인도의 서사시는, 상층계급이나 부유층에서 주로 유통되는 싼스끄리뜨 서사시와, 하층 민중 사이에서 주로 유포되는 민간 서사시로 구분할 수 있다. 싼스끄리뜨 서사시가 주로 마하바라따나 라마야나로 대표되는 것에 반해, 민간 서사시는 이 두 고전 싼쓰끄리뜨에서 파생한 서사시나 수많은 토착 지역 고유의 서사시를 포함해 그 양이 방대하다. 그러나 두 부류의 서사시들은, 그 전승 형태로 볼 때 모두 구전 서사시로 생각해 볼 수 있다. 인도 서사시의 연구는 주로 18세기부터 싼스끄리뜨 고전학자들에 의해서 마하바라따와 라마야나가 번역, 연구되어 왔지만, 20세기 중반부터 본격적인 민간 서사시 연구가 시작되었다. 민간 서사시 연구와 서사시 연행에 대한 인류학적 연구 등은 싼스끄리뜨 서사시의 영향과 역동성을 새삼 인식케 해주었다. 민간 서사시와 그 연행들 속에서 고전 싼스끄리뜨 서사시의 요소들은 계급, 인종, 지역적 특색에 따라 변형되었으며, 따라서 서사시의 연행 속에 나타나는 이러한 변형소들을 통해 특정 지역과 계급의 특이성을 역추적해볼 수 있었다.

The studies on Indian Epics were guided by the Sanskrit scholars who usually payed attention to Mahabharata and Ramayana. As one of the philological works, in 1966, Sukthankar finished his long-term project for the critical edition of Mahabharata, which came to be called Pune Mahabharata. On this memorable result, van Buitenen at Chicago University began to translate whole volume of Mahabharata, but after the translation of fifth book, unfortunately the translation was disrupted by his untimely death. For Ramayana, Baroda Institute also completed its critical editions in 1975, which have been translated up to five volumes by the international committee for Ramayana translation. Beside philological works, in the religious or mythological studies, we may have to remember IE scholar Dumezil and Indologist Biardeau who inspired many American Indologists like Hiltebeitel to adopt their theories for the analysis of Mahabharata's characters. However, the philological or religious works on both classical Sanskrit epics are encountered with the activator brought forth from the studies of folk epics, especially of Tamil literatures and their performances which are based on Sanskrit epics and folk epics both. Representatively, Shulman focused out his subject on the temple myths around Tamil from early seventies. His researches showed up well how could the element of sanskrit epics be changed in Tamil temple myths. With the tool of anthropology much critical researches on Indian folk epics launched around at seventies of 20th century. Again, the serial researches on the relationship between Mahabharata and its folk ritual variations by Hiltebeitel will be another good example to show how could some elements of Sanskrit epics be distorted in the folk cults or festivals that are full of regional hues in sex, caste, and culture. Not too far from philological research circle of indian folk epics, Kinsley, Sax, Schechner, and Hess have focused on the dramatic representation of Sanskrit and folk epics, that is Lila. Kinsley dealt with Krsna Lila in 1972, and Hess, Schechner and Sax with Rama Lila from seventies to late eighties. And Blackburn can not be excluded from epic studies for his research on the relationship between puppet performance and classical epics in southern part of india. Their research on dramas and puppet performance show one common trace: the tension between the Sanskrit epics and its interpretation by the folks that reflect their regionality or marginality in caste, sex, and political situations.