The Intro
Mahimā Dharma, that was founded by Mahima Gosain and emerged as a movement in Orissa during the second half of the 19th century, has been receiving more or less attention from scholars of different branches of knowledge since the early decades of the last century. While the earlier scholars and literary critics have given importance only to the purely religious and theological aspects of the Dharma and textual analysis of its texts respectively, recently a considerable departure has been taking place, in the studies in Mahimā Dharma, as some academicians have started analyzing the socio-cultural and socio-political aspects and implications of the movement. Along with, a group of academicians has also started detailed ethnographical studies to understand the present form of the Dharma in wider contexts. Different scholars see Mahimā Dharma in different ways. About its nature, some say that it is a social reform movement in the model of other reform movement of 19th century India. Literary critics along with the earlier scholars also have found some serious social mission within the fold of religion in the form of reformation in the work of Bhima Bhoi, the immediate disciple of Mahima Gosain and primary spokesperson of the Dharma. Some others, particularly those from social sciences, suggest it as a social resistance movement, couched in religious and moral ideas.
Starting with a remark that Mahimā Dharma is essentially a socio-cultural resistance movement rather than a social reform movement, this paper aims at exploring the nature of resistance in the Dharma, both in terms of structure and action. At the concluding stage, this paper will deal with the aspects of perceived ‘morality’ and leadership of the movement in two phases, that is to say, the phase that was led by Mahima Gosain and Bhima Bhoi and the phase after them. The beginning of 20th century marked increasing submission of the movement at dominant cultural trend. It seems cultural trends played a pivotal role both in resisting and submissive elements of the Dharma. Such type of trends better can be understood in the historical set-up; any simple theory of immediate changes in political power structure and socio-economic situation can not sufficiently serve to understand them. Without referring to the long history of the cultural entities, we may lead to the danger of fall for nothing. Unlike the post-modernists, I believe in the continuity of history, but like them, I also believe in plurality of culture and society. ‘Plurality’ and ‘diversity’ both are generally used as interchangeable terms; but in case of culture, diversity is a geographical phenomenon, whereas plurality needs to be understood historically. The contemporary ethno-historical studies undertaken by Western scholars to know the non-White culture and religions better, in terms of diversity, may have its semi-utility for our purpose, but historical field research till far is a half-awakened dream.
Conceptual Problems
The first theoretical probe into Mahimā Dharma comes from Anncharlott Eschmann, where she uses the phrase ‘autochthonous Hindu reform movement’ for the Dharma. ‘Autochthonous’ is easily understood since the root of Mahimā Dharma can be discovered in the tradition of Orissa (or that of Eastern India); but why ‘reform movement’, that is too ‘Hindu reform movement’? Reformation is a call of a point of the time; it challenges to the internal and external functional units and needs structural adjustment. Dayanand Saraswati’s Arya Samaj, for instance, is a result of and reaction against spread of Christianity; Saraswati challenged the polytheist allegation of Christians and Muslims in one hand and so called complexity of so called Hinduim in the other; he too, tried to eliminate heavy ritualism from his believing faith, but still adhered to the Varnāśrama Dharma, both, as structural adjustment. Syncretization is another aspect of adjustment. Sankaracharya’s ‘Digvijaya’ as a reformation process can be understood within the similar presumption. In the secular domains, even the contemporary economic reformation under the state has the similar tenet. Resistance, on contrary, challenges the structural set-up; time does not play as an agent for it, rather it may run as a stirrer or chance giver; latter functional aspects come.
Using the word ‘Hindu’ or ‘Hinduism’ in the studies in (history of) South Asian religions creates another conceptual problem. Such use is historically non-academic and linguistically anachronistic. The loosely coined term (or, you may say, umbrella term) ‘Hindu’ as we use today is basically a 19th century construction by the Christian missionaries and imperial government for their need. Partly influenced by the colonialists, the right wing of nationalist agitators of colonial India tried to define this term. This medieval loanword, being derived from the Persian word ‘Hindu’ for the Indus or Sind, had been in use from the mid of sixth century, which in latter period referred the people living to the south of Sind. This word was in use in medieval India for the non-Muslim Indians including Buddhists, Jainas, and followers of other religions. In true sense, we never had a uniform and unified religious tradition and there for a term to cover the varied systems of beliefs and social customs that prevailed in ancient and medieval India, which also defined the legally prescribed structure of society.
