise.
This remark was strongly resented and the chairman ruled that since meeting
was coming to end status quo as before the EB resolution be maintained till
further decision.
______________________
The Chair was again assumed by Smt. Leena Mehendale and the
business of the meeting continued.
The letter received from Pt. V. A. Gadgil regarding the articles published
one after the other in the Daily Loksatta was read.
Dr. Deshpande: Due action on the complaints expressed in the said articles was
already taken by the EB, and a statement on the same is decided to be brought
before the EB by Prof. Bhate.
Prof. M. G. Dhadphale and Shri. Shyam Satpute: No statements should be made
in the press, only improvement of the BORI should be done.
The Chairman: May information be given to the RC. Stock of bound books and
forms in the Press should be taken.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: January 15, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Pt. Gadgil: I and Shri. Patwardhan may be allowed to work for that.
Shri. Patwardhan: I would work only if allowed to work. It should not be the case
like the opposition faced in cleaning of the garbage in the campus.
Shri. B. G. Joshi: The institutional setup should not be disturbed even for a noble
cause.
The Chairman: May the Hon. Secretary prepare a report on the publications of
the BORI within a month, with the help of 2-3 members if she requires their help.
______________________
Prof. M. G. Dhadphale circulated a letter containing his police complaint
on the receipt of a letter of threat. The Chairman said that the police may do their
work.
______________________
The meeting was declared to be adjourned.
Saroja Bhate Leena Mehendale
Hon. Secretary Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: February 15, 2010
Page 1 of 4
Regulating Council Meeting No. 04 of 2009-2010, Adjourned on January 15,
2010 Tata Hall, BORI, Friday, February 15, 2010; 11.00 a.m.
Members Present:
(1) Smt. Leena Mehendale (Chairman) (2) Prof. G. U. Thite
(3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande (4) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan
(5) Shri. V. L. Manjul (6) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale
(7) Smt. Nalini Dhadphale (8) Prof. Shailaja Bapat
(9) Smt. Kalyani Namjoshi (10) Prof. S. D. Joshi
(11) Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar (12) Shri. Arun Barve
(13) Prof. Sadanand More (14) Pt. V. A. Gadgil
(15) Shri. G. T. Wategaonkar (16) Dr. R. M. Abhyankar
(17) Prof. Saroja Bhate (Hon. Secretary)
Shri. S. J. Rajarshi was present for information.
______________________
Item 1: Condolence:
RCR/2/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that this meeting of the Regulating Council puts on record its deep sense
of sorrow on the unfortunate death of victims of the bomb blast that took place in
German Bakery, Pune, on February 13, 2010.
______________________
Item 2: Deputy-Chief- Editorship of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index:
The Chairman proposed that Pt. V. A. Gadgil, Vice-Chairman should act as
Chairman and Smt. Maitreyi as secretary till this said item is under discussion.
Members agreed; Pt. Gadgil assumed Chair; and business of the meeting continued.
The Chairman appealed for observance of decorum and discussion without malice.
He praised the work of Prof. M. A. Mehendale as the General Editor of the
Mahabharata: Cultural Index and called for a durable policy with regard to the
Editorship and succession. Just as Prof. M. G. Dhadphale has volunteered to assist
in the edition of one volume of the Cultural Index, other scholars should come
forward to assist the editing of other volumes.
Dr. Sadanand More suggested that Academic persons who can devote their time for
this work should be appointed in responsible positions even if means taking them
from outside.
Smt. Leena Mehendale once again drew attention to the events that took place in
surreptios proposed appointment of Prof. Saroja Bhate as the Chief Editor and the
reversal of the same and continuation of Prof. M. A. Mehendale as the General
Editor. She appealed that Prof. Mehendale should be provided with assistance as
required by him, and any policy decision in this regard should be taken by the RC
and not the EB. The resolution of the EB appointing Prof. Bhate was made in
December 2008 and it came before the RC in June 2009. Moreover, there is no
clarity in the reasons why this resolution was made. Thus status quo should be
maintained in this regard.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: February 15, 2010
Page 2 of 4
The Chairman Supported the view of Smt. Leena Mehendale.
Shri. Arun Barve Prof. S. D. Joshi Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar Dr. R. M. Abhyankar
Shri. Patwardhan, Shri. G. T. Wategaonkar participated. It was agreed that we
work with consensus, propriety of affairs and also prepare for succession
management. Prof. Mehendale should continue the work and select his successors
with all freedom. The search should not end with just 1 or 2 names. Administration
should have dialogue with him and arrange for all the Administrative and academic
support plus involve him in selection of good academic successor.
Smt Bhate claimed that Prof. Mehendale had indicated her as his successor choice
in 2007 and hence EB appointed her in 2008 as Chief Editor. She put scholars to
work on the project whose contracts would continue till March 31, 2010.
RC members re-uttered their objection to EB usurping RC’s powers whereupon she
indicated that RC members would “face consequences” and the project work would
be stopped.
