I would like to clarify at the very outset that the word “śyāma” or “śyāmā”, which is used so often to describe the complexion of many gods, heroes, and beauties, of Indian literature – doesn’t necessarily mean Black.
It is generally & broadly understood to be Black, but it’s a rather broad blanket term, covering a range of colours & hues.
Indians, especially in the Hindi-speaking belt, use the word śyāma for the evening, but the Sanskrit śyāmā means “Night, particularly a dark night”.
We generally associate these two phenomena with different colours, or sets of colours.
That’s why I’ve consistently translated “śyāma” as “dark or black-skinned”, and not just as “black-skinned”.
Not that I have any issues with Black skin, but the word “śyāma” simply doesn’t necessarily mean Black.
That said, it often indicates black skin.
It may also signify dark-green – blue or dark-blue or blue-black {like nīla} – brown or dark-brown – and probably also a dark, coppery red.
It’s not easy to fathom the meaning of the countless mysterious words & statements made in ancient texts, which make them bewildering, and have led to endless wrangling & confusion for centuries & centuries.
I’ll take up a few passages from the Mahābhārata today, in which the Great Indian Goddess Durgā is invoked, and which show that She was also conceived as dark-skinned or black-skinned.
I won’t say Durgā was necessarily or exclusively thought of, as Black or Dark – because our Gods & Goddesses are often imaged & portrayed in different forms, with different attributes, endowed with different colours, in different contexts & passages – but these specific verses are intriguing in themselves because they explicitly refer to her Black complexion.
They help debunk the narrative that Indians or Hindus despised dark skin, and relegated it to the depressed classes of society, or to fiends & demons.
These verses – as do many others – deconstruct the accusation of “Colourism” against Hindus.
And this also ties in to the African-Indian connection, and what I’ve already written about the dark-skinned civilizers of the world.
Is it possible that the Vedic “Aryans” were white-skinned or predominantly fair, when so many of their gods, heroes, and beauties were black/dark skinned?
The verses are spoken by Yudhiṣṭhira at the commencement of the last year of the Pāṇḍavas’ exile, just before they (& their wife Draupadī) enter the city of Virāṭa, to pass a year in disguise.
Verse 7, Chapter 6, Virāṭa Parva:
“Salutations to thee,
¬ O giver of boons {varadā},
¬ O thou that art identical with Kṛṣṇa,
¬ O maiden {kumārī},
¬ O thou that hast observed the vow of Brahmacharya {brahmacāriṇī},
¬ O thou of body bright as the newly-risen Sun,
¬ O thou efface {with a face?} beautiful as the full moon.”
I’d like to pause here for a moment, to take up an issue which is very confusing, because the terms used are vague to us, today.
What precisely does “body bright as the newly-risen Sun” mean?
Should we think of “body bright as the newly-risen Sun” as a reference to fair skin?
In the sense that, when we read such words, we spontaneously imagine – within our minds – a very fair lady, almost white, with a glowing complexion.
We would talk about how “ujjval” she is, and the “tej” of her “gorā” complexion.
This is how Indians would visualize a goddess with a body “as bright as the Sun”, today.
But did the Ancient Indians think like this?
What has been translated as “O thou of body bright as the newly-risen Sun” in the original is “bāla-arka-sadṛṣya-ākāra” which would strictly translate as “whose form is like that of the newly-risen {lit. child-like, infantine i.e. very young} Sun”.
While ‘brightness’ may be a possible interpretation or meaning, “ākāra” doesn’t strictly translate to ‘brightness’.
“ākāra” means “form, figure, shape, stature, appearance, external gesture or aspect of the body, expression of the face (as furnishing a clue to the disposition of mind)”.
However, in what sense could a Goddess – imaged as a human, endowed with fundamental human features {eyes, body, hands, feet etc.} – look like the Morning Sun?
In what way She may possess an ākāra – a form – like that of the Sun?
So probably Ganguli is correct, in that ākāra refers to her lustre.
