Soma-vamsi Yayati in Tradition and Medieval Odia Literature

I

An important characteristic of the language-centred Odia identity construction ¹ , from the last decades of the nineteenth until today has been a search for a (new) history. Thus, an emotional claim on history has been made. The quest for a glorious heritage—not only militarily and materially glorious but culturally and literary glorious too—of this imagined community of Odia speakers began and is pursued in right earnest and with great vigour. The Odia intellectuals who played leading roles in the construction of an Odia identity tended to discover and, when no such discovery could be possible, to imagine and conceive a glorious past of the Odia speaking people, even when the evidence for that was either lacking or insufficient. Therefore, the dynastic kingdoms and empires, which once flourished in or about the present day Odia speaking tracts in medieval or even in ancient periods, were viewed, interpreted and quite successfully ‘reconstructed’ as Odia nation states so that continuums of Odia nation states existing from the ancient times to the modern period could be conceived. This was made possible because almost the entire Odia speaking tracts were, invariably always, either under one government and administration or under other at least from the middle of the eleventh century—when by a strange coincidence Odia had just emerged as a separate language—to the second half of the sixteenth century. The medieval Odishan empires thus satisfied what E.J. Hobsbawm calls, ‘the most decisive criterion of proto-nationalism, the consciousness of belonging or having belonged to a lasting political entity’. ² As a result, the continuous existence of a community of Odias from the ancient times till now can easily be imagined. Most of the Odia intellectuals were and are unable even to realize the anomalous nature of such a proposition.

It has been claimed also that the territories of these dynastic kingdoms or empires, which once flourished in the Odia speaking tracts, in the ancient and medieval times, were always vast. Besides, any aggression or forcible annexation of the territories of other kingdoms or empires, either in reality or in imagination, has not only been justified but is considered with pride and presented as evidence of the might of Odisha. The dates of the medieval literary and religious texts, in Odia as well as in Sanskrit, authored by persons born in the Odia speaking tracts, the monuments and archaeological remains located there are pushed backward in the time scale in order to establish a long and glorious past of the Odias. Likewise many eminent Indians such as Gautam Buddha, Jayadeva etc. are claimed to be Odias or at least of Odia origin.

In this search for a new history, legendary traditions are not only accepted as authentic history, but at times even medieval literary texts are interpreted as being historical in nature, and very serious efforts have been made to extract history, even if an imagined history, out of them. To some extent, the dearth of authentic historical source material to prove a ‘glorious’ past may be the reason behind such an exercise. For example, the Sarala Mahabharata, written in Odia, has been interpreted with this end in view.

II

The Sarala Mahabharata was written in the fifteenth century during the reign of Suryavamsi monarch Gajapati Kapilendra Dev (1435–67). Though Sarala Das wrote his Mahabharata mainly adopting only the bare story structure of the Sanskrit Mahabharata, in other words a mythological text, he often made wide-ranging deviations from the original, by making additions, deletions and modifications in the narrative details. Therefore, it is quite likely that reflections of some contemporary historical events and socio-cultural, politico-economic conditions, directly or indirectly, have crept into the text without even the author being aware of this. In other words, the Sarala Mahabharata might bear reflections, partial or indirect, of some of the contemporaneous political and military events and reflect the latter. It may even serve to link the socio-cultural with political and economic forces. ³ However, it is highly unlikely that the poet, deliberately, incorporated contemporary events into the episodes of the Mahabharata. Since scholars, rooted in nationalistic sentiment, like K.C. Panigrahi have attempted to establish exactly this, this article devotes considerable room to closely examine his argument.

Earlier, scholars such as Mrutyunjaya Rath (in 1911), Gopinath Nanda Sharma (in 1915) and Pandit Nilakantha Das (in 1953) had noticed minor reflections of contemporaneous events in the Sarala Mahabharata. ⁴ But it was K.C. Panigrahi who first in 1954 and then, in the course of a debate with Gopinath Mohanty, ⁵ in 1956–57 and again in 1958, made very serious and systematic attempts to establish the validity of contemporaneous military and political events. ⁶ His primary aim was to prove that Sarala Das belonged to the fifteenth century and hence, contemporaneous political and military events featured in the Epic. The author thus disputed the premise that Sarala Das belonged to an earlier age. ⁷ But then between 1968 and 1971 Panigrahi went a step further and claimed that some pre-fifteenth century, historical events of different regions of India, had also been recorded by Sarala Das in different episodes of the Mahabharata. ⁸

It is highly interesting to note that parallel developments had already taken place and parallel exercises had been undertaken in the case of Assam where another such language-based, regional nationalism was being constructed. To quote Sanghamitra Misra,

The emphasis on a scientific rational history was also extended to attempts at revealing the historical core of the epics and other historical texts. S.K. Bhuyan stressed the need to recognize the authenticity and historicity of the characters in the epic, Mahabharata, as well as the possibility of its use as a source of scientific history. ‘Hidden below the layers of myths and legends that comprised the epic’, argued Bhuyan, is the ‘original historical’ text that forms a reliable source of the early history of the region. ⁹

With these introductory remarks, I intend to argue that the discovery of either Somavamsi Yayati I (circa 922–55) and/or Yayati II (circa 1025–40)—who have been, most probably, taken together and known as Yayati (Jajati) Kesari ¹⁰ in the legendary traditions of Odisha—from the Sarala Mahabharata is just another instance of how scholars, guided by nationalistic sentiments, have tried to search and extract history out of the legendary traditions and literary texts.

III

The search for the historical or legendary Yayati in the Puranic Sarala Mahabharata is not surprising, given the immense importance ascribed to Yayati in Odisha. Broadly speaking there are two un-related legendary traditions that grew around Yayati which may be called: (i) the Jajapur-Yayati tradition and (ii) the Puri-Yayati tradition. The former connects him with Jajapur and narrates that he performed a dasasvamedha sacrifice there and for this purpose, invited ten thousand Brahmans from Kanauj (Kanyakubja), in north India, since he found the Brahmans of Odisha were not sufficiently well versed in Vedic lore. The latter connects him with Puri and the Jagannatha cult and narrates the important role he played in the discovery, reinstallation and worship of images of Jagannatha trinity at Puri, even after the images were taken away and hidden in western Odisha; and how he eventually constructed a temple for the trinity at Puri. Whereas the Jajapur-Yayati tradition is primarily an oral one—and has not been recorded in any medieval text—the Puri-Yayati tradition is known from the Madala Panji, the Jagannatha temple chronicle. Further, the Jajapur-Yayati tradition is completely silent about Yayati’s connection with Puri and vice versa. Therefore, it appears that both traditions centering round Yayati either have emerged or have been constructed independently. ¹¹

In the nineteenth century, the first phase of Odishan historiography recognizes the importance of Yayati. Andrew Stirling (1825), ¹² Amos Sutton (1839), ¹³ Bhabani Charan Bandyopadhyay (1844), ¹⁴ W.W. Hunter (1872) ¹⁵ and Pyarimohan Acharya (1879) ¹⁶ all have been obliged to mention legendary Yayati and his activities. ¹⁷ The discovery of historical Yayatis was made later, in inscriptions and thus more historical information emerged from these sources.