The Chairman asked for withdrawal of these remarks which she did. The Chairman
instructed that work of Prof. Mehendale should not be disturbed.
Smt. Leena Mehendale pointed out that Prof. Mehendale’s letter, that is referred to
by Prof. Bhate, is not on the record. Let it come on record and let some members of
RC speak to Prof. Mehendale. Only then RC can and should decide. It is also not
true to claim that the work has stopped since Prof. Mehendale is attending institute
and working. All major decisions like appointment of the Chief Editor should be made
by the RC and not by the EB.
Prof. Nalini Dhadphale supported that decision should be taken only by discussion
with Prof. Mehendale.
Prof. G. U. Thite and Prof. Sadanand More suggested that essential qualifications for
the various positions should be finalized. Criteria for any appointment should be
clear.
After some more discussion following resolution was passed:
RCR/3/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that a Committee comprising the following members be and is hereby
appointed to review the working of the Mahabharata Project: (1) Prof. P. G. Lalye
(Chairman); (2) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale; (3) Prof. G. U. Thite; (4) Dr. G. T. Panse; (5)
Prof. Saroja Bhate (Hon. Secretary, Convener).
______________________
Smt. Leena Mehendale assumed Chair; and business of the meeting
continued.
Item 3: Recommendations of the EB:
(1) MOU with the AIIS: The Chairman ruled that the draft MOU be sent to all the
members for consideration.
(2) Shri. Arvind Phadke’s proposal: The Hon. Secretary stated that due action has
been taken. Members supported the same.
(3) Determination of Life-members: The Chairman ruled that the members may
give their opinions in this regard (criterion for life-member) in writing, and that they be
placed before the next meeting of the RC.
(4) Letter received from Dr. Nalini Joshi: The Hon. Secretary stated that due action
has been taken. Members supported the same.
(5) Stock-taking of the books: The Hon. Secretary stated that due action is being
taken. Members asked that status should be reported in reasonable time.
______________________
Other business allowed by the Chair:
(1) The All-India Oriental Conference:
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: February 15, 2010
Page 3 of 4
On the request of Chairman the Hon. Secretary informed that the AIOC has
been established by the BORI and its 45th session is to be held at Tirupati in June
2010. Its bulletin has been sent to all the members. She appealed the members to
participate in the said session.
Pt. Gadgil: If the AIOC is a child of the BORI, the report of the meeting should
appear in the Annual Report of BORI.
The Chairman: Is the staff of the BORI involved in the work of the AIOC? If yes is it
with any formal permission from the RC?
The Hon. Secretary: The BORI staff has been working for decades together for the
AIOC out of their office hours. They are given separate payment for this. If the report
of AIOC is to be published in the BORI’s Annual Report, the matter will have to be
placed before the EC of the AIOC.
Shri. Patwardhan did not agree, but decided not to press the matter .
______________________
(2) On The proposal received from Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande:
RCR/4/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that the proposal received from Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande for her project
entitled “The Place of Vritra in the Vedic Ritual” be and is hereby accepted and that
she be paid a travelling allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
______________________
(3) Appointment of Dr. Meenakshi Kodnikar:
RCR/5/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that Dr. Meenakshi Kodnikar be appointed at an honorarium of Rs.
10,000/- per month in the project of the Prakrit Dictionary for 180 days.
______________________
(4) Work of the BORI Press:
Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan stated that the BORI Press is not in a working
condition. He proposed that a Committee should be appointed to give suggestions in
this regard. Members accepted the proposal. The following resolution was passed:
RCR/6/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that a Committee comprising the following members be and is hereby
appointed to review the working of the BORI Press: (1) Pt. V. A. Gadgil (Chairman);
(2) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan; (3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande; and that the said
Committee be requested to submit its report directly to the Regulating Council.
-- Except Prof. M. G. Dhadphale all members voted in favour of the resolution. --
______________________
(5) Issue regarding Shri. V. B. Tanpure:
Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan asked what action has been taken with regard to the
misinformation provided to the press by Shri. V. B. Tanpure, Store-keeper, and
whether any improvements have been done in the store. The Hon. Secretary replied
that the store is being reorganised and stock is being checked. She also stated that
the Press and the Store require more space. Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar pointed out that
the BORI Library is also in dire need of space.
______________________
The meeting concluded with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: February 15, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Saroja Bhate Leena Mehendale
Hon. Secretary Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: Febuary 16, 2010
Page 1 of 2
Regulating Council Meeting No. 06 of 2009-2010,
Tata Hall, BORI, Tuesday, February 16, 2010; 3.00 p.m.
Members Present:
(1) Smt. Leena Mehendale (Chairman) (3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande
(3) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan (4) Shri. V. L. Manjul
(5) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale (6) Smt. Nalini Dhadphale
(7) Prof. Shailaja Bapat (8) Smt. Kalyani Namjoshi
(9) Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar (10) Shri. Arun Barve
(11) Prof. Sadanand More (12) Pt. V. A. Gadgil
(13) Prof. G. U. Thite (14) Prof. S. D. Joshi
(15) Shri. G. T. Wategaonkar (16) Prof. Saroja Bhate (Hon. Secretary)
Shri. S. J. Rajarshi was present for information.