But the Hindi translation is better, or more specific, when it says: “The effulgence {kānti} of thy body {aṅga} is red {lāla} like that of the Sun of Dawn”.
This reminds us of one of the 1,000 names of the Great Goddess Lalitā-Tripura-Sundarī, in the Lalitā-Sahasranāma, which is Taruṇa-Āditya-Pāṭalā {No. 922}: “She who is of the red color {lit. color of the trumpet flower} of the Tender Sun {i.e. newly arisen Sun}”.
I’m not sure if ‘brightness/effulgence’ is to be taken purely as ‘radiance’, i.e. the brilliance or glossiness of an object – or it can be interpreted in terms of colour – because the phraseology of both Sanskrit & Hindi authors is archaic, & a little fuzzy & perplexing, for us moderns.
When you say of someone, “She is radiant”, you’re not referring to the person’s skin-colour.
Anybody, of any skin colour, could be ‘radiant’.
Similarly, a ceramic vase could be glossy or shiny or lustrous, whether it’s black or white or red or green.
Radiance/brilliancy/effulgence are concepts very distinct from colour.
They are also different from lustrousness, glossiness or shininess.
A thing which is brilliant gives out light – a thing which is glossy or shiny reflects light.
The Sun emits light.
It is effulgent.
A golden vase reflects light.
It is shiny.
The Hindi translator keeps using this word “kānti” which can mean a 100 different things, but is mostly understood either
— as “beauty” or
— as “effulgence, brilliance, radiance, lustre”.
However, “kānti”also means:
§ “loveliness, splendour, female beauty, personal decoration
§ “a lovely colour,
§ “brightness (especially of the moon)
§ “(in rhetoric) beauty enhanced by love
§ “a lovely or desirable woman personified as wife of the moon”.
If ākāra is to be understood as kānti, & kānti as colour, then “bāla-arka-sadṛṣya-ākāra” may also mean: “Thy colour is like that of the Morning Sun” – in other words, red.
Generally speaking, though, I think the statement means Durgā is radiant like the red morning Sun — & reference is to Her crimson lambence, Her luminousness with its reddish hues — and does not refer to the fairness or whiteness of skin.
Whiteness of skin in India has been portrayed through a very unique set of similes, and those don’t include the Sun.
Thus, Balarāma is White-complexioned, and is described in the Mahābhārata itself as {3.119.3}:
“... resembling in hue
X the milk of the cow {go-ksīra} &
X the Kunda flower {kunda} &
X the moon {indu} &
X the silver {rajata} &
X the lotus root {mṛṇāla}
& who wore a wreath made of wild flowers and who had the ploughshare for his arms...”
The Sun embodied as Sūrya is often mostly understood as being red-complexioned.
Agni, Brahmā & Gaṇeśa are also portrayed as red-skinned.
Further, Yudhiṣṭhira says in his eulogy {4.6.8-9}:
“Salutations to thee,
¬ O thou of 4 hands & 4 faces,
¬ O thou of fair round hips & deep bosom,
¬ O thou that wearest bangles made of emeralds & sapphires,
¬ O thou that bearest excellent bracelets on thy upper arm.
¬ Thou shinest, O Goddess, as Padmā, the consort of Nārāyaṇa.
¬ O thou that rangest the etherial regions,
¬ thy true form & thy Brahmacharya are both of the purest kind.
¬ Sable as the black clouds, thy face is beautiful as that of Saṁkarṣaṇa.”
Okay, HOW does “gaganeśvarī” translate into “O thou that rangest the etherial regions”?
It literally means “Goddess {i.e. Lord, in feminine} of the Sky”.
gagana can also be translated as Space.
Also, there isn’t the flimsiest reference to “fair round hips”.
The original verse has simply “pīna-śroṇī-payodhara”.
This means “Thou hast rounded/plump breasts & hips”.
Where does “fair” crop up, in all this?
Kisari Mohan Ganguli keeps dumping this word “fair” all over the place.