In her own tradition of Indian subcontinent, the different religious currents are divided into three broad categories, namely, Vaidika, Grāmya and Āgama. Taking clue from such classification, we may divide Indian religions historically into three different (but not distinct) categories, that is to say, a) the Brahmanic religion including its different cults (mārgas), b) folk religions as a unified entry or folk and tribal religions and c) anti-Brahmanic religions including the founded and sectarian religions.
Brahmanic Religion: The Brahmanism is mainly a polytheistic, priestly and ritualistic religion that asserts the authority of the Vedas through its divergent scriptural tradition and follows the Vedic as well smruti-based rituals and mantras during the life cycle ceremonies like birth, marriage and death. Although the orthodox school of Brahman pundits denies any influence of the Grāmya or folk forms of religions in Brahmanic tradition, in due course of its development, it has heavily absorbed numerous elements from non-Brahmanic folk and sectarian traditions and basically due to this reason, it emerged as the dominant and hegemonic religion throughout the south Asian region. Caste hierarchy is the most prominent feature of Brahmanic religion that prescribes the legal structure of the society.
Folk Religions: The folk religions are, both forms and structures of a type Indian religions, based on regional, local, clan-caste centric believes, rituals, celebration and worship of numerous gods and goddess (and also the forms of natural objects, animals, spirits etc.) having their local and divergent identities. Organized form and written text can rarely be found in them. Folk religions are basically neutral to the Vedic-Brahmanic tradition, but because of the increasing hegemonic power structure of Brahmanism and due to the general tolerance of co-existence, incorporation of different Brahminic aspects of religion in folk traditions is noticeable.
Anti-Brahmanic Religions: Our special concern is with anti-Brahmanic religions, in Indian history, those are numerous in number and divergent in forms. The three founded religions in India; namely, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism come under this category. All these aroused out of resisting movements and too earlier, could be able to establish their own identity as separate religions. Others could not form separate identities, due to either their minority and short living or their assimilation with other forms of religions. But for a serious student of history of religions and culture, accepted identities do not matter, however trends do. Religions from Samaņa in Pali and Prakrit nomenclature, Āgama in Purānik nomenclature, Nirguņa and Nirguņa Vaiśnava in medieval nomenclature up to the 19th century Satnām Panth of Chhatisgarh, Balārām Panth of Bengal and Mahimā Dharma of Orissa, all need to be discussed under one head, i.e., anti-Brahmanic and anti-Vedic too. Denying of cast hierarchy and Brahmanical supremacy is common to all of them, whether manifest or latent. This is figured around a different type of religious concept, which is less or more contradictory to the Brahmanical notion of dharma, and aroused out of different socio-cultural, socio-economic and socio-political situations, in different phases of Indian history. The nature of resistance in these dissenting religions, that is framed within heterodox religious currents, for our purpose, matters a lot; but with a caution to the unilateral constructions of history.
The Context of Knowledge: Dichotomies and Contestations
In providing a critical perception into the resisting consciousness of the subaltern masses, Antenio Gramsci in the essay entitled ‘The Philosophy of Praxis’ uses a term - ‘common sense’, i.e., ‘spontaneous philosophy of the multitude’. Critically observing a different notion of Catholicism among the subaltern people of Italy, Gramsci notes two contradictory consciousnesses constituting the theoretical whole of common sense of common mass, out of which, one is ‘superficially explicit and verbal … inherited from the past and uncritically absorbed.’ This is the conception that is not autonomous, but borrowed from the dominant social group as moral code, and due to ‘submission and intellectual subordination …. , it affirms this conception verbally and believes itself to be following it, because this is the conception which it follows in normal time … when its conduct is submissive’. But the other is implicit, completely autonomous, ‘its own conception of the world, even if only embryonic; a conception which manifest itself in action, but occasionally and in flashes – when, that is, the group acting as an organic totality’. In other words, the subaltern group of a society, through the implicit consciousness, rejects the assertion of universal moral code of the dominant group and builds its own worldview. This conception is, however, ‘not rigid and immobile, but is continually transforming itself, enriching itself with scientific ideas, and with philosophical opinion which have entered ordinary life’.