______________________
Item 1: Budget for the year 2010-2011:
The Hon. Secretary placed before the meeting the draft budget for the year 2010-
2011 as recommended by the EB. It was discussed in detail. Following and
recommendations made by the Chairman and the members were accepted:
(1) All figures in the Budget should be rounded.
(2) Library budget should be enhanced to Rs. 10 Lakhs.
(3) Budgeted amount for Life-membership fees should be enhanced to Rs. 4 Lakhs.
The following resolution was passed:
RCR/1/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the Budget for the year 2010-2011 be approved after incorporating the
suggestions and recommendations made by the Chairman and members of the
Regulating Council.
[WHERE ARE ACTUAL FIGURE?????????????????
The final figures in the Budget stand as follows:
Capital Income: Capital Expenditure:
Revenue Income: Revenue Expenditure:
Consolidated Income: Consolidated Expenditure:
Total Deficit:
GIVE FIGURES
Arising out of the discussion the following resolutions were passed:
RCR/2a/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the Hon. Secretary be and is hereby authorised to carry out till March 15,
2010 reforms in the Library as recommended by the Library Committee.
RCR/2b/16.02.2010:
Resolved that an Agreement be made with the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation
Ltd. (MKCL) only after the necessary modifications are made in the software “Libraria”
provided by the MKCL to the BORI for testing and on RC being satisfied with the same.
RCR/2c/16.02.2010:
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: Febuary 16, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Resolved that additional computers be purchased for the Library in order to expedite its
automation.
RCR/2d/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the Hon. Secretary be requested to prepare and submit to the Regulating
Council within a month a proposal for digitization of the Library.
RCR/2e/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the work of stock-taking of the publications of the BORI should be
assigned to the auditors of the BORI.
RCR/2f/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the Hon. Secretary be requested to prepare and submit to the RC a note
on the CD-ROM project.
RCR/2g/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the website of the BORI be urgently revamped and Dr. G. T. Panse,
Webmaster, be requested to submit a report to the Regulating Council on the work of
revamping of the website.
RCR/2h/16.02.2010:
Resolved that Prof. G. U. Thite, Curator, be requested to expedite the work of
preparation of the Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts and submit to the
Regulating Council a report on the status of work done so far.
RCR/2i/16.02.2010:
Resolved that a Committee for Organization of Seminars be formed comprising the
following members: (1) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale; (2) Pt. V. A. Gadgil; (3) Dr. Maitreyee
Deshpande and (4) Prof. Saroja Bhate (Convener).
______________________
The meeting was declared to be adjourned.
Saroja Bhate Leena Mehendale
Hon. Secretary Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulating Council Meeting No. 04 of 2009-2010, (२ ड्राफ्ट)
Tata Hall, BORI, Friday, January 15, 2010; 11.00 a.m.
Members Present:
(1) Smt. Leena Mehendale (Chairman) (2) Prof. P. G. Lalye
(3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande (4) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan
(5) Prof. Hari Narke (6) Shri. V. L. Manjul
(7) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale (8) Smt. Nalini Dhadphale
(9) Dr. G. T. Panse (10) Prof. Shailaja Bapat
(11) Smt. Kalyani Namjoshi (12) Prof. S. D. Joshi
(13) Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar (14) Shri. Arun Barve
(15) Prof. Shobhana Gokhale (16) Prof. Sadanand More
(17) Pt. V. A. Gadgil (18) Shri. B. G. Joshi
(19) Shri. Shyam Satpute (20) Prof. Saroja Bhate
(Hon. Secretary)
Dr. A. B. Marathe, Dr. A. H. Salunkhe, Prof. S. S. Bahulkar, and Smt.
Rucha Mulay had communicated their inability to attend the meeting.
Shri. Shreenand L. Bapat was present for preparation of minutes of the
meeting and Shri. S. J. Rajarshi for information.
______________________
Item 1: Vision BORI:
The recommendation of the EB (EBR/3a/13.01.2010) with regard to the
proposal received from Dr. Veena Mandrekar, for a museum, digitization of
manuscripts and a website was taken up. Deshpande, Patwardhan, Dhadphale,
Gadgil and Dhavlikar participated. The discussion of the RC meeting held on
December 15, 2009, was pointed out. It was explained that the proposal does not
speak of any money concern but only assistance in the form of expertise from the
Michigan State University. This issue is also linked to the proposal from RGSTC
which is only for the Museum of Ancient Indian Science and the digitization
proposal earlier submitted to the DIT which has the scope for a grant of Rs. 2
Crores which will not be approved by the govt of India till BORI gives the
clarification.
