Kanwal Bharti
(English translation from original Hindi: SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front)
(Samajweekly) The Hindi critics of Bhakti literature have done more to eliminate the Bhakti-era poets, especially the women and Shudra poets, than to understand them. I will not name any one critic. In my opinion, the mainstream critics are completely messed up. I think that the main concern of these critics was not to understand the facts of history, but to save religion. These critics have the same enmity with history as religion has with science. Therefore, they took a sigh of relief by placing the idol of Krishna in the lap of the widow Meerabai, and ignored the fact that Meera loved a flesh and blood yogi named Girdhar Nagar, and not Murlidhar Krishna. She wanted to live a married life with that yogi. But, how can a widow remarry? Therefore, she was made Krishna-addicted. Meera’s loud screams did not reach their ears – ‘Put a veil on your house, I am a helpless woman’. I, a helpless woman, have mustered up the courage to set up a home with my lover. But you must save your homes, because many widows in your homes too want to remarry and are sitting like prisoners. Similarly, critics ignored the historical awareness expressed in the poems of Akk Mahadevi of the South, and saved the religion by making her a Shiva devotee. They did not even think it fit to think that what objection can a woman’s father or husband have to her worshipping? Ninety percent of Hindu women worship at home, go to the temple. Who puts a ban on this? Rather, a woman being religious is considered good in homes. As there is a folk poem- ‘It is only in temple worship that I have seen women being respected/ If she becomes a goddess, I have seen the whole world bowing before her/ And if she strays from the norm, I see her as a prostitute.’ Why would a husband strip his religious wife naked and throw her out of the house? But Akk Mahadevi was stripped naked and thrown out of the house by her husband. She was thrown out because she loved a young man named Mallikarjun. Whenever he called her, she would leave all the household chores and run away. This was a woman straying from the norm of society. Her parents had forcibly married her to aman she did not wish to. She did not want to get married. Her love was for Mallikarjun. But often men are unfaithful. Men did not show as much courage to break social norms as women did. Mallikarjun could not show courage. He left her and went away. Akk Mahadevi searched door to door in search of him. Meera’s lover also did not return. She kept pleading – Jogi, don’t go, don’t go. But he betrayed her. A folk poet of Haryana has rightly said – ‘The brave say, but the low caste is of men.’ Everyone calls the brave, that is, women, low caste, but in reality, the low caste is of men. Meera had said – Whatever my lover gives me, I will wear that, whatever he feeds me, I will eat that, if he sells me, I will sell myself – ‘Whatever he wears, I will wear that, whatever he gives me I will eat, wherever he makes me sit, I will sit, if he sells me, I will sell myself.’ Is this a dialogue with the idol? Similarly, Akk Mahadevi said, Mallikarjun, I will not go against your orders. When will I be able to burst the pots of my breasts on your body. Can a woman say to a statue what Mahadevi said – that I will definitely leave this house by deceiving everyone/ whether it is legal or illegal/ I will openly love my beloved.’
The same was done by the critics with Lalla of Kashmir. She too had rebelled against the society and the society had also disgraced her by stripping her naked. No woman is naked on her own, the society strips her naked. The Bhakti movement will have to be understood again. This is the work of the new critics. The old critics have completed their innings. There is no hope from them. The new critics need to reread all the Bhakti period poets and saints with the facts of history.
This is the first problem, which arose due to not knowing history.
The second problem is of religion, which has complicated the Bhakti movement more. On the basis of religion, the critics linked the Bhakti movement with the Vaishnavism of the Vedas-Upanishads and Puranas, which is its wrong reading. In this lesson, citing the Bhagavat Purana, Bhakti herself said, “I was born in the Dravid country, grew up in Karnataka, lived in Maharashtra also, and became weak and old in Gujarat. There, under the influence of Kaliyug, the heretics mutilated me. But after going to Vrindavan, I became young and beautiful again.” The Bhagavat Purana was composed during the Muslim Sultanate period, on the basis of which some critics have interpreted the meaning of heretic as Muslim. But in reality, Bhakti was weakened in Gujarat not because of Muslims, but because of Buddhists, because Gujarat was a major centre of Buddhism till the eighth century, which was destroyed by Shankar’s counter-revolution.
The devotion mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana is related to Vaishnav-bhakti. It was propagated about this Vaishnav-bhakti that it was brought from the south by Swami Ramanand and established by Kabir. – ‘Bhakti Dravid Upaji, Laaye Ramanand/ Pragat Kari Kabir Ne Navdeep Sat Khand.’ But neither Ramanand nor Kabir is mentioned in the Bhagavata. It clearly means that this propaganda was done only with the purpose of painting Kabir in Vaishnav-bhakti.