Using Gramsci’s theory of common sense as a methodological criterion, Partha Chaterjee in an essay examines the anti-Brahmanic consciousness of Balārām Panthis of 19th century Bengal, particularly to mount ‘an adequate critique of caste system’. Chaterjee believes that the Balārām Panth does not practically fight against caste practice or it does not contest for an alternative social order, rather ‘it subverts the very claim of the dominant dharma that the actual social relations of caste are in perfect conformity with its universal ideality’. His suggestion is drawn upon the jātitatva of Balārām Panthi, i.e., a specific creation myth asserting an extraordinary genealogical tree, where they raise the Hādi (the caste to which the founder Balaram and primary followers belongs) to the position of the purest of the pure, the self-determining originator of differentiations within the genus, and reduce the Brahmans to a particularly impure and degenerate lineage. The consciousness of insubordination among the Balārām Panthis for a recognition or identity is, as Chaterjee observes, self-defined, and in compared to the concept of ‘bourgeois equality’ that is informed by the Western liberal ideology, it ‘is a more developed form of unity of separateness and dependence’, among the subaltern people, ‘which subsumes hierarchy and equality as lower historical moments’ . Chaterjee is extremely hopeful in using his finding in contemporary political debates, such as caste discrimination and equal opportunity or something alike. His argument, however, based on the immediate reality of Balārāmi myth, it does not take in the comparative history of asserting or rejecting caste. Although he is well aware of the various resisting religious movements (or so-called ‘deviants’) of Bengal and the similarity of creation myths in all of them, he does not encompass their historical contexts. Rather he opines:
The similarity between this creation myth, is hallowed in a much more well- known tradition of Bengal’s folk literature and one held by the Balārāmis, strongly suggests that Balaram in fact picked it up in order to assert a sacred origin of the Hādi. It is also not surprising that a further transposition should be introduced into the Nāth legend in order to give to Hadiram himself the status of the originator of the human species. What is remarkable, however, is that this source of the myth is fairly well-established strand of popular religious tradition is entirely unacknowledged. There is nothing in the Balārāmi beliefs which claims any affiliation with the Nāth religion, or with any of the tradition of Saiva religious thought.
But, what will we say if we find similarity of creation myths among the Orissan Panchasakhā (the famous five) or north Indian nirguņs, or in the Mahimā Dharma? And should we subsume them as just selective picking up in particular context or consider their engrossing as a historical process in altering the assertion of universal moral code of the dominant religion? More interestingly, it needs to be noted that almost all of these religions affirm something as ‘gñyāna’ or ‘knowledge’, and as they assert, that is not found in the Brahmanical texts or at the very point can negate the latter’s claim. The dominant religion too insists something as ‘gñyāna’, which must be textual or Śāstriya. Asserting or rejecting caste hierarchy or whatever the morals, archetype of knowledge that can sufficiently inform on the creation, the universe and the self, has been the necessary condition. That too has its historical context as a cultural phenomenon.