The following Resolution was passed:
i) A letter be sent to Dr. Mandrekar saying that “We are
interested in a museum, which among other things will exhibit
manuscripts. Let us know in what manner you are going to help us and
what will be the role of the BORI. Also, what will be the cost to BORI
for your help and the cost to BORI from implementing other aspects”
ii) In the meantime BORI should study requirements of
finance, technical support, space and staff, and issues like credit and
revenue gains from the project.
iii) website and digitization can be started early, but the
museum has to be integrated with all construction projects of BORI
iv) BORI should, also start dialogue with RGSTC and revive
the proposal with DIT
Item 2: Recommendations of the EB: Mrs. Dhadphale, Shri Patwardhan Shri.
Arun Barve Shri. B. G. Joshi
The Chairman: Chart of the recommendations of the EB is prepared. This
demonstrates that some important items are not brought before the RC in the
past, at the same time we appreciate that all items of EB need not be brought to
RC.
At present there is no method by which to ensure that authority of the RC is not
violated
Earlier a procedure was suggested that the resolutions of the EB be referred to
the RC Chair within 15 days or they become null and void. This is not to delay
implementation but for information only.
Members opined that this should be taken as a resolution. Dr More moved the
resolution as follows: All resolutions of the EB be informed to the Chairman of the
RC within 15 days and they should not be implemented before that. Financial
responsibility of resolutions that are not informed to the Chairman of the
Regulating Council will be that of the Hon. Secretary, Executive Board and the
Treasurer.
The resolution was put to vote. Except Prof. Nalini Dhadphale, Prof. M. K.
Dhavalikar and Shri. Arun Barve all members supported; and the above
resolution was passed:
______________________
______________________
Item 3: Deputy-Chief- Editorship of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index: Dr. Panse,
Prof. Dhadphale, Prof. Dhavalikar, Shri Patwardhan and Prof. Joshi participated.
The Chairman proposed that she is willing to work as the Deputy-Chief-
Editor of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index. She left the Chair and requested Pt. V.
A. Gadgil to assume it. Pt. Gadgil assumed the Chair and the business of the
meeting continued.
The related issue was that the EB had passed resolution dated .... to appoint
Smt. Bhate as Chief Editor, for Mahabharat project for which EB did not seek
approval of RC and the resolution became ultra-vires. In RC meeting of June
2009, a ref was made to such step and the action of EB was resolved as ultra-
vires and it was agreed that Dr Mehendale would continue as general-editor and
Dr Panse as superintendent. Accordingly a report was made to the GB
mentioning Dr Mehendale as Editor-general and Dr Panse as superintendent.
Thus as of this date there are only these two posts which are validly created and
filled.
Prof. Bhate stated that Dr. Mehendale informed his inability to work further and
thus the position was created. This plea was unacceptable as Dr Mehendale still
continues to work on the project of Mahabharata.
Prof. Joshi felt BORI should have two positions, the General Editor and a Joint
General Editor as in the Sanskrit Dictionary Project in the Deccan College. Dr.
Panse opined the same.
Other members urged that while this decision was pending Dr Panse should go
ahead with publication of the work done so far.
Prof. Dhadphale said that for such publication only the name of the scholar who
wrote the entry should be given under the entry.
Smt. Mehendale stated that the project needs support, both academic and
administrative, she was offering the administrative help while the aademic
assitance can be provided only by those whom Dr Mehendale approves as
academician.
Smt. Bhate said that she had done the work of the letter “A” in the Index of
Proper Names, while Dr Mehendale has been requested to work on “Aa”, and a
fascicule of the work of “A” will be ready by February.
Shri Patwardhan and Dr Panse again urged that the work cannot be accepted
unless approved by Dr mehendale. It was pointed out that the opinion of Prof. M.
A. Mehendale was not sought before appointing the Chief Editor.
Prof Bhate again claimed that Dr. Mehendale has desired that she should be in
that position and there shall be a setback if members did otherwise.
This remark was strongly resented and the chairman ruled that since meeting
was coming to end status quo as before the EB resolution be maintained till
further decision.
______________________
The Chair was again assumed by Smt. Leena Mehendale and the
business of the meeting continued.
The letter received from Pt. V. A. Gadgil regarding the articles published
one after the other in the Daily Loksatta was read.
Dr. Deshpande: Due action on the complaints expressed in the said articles was
already taken by the EB, and a statement on the same is decided to be brought
before the EB by Prof. Bhate.
Prof. M. G. Dhadphale and Shri. Shyam Satpute: No statements should be made
in the press, only improvement of the BORI should be done.
The Chairman: May information be given to the RC. Stock of bound books and
forms in the Press should be taken.
Pt. Gadgil: I and Shri. Patwardhan may be allowed to work for that.
Shri. Patwardhan: I would work only if allowed to work. It should not be the case
like the opposition faced in cleaning of the garbage in the campus.
Shri. B. G. Joshi: The institutional setup should not be disturbed even for a noble
cause.