It will be appropriate to mention here that Radhanath Ray (1848–1908), the most celebrated poet of modern Odia literature published a long narrative poem named ‘Jajati Kesari’ in the last decade of the nineteenth century (in 1894–95). This was the time when Odia nationalism was being constructed and since he was one of the pioneers, infusing nationalistic sentiment into Odia literature. ¹⁸ Although Radhanath gives a rather free reign to his imagination in ‘Jajati Kesari’, this narrative poem is based on the Jajapur-Yayati tradition and speaks of Yayati, the founder of the Kesari dynasty, as well as the goddess Viraja and the river Vaitarani. According to this poem the title Kesari of the dynasty comes from the word Kesari, meaning lion, the mount of the goddess. ¹⁹ This imaginative poem also speaks of the story of Yayati; his flight from the kingdom of Magadh with his twin sister—fleeing the hostility of their step-mother. He flees to the forest and becomes the devotee of the goddess, Viraja; he then marries the only daughter and heir of Hiranya Varma, the king of Utkala and North Koshala with his seat at the castle of Kapalesh on the river Birupa near today’s Chaudwar. Thus Yayati founds the illustrious Kesari dynasty of Odisha, as desired by the goddess, later constructs a royal palace near the shrine of the goddess.

The already existing Jajapur-Yayati tradition clearly provides the basis of the story, to which other imaginary elements have been added. It is believed that since, the tradition was so deep-rooted and strong that in an atmosphere, surcharged with nationalistic sentiments, Radhanath was inspired to write a long narrative poem on this subject. This narrative poem not only made the Jajapur-Yayati tradition more popular, but also became instrumental in the consolidation of Odia nationalistic identity ²⁰ making Yayati Kesari an icon of that identity. Later on, the nationalist thinker and poet Pandit Nilakantha Das has made references to Yayati Kesari in his narrative poem, Konarke, written in 1919.

Odia scholars and intellectuals continued their efforts to connect the historical Yayatis with the legendary Yayati, despite protests from scholars such as M.M. Chakravarti and J.F. Fleet who wished to rid Odishan historiography completely of traditional accounts. K.C. Panigrahi’s historical works are the culmination of such a historical tradition. ²¹ According to Panigrahi,

Yayati’s work at Puri was both political and religious and meant to be spectacular. Another tradition credits Yayati Kesari with the performance of the Asvamedha sacrifice at Jajpur, to which ten thousand Brahmins are said to have been invited by him from Kanauj. Yayati united Kosala [West Orissa] and Utkala [coastal Orissa] politically and culturally and can justly be regarded as the father of modern Orissa. The grateful posterity remembered him and made him the hero of numerous traditions still current in the land. Yayati Kesari is almost a household name in Orissa and all living monuments, irrespective of their age, are generally attributed to him. ²²

A new line of enquiry into the historical basis of Yayati in medieval literary texts can also be understood against the same search for a glorious past of the community of Odias. It was perhaps thought that this discovery of the historical and/or the legendary Yayati in the Puranic Yayati would be able to establish a solid link between the historical Yayatis on one hand and the legendary Yayati on the other, thereby authenticating the legendary tradition.

Both the Puranic Yayati and the historical Yayatis (Yayati I and Yayati II) belonged to the dynasty of the Somavamsa kings who were considered great monarchs of their time.

IV

In two places in the Adi Parba (Adya Parva) of the Sarala Mahabharata there are references to the administration, specifically the land settlement and land tenure system, of the Puranic king Jajati (Yayati), one of the predecessor kings of both the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The text refers to administrations under Pandu and Duryodhana. ²³ In the latter it has been specifically mentioned that Duryodhana ruled over the subjects of his kingdom as per (the prescription/description of) the ‘Jajati(-nka) Panji’. ²⁴ ‘Duryodhana is supposed to have ruled over his subjects [and the kingdom] as per the [earlier precedents found in the administrative] records pertaining to reign of [his illustrious predecessor and the great king] Yayati’. Here, the references to the Puranic Yayati seem quite natural in the context of the Mahabharata.

In 1956, Khageswar Mahapatra, attempted to fix the date of the Madala Panji in an essay, published in an Odia periodical. Here, he quotes the relevant portions from the Sarala Mahabharata describing Duryodhana’s administration of his kingdom including the line mentioned above. ²⁵ Then he posed question, ‘What was this “Jajati Panji” mentioned in the Sarala Mahabharata?’ He then proceeded to show the similarities, especially linguistic ones, in the descriptions of the administration systems of Duryodhana and Anangabhima Deva as well as the land settlement and land tenure systems found in the Sarala Mahabharata and the Madala Panji. He reached certain conclusions, namely that since the description of Duryodhana’s administration in Sarala Mahabharata was written under the influence of the Madala Panji, the latter pre-dated the Sarala Mahabharata. He also implied that since ‘Jajati Panji’ means Madala Panji and since Jajati Kesari reinstalled the Jagannatha trinity at Puri and restored the worship, this event is associated with the origin of the Madala Panji.

It seems in his zeal and enthusiasm to discover history from the Sarala Mahabharata, Mahapatra may have omitted the following facts: there was a Puranic Yayati, who was also Somavamsi and one of the predecessor kings of Duryodhana; in Odia, the word Panji primarily means an almanac or official records rather than just the Madala Panji. Further other questions come to the fore: how could the Madala Panji become accessible to Sarala Das, who lived in a village, far from Puri? The custodians of the Madala Panji, attached to the Jagannatha temple, had no reason to make the temple records available to an outsider. On the other contrary, the Sarala Mahabhata was in fact anterior to the Madala Panji and for that reason was easily accessible to the writer of Madala Panji—the Karanas—and this explains the similarities between the narrative details in both. Finally, the expression Jajati Panji which occurs in the Sarala Mahabharata means the [earlier] records pertaining to the reign of Yayati, the Puranic great king, the illustrious king who preceded Duryodhana. Although Mahapatra’s chief purpose may have been to push back the date of the Madala Panji, considered a ‘national treasure’ he in fact, either knowingly or unknowingly, strengthened the Yajati Keasari tradition of Odisha and especially reinforced Yayati’s link with Puri.