In the specific cultural context of India, especially in socio-religious contestation, the conception of knowledge is a readymade ground that can provide a fresher insight into Gramsci’s theory. Where common sense can be seen as implicit or explicit, adding in these two, knowledge is tacit too. The implicit elements of common sense become explicit, when a subordinate community declares that it possess something as ‘knowledge’. Each social community in question, have or claims to have some sort of knowledge, religious or otherwise, both inherited from the past and learned from the new cultural waves, which help the community in perceiving and interpreting the world around it. It does not necessarily need to be scientific or logical or something concrete, rather it proclaims the existence of the community in the very way of beliefs. While, for instance, believing in the spirit and magic power of disāri is knowledge for one community, believing in the mantras composed in Sanskrit and the incarnation of Vishnu is knowledge for the other; for another, it too may be Big bang theory.
Dissenting religions in India in general and particularly Mahimā Dharma can help us in providing a look into the dichotomy of knowledge and its historical and social effectiveness. We may enrich our outlook by other theoretical orientations, on which, the conclusion of this paper will be drawn. What to be noted here is, that since religion is a mental construction and its institutionalization and manifestation appear in society, religious knowledge itself is both psychological and social phenomenon. Like other mental construction it changes, and the change relatively depends upon socio-cultural and socio-political structures. A complex society such as India inherit, obviously have different social orders and different religious ethics controlling different social institutes, and hence, has been affecting human perceptions and behavior in multiple directions. As a result, ‘contesting knowledge’ has been playing a pivotal role in the dichotomies of religious believes, perception and behavior. What is ‘knowledge’ for one type of religious fashion, in the other, that too may be regarded as ‘ignorance’!
‘Knowledge’ in Mahimā Dharma: Body at the Centre
Abundance of materials found in the primary texts of Mahimā Dharma, written by Bhima Bhoi, where the concept of ‘self-knowledge’ is a prime concern. This is figured around the theoretical premise of Piņđa-bramhāņđa, that is the belief of presence of the whole universe in the human body, or saying in the other way, it comprehends the micro-macrocosmic relation. Apart from concluding each philosophical text with such concept and randomly inserting the conception in Bhajanas and Chautiśā, Bhima Bhoi has devoted a whole text entitled Ādianta Gitā (literary means, the Dialogue on Beginning and End) to emphasize this perception. This text consists in a form of dialogue between Jiva and Parama, the human being and the Supreme, where the Parama explains to Jiva how the human body is a micro representation of the whole universe and how it is the real abode for the all pervading omniscient Śunya, the Void. Each chapter of this text, for instance, ends with the statement, ‘E piņđa brahmāņđa sakhi go ekamata’ (Darling, this body and the universe is indifferent). If we need more examples, we may quote from Brahma Nirupaņa Gitā, where he avows: ‘the knowledge of brahma (the supreme being) is in the body, like the water exists inside the green coconut’; or in Śrutinişedha Gitā, while discarding the ritualism, he says: not recognizing the Brahma in the body, people wonder outside. Jagannatha resides in this body. It is worthless to worship the idols, they are dry wood, and they cannot take you to the heaven. Not knowing Ghata-brahma, i.e. Brahma in the human body, worshiping the idol is only the false believe.’ What we find from these citations that the body is the central focus, the locus where everything can be found and integrated.
Other philosophical concepts constituting the worldview of Mahimā Dharma are also constructed around the philosophy of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa. The proper noun Brahma (the Supreme Being) and the adjectives for it, such as, Śunya (the void), Nirguņa (having no quality), Alekha (beyond writing), Anādi (having no beginning and end), Aņākāra (shape, beyond the concept of affirmation), Nirveda (beyond the Vedas) etc. as found in the primary texts, all have their connection directly or indirectly with the ‘self-body’. In these texts, Brahma or the Supreme Being is basically imagined as the complete Void and is also beyond any regular concepts such as essence or affirmation, but due to its omnipresence, it can ultimately revealed through the self-body. These texts prescribe some type of bodily practice for revelation of Brahma that is variably termed as Śunya Sādhanā, Nirveda Sādhanā and Astānga yoga. The way of sādhanā prescribed, consist controlling the breath and uplifting the vital air in regressive order to the tālukā śikhra (top of forehead) in the direction of nivrtti or rest from pravriti or activities particularly for retention of vindu or śukra (semen). In Nirveda Sādhanā, Mahima Gosain prescribes his first disciple Govinda to go through Śunya sādhanā at Balasinga of Bouda for the revelation of the Brahma. In the creation myth narrated in this text, Nirākāra Vishnu, one of the earliest creations of the Brahma, himself practices such exercise for the revelation of Supreme Being and also advices his sons Siva, Vishnu and Brahmā to adhere to the body for getting knowledge of the Supreme. This sādhanā particularly required, as it is described, for the prime necessity of creation and sustention of the living world, and too for well being of the men and women.