The Chairman: May the Hon. Secretary prepare a report on the publications of
the BORI within a month, with the help of 2-3 members if she requires their help.
______________________
Prof. M. G. Dhadphale circulated a letter containing his police complaint
on the receipt of a letter of threat. The Chairman said that the police may do their
work.
______________________
The meeting was declared to be adjourned.
Saroja Bhate Leena
Mehendale
Hon. Secretary Chairman
Members Present:
(1) Smt. Leena Mehendale (Chairman) (2) Prof. P. G. Lalye
(3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande (4) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan
(5) Prof. Hari Narke (6) Shri. V. L. Manjul
(7) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale (8) Smt. Nalini Dhadphale
(9) Dr. G. T. Panse (10) Prof. Shailaja Bapat
(11) Smt. Kalyani Namjoshi (12) Prof. S. D. Joshi
(13) Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar (14) Shri. Arun Barve
(15) Prof. Shobhana Gokhale (16) Prof. Sadanand More
(17) Pt. V. A. Gadgil (18) Shri. B. G. Joshi
(19) Shri. Shyam Satpute (20) Prof. Saroja Bhate (Hon.
Secretary)
Dr. A. B. Marathe, Dr. A. H. Salunkhe, Prof. S. S. Bahulkar, and Smt.
Rucha Mulay had communicated their inability to attend the meeting.
Shri. Shreenand L. Bapat was present for preparation of minutes of the
meeting and Shri. S. J. Rajarshi for information.
______________________
Item 1: Vision BORI:
The recommendation of the EB (EBR/3a/13.01.2010) with regard to the
proposal received from Dr. Veena Mandrekar, for a museum, digitization of
manuscripts and a website was taken up. Deshpande, Patwardhan, Dhadphale,
Gadgil and Dhavlikar participated. The discussion of the RC meeting held on
December 15, 2009, was pointed out. It was explained that the proposal does not
speak of any money concern but only assistance in the form of expertise from the
Michigan State University. This issue is also linked to the proposal from RGSTC
which is only for the Museum of Ancient Indian Science and the digitization
proposal earlier submitted to the DIT which has the scope for a grant of Rs. 2
Crores which will not be approved by the govt of India till BORI gives the
clarification.
The following Resolution was passed:
RCR 1/15.01.2010:
Resolved that:
(i) A letter be sent to Dr. Mandrekar saying that “We are interested in a museum,
which among other things will exhibit manuscripts. Let us know in what manner
you are going to help us and what will be the role of the BORI. Also, what will be
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: January 15, 2010
Page 2 of 4
the cost to BORI for your help and the cost to BORI from implementing other
aspects”
(ii) In the meantime BORI should study requirements of finance, technical
support, space and staff, and issues like credit and revenue gains from the
project.
(iii) Website and digitization can be started early, but the museum has to be
integrated with all construction projects of BORI
(iv) BORI should, also start dialogue with RGSTC and revive the proposal with
DIT
______________________
Item 2: Recommendations of the EB: Mrs. Dhadphale, Shri Patwardhan
Shri. Arun Barve Shri. B. G. Joshi:
The Chairman: Chart of the recommendations of the EB is prepared. This
demonstrates that some important items are not brought before the RC in the
past, at the same time we appreciate that all items of EB need not be brought to
RC.
At present there is no method by which to ensure that authority of the RC is not
violated
Earlier a procedure was suggested that the resolutions of the EB be referred to
the RC Chair within 15 days or they become null and void. This is not to delay
implementation but for information only.
Members opined that this should be taken as a resolution. Dr More moved the
resolution as follows: All resolutions of the EB be informed to the Chairman of the
RC within 15 days and they should not be implemented before that. Financial
responsibility of resolutions that are not informed to the Chairman of the
Regulating Council will be that of the Hon. Secretary, Executive Board and the
Treasurer.
The resolution was put to vote. Except Prof. Nalini Dhadphale, Prof. M. K.
Dhavalikar and Shri. Arun Barve all members supported; and the above
resolution was passed:
RCR 1/15.01.2010:
Resolved that all resolutions of the EB be informed to the Chairman of the RC
within 15 days and they should not be implemented before that. Financial
responsibility of resolutions that are not informed to the Chairman of the
Regulating Council will be that of the Hon. Secretary, Executive Board and the
Treasurer.
______________________
Item 3: Deputy-Chief- Editorship of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index:
Dr. Panse, Prof. Dhadphale, Prof. Dhavalikar, Shri Patwardhan and Prof. Joshi
participated.
The Chairman proposed that she is willing to work as the Deputy-Chief-
Editor of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index. She left the Chair and requested Pt. V.
