The clash over the conduct of Mahisha Dasara with those opposing it is being projected as an effort to ‘’reclaim true history’’ from what has been ‘’distorted’’ by the ‘’upper caste’’.
Speakers at the event held on Friday and at a seminar on the same subject held last month reiterated the above view and cited epigraphical evidence to buttress their argument that the name of modern Mysuru is derived from Mahisha besides claiming that that there was a king by that name and he was a Buddhist.
Far from his projection as a demon, Mahisha was a benevolent ruler but the picture was distorted to project him as a demon who was vanquished by goddess Chamundeshwari, according to Talakad Chikkarange Gowda, a research scholar.
But N.S. Rangaraju, formerly from the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology and who has conducted archaeological excavations, said that the earliest epigraphic record which refers to the region as Mysooru is dated to 872 CE and belonged to the Ganga period. But there is no evidence to state that there was a king by the name of Mahisha and those making such claims should provide epigraphical or other evidence.
He said all epigraphic records related to Ashoka are found only in northern part of Karnataka and there is no reference to the king by that name, said Dr. Rangaraju.
With respect to Mahishasura and his defeat by Chamundeshwari, Dr. Rangaraju said they are part of cultural practices that evolved over time but history cannot be conjured out of mythology.
The Mysore Gazetteer also mentions the inscription referring to Mysooru but in the discussions that follow states that scholars are divided on whether Ashoka’s missionary activities could be identified with Mysuru at all and point out that Mahishamati mentioned in Dipavamsha, a Sri Lankan historical chronicle dated to 3rd to 4th centuries CE, was in fact a reference to Mahishamati in Madhya Pradesh. But scholars like Rangaraju and others agree that more research was required on the subject before anything could be said with certainty.