In the same period, K.C. Panigrahi began his efforts at proving that the Sarala Mahabharata was a fifteenth century text that contained contemporaneous historical, military and political events. Such a ‘discovery’ by Panigrahi electrified the intellectual atmosphere of Odisha; created a stir among the Odishan intellectuals and scholars, mostly nationalists and received their appreciation and commendation.

In his History of Oriya Literature, written in Odia, Pandit Surya Narayan Das refers to Sarala Das and his Mahabharata and cites the same description of Duryodhana’s administration of his kingdom as being highly relevant. ²⁶ Let me translate his interpretation and comments on it verbatim from Odia in order to show how he too, guided only by nationalistic sentiment, tried to discover the historical Yayatis—the Jajati Kesari of legendary tradition—in the Puranic Somavamsi king Yayati, mentioned in Sarala Mahabharata.

From this it is known that the traditional account which is [now] current in Odisha—that much before Sarala Das, king Jajati initiated the writing of the Madala Panji—the same traditional account was also current during the time of Sarala Das and for that reason he has mentioned that [traditional account] in his Mahabharata. From this it is definitely known that the principles pertaining to the ruling/governing over the subjects [of the kingdom] were fixed and codified in ‘Jajati Madala’ and the kings of Utkala considered these principles by far the best and followed them [for the governance of the kingdom]. Although the poet here speaks about the Duryodhana’s predecessor king Yayati of Puranic fame it seems that he really meant here the ‘Panji’ of Jajati belonging to Utkala. ²⁷

Therefore, Pandit Surya Narayan Das, not only discovered the historical and legendary Yayati in the Puranic Yayati, thereby authenticating the legendary Jajati Kesari tradition current in Odisha and especially the link of the latter with the Jagannatha trinity, but he also tried to push back the date of the Mdala Panji. Pandit Surya Narayan Das does not choose to support his conjectures with any solid evidence. Overall, in conclusion, one can say that both Mahapatra and Pandit Surya Narayan Das have sought to discover the Yayati of the Puri-Yayati tradition in the Sarala Mahabharata.

Then K.C. Panigrahi, the celebrated historian, appeared on the scene. His wide-ranging treatment of the subject, which has attracted much scholarly attention, and his effort to portray Yayati as ‘the father of modern Orissa’ warrants an extensive discussion in this article.

V

Panigrahi had found reflections of contemporary (fifteenth century) political and military events in the Sarala Mahabharata. In later years, he tried to authenticate the Jajapur-Yayati tradition and sought to link the legendary and historical Yayatis. He claimed that at least one of the historical Yayatis was connected with Jajapur, thereby establishing a link between the legendary and historical Yayatis. He mainly used three key sources in order to substantiate his claim the Madala Panji, a stanza from the Odia Mahabharata, translated rather freely from Sanskrit, by Raja Krushna Singh of Dharakot in the late eighteenth century ²⁸ and finally the traditional Sanskrit verse (sloka), recited at the time of offering pinda (oblation) at Navi-Gaya in Jajapur. ²⁹ Besides, he also advanced the existence of a dsasvamedha ghat on the river Vaitarani at Jajapur as corroborative evidence.

Panigrahi’s aim was twofold: first to prove the existence of a Yayatinagar in coastal Odisha, which, eventually became the capital of Soma-vamsi kings and second to identify this Abhinava (new) Yayatinagar with Jajapur on the basis of a reference to it in the Madala Panji and also a stanza from Raja Krushna Singh’s Mahabharata.

Several historians have commented on Panigrahi’s work. Snigdha Tripathy has the following opinion to offer on the traditional Sanskrit verse quoted by Panigrahi as evidence to link the historical Yayatis with the legendary Yayati and his association with Jajapur. ‘The name Kanauj, “Prakritized” for the name Kanyakubja, itself would indicate the later addition of the verse with the legendary tradition of ten horse sacrifices performed in the past by Yayatikesarin’. ³⁰ She just makes an allusion to the fact that the concerned Sanskrit verse might have been of much later date. Susmita Arp, who has undertaken an extensive and systematic study on the goddess Viraja of Jajapur and Yayati’s possible connection with that place, also subscribes to that view. ³¹ The possibility exists that this Sanskrit verse was composed either during the time of Yayati I, or Yayati II—in the late-tenth or early-eleventh centuries—when the New Indo-Aryan Languages were about to emerge or had just emerged as separate languages. ³² We would then expect the text to contain many tadbhava words (such as Kanauj), derived from the tatsama or Sanskrit words, that were in vogue in the New Indo-Aryan Languages. Therefore, the Sanskrit name Kanyakubja, may have already become Kanauj—the ‘Prakritized’ or the so-called ‘corrupted’ form of the original word. ³³ Scholars could argue therefore there was nothing strange about the fact that the place name, Kanauj, found a place in the Sanskrit verse.

Further, Arp has tried to show that the reference to Abhinava Yayāti Nagara in the Madala Panji as evidence is not a convincing one. ³⁴

She has justly pointed out that to derive the component word ‘Jāja-’ of the composite word Jāja-pur from the name Yayāti is highly improbable. ³⁵ Therefore, Arp has rightly questioned Panigrahi’s (and Sircar’s) claim that the name Jāja-nagara (or Jāja-pur) was derived from the name Yayāti-Nagara. However, this does not conclusively disprove Yayati’s possible connection with Jajapur. On the contrary, the fact that the remains of the palace built by Yayati at Jajapur, as observed by Amos Sutton, could still be seen around 1839 (the year Sutton’s book was published), ³⁶ is significant.

Historians have also objected to Panigrahi’s use of a ‘free’ translation of the Sanskrit Mahabharata by Raja Krushna Singh as a source material in order to buttress the history of Odisha in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Arp has therefore raised serious objections to that and has rejected it as a source material. ³⁷

Similarly, Arp, analysing the concerned religions texts, says, ‘As can be seen, several texts mention Jajpur in connection with performance of sacrifices, sometimes horse sacrifices in particular. If named, however, the sacrificer is God Brahma, not Yayati Kesari nor, any other king’. ³⁸ This remark by Arp is also true in case of the traditional verse quoted by Panigrahi as evidence ³⁹ because here, again, the Brahmans were invited to participate in the dasasvamedha sacrifice performed, not by Yayati or any other king but by Vidhata or Brahma himself. However, it may be pointed out that other religious texts where the names of the historical personage are generally replaced by the names of gods or Puranic persons. (For example, according to the Skanda Purna king, Indradyumna invited God Brahma to perform the priestly function during the consecration ceremony of the temple constructed by him.)