A. Gadgil to assume it. Pt. Gadgil assumed the Chair and the business of the
meeting continued.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: January 15, 2010
Page 3 of 4
The related issue was that the EB had passed resolution dated .... to
appoint Smt. Bhate as Chief Editor, for Mahabharat project for which EB did not
seek approval of RC and the resolution became ultra-vires. In RC meeting of
June 2009, a ref was made to such step and the action of EB was resolved as
ultra-vires and it was agreed that Dr Mehendale would continue as general-editor
and Dr Panse as superintendent. Accordingly a report was made to the GB
mentioning Dr Mehendale as Editor-general and Dr Panse as superintendent.
Thus as of this date there are only these two posts which are validly created and
filled.
Prof. Bhate stated that Dr. Mehendale informed his inability to work further
and thus the position was created. This plea was unacceptable as Dr Mehendale
still continues to work on the project of Mahabharata.
Prof. Joshi felt BORI should have two positions, the General Editor and a Joint
General Editor as in the Sanskrit Dictionary Project in the Deccan College. Dr.
Panse opined the same.
Other members urged that while this decision was pending Dr Panse
should go ahead with publication of the work done so far.
Prof. Dhadphale said that for such publication only the name of the
scholar who wrote the entry should be given under the entry.
Smt. Mehendale stated that the project needs support, both academic and
administrative, she was offering the administrative help while the aademic
assitance can be provided only by those whom Dr Mehendale approves as
academician.
Smt. Bhate said that she had done the work of the letter “A” in the Index
of Proper Names, while Dr Mehendale has been requested to work on “Aa”, and
a fascicule of the work of “A” will be ready by February.
Shri Patwardhan and Dr Panse again urged that the work cannot be accepted
unless approved by Dr mehendale. It was pointed out that the opinion of Prof. M.
A. Mehendale was not sought before appointing the Chief Editor.
Prof Bhate again claimed that Dr. Mehendale has desired that she should
be in that position and there shall be a setback if members did otherwise.
This remark was strongly resented and the chairman ruled that since meeting
was coming to end status quo as before the EB resolution be maintained till
further decision.
______________________
The Chair was again assumed by Smt. Leena Mehendale and the
business of the meeting continued.
The letter received from Pt. V. A. Gadgil regarding the articles published
one after the other in the Daily Loksatta was read.
Dr. Deshpande: Due action on the complaints expressed in the said articles was
already taken by the EB, and a statement on the same is decided to be brought
before the EB by Prof. Bhate.
Prof. M. G. Dhadphale and Shri. Shyam Satpute: No statements should be made
in the press, only improvement of the BORI should be done.
The Chairman: May information be given to the RC. Stock of bound books and
forms in the Press should be taken.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: January 15, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Pt. Gadgil: I and Shri. Patwardhan may be allowed to work for that.
Shri. Patwardhan: I would work only if allowed to work. It should not be the case
like the opposition faced in cleaning of the garbage in the campus.
Shri. B. G. Joshi: The institutional setup should not be disturbed even for a noble
cause.
The Chairman: May the Hon. Secretary prepare a report on the publications of
the BORI within a month, with the help of 2-3 members if she requires their help.
______________________
Prof. M. G. Dhadphale circulated a letter containing his police complaint
on the receipt of a letter of threat. The Chairman said that the police may do their
work.
______________________
The meeting was declared to be adjourned.
Saroja Bhate Leena Mehendale
Hon. Secretary Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: February 15, 2010
Page 1 of 4
Regulating Council Meeting No. 04 of 2009-2010, Adjourned on January 15,
2010 Tata Hall, BORI, Friday, February 15, 2010; 11.00 a.m.
Members Present:
(1) Smt. Leena Mehendale (Chairman) (2) Prof. G. U. Thite
(3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande (4) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan
(5) Shri. V. L. Manjul (6) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale
(7) Smt. Nalini Dhadphale (8) Prof. Shailaja Bapat
(9) Smt. Kalyani Namjoshi (10) Prof. S. D. Joshi
(11) Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar (12) Shri. Arun Barve
(13) Prof. Sadanand More (14) Pt. V. A. Gadgil
(15) Shri. G. T. Wategaonkar (16) Dr. R. M. Abhyankar
(17) Prof. Saroja Bhate (Hon. Secretary)
Shri. S. J. Rajarshi was present for information.
______________________
Item 1: Condolence:
RCR/2/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that this meeting of the Regulating Council puts on record its deep sense
of sorrow on the unfortunate death of victims of the bomb blast that took place in
German Bakery, Pune, on February 13, 2010.
______________________
Item 2: Deputy-Chief- Editorship of the Mahabharata: Cultural Index:
The Chairman proposed that Pt. V. A. Gadgil, Vice-Chairman should act as
Chairman and Smt. Maitreyi as secretary till this said item is under discussion.
Members agreed; Pt. Gadgil assumed Chair; and business of the meeting continued.
The Chairman appealed for observance of decorum and discussion without malice.
He praised the work of Prof. M. A. Mehendale as the General Editor of the
Mahabharata: Cultural Index and called for a durable policy with regard to the
Editorship and succession. Just as Prof. M. G. Dhadphale has volunteered to assist
in the edition of one volume of the Cultural Index, other scholars should come
forward to assist the editing of other volumes.