He translates “vara-varṇinī” and “varārohā” as “fair” or “fair one” whereas
ª “vara-varṅinī” means “one of excellent/the best/the choicest complexion/ radiance” and
ª “varārohā” means “one with beautiful hips” or simply “beauty” or “beautiful lady”.
As pointed out in the post on Draupadī, Ganguli translates “su-bhrū” as “fair eyebrows” – which is absurd.
It means “beautiful brows”, i.e. one with beautiful eyebrows.
He also translates “tanvāṅgī” {Māh. 1.9.2} as “delicate fair one” (!) – whereas “tanvāṅgī” simply means “one with delicate limbs” or “one who has a delicate body”.
In the episode of the Churning of the Ocean, the original says {1.18.46}:
“tatas tad amṛtaṃ tasyai dadus te mūḍhacetasaḥ
striyai dānava daiteyāḥ sarve tadgatamānasāḥ”
How does Ganguli translate it?
He writes:
“The Dānavas & the Daityas charmed with her exquisite beauty & grace lost their reason & unanimously placed the Amṛta in the hands of that fair damsel.”
Reference is to the illusory form taken by Viṣṇu, known as Mohinī.
The original simply says “strī” – which simply means “woman”.
There is no reference to the fairness of the lady, or there being a fair damsel.
An arbitrary, unnecessary term,“fair”, has been inserted – I would risk saying, misleadingly.
And this error has crept into other indigenous Hindi translations too.
Coming back to Yudhiṣṭhira’s eulogy of Durgā, pīna means “swelling, swollen, full, round, thick, large, fat, fleshy, corpulent, muscular”, and is often used in relation to the ample breasts & hips of beautiful women.
Why has Ganguli smuggled in the word “fair”, out of nowhere?
It is unwarranted by the original.
Most importantly, the {2nd quoted} passage says: “Sable as the black clouds”!
This is also tricky.
The original verse says: “kṛṣṇa-chavi-samā-kṛṣṇā”.
The Hindi translator offers a long-winded translation with obscure turns of phrase, but he basically seems to mean: “Thy Black Effulgence {śyāma kānti} is like unto the Colour of Śrī-Kṛṣṇa, that is why Thou art called Kṛṣṇā”.
This basically means that Durgā is Black-Skinned like Kṛṣṇa.
{We may recollect that the same is said about Draupadī, who is also called Kṛṣṇā {1.166.53-54}:
“Then the Brāhmaṇas {dvijas} (present there), their expectations fully gratified, bestowed names upon the new-born pair,
‘Let this son of king Drupada, they said, be called Dhṛṣṭadyumna, because of his excessive audacity (ati-dhṛṣṇu) and because of his being born like Dyumna with a natural mail and weapon.’
And they also said, ‘Because this daughter is so dark in complexion, she should be called Kṛṣṇā (the dark).’”}
The Hindi translation of the verses 4.6.8-9 is far more convincing, because the line refers to both brothers Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma {who is also known as Saṁkarṣaṇa}.
It basically says:
Durgā has the complexion of Kṛṣṇa, and her face is like that of Saṁkarṣaṇa.
Here, Ganguli got the meaning of the second part correct: “thy face is beautiful as that of Saṁkarṣaṇa”.
This may strike us as a little odd, because Kṛṣṇa is also known for his unfathomable, limitless beauty – & Durgā is female & Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma are male – but the passage does make sense in itself.
As pointed out above, & earlier, Balarāma is almost always understood as being White-complexioned.
So the verse is making it very clear that Durgā is dark or black, like Kṛṣṇa – and NOT WHITE, like Balarāma.
But Her face is like that of Balarāma – that is, her face is as beautiful as Balarāma’s face.
She has Kṛṣṇa’s complexion & Balarāma’s beauty.
If there is any other interpretation of these lines, I’d definitely like to know.
All this has to be comprehended keeping in mind the passage above that she has a body “bright as the morning Sun”.