There are two clear streams of Bhakti, one Nirgun and the other Sagun. We can also call them the left and right streams of that era. In these, the Nirgun stream believes in equality and the Sagun stream believes in the caste system. The Sagun stream is the Vaishnav stream, which is the stream of devotion to Vishnu and his incarnations Ram and Krishna. In this way, two streams were created in the Sagun stream – one of Ram-bhakti and the other of Krishna-bhakti. But no stream is formed by one or two poets. To establish a stream, at least forty-fifty poets are needed. In Ram Bhakti, we do not find any other poet except Tulsi. Then where did the stream of Ram Bhakti come from? But the critics tried to force the stream of Ram Bhakti. In Krishna Bhakti, there have been some other poets apart from Surdas, who created this stream, but it could not become stronger than the stream of Shiva Bhakti of the South. I feel that the stream of Ram and Krishna Bhakti was created to counter or resist the Shiva stream. In my view, the Sagun stream is only the Vaishnav stream.
The Nirgun stream is non-Vedic and materialistic, which flowed into Nirgunism through Charvak, Ajivika and Buddha-tradition, Siddhas, Naths. Hindu critics tried to link Nirgunism to Vedanta to finish it off. Some Muslim critics have tried to link it to Tauheed (monotheism) of Islam. Both the attempts are wrong and ridiculous too.
Nirgunism neither came from the Vedas nor from Vedanta. There is polytheism in the Vedas and Brahmavaad in Vedanta; and both have no relation with Nirgunavaad. There may be a concept of one God in Vedanta, but it considers the world to be false (Maya). Shankaracharya has also said ‘Brahma satyam jaganmithya’ and so has his grandfather Guru Gaudapada. But there is no such concept in Nirgunavaad. Nirgunavaad believes in the world, and rejects the afterlife. Similarly, the Tauheed of Islam talks of a formless Allah, but also talks of the Doomsday, according to which Allah sends people to heaven and hell according to their deeds. This is the quality of the God of Islam. In this way, neither the Brahma of Vedanta is Nirgun nor the Allah of Islam. Nirgun God is not the creator. Creation is a quality, and Nirgun God is devoid of this quality. Kabir asks both the Brahmins and Mullas who believe God to be the creator – ‘Pandit, leave the letter and Qazi, leave the Quran, tell me the date, there was no earth or sky.’ And he also asked at what auspicious time did your God create the universe and who was nearby at that time – ‘There was no earth or sky, who was the Pandit nearby, who set the auspicious time, the moon, the sun and the sky.’ Kabir said that Niranjan has no form, no colour, no speech, then how did he write books? In the refutation of the other world, Kabir said—
Mind, where will you go to cross the ocean?
There is no path ahead, no destination to reach.
There is no water there, no boat, no boat, no puller, no one is able to pull me.
There is nothing in earth, sky, eons, nothing is gained or traversed.
He refuted the cycle of coming and going—
I will never return to this land again.
Those who have gone, will never return, no message is sent.
His refutation of heaven and hell is very logical—
Who died, who was born, brother/ Who attained heaven and hell. When a man died and was born in another body immediately, then who died? And who went to heaven? Who went to hell?
You all know that the Nirgun poets opposed the Varna system and caste discrimination. Kabir said- neither high nor low/ whose water he nurtured/ if you go to a Brahmin or a Bhabhi/ then why did you not come back. What kind of blood is ours, what kind of milk is yours/ how are you a Brahmin, how am I am shudra. Raidas said, Raidas, no one is low by birth/ the filth of low deeds has made man low. Raidas stressed on the qualities of the person- do not worship a Brahmin, who is devoid of qualities/ worship the feet of a Chandal who is proficient in knowledge.
Now I am saying one more thing here. The rejection of caste by the Nirgun poets was not a big social revolt. Do not see it as a social revolution. The Bhakti movement brought about a big social revolution is another. What is that? This is the third problem in my view, which has been ignored by Hindi critics.
The third problem is related to the question whether the Bhakti movement was a religious movement? That is, a movement of devotion to Vishnu or Shiva? Although critics of Bhakti poetry say that the movement of Vishnu-bhakti was started by Alvar saints, who were Vaishnavas; and those who were devotees of Shiva were Nayanars (or Nayanmars). But, the biggest puzzle of this movement is the entry of Shudras and women saints in the field of devotion. How was this possible? The Brahmin religion which did not allow a woman to step out of the house, for which serving her husband was the only religion, and which deprived the Shudras of even reading religious texts, which deprived the Shudras of even education, how did those women and Shudras rebel against Brahmin religion by becoming saints in this period? How did they establish their independent status? This was the biggest revolution. This was the biggest rebellion. This was the biggest revolt against the caste system.