Dr. Sadanand More suggested that Academic persons who can devote their time for
this work should be appointed in responsible positions even if means taking them
from outside.
Smt. Leena Mehendale once again drew attention to the events that took place in
surreptios proposed appointment of Prof. Saroja Bhate as the Chief Editor and the
reversal of the same and continuation of Prof. M. A. Mehendale as the General
Editor. She appealed that Prof. Mehendale should be provided with assistance as
required by him, and any policy decision in this regard should be taken by the RC
and not the EB. The resolution of the EB appointing Prof. Bhate was made in
December 2008 and it came before the RC in June 2009. Moreover, there is no
clarity in the reasons why this resolution was made. Thus status quo should be
maintained in this regard.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: February 15, 2010
Page 2 of 4
The Chairman Supported the view of Smt. Leena Mehendale.
Shri. Arun Barve Prof. S. D. Joshi Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar Dr. R. M. Abhyankar
Shri. Patwardhan, Shri. G. T. Wategaonkar participated. It was agreed that we
work with consensus, propriety of affairs and also prepare for succession
management. Prof. Mehendale should continue the work and select his successors
with all freedom. The search should not end with just 1 or 2 names. Administration
should have dialogue with him and arrange for all the Administrative and academic
support plus involve him in selection of good academic successor.
Smt Bhate claimed that Prof. Mehendale had indicated her as his successor choice
in 2007 and hence EB appointed her in 2008 as Chief Editor. She put scholars to
work on the project whose contracts would continue till March 31, 2010.
RC members re-uttered their objection to EB usurping RC’s powers whereupon she
indicated that RC members would “face consequences” and the project work would
be stopped.
The Chairman asked for withdrawal of these remarks which she did. The Chairman
instructed that work of Prof. Mehendale should not be disturbed.
Smt. Leena Mehendale pointed out that Prof. Mehendale’s letter, that is referred to
by Prof. Bhate, is not on the record. Let it come on record and let some members of
RC speak to Prof. Mehendale. Only then RC can and should decide. It is also not
true to claim that the work has stopped since Prof. Mehendale is attending institute
and working. All major decisions like appointment of the Chief Editor should be made
by the RC and not by the EB.
Prof. Nalini Dhadphale supported that decision should be taken only by discussion
with Prof. Mehendale.
Prof. G. U. Thite and Prof. Sadanand More suggested that essential qualifications for
the various positions should be finalized. Criteria for any appointment should be
clear.
After some more discussion following resolution was passed:
RCR/3/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that a Committee comprising the following members be and is hereby
appointed to review the working of the Mahabharata Project: (1) Prof. P. G. Lalye
(Chairman); (2) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale; (3) Prof. G. U. Thite; (4) Dr. G. T. Panse; (5)
Prof. Saroja Bhate (Hon. Secretary, Convener).
______________________
Smt. Leena Mehendale assumed Chair; and business of the meeting
continued.
Item 3: Recommendations of the EB:
(1) MOU with the AIIS: The Chairman ruled that the draft MOU be sent to all the
members for consideration.
(2) Shri. Arvind Phadke’s proposal: The Hon. Secretary stated that due action has
been taken. Members supported the same.
(3) Determination of Life-members: The Chairman ruled that the members may
give their opinions in this regard (criterion for life-member) in writing, and that they be
placed before the next meeting of the RC.
(4) Letter received from Dr. Nalini Joshi: The Hon. Secretary stated that due action
has been taken. Members supported the same.
(5) Stock-taking of the books: The Hon. Secretary stated that due action is being
taken. Members asked that status should be reported in reasonable time.
______________________
Other business allowed by the Chair:
(1) The All-India Oriental Conference:
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: February 15, 2010
Page 3 of 4
On the request of Chairman the Hon. Secretary informed that the AIOC has
been established by the BORI and its 45th session is to be held at Tirupati in June
2010. Its bulletin has been sent to all the members. She appealed the members to
participate in the said session.
Pt. Gadgil: If the AIOC is a child of the BORI, the report of the meeting should
appear in the Annual Report of BORI.
The Chairman: Is the staff of the BORI involved in the work of the AIOC? If yes is it
with any formal permission from the RC?
The Hon. Secretary: The BORI staff has been working for decades together for the
AIOC out of their office hours. They are given separate payment for this. If the report
of AIOC is to be published in the BORI’s Annual Report, the matter will have to be
placed before the EC of the AIOC.
Shri. Patwardhan did not agree, but decided not to press the matter .
______________________
(2) On The proposal received from Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande:
RCR/4/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that the proposal received from Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande for her project
entitled “The Place of Vritra in the Vedic Ritual” be and is hereby accepted and that
she be paid a travelling allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
______________________
(3) Appointment of Dr. Meenakshi Kodnikar:
RCR/5/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that Dr. Meenakshi Kodnikar be appointed at an honorarium of Rs.