The ‘knowledge’ of the body, the sādhanā for revelation of the knowledge about the Brahma and self and the Brahma itself, altogether affirmed as nirveda in the texts authored by Bhima Bhoi. This term, as I have already stated, have the connotation of ‘beyond Vedas’. Bhima Bhoi asserts that the Vedas and śāstras (symbolize the Brahmanical texts or texts in the line of Vedas) fail to know the Brahma, rather they misguide the people in terms of fasting, rituals, offering sacrifice and visiting to sacred places. In Brahmanirupana Gitā he severely condemns the Vedas, Vedic knowledge and the people those assert the Vedas as source of knowledge. What he says that the Vedas can tell up to the Ţhula Śunya (macrocosm), but they have no idea about the microcosmic knowledge. Again to repeat, he avows that the real microcosmic knowledge exists in the body, not in the Vedas or Brahminical text.
Historical Connection
The centrality of body, the yogic exercise and the concept of nirveda in Mahimā Dharma are not unique to it, rather we have pretty examples of numerous non-Brahmanic Saiva schools and tantric branches of Buddhist tree, those flourished in Indian subcontinent in early medieval age, came out with this specific theology of ‘self-knowledge’, i.e., the knowledge exist in the self body, not in the scriptures. Particularly, we can mark the Sahajayāna and the Nātha Pantha as the prominent exponent of this doctrine. Although philosophical speculation of self-knowledge is also exits in ancient Upanişadas and texts of different Mahāyāni Schools, it seems, the Sahajayānis and the Nāthas gave a practical orientation to this philosophy and established the theory of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa. One of the earliest pronouncements regarding the divinity of body comes from Laksminkara, the female siddha of Sahajayāni order. As historical evidences available, though Sahajayān sprung from Brajayāna, where in Bajrayāna, the presence of innumerable gods and goddess is noticeable, contrasting to it, in Sahajayāni order, a form of anti-idolatry and anti-ritualistic strand developed. Laksminkara in her Āddyāsiddhi accentuates, ‘no suffering, no rites, no bathing, no purification, nor other established norms are necessary, nor do you need to bow before the images of gods those are constructed out of wood, stone or mud, you should, however, with concentration offer worship to your own body, where all gods resides.’ Similarly, Saraha Pa emphasizes, ‘scholars explain many scriptures, but fail to know that Buddha resides in own body.’ Other Sahajiyā siddhas like Lui Pa, Kanhu Pa, Hadi Pa, Tanti Pa etc. strongly recommended their disciples to stick on to the body. The Sahajiyās imagined different Chakras and Padmas in human body and believed that uplifting the kuņđalini (vital air) up to the highest chakra (talukā manđala) through sahasrirā would lead to the path for Boddichitta or the void, which is the ultimate reality. The sahajiyās ultimately proclaimed the doctrine of Sahaja that is the realization of Śunya, the non-dual essence, through different bodily practices, seemingly is the dual sexo-yogic practice, which they claimed to be the easiest and simplest way for the said spiritual realization. Though the sexo-yogic practice was secret and not revealed for the non-initiated, the Sahajiyā openly contested the social norms of morals and ethics, which they considered as exclusively Brahmanical. It seems they faced serious challenges from the Brahmanic religion, which led to doctrinal adjustment and gave birth to the Nātha Pantha.