The legend or belief that Jajati Kesari performed dasasvamedha sacrifice at Jajapur and for that purpose invited ten thousand Brahmans from Kanauj because the Odishan Brahmans were not sufficiently versed in Vedic sacrifice is widespread among the Brahmans of Odisha. It is so popular and ‘deeply rooted socially’, as Kulke frankly admits, ⁴⁰ that one really hesitates and finds it difficult to accept Arp’s claim that this legendary tradition must have originated as late as the late sixteenth century or even later. Snigdha Tripathy also admits,

But the Yayati tradition, on the other hand, cannot be brushed aside by taking it as a late development. The association of Yayati’s name with the tradition, may of course, be a later development, but it is based on some historical truth which can very well be gleaned from the facts furnished by the above Neulpur charter of the Bhauma king Subhakara II. ⁴¹

Arp, of course, argues,

A number of different works of supra-regional Sanskrit literature, as well as several mahatmyas of Orissa, praise Jajpur and its places of pilgrimage, among them Vaitarani River, diverse Siva-Lingas, the goddess Viraja and Visnu in the form of a boar (varaha).... In fact, Yayati Kesari makes no appearance whatsoever in any of these texts. Even the Virajamahatmya, an entire work concerned solely with the greatness of Jajpur does not mention him, nor is the place ever called Yayatinagara. ⁴²

However, this argument is not very convincing. By the same evidence and logic we would then have to deny the existence of the Ganga dynasty and Anangabhimadeva III’s role in codifying the worship of Jagannatha trinity at Puri and subsequent popularization of the Jagannatha cult. Historians are aware that the Purusottama Mahatmaya (of the Utkala Khanda) of the Skanda Purana, was certainly written after Anangabhima Deva III’s reign, and the above finds no mention here. A similar case exists of the Niladri Mahodaya which was most probably written in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. ⁴³ It follows that in such religious texts, the absence of historical information or the names of any historical personages, is not surprising and therefore, should not be misconstrued.

Besides according to Panigrahi, the Virajakestramahatmya lists several Siva temples, among them the Yayatisvara, that no longer exist. ⁴⁴ Therefore, the Virajaksetramahatmya also contains references to a Saiva shrine which provides a connection between Yayati and Jajapur. Further, the name Yayatittirtha also occurs in the Virajaksetramahatmya. ⁴⁵ Therefore, the textual reference to Yayati’s connection with Jajapur will have to be accepted.

Let me try to reconstruct the larger historical context in which this deeply rooted legendary tradition might have been created in order to discover the origins of the Jajapur-Yayati tradition. Snigdha Tripathy has shown that even prior to Somavamsi rule, during the Bhauma-Kara era, some Brahman migration from the north India did take place. ⁴⁶ At this time, Buddhism flourished in coastal Odisha. But, it appears quite likely that the Soma-vamsi rulers after their advent into costal Odisha might have encouraged large-scale Brahman immigration from the north, specifically from Madhyadesha which had its centre at Kanauj. This is because on one hand they wanted to counter both the Bhauma-Kara and Buddhist influence and also to legitimize and consolidate their own rule and position on the other. In all probability that the Soma-vamsi rulers performed several Vedic sacrifices with the assistance of these Brahmans at Jajapur on the bank of the river Vaitarani. It is possible that the sacrifices offered by the Soma-vamsi rulers earned this sacred spot more fame which got mentioned in Sanskrit texts. Further, inscriptional evidences suggest that the Brahman migration did take place from the north India to Odisha, from places such as Madhyadesha and Sravasti, during the Soma-vamsi period. ⁴⁷ B.P. Sahu states, ‘Land grants as an instrument of socio-cultural change heralded the immigration of brahmans of various gotras and caranas, from c fourth century AD onwards. …During the ninth eleventh centuries the Somavamsis intensified the practice… .’ ⁴⁸ In a slightly different context Andre Wink observes,

… a dynasty’s association with Kanauj would cancel the contamination of ‘impurity’ which accrued from the external linkages which brought the dynasty to hegemonic power in the first place. This explains why it was always ‘peripheral’ dynasties which fought for the control of this sacred centre, the symbol of ‘purity’ in brahamanical India. ⁴⁹

This statement by Wink, may also be applied in the present case with some modifications. The Soma-vamsis, belonged to a peripheral dynasty; they originated in western Odisha, that was chiefly inhabited by non-Hindu tribal populations, and separated from the more Hinduized coastal area by hills and forests; therefore by implication not very ‘pure’. Therefore, in order to get legitimation and acceptance by the people of coastal Odisha they needed links with Kanauj, the ‘sacred centre’ of the Madhyadesh, even if indirectly, through the migration of Brahmans and the performances of Vedic sacrifices.

It is often assumed that the name ‘Jajapura’ is derived from the term ‘yajna-pura’. According to the Sanskrit-English Dictionary, brought out by Monier Monier-Williams, the Sanskrit word ‘yāja’, derived from the root ‘yaj-’, means sacrificer and sacrifice which may be the source. Alternatively it might have been derived from the Sanskrit word ‘Yāji-pura’ (or Yāji-nagara) as according to the same source again, the word ‘yāji’ also means sacrifice and sacrificer (person well versed in sacrifice or person who either performed or performs the ‘yajña’ or sacrifice). Therefore, the name of the place clearly indicates association with (Vedic) sacrifice and settlement of Brahmanas. It also further corroborates the tradition that at least one daswasamedha sacrifice was performed there.

Since there were two Yayatis in the Soma-vamsa, probably one of them played a greater role in the consolidation of Soma-vamsi rule in the coastal part of Odisha. ⁵⁰ However, in the public mind these got fused together and became the single Jajati Kesari. The latter was credited with many of the glorious deeds of all the Soma-vamsi rulers and he ultimately emerged as the representative of, or even symbolized, all the Soma-vamsi rulers in Odisha. Therefore, when the legendary tradition was created, Jajati Kesari assumed the role of the king who invited ten thousand Brahmans to Odisha.