10,000/- per month in the project of the Prakrit Dictionary for 180 days.
______________________
(4) Work of the BORI Press:
Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan stated that the BORI Press is not in a working
condition. He proposed that a Committee should be appointed to give suggestions in
this regard. Members accepted the proposal. The following resolution was passed:
RCR/6/15.01.2010 (adjourned and held on 15.02.2010):
Resolved that a Committee comprising the following members be and is hereby
appointed to review the working of the BORI Press: (1) Pt. V. A. Gadgil (Chairman);
(2) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan; (3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande; and that the said
Committee be requested to submit its report directly to the Regulating Council.
-- Except Prof. M. G. Dhadphale all members voted in favour of the resolution. --
______________________
(5) Issue regarding Shri. V. B. Tanpure:
Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan asked what action has been taken with regard to the
misinformation provided to the press by Shri. V. B. Tanpure, Store-keeper, and
whether any improvements have been done in the store. The Hon. Secretary replied
that the store is being reorganised and stock is being checked. She also stated that
the Press and the Store require more space. Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar pointed out that
the BORI Library is also in dire need of space.
______________________
The meeting concluded with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: February 15, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Saroja Bhate Leena Mehendale
Hon. Secretary Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: Febuary 16, 2010
Page 1 of 2
Regulating Council Meeting No. 06 of 2009-2010,
Tata Hall, BORI, Tuesday, February 16, 2010; 3.00 p.m.
Members Present:
(1) Smt. Leena Mehendale (Chairman) (3) Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande
(3) Shri. Bhupal Patwardhan (4) Shri. V. L. Manjul
(5) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale (6) Smt. Nalini Dhadphale
(7) Prof. Shailaja Bapat (8) Smt. Kalyani Namjoshi
(9) Prof. M. K. Dhavalikar (10) Shri. Arun Barve
(11) Prof. Sadanand More (12) Pt. V. A. Gadgil
(13) Prof. G. U. Thite (14) Prof. S. D. Joshi
(15) Shri. G. T. Wategaonkar (16) Prof. Saroja Bhate (Hon. Secretary)
Shri. S. J. Rajarshi was present for information.
______________________
Item 1: Budget for the year 2010-2011:
The Hon. Secretary placed before the meeting the draft budget for the year 2010-
2011 as recommended by the EB. It was discussed in detail. Following and
recommendations made by the Chairman and the members were accepted:
(1) All figures in the Budget should be rounded.
(2) Library budget should be enhanced to Rs. 10 Lakhs.
(3) Budgeted amount for Life-membership fees should be enhanced to Rs. 4 Lakhs.
The following resolution was passed:
RCR/1/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the Budget for the year 2010-2011 be approved after incorporating the
suggestions and recommendations made by the Chairman and members of the
Regulating Council.
[WHERE ARE ACTUAL FIGURE?????????????????
The final figures in the Budget stand as follows:
Capital Income: Capital Expenditure:
Revenue Income: Revenue Expenditure:
Consolidated Income: Consolidated Expenditure:
Total Deficit:
GIVE FIGURES
Arising out of the discussion the following resolutions were passed:
RCR/2a/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the Hon. Secretary be and is hereby authorised to carry out till March 15,
2010 reforms in the Library as recommended by the Library Committee.
RCR/2b/16.02.2010:
Resolved that an Agreement be made with the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation
Ltd. (MKCL) only after the necessary modifications are made in the software “Libraria”
provided by the MKCL to the BORI for testing and on RC being satisfied with the same.
RCR/2c/16.02.2010:
Minutes of the Meeting of the Regulating Council: Febuary 16, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Resolved that additional computers be purchased for the Library in order to expedite its
automation.
RCR/2d/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the Hon. Secretary be requested to prepare and submit to the Regulating
Council within a month a proposal for digitization of the Library.
RCR/2e/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the work of stock-taking of the publications of the BORI should be
assigned to the auditors of the BORI.
RCR/2f/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the Hon. Secretary be requested to prepare and submit to the RC a note
on the CD-ROM project.
RCR/2g/16.02.2010:
Resolved that the website of the BORI be urgently revamped and Dr. G. T. Panse,
Webmaster, be requested to submit a report to the Regulating Council on the work of
revamping of the website.
RCR/2h/16.02.2010:
Resolved that Prof. G. U. Thite, Curator, be requested to expedite the work of
preparation of the Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts and submit to the
Regulating Council a report on the status of work done so far.
RCR/2i/16.02.2010:
Resolved that a Committee for Organization of Seminars be formed comprising the
following members: (1) Prof. M. G. Dhadphale; (2) Pt. V. A. Gadgil; (3) Dr. Maitreyee
Deshpande and (4) Prof. Saroja Bhate (Convener).
______________________
The meeting was declared to be adjourned.
Saroja Bhate Leena Mehendale
Hon. Secretary Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)