The Hindi translation is not necessarily crystal-clear, either, because in the earlier passage he talks about her “kānti” being red, and in this passage, he says her “kānti” is black.
Assuming that the context throughout the eulogy is one, I think the idea is that Durgā is Black-skinned {hence called Kṛṣṇā} – but she is radiant like the Red Morning Sun or is as lustrous or brilliant like the Sun of Dawn – and her face is as beautiful as the white/argent moon or Balarāma.
Even if we accept Ganguli’s interpretation, Durgā is “sable as dark clouds”, she is visualized as a black-skinned or dark-skinned lady {clouds are hardly brown or golden, & since we’re directly told that she’s called Kṛṣṇā, it means the reference is to black clouds}.
According to the Monier-Williams Dictionary, kṛṣṇacchavi can mean both “the skin of the black antelope” as well as “a black cloud”.
The latter meaning has probably been given by the Commentator on the Mahābhārata.
In other words, Durgā is either as dark as the black antelope {which is known as kṛṣṇa} or a black cloud.
In either case, she’s Black-skinned or Dark-skinned.
How odd, that the Lofty Goddess should have the red brilliancy of the freshborn morning Sun – be “sable” as dark clouds – and yet have FAIR round hips??
To give Ganguli the benefit of doubt, he may be reading some other “recension” of the Mahābhārata, but curiously enough, everything else – almost every other word – is identical, and his recension contains this one word “fair” which never occurs anywhere in the other “recensions” – and it seems to be entirely an invention & interpolation of his own making.
Why this desperate attempt to introduce the concept of “fair” into our epic?
Even the word “gaura” doesn’t necessarily mean “fair” or “white”, but that would be the topic of another post altogether.
There is one more very peculiar mistranslation {?} by Kisari Mohan Ganguli.
Further on, in the eulogy, Yudhiṣṭhira allegedly says {4.6.17-18}:
“Grant me victory, O Goddess, and give me boons also at this hour of distress.
Thy eternal abode is on Vindhyā—that foremost of mountains.
O Kālī, O Kālī, thou art the great Kālī, ever fond of wine & meat & animal sacrifice.”
HOW STRANGE IT IS THEN, THAT THE ORIGINAL SANSKRIT VERSE DOES NOT AS MUCH AS HINT AT “WINE & MEAT & ANIMAL SACRIFICE”?
The Sanskrit verse is: “Kālī Kālī Mahākālī Khaḍga-Khaṭvāṅga-Dhāriṇī”.
Which means something like “O Kālī, Kālī, Mahā-Kālī, Thou art the wielder of the Scimitar & Skull-topped Club”.
THERE IS NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO WINE, MEAT & ANIMAL SACRIFICE.
Undoubtedly, the Khaṭvāṅga is a strange, mysterious, and somewhat creepy object, but all this is symbolic.
It’s not as if Shiva, for instance, actually roams around with a trident in one hand, a deer leaping out of another, seated on the top of a White Bull, with the Ganges flooding out of his hair.
Or Durgā is an actual woman with 10 hands.
These are poetic-symbolic conceptions, not literal facts.
Since Durgā has been equated to Kālī here, some attributes have been taken in common – and possibly the weird Khaṭvāṅga is an attribute of Kālī.
{Durgā is expressly called a Virgin, but Kālī is not a Virgin – so they’re distinct, but “identified” too.}
It’s more likely, though, that the Khaṭvāṅga simply represents the backbone, hence the skull at the top, because the human skull is located at the top of the human backbone.
This would have significance in a yogic-prāṇic sense.
There is no necessity to read unsavoury, disturbing rites into the symbol.
Funny part is: from where did Ganguli get his “ever fond of wine & meat & animal sacrifice”?
Kisari Mohan Ganguli has done a great job, and the world is deeply thankful and obliged to him for providing what seems like the only English translation of the Mahābhārata – a truly daunting task & a monumental achievement.
But his translation is full of anomalies which I don’t think can be passed up as unimportant, and which can often be disturbing.