This was the biggest revolution of the Bhakti period that a large number of Shudras and women saints challenged the law of Manu, according to which only a Brahmin could become a Guru. Manu had not given this right to any other caste. And Manu had closed all the ways for women and Shudras to become religious gurus. And those whose ways were closed, they themselves became religious gurus and challenged the Brahmin. Manu’s law regarding women was that women should never be independent, they should always be under the control of their father, husband and son. But, during the Bhakti period, women broke this rule by becoming saints. They made themselves completely independent. Not only women, but Shudras also challenged the Brahmin authority by becoming religious gurus. Not only this, these women saints did not give importance to the rule of Manu regarding the sacred and unbreakable marriage bond. Women saints did not take sanyaas, got married properly, loved other men, wrote poems of love and lust and preached religion to the masses. They preached not Brahmin religion, but Nirgun religion, which was a rebellion against the scriptures and social customs. Another important aspect of this revolution is that no woman-Shudra saint made a Brahmin her Guru. They made saints of lower castes their Guru, because they knew that Brahmin is the enemy of their freedom, their oppressor. A woman saint preferred to leave her husband rather than bear his oppression. She did not come under the pressure of her parents for marriage, she opposed them. She could love another man even if she was married and leave her husband for him. She could do anything she wanted, remain unmarried, frighten her husband, and forsake her husband, home, family, caste, clan for her lover. A woman named Dalai left her husband in the desert when her lover called her. She even refused to accept God as her lover or husband. A Veerashaiva woman saint named Goggavve was so stubborn that even after she was threatened with death, she refused to marry a disguised Shiva.
The stream of Vishnu bhakti originated during the rule of the Gupta kings, and Shiva bhakti is said to have come after the Gupta period, around the seventh or eighth century, when the Buddhist period of Harshvardhan came. This is what needs to be understood, because the systems of both these periods are at the root of the Bhakti movement of the South. However, it is also beyond understanding that there was only one-woman saint among the Alvar Vaishnavas. Vaishnavas must have prohibited the entry of women. The name of this only Alvar woman saint was ‘Antal’ or Andal, who wished for her divine union with Lord Vishnu, and Vishnu finally accepted her as his wife. Antal’s poems reflect her protest against oppression of women. Many other women saints also followed her. But there is no description of those women saints. Perhaps there were, but Alvar Vaishnavas must not have allowed them to emerge. If Antal’s poems oppose oppression of women, then the matter of her marriage with the idol of Vishnu cannot be credible. This is nothing but a myth. The idol cannot marry, no matter which god it is. It is possible that the practice of making Devdasi was started in this way, or Antal must have married a young man named Vishnu. Certainly this work would not have been easy for Antal, society must have harassed her, which is also expressed in her poems. This persecution must have reached the level of suppression, due to which no woman was allowed entry among the Alvar saints again.
Similarly, among the Nayanar women saints of the fifth century, Karekkal Ammaiyar is mentioned, who was the beautiful daughter of a pious merchant. She was a devotee of Shiva. Shiva, pleased with her devotion, made delicious mangoes appear in her hand, which also disappeared magically. When her husband saw all this, he abandoned her, and took another wife. Ammaiyar felt that her beautiful body was no longer of any use, so she prayed to Shiva to transform her body into a skeleton. Shiva accepted her prayer. Shiva made her a ghost and included her in his group. She started living in the cremation ground of Alankatu, where Shiva danced and she sang hymns. Four of her poems are known, one of which is this:
Her breasts are shrunken
And veins are prominent,
Her white teeth are replaced by empty cavities.
A ghost with red hair on her belly,
a pair of pointed teeth,
knotted ankles and long calves,
mourns in the desolate cremation ground,
where our Lord’s hanging matted hair flies in all eight directions,
as he dances and refreshes his limbs amid the flames.
This poem tells a different story. This poem depicts Karikkal Ammaiyar’s body turning into a skeleton. It seems that she was forcibly declared a ghost or witch and left in the cremation ground, where she stayed till she grew old. No god turns anyone into a ghost, nor does it turn anyone’s body into a skeleton. It is also possible that she was burnt to ashes in the flames of the cremation ground. The male society punished her for that rebellion. But despite this suppression, the female rebellion did not subside, and many Nayanar women saints gained popularity. Like women, the rise of Shudra saints was also a rebellion against the Manu system.
The Shudras whose tongues were to be cut off for preaching religion by Manu, emerged as saints in large numbers during the Shudra Bhakti period. Shudra saints also did not accept Brahmins as their Gurus, nor did they give importance to them. These Shudra saints did not respect Brahmin religious scriptures and rituals either. It was also a big social revolution that they stressed on establishing equality and love, which was not there in Brahmin religion, and which Brahmin religion rejects even today. In this context, the Nayanar saint named Kannappar was the most famous. He belonged to the Nishad caste. By the fifteenth century, this Bhakti movement had completely destroyed the fort of the Varna system. All non-Brahmin castes had entered it. Along with Shudra and untouchable castes, men and women of Kshatriya and Vaishya castes also became saints in it.
There are seven main achievements of the Bhakti movement: one, it adopted the vernacular language as opposed to Sanskrit; two, it did not accept the superiority of Brahmins; three, it abolished gender discrimination; four, it abolished the necessity of temples; five, it created a sense of non-violence towards animals, which were cruelly sacrificed in Vaishnava religion; six, it abolished the belief in books; and seven, it rejected the afterlife and emphasized on the world.