In this context, Andre Wink observes,

Clearly, in early medieval period, the Kanaujia or Kanyakubja brahmins became the highest ranking subcaste of brahmins in the whole of India and we find them migrating all over the North and to Bengal and Gujrat, where they are found until today (Khare 1960). These brahmins continued, even after migration, to emphasize their susthana or original place of provenance and related their ritual purity inversely to distance which separated them from the city of Kanauj. …The Kulin brahmins of Bengal, and the Anavil brahmins of South Gujrat, for instance, all claim descent from the brahmins of Kanauj in early medieval period. Such claims are by no means always justified, but it is without doubt in that time that Kanauj was turned into a Brahmanical bastion which set as all-India standard and that the city became the sacred centre of imperial rule in India. ⁵¹

Small wonder then that the Brahmans, and their descendants, who, encouraged by the Soma-vamsi rulers, migrated from different places of the north India to Odisha claimed their descent from Kanauj in order to establish their Brahmanical purity and superiority, irrespective of their place of origin. Further, calling Kanauj, not a city (‘nagara’), but a ‘desha’ (country), as in the expression ‘Kanauja-deshat’, suggests parallels with the name Madhya-desha. where it appears that the author of the verse meant more than merely to mean, not only the city of Kanauj. Instead of ‘Madhya’ the name ‘Kanauj’, precedes the word ‘desha’ in this compound word because of both Kanauj’s fame, and to represent the purity and superiority of the Brahmans. The stanza that says that they (or their ancestors) came on an invitation from the king because the Odishan Brahmans were not familiar with the Vedic sacrifice serves to establish their Brahmanical superiority.

In the early medieval period, Kanauj symbolized the revival and restoration of Brahmanical Hinduism ‘which brought about the decline and virtual disappearance of Buddhism’ and started the process of building large temples for Hindu deities and the construction of their stone images or sculptures, the performances of Vedic sacrifices and the emergence of the tirthas or kshetras etc. ⁵² This was precisely the historical context in which, most probably, the legendary tradition highlighting Jajati Kesari’s association with Jajapur was created. Upinder Singh’s study of Odishan inscriptions indirectly supports this view. She observes, ‘In Orissa and adjoining areas the majority of royal grants, throughout the early medieval period, were made in favour of brāhmans … ’. ⁵³ She again adds,

The inscriptions suggest that during most of the period royal patronage was not crucial to the building or maintenance of temples in Orissa. And the patronage of temples did not have an important role in royal policy during most of the period. …During the reign of the imperial Ganga kings there was an increase in the direct initiative of the king in making grants to temple, …With the building of the Jagannatha temple at Puri by the Imperial Ganga king Anantavarman Codaganga in the middle of the twelfth century, the royally-endowed temple emerged as an important component in the practice of kingship. ⁵⁴

Therefore, the Jajapur-Yayati tradition clearly bears the reflection of the early medieval period, when kings were engaged in ritual sacrifices, and favoured Brahmans with land grants. and not engaged in the building and maintenance of temples. In this tradition, Jajati Kesari represents not only both the historical Yayatis (Yayati I and Yayati II) but also all the Soma-vamsi rulers as well. Similarly, the place name Kanauj that symbolizes the holiest among the Brahmanical holy places in north India in the early medieval period ensured the purity and ritual superiority of all the Brahamans who supposedly hailed from that place.

By the late medieval period (after Muslim invasion and occupation) Kanauj relinquished its former glory and was replaced by Kashi or Varanasi. In fact, the importance of Kanauj could have been completely forgotten by the Odishan Brahmans had not the above mentioned legendary tradition constantly reminded them of their ‘susthan’, their original place of provenance. As Vasudha Dalmia observes,

The mythological and ritual importance of Kasi was to grow rather than diminish with the passing away of political power from Gahadavalas to Muhammad Guri and later to the various Delhi Sultans, as the Puranic tradition amply demonstrates, and this in spite of the violent breaks in the worship ritual, since the major temples of the city were to come under repeated attacks. ⁵⁵

By the late medieval period the Soma-vamsis no longer required the legitimation afforded by Vedic Brahmans of Odisha who claimed their descent from Kanauj, in order to establish their ritual purity and Brahmanical superiority. Henceforth, Brahmans would claim descent from Kasi (Banaras).

Therefore, one tends to think that the legendary tradition was created much earlier, in the early medieval period—most probably during the Soma-vamsi era—and perhaps was contemporaneous to the emergence of Viraja keshetra as an ‘important’ tirtha. This is irrespective of the fact whether the goddess Viraja was worshipped (either just as a deity or even the principal/presiding deity of Viraja keshetra) or not. ⁵⁶ The same logic is also applicable in the case of the traditional Sanskrit verse, which is recited at the time of offering the pinda (oblation) to one’s ancestors. Interestingly the Jajapur-Yayati tradition does not make any reference to the goddess Viraja. In contrast, the existence of one dasasvasamedha ghat on the river Vaitarani at Jajapur connects the tradition as well as the traditional Sanskrit verse to the river, which was recognized as a tirtha even in the early medieval period.

Moreover, a similar legendary tradition, in neighbouring Bengal, talks of the migration of Brahmans from Kanauj to Bengal, credited also with Brahmanic purity and superiority and who were well versed with Vedic sacrifices. This tradition is more elaborate, with a number of variations. ⁵⁷ Briefly, according to this tradition, Adishura, the king of Gauda, in Bengal, invited five Brahmans from Kanauj as the Brahmans in Bengal were not well versed in Vedic sacrifices. The descendants of these five Brahmans brought by Adishura numbered fifty-nine during the reign of Kshitishura (grandson of Adishura), and a village was granted to each one to be used as a residence. The Brahmans of the Radha region claim their origins here. Although Adishura’s historicity has not been established firmly, he is said to have been either the maternal or the paternal grandfather of Vallala Sen (1158–79), who is generally credited with the revival and restoration of Brahmanical Hinduism in Bengal after the Buddhist Pala rule.

