This paper critically examines the "owlscapes," or the ecocultural representation of owls in the Indigenous aetiological myths and folklore of colonial West Bengal, with a focus on two particular species of owls in West Bengal. Owls occupy an ambivalent position in Indian cultural narratives—while venerated as the vāhana (mount) of Goddess Lakshmi, they are also burdened with superstitions that cast them as omens of misfortune. Engaging with Donna Haraway’s (2003) concept of "natureculture," ( this paper argues that myths and folklore serve as ecocultural texts that both shape and reflect human perceptions of nonhuman species, resisting the binary between nature and culture.

Through an analysis of Saratchandra Mitra’s (1928) reports of the Studies in Bird Myths series, the paper explores aetiological myths that narrate the ecocultural significance of the Brown Fish Owl and the Barn Owl. The myth about the two birds embed themes of neglect and irony within local oral traditions, while illustrating how owls become symbols of regret and loss. These myths reinforce the cultural positioning of owls within Bengali society, revealing underlying anxieties about wealth, familial discord, and social exclusion.

At the same time, the paper juxtaposes such folkloric narratives with esoteric texts like Ullu Tantra, which codify harmful superstitions and contribute to the commodification of owls in ritualistic practices. By analyzing these texts alongside indigenous oral traditions, this study highlights how folklore can serve as a space for reinterpreting owls beyond exploitative frameworks. Drawing from postcolonial ecocriticism (Huggan and Tiffin 2010) and contemporary folklore studies (Bendix 1997), the paper situates these narratives within broader discourses on environmental ethics and indigenous knowledge.

By recognising the owl’s role as an active participant in both ecological and cultural systems, the paper challenges dominant anthropocentric perceptions and advocates for a more nuanced understanding of human-owl relationships. This reframing not only contests colonial and exploitative narratives, but also fosters an ethical approach to conservation that is culturally informed and ecologically responsible.

Works cited:

Bendix, R. In Search of Authenticity: The Formation of Folklore Studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1997.

Dixit R. (2018), Ullu Tantra. Delhi, Creative Publication.

Haraway, D. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2003.

Huggan, Gr. and Helen T. Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals, Environment. London: Routledge, 2010.

Mitra, S. “Studies in Bird Myths About the Brown Fish Owl.” Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society 18, no. 2 (1928).

Mitra, S. “Studies in Bird Myths No. XX- On the Aetiological Myth About the Barn Owl or the Screech-Owl.” Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society 18, no. 3 (1928).

This paper shall explore the transformation of the idea of Rama and Shiva from the middle-era literary texts and folktales to contemporary age. I would also like to trace the role of ideology to reshape and modify the narratives of Rama and Shiva in recent days.

In different versions and forms of Ramayana, due to retelling and re-narrating, Rama’s narrative got transformed and reshaped over time according to local socio-cultural scene. Valmiki Ramayana got translated into different languages through ages and all these translated texts carry unique linguistic-cultural politics. The theme is same in all these texts but the plot and narrative techniques are different. The same in his revisiting displayed different or even opposite characteristics- difference-in-identity. The identity of Rama is created through diversified narratives through orature, myths, movies, performances and literary texts.

Krittibas Ojha translated ‘Ramayana’ into Bangla in 16th century and the version of Rama he presented in his text was quite different from the ‘Ramayana’ composed by Valmiki. Tulsidas’s ‘Ramcharitamanasa’ focused on portraying devotion and love where the hero Rama loved all irrespective of caste and socio-cultural inequalities. In ‘Annadamangal Kavya’, written by Bharatchandra, Shiva has been portrayed as an emotional, desire-driven, bohemian husband. In Agamani (homecoming) songs too, Shiva’s portrayal is not like a powerful, masculine, aggressive god. He possesses human qualities and flaws too. In the folktales of Bengal Shiva has been presented as an old, family-loving, peasant who even begs to Annapurna (another form of Goddess Durga).

In the modern Indian socio-politics, an emergent ‘model’ of Rama and Shiva negates the aforementioned difference-in-identity. A politico-religious discourse, matched with the majoritarian desire, has been imposed upon other cultural beliefs through digitized propaganda. Songs and videos composed/created and released on various social media platform depicted Shiva and Rama as aggressive, masculine and war-mongering characters. Portrayal of their characters evokes Raudra Rasa and Veer Rasa. Chanting the names of Rama or Shiva have been turned into political slogans. These elements can be traced in the Bollywood movies, media presentation and social media narratives in the last two decades. In the post-truth era political propagandists re-created narratives, blurring the boundary between history and fiction, to reshape the memory and public understanding of cultural-religious identity.

How is the depiction of Shiva and Rama on social media different from the age-old texts and diversified myths? How did the digitized narratives (especially on social media) become too popular to dominate the collective emotions and historical memories? What is the role of the state to appease the majoritarian desire to promote the newly-built image of Shiva and Rama? I would like to find answers to these questions in my paper.

Life writing, as an obituary or memorial talk, overwrites people’s own biography and memoirs. Concerning public figures of note, it patronizes as it purports to memorialize people as a first draft of history for the consumption of the general public. The memorial talk or obituary fixes the subjects image in the public mind in a condensed and highly selective way isolating and individualizing the subject to an extreme degree. It oversimplifies and controls the image. Writers employ life writing to serve their own ends, and a life writing is always written by another person a friend or colleague, it is a bibliographical article. A person is being appropriated for the next generation who protects a memory by creating it. The paper investigates the well-known Orientalist Armin Vámbéry’s obituary by the very famous orientalist Ignac Goldziher positioning of the former in relation to Hungarology that was quintessential in arguing Jewish loyalties to Hungary. In this way Goldziher put forward the notion that they are both Hungarian who pursue Oriental Studies out of love for their home, Hungary. At the turn of the twentieth century the Orient was employed as a metaphor to underscore the unique identity of Hungarians, positioning them as both Eastern and Western, distinguishing them from other Europeans. This nationalist-driven discourse formed the backdrop for Hungarian Oriental Studies. Like their Hungarian counterparts, Jewish scholars sought to trace the history of the Magyars in Asia, and the mixing of various peoples in the Orient before the Magyars migrated to Europe. In doing so, Hungarian Jews aimed to present themselves as authentic Hungarians and what patter place than in obituaries and memorial talks.