In the Nātha literature, promulgation of centrality of body is found too, where the Siddhas repeatedly use the terms ‘Piņđa-Brahmāņđa’ and ‘kāyā-sādhanā’. Most probably Gorekh Nath, believed to be the founder of Nātha Pantha and a well recognized Siddha in the Sahajiyā tradition, has coined this term. Some of the myths around Gorekh Nath and his guru Maccyendra or Machchinder Nath (alternatively known as Jalandhari Nath) symbolify that Gorekh was a siddha in sahajayāni order in his earlier career and he refined and redefined some of the theological perception of the yāna and found Nātha Pantha. Whatever it may be, in Nātha pantha the Supreme Being is imagined as Siva, it is also otherwise known as Śunya and Śunya Niranjan and Alekha and Alekha Niranjan. The yoga, in the Nātha Pantha, is known as ultā or olatā sādhanā, which involve the yogic exercise that produces a regressive movement in the bodily process for the retention of the bindu or śukra (semen) and preventing its waste. It can be easily marked that prevention of śukra is the only point, where the Nāthas revise the Sahajayāni concept of sahaja sukha. However, they yet use the term sahaja to define their practice of yoga, as it is the simpler way of realization of Śunya or Siva, in compare to the ritualistic idolatry found in the dominant religion, the Brahmanism.
The theories of anti-ritualism and Kāyā Sādhanā (bodily practice) are also the central concern of the Orissan Santhas. Starting from famous five of the 16th century up to Divakara, Dwaraka, Chaitanya and Arakhita, all Orissan Santha, professed to be Vaishnava, had given much importance to the body. Balaram Das, for instance, declares, ‘what is known as the grand temple, is nothing but your body.’ Like this, Dwaraka Das expresses, ‘all chanting, rituals and pilgrimages are meaningless, all the arrays of gods and goddess are nothing but illusion. Search the Nirākāra Śunya in your body, you will ultimately find it.’ I do not need to cite more example, as we can find such concept in all the works of all the seemingly Vaishnavas. Not only in Orissa, but also in different parts of India, during the medieval age, all the saints, regarded as Nirguņ, unanimously stick on to the doctrine of Piņđa-Brahmāņđa. The nirguņ sants of north India along with the apparently Vaishnva and semi-Vaishnavas of non-Chaityana group in Bengal very vigorously propagated this theory. In 19th century, Balārām Panth of Bengal too emphasized the body as the locus of sādhanā.
Questioning the Vedic knowledge and its authority in the case of religious and social ideality is also common to all of these heterodox dharmas. They have unanimously used the term nirveda to define believes, practices and whatever the philosophy they assert. However, not respecting and condemning the Vedas is more ancient in Indian history. In Pali, Prakrit and Tamil literature, we find the words Brāhmaņa and Samaņa (Śramaņa in Sanskrit) denoting two different traditions of religious beliefs and practices. While in the Brahmanical practice, as I have pointed out, the authority of Vedas is a most; in the Samaņa pool, the Vedas are never taken as authoritative texts, rather they are condemned in various ways. Despite of their differences with each other on philosophical ground, they were, in common, too critical to the Vedic values and morals. Along with the prominent Buddhism and Jainism, popular Samaņa schools like Anuvādina, Ājivika, Akriyāvādina and Keśakamalina had their preaching against the knowledge of the Vedas. Besides the Samaņa, earlier evidences of non-Vedic knowledge and practices come from the Āgama traditions. In general connotation, though the word ‘āgama’ refers to the tantra, in the particular use of Puranic and Sanskritic categorization of religious currents, the word means all the non-Brahmanic and non-Vedic religions (excluding the folk forms) as a generalized term. We have evidences that there has been tense between the Vedic and Āgamas traditions (particularly Śaiva and Śākta tantra) in different phase of Indian history.