There is another similarity between the Odishan and Bengal traditions, besides their stories and legends since they set in familiar historical contexts. They relate to kings believed to have been associated with the revival and restoration of Brahmanical Hinduism just after Buddhism flourished both in Bengal and in Odisha under the Palas and Bhauma-Karas respectively. In that respect it may be remembered here, as Andre Wink has pointed out, that Kanauj symbolized the revival and restoration of Brahmanical Hinduism ‘which brought about the decline and virtual disappearance of Buddhism.’ Although there were Brahmanic migrations both to Bengal and Odisha from the north during the Buddhists Pala and Bhauma-Kara rule this fact was indirectly ignored in traditions highlighting only the role of Brahmanic revival and restoration and the performance of Vedic sacrifices during the Soma-vamsi and Sen periods. Due to the similarity in contest and story structure, both the traditions of Odisha and Bengal, were constructed roughly at about the same time. Further, although the Soma-vamsis of Odisha and the Sens of Bengal were not exactly contemporaneous, the last Soma-vamsi ruler Karnadeva (1100–10) and Vallal Sen’s father Vijaya Sen (1095–158) were contemporaries, which indirectly justify the above conclusion. Most probably, therefore, both the traditions were created at about that time, in the early medieval period. Further, not only did Soma-vamsis in general, and Yayati I and Yayati II in particular, preceed the Sens and Vallal Sen respectively but also, the Bengal tradition is a more elaborate one with more variations. These features are indicative of its later origin than the Odishan tradition, which most probably began during Soma-vamsi rule or immediately afterwards.

It has been suggested that the legendary tradition dealing with Yayati’s connection with Jajapur has been constructed only after the Puri-Yayati tradition, which is the other legendary tradition dealing with Yayati’s association with the Jagannatha cult. Arp says,

It may be that Jajapur’s narrators and priests, inspired by the Yayati legend of Puri’s chronicles, also tried to trace their traditions back to Yayati, and that the Jajpur legend of the settlement of learned Brahmans by Yayati and his performance of the ten-horse sacrifice arose soon afterwards. ⁵⁸

But, had the narrators and priests of Jajapur taken their cue from the Puri-Yayati tradition, then in the Jajapur-Yayati tradition, king Yayati, instead of performing the ten-horse or dasasvamedha sacrifice, would most probably have been reinstalled or restored the Viraja (Shakti) cult and in a Viraja temple. Similarly, instead of inviting ten thousand Brahmans from Kanauj (or even more appropriately from Kasi or Banaras), king Yayati would have brought back the priests of the goddess or any other deity who had certainly scattered after the desecration of the place ‘for Jajapur, too, … had suffered terrible destruction and had to reassure itself that its current traditions, newly erected temples and re-established cults were firmly rooted in the past’. ⁵⁹ In that case, the Jajapur-Yayati tradition would have emphasized, not the performance of Vedic (dasasvamedha) sacrifice, but the restoration of worship of the goddess Viraja or any other deity. A different traditional account would then have fitted into the post-sixteenth century Odishan context.

Therefore, it seems that the Jajapur-Yayati and the Puri-Yayati traditions originated independently of each other. Further, it seems even more probable, that the former originated earlier than the latter. The former is so widespread and socially so deeply rooted that it was well known in Odisha, in contrast to the latter which was really not known till it was discovered by scholars in the Madala Panji. In contrast two other traditions attributing the worship of Jagannatha and the construction of the Puri temple to Puranic Indradyumna in one and the historical Anangabhima Deva in the other are quite well known in Odisha.

Of course, the Puri chronicles do not mention or refer to the Jajapur-Yayati tradition. However, that does not necessarily mean that the Jajapur-Yayati tradition did not exist or the Puri priests did not know about it when the Puri-Yayati tradition was ‘created’ and the Puri chronicle was written. On the other hand it seems much more plausible that the Puri priests knowingly and deliberately ignored it and did not mention when the Chronicle was first compiled in the late-sixteenth century. This was because first, that the tradition had nothing to do with the Jagannatha cult and second, because of the rivalry among the priests belonging to different kshetras. (It is also possible that the Puri priests were inspired by the Jajapur-Yayati tradition—in which king Yayati’s great deeds at Jajapur has been narrated—to create another tradition which narrates the same king Yayati doing even greater and glorious deeds at Puri in its hoary past. Of course, the context in which it originated—either the late-sixteenth or early seventeenth century ⁶⁰ —led them to imagine reinstallation of the Jagannatha trinity and restoration of worship at Puri after a break which Raja Ramachandra I of Khurda was precisely doing at that moment.) Consequently, both on the basis of the internal structure of the tradition and the external context in which it might have originated one tends to conclude that the Jajapur-Yayati tradition originated not in the late but in the early medieval period and earlier than the Puri-Yayati tradition.

Besides the Katakarajavamsavali and Purusottamacandrika by Bhabani Charan Bandyopadhyaya, already mentioned by Arp, in another medieval text on the Viraja Kshetra, the Jajapur-Yayati tradition is also mentioned. ⁶¹ Of course, there, the actual name of Yayati is missing since the relevant folio of the palm-leaf manuscript is damaged. However, from the context, it is quite clear that it refers to Yayati (or Jajati Kesari). In this text references to dasasvamedha sacrifice, the dasasvamedha tirtha (or ghat) on a river and the establishment of a Brahman sasana named Jajapur have been made. The latter implicitly suggests the migration of Brahmans from Kanauj. Although this particular text might have been written in the late sixteenth century or early seventeenth century it appears that, it was based on older materials. Therefore, one again tends to conclude that the Jajapur-Yayati tradition certainly originated much earlier, probably in the early medieval period.

VI

Now we must come back to our original topic of K.C. Panigrahi’s claim to have discovered the historical Yayati in the Sarala Mahabharata. Panigrahi first used the ‘free’ Odia translation of the Sanskrit Mahabharata by Raja Krushna Singh. He then turned to the Sarala Mahabharata, another medieval Odia literary text. His aim was to discover the historical Yayati in both texts. That was when he attempted to extract pre-fifteenth century history of India from the Sarala Mahabharata. That exercise led him to discover again the historical Yayatis in the Sarala Mahabharata. According to him, Sarala Das mentions the Puranic Soma-vamsi king Yayati at several places in his Mahabharata. However, at times he mentions the name Yayati in such a manner that it is only applicable in the case of the historical Yayati of Odisha. ⁶² At least that is what appeared to Panigrahi.

In support of his claim he discovered another king named Yayati (Jajati), contemporary to Duryodhana (in contrast to Yayati, his predecessor and, in fact, one of his forefathers) in the Sarala Mahabharata. According to the Sarala Mahabharata this Yayati, who had earlier established Chhatisha Mandala (36 Mandalas) came on invitation to attend the Swayambara of Bhanumati. ⁶³ Panigrahi quoting that particular stanza interpreted the Chhatisha Mandala as the Chhattishgarh region from where the Soma-vamsis came to Odisha. That is how Panigrahi has identified this Puranic Yayati of the Sarala Mahabharata as a historical Yayati.

After that Panigrahi quotes exactly the same stanzas from the Sarala Mahabharata—the ‘Jajati-Panji pramane palile prajanku’ etc.—when he refers to Duryodhana’s administration of his kingdom (already quoted by Mahapatra and Pandit Surya Narayan Das). Here, Sarala Das mentions the Puranic Yayati, predecessor of Duryodhan. Then curiously enough taking both the Yayatis mentioned in the Sarala Mahabharata (one was Duryodhan’s contemporary and the other one was his predecessor) together—Panigrahi does not explain this confusion about them being two different persons. He claims, in fact, that whatever (administrative) measure the historical Soma-vamsi Yayati had undertaken in Chhatishagarh region has been attributed by the poet (Sarala Das) in his Mahabharata to two Puranic Yayatis. According to Panigrahi, therefore, although Sarala Das while narrating Duryodhana’s marriage (swayambara of Bhanumati) and his administration, refers to two Puranic Jajatis, one is Duryodhana’s contemporary and the other his predecessor, he continues to refer to the same historical Yayati.

Mahapatra and Pandit Surya Narayan Das, while pushing back the date of the Madala Panji, which constituted their primary agenda, also linked the Puranic Yayati of Sarala Mahabharata with the Puri-Yayati tradition. Panigrahi, however, held a radically different view on the date of Madala Panji, claiming that it must have been written in late sixteenth century at the earliest, but probably at an even later date. ⁶⁴ He only discovered the historical Yayati in Puranic Yayatis mentioned in Sarala Mahabharata, without trying to link him with either of the Puri-Yayati or Jajapur-Yayti traditions. We have already seen how earlier, in 1961, he had tried to connect the historical Yayatis with the Jajati Kesari of the Jajapur—Yayati of legendary tradition. ⁶⁵ Therefore, it is not at all surprising on Panigrahi’s part to discover the historical Yayati in the Puranic Jajati again in 1976. ⁶⁶ However, now he does not specifically connect him with any legendary tradition on Jajati Kesari.

Panigrahi’s aim was to prove that firstly, Sarala Das was not an ignorant village poet, but was a learned person with an extensive knowledge of India’s history and geography and that therefore, the Sarala Mahabharata is not only a literary or Puranic manuscript, but also a historical text. Regarding the historical and geographical information at the command of Sarala Das he claims,

… we have perhaps to concede that he had access to certain sources from which he gathered his knowledge, particularly with regard to history and geography. Barring a few honourable exceptions, written history or geography as such did not exist in Hindu India but it seems that all leading Hindu States maintained historians and geographers who were in the know of the traditional history and geography orally handed down from generation to generation. This traditional knowledge in the subjects lacked accuracy, but nevertheless, it would have been useful to the states in maintaining foreign relations and leading military expeditions. Orissa had become a leading Hindu State in the fifteenth century and it is not unlikely that it maintained historians and geographers. Sarala Dasa who was a soldier in his earlier career, appears to have had access to their knowledge. ⁶⁷

Therefore, according to Panigrahi, the Sarala Mahabharata, that contained so much historical and geographical information is a unique text. Explaining this, he says,

… the valuable historical and geographical information contained in this work, which is in many respects different from the similar works produced by the Hindus in ancient and medieval times. Sarala Dasa rose above the prejudice of his age and incorporated into his work mundane matters, which from the orthodox stand-point were not to find place in a sacred book like the Mahabharata. ⁶⁸

It seems that Panigrahi attempts to glorify the past and Odia literature by attributing this ‘unique’ character to the Sarala Mahabharata. In his history of Odisha (1981) Panigrahi calls Yayati the ‘father of modern Orissa’ and concludes by giving a consolidated picture of Yayati I.

Jajapur has been referred to at several places of the Sarala Mahabharata,—in Adi, Virata, Udyoga and Svargarohana Parbas under the names Yaja nagra, ⁶⁹ Bhuvana Yaja-nagra, ⁷⁰ Yajapura-nagra ⁷¹ and Yajanagra-Puri ⁷² respectively. However, curiously enough, Mahapatra, Pandit Surya Narayan Das and even Panigrahi prefer to be oblivious about it and have not made any effort to connect the historical Yayati in the Sarala Mahabharata with the Jajapur-Yayati tradition based on these references. This seems a little strange on the part of Panigrahi since he had earlier shown so much interest in the Jajapur-Yayati tradition. Another inconsistency appears when Panigrahi identifies king Yayati with the Suryavamsi monarch, Kapilendra Deva ⁷³ who is Duryodhana’s predecessor.

The claims made by Panigrahi of having discovered Sarala Das’ contemporaneous and earlier history from his Mahabharata have been questioned in general and dismissed as farfetched. ⁷⁴ Panigrahi has not been able to explain satisfactorily, from which sources Sarala Das came to know all these historical information, which scholars have discovered after painstaking work of many years, where they have analysed many literary texts, inscriptions, coins, and other archaeological remains such as architecture, sculpture as well as traditional accounts. Similarly, he has failed to explain again satisfactorily, why Sarala Das has presented the historical information at his command in the garb of mythology, under the guise of different episodes of the Mahabharata. Further, Panigrahiʼs claims are primarily based on similarities between names of the persons and places and the story structure of different political and military events, on one hand and the episodes of his Mahabharata on the other.

Panigrahi does not consider if these similarities are coincidental or not because often they are only partial and at times even artificial. Furthermore, the geographical information that Das had at his command was extremely limited, contrary to Panigrahi’s claims. Contrary to general assumptions, Panigrahi (or any other scholar for that matter) has not been able to actually establish that Sarala Das was a soldier in his early life.

On the whole, scholars such as Mahapatra, Pandit Surya Narayan Das, have discovered the legendary Jajati Kesari of Puri-Yayati tradition in the Puranic Yayati of Sarala Mahabharata, guided by nationalistic sentiment and in their zeal and endeavour to push back the date of the Madala Panji and through that to discover a glorious past of the Odias they have made efforts to authenticate the Jajati Kesari tradition of Odisha and especially the legendary Jajati’s link with Puri and the Jagannatha trinity.

On the other hand, Panigrahi’s motives were different. His primary aim was to prove that Sarala Das belonged to the fifteenth century. Later he tried to prove that Sarala Das was a learned person, knew the history and geography of India well and Sarala Mahabharata was a unique medieval text, or even a ‘historical text’, that revealed much of the pre-fifteenth history of India. It appears that to him this ‘uniqueness’ of a fifteenth century text, the Sarala Mahabharata, brings glory to Odia literature.