The Vedas and Caste versus Body and Alternative Knowledge
We have fairly large amount of materials, which are quoted frequently by scholars and popular writers, show that Mahimā Dharma was critical about dominant religious and social ideality, particularly Brahmanical supremacy, caste practice, ritualism and religious taboos on women. It is else a common trend in almost all anti-Vedic religions in India. In none of the religious traditions in India, where the body and anti-Vedic knowledge have given due importance, caste hierarchy and Brahmanical norms are supported. They all are critical on this ground. The propagators and followers of such dharmas predominantly, though not exclusively, belonged to the lower strata of the society. The concept of god among them is something contradictory to that of Brahmanism. Hence, we have to think on the role of Vedic knowledge in caste hierarchy and that of alternative knowledge centered on the body in resisting it.
The Vedas are the basic corpus which is asserted as source of all knowledge both metaphysical and social in the Brahmanic tradition. The authors of Brahmanical texts such as Brāhmaņas, Dharmasutras, Smrutis and Purāņas, declaring themselves as the followers of Vedas prescribe to stick to the Vedic norms on society and religion. Taking the risk of over simplification, reference to the Vedas in these texts can be summarized as the points: a) where the question of varna and jāti hierarchy along with Brahmanic supremacy comes, b) where to perform religious rituals by households through the professional Brahman priests, and c) where to give gifts and alum to the Brahmans with due respect for mediatory role between the earthly people and gods.
The Puruşa Sukta in the 10th Maņđala of Rig Veda is frequently quoted in Brahmanical texts to support caste hierarchy, where it is speculated that Brāhmaņs, Kşhatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śudras originated respectively from the face, arms, thighs and feet of the Puruşa, the earliest divine being. Nowhere in this Veda, however, there is portrayal of social hierarchy and the word Śudra is repeated. It does not matter what the social status of Brāhmaņas and Śudras (the artisan and servant class) was during the Vedic period and what is the symbolic meaning of the Puruşa Sukta, but the Vedas were taken as authoritative texts in latter periods in the Brahmanic trend to sustain and reinforce socio-religious and socio-economic status of Brahmans along with hereditary social hierarchy, and to hence the Vedas are ascribed as source of knowledge. In the ritualistic tradition of Brahmanism and even in the philosophical reformation processes, the ‘knowledge’ perceived and advocated by others that is not present in the Vedas, has been frequently being alleged as impure, mere ignorance. The authority of Vedas and Brahmans, however, was not unchallenged in the history of Indian subcontinent, where other religious believes were in existence.
Due course of historical development of Brahmanism, however, the Vedas mattered a little in practical sense. Numerous gods and goddesses, having multiple identities were absorbed from the non-Vedic traditions and though assimilated with the Vedic rituals; they substituted and even altered the Vedic concept of divinity. Starting from the Gupta period, to reestablish the feudal hegemonic power structure of Brahmanism, it was a cultural compulsion for it to assimilate the fairly complex Vedic deities with (and even substitute by) the black complex non-Vedic folk and popular (such as Āgamas) gods and goddesses. Myths were absorbed from non-Vedic periphery or new myths were created. But yet after several phases of modification in Brahmanism, the Vedic mantras, rituals and norms still had been being quoted and referred in numerous Sanskrit texts starting from post-Buddhist era up to the late medieval age. The Vedas, hence, turned into the cultural symbol of dominance.
On the other hand, the anti-Vedic trend that developed within the side-lines of subordination built its own cultural symbol, something structured around the popular non-Vedic (folk) traditions. The commonness of socio-theological essence within Samaņa, Āgamas and Nirguņa traditions does not necessarily indicates that the latter are affiliated to the earlier, but they at least share the cultural symbol of resistance. Culture is, sociologically, the learned and symbolic aspects of society that transfers generation to generation through the social structures. In Indian society, historically we find nothing in the name of super structure; rather there are only structures in terms of dominance and subordination in a dialectical position with each other. Their position, however, not fixed, but interchangeable with each other depending upon the nature of economy and politics of the society. On this ground, they have also been influencing each other, borrowing from each other; and hence, have been responsible in forming a complex equation of interrelation and inter-relativity.