The deeper significance of this exercise on the parts of Mahapatra, Pandit Surya Narayan Das and Panigrahi may not be apparent immediately. But once it is linked to other important issues it will be clear how this exercise is likely to influence the mapping of contemporary Odishan historiography.

VII

Recently Hermann Kulke, who has taken great interest in the Puri-Yayati tradition since 1978, ⁷⁵ argued that the tradition, which seeks to link the legendary Jajati Kesari with the Puri trinity, was most probably constructed either in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. This was in order to first legitimize the reinstallation of the Jagannatha trinity in Puri by Ramachandra Dev I (of the Bhoi dynasty) after the Puri trinity was desecrated by the Afghan invader Kalapahar in the mid-sixteenth century. Second, it aimed to legitimize Ramachandra Dev I, and his claim to the Gajapati throne, particularly on assuming the title of Gajapati. ⁷⁶ At this juncture, it is noteworthy that Amos Sutton, a Christian missionary who lived in the mid-nineteenth century, and who wrote a history of Odisha in 1839, actually anticipates much of what Kulke has written much later. He presents his doubts about the veracity of the tradition of the installation of the Puri trinity, ‘It is inferred that in this case only the events relating to Kalapahar were written in another form and was inserted here’. ⁷⁷ Even in 1978, H. von Stietencron throws a clear hint in the same direction, saying,

The text [i.e. the Madala Panji] was probably written after king Ramacandra of Khurda had reestablished the Jagannatha cult in 1586–87 and the whole account may well refer to this important event. Its mythological transfer into the hoary past and its connection with the famous founder of the Somavamsi empire of Orissa are common techniques of securing authority and legitimation for an unprecedented event or innovatory action. It is thereby linked to tradition and sanctioned as a repetition of what has happened before. ⁷⁸

However, it was left to Kulke to work it out and present the same facts in a detailed and convincing manner. Of course, it is not at all surprising that such views remained completely ignored by the scholars who accept legendary tradition as authentic source material of history without question and those who want to expunge it from Odishan historiography.

While advancing such a claim, Kulke has argued that, ‘Pre-sixteenth century sources are completely silent about any activities of Somavamsis in Puri’ including the legendary Jajati Kesari. He further observes,

In fact this might not have been a really new discovery: somehow we were already aware of it, and I am sure that scholars like K.C. Panigrahi realized this perfectly well, but obviously nobody cared sufficiently about it. The hope of establishing at least a faint degree of historicity in the legendary foundation myth of Puri was stronger than the desire to deconstruct it and thus to subscribe to Fleet’s uncompromising condemnation of Puri’s chronicles. ⁷⁹

Kulke’s claim may be correct. But we have seen that unknown to Kulke, scholars such as Mahapatra, Pandit Surya Narayan Das and even Panigrahi, guided by nationalistic sentiments, have already tried to ‘discover’ either the legendary or the historical Yayati—while the former two have specifically claimed to have discovered his connection with Jagannatha—in a pre-sixteenth century text, the Sarala Mahabharata. This so-called ‘discovery’, appears to negate one of the arguments advanced by Kulke in support of his original claim that no such evidence exists.

None of the scholars who attempted to ‘discover’ Yayati Kesari in the Sarala Mahabharata, knew of the hypothesis advanced by Amos Sutton previously. Nor could they visualize that in a few years, Kulke would himself advance a hypothesis similar to what Sutton did in 1839 in a more detailed and convincing manner. The primary motive of these scholars was not to legitimize the Yayati (Jajati) Kesari tradition but rather to push back the date of the Madala Panji or to fix the date of the Sarala Mahabharata. The Yayati (Jajati) tradition, thereby, became entrenched in the public mind and in the minds of most Odia intellectuals.

However, this so-called ‘discovery’ rests neither on solid facts nor on sound reasoning but only on nationalist sentiments. They may still be unwilling to concede their ground to historians like Kulke. Thus nationalist trends in Odishan historiography are still very strong-even at the cost of the truth.

Appendix

The place-name Yayatipatana found mentioned in the Mahabharata of Raja Krushna Singh.

In the Vana Parva of the Mahabharata, translated into Odia (between 1782 to 1788 A. D.) by Raja Krushna Singh (1729–88) of Dharakot in south Odisha, Rishi Narada narrates to Yuddhisthira what Rishi Paulastya had narrated to Bhisma earlier. In essence, the benefits of visiting tirthas have been narrated in this article.

One of the benefits—among the various kinds benefits—one acquires by visiting the tirthas, is the benefits (phala) of performing various kinds of sacrifices (Yajna).

Again two such sacrifices are: (1) Asvamedha and (2) Dasasvamedha (ten horse sacrifice) sacrifices.

In this article names of as many as twelve tirthas have been given visiting which one acquires/receives the results of performing Asvamedha sacrifice and the names of five tirthas have been given visiting which one acquires the benefits of performing Dasasvamedha sacrifice (out of many more tirthas mentioned in the article).

Again Yayatipatana is only one of twelve tirthas visiting which one acquires the benefits of Asvamedha sacrifice (and not Dasasvamedha sacrifice).

Therefore there is no strong reason to associate this reference to the results of Asvamedha sacrifice at Yayatipatana with the Dasasvamedha sacrifice supposed to have been performed by Yayati Kesari (either Yayati I or Yayati II of Soma dynasty) of the legendary tradition at Jajpur as according to that tradition Yayati performed not Asvamedha but Dasasvamedha sacrifice there. Further, there are many other tirthas (11 more to be exact), besides this one, visiting which one also acquires the result of Asvamedha sacrifice.

Again, among other tirthas mentioned in this article some other tirthas, located in Odisha, have been mentioned. One such tirtha is Vaitarani and significantly, Jajpur is situated on the bank of the river Vaitarani. However, in this chapter of the text, Yayatipatana has not been situated on Vaitarani. It has been mentioned separately and at a different place. Therefore, it is unlikely that the writer (either Krushna Singh or the author of the Sanskrit Mahabharata) of this chapter kept Jajpur, of legendary tradition, in view while mentioning the name Yayatipatana. Otherwise, he would have mentioned Yayatipatana and Vaitarani together.

Furthermore, in Odisha there is a tendency to associate Puranic/mythical Yayati of the Lunar race, son of Nahusha and the progenitor of Yadavas, Kauravas and Pandavas, with the Yayati Kesari of the legendary tradition (and of Madala Panji).