What Mahimā Dharma bears structurally in the 19th century Orissa is the symbolic continuity of cultural resistance. Nirveda in its own way, as understood by the Nirguņas and Mahima Gosain, is the very concept of negating the Brahmanical doctrines those claimed textually or verbally, basically to strengthen and carry on the closed hereditary hierarchical social order of caste practice and other notions of the same category. I am not going in to the debate of how caste originate and whether it resembles with the social classes as super structure of Indian society or not, but I need to uphold the view that the force of dominant religion is one among the basic causes for sustaining effectiveness of caste. Despite of many theoretical weaknesses of Louis Dumont’s work, his understanding of concept of relative purity and pollution as the essence of caste practice in India is most valid one in compare to many other debates. The Weberian Paradigm too suggest that when a social system fit to a particular type of religious idea, the latter helps in sustaining and reinforcing the earlier. Although the caste system most probably had taken its form from socio-economic development, the Brāhmaņas, Dharmasutras and Smrutis sufficiently inform us that it was imposed by the accepted knowledge/wisdom of religion (such as ‘divinity’) within the legal structure of society. The alternative schools of Indian religions just challenged that wisdom. Mahimā Dharma inherited it through the cultural trend that was already existed in the geographical stretch of Orissa.
The concept of ‘self-knowledge’ in Mahimā Dharma and other Nirguņa schools had the very strength to defy the notion of relative purity and pollution. Here to see that in the practice of caste, the endogamous groups those engage in the menial works are regarded as impure castes and are placed in the lower strata of the society. A Brahman or a person from a higher endogamous group becomes polluted when he/she comes in bodily contact with the so-called impure castes or does the menial works him/herself. He/(rarely she) can regain the purity through the ritual practice of purification of the body. This simply implies the very attachment of caste to the body, not to the soul. When in Āgama and Nirguņa tradition the body is taken as the abode for all gods/goddesses and the Supreme Being, it questions the very claim of bodily impurity. The bodily practice, where body becomes the locus of all the religious activities strengthens this question.
Emergence of Pro-resistance Cultural Logics
Mahima Gosain, the founder of Mahima Dharma, indeed did not conceive any new ideology for his followers; pretty enough he put the previously existing strands of socio-cultural dissent together and fashioned them into the cultural logic of time and space. Surface continuities and changes in social institutions, however, historically shaped the logics of the dharma. By the process many new logics emerged those took decisive role on how the moral stand of the dharma would be appropriated.
We need to note that being semi-henotheist and semi-monotheist in essence, Mahima Dharma did not questioned the cosmic existence of the gods and goddesses of the Brahmanic pantheon or of other popular spheres, rather the dharma disapproved any loyalty to them and placed them in lowly and subordinate strata in the cosmic order. The dharma’s special concern was with Mahadeva Siva and Jagannath. Both culturally and metaphysically the dharma’s own cultural legacy was rooted in the Saiva agama, which had carried on a long term resistance to the dominant religious view and social system thereof. Although, unlike the Nāthas, the henotheist Nirguņas of Eastern India and eventually the Mahima Dharma do not perceive Siva as the Supreme Being, unanimously in this tradition, Siva’s adjectives such as Nirguņa and Nirveda and more specifically proper nouns such as Śunya and Alekha used for the Brahma. In the narratives like Tulabhiņa of Jagannath Das, Śunya Samhitā of Achyutananda Das, Śunya Purāņ (Bengali) of Ramai Pandit, Vishnugarbha Purana of Chaitanya Das and Nirveda Sādhanā of Bhima Bhoi, Siva is found as a yogi who practices the bodily sādhanā for revelation of the Śunya within him. Neither in the Orissan Nirguņa tradition nor in the Mahima Dharma is Siva ever underestimated. Siva’s association in the process of creation is decisively recognized in the creation myth of Mahimā Dharma. Moreover, Mahima Gosain himself was attached to the temple of Mahadeva at the Kapilash Hill in his early religious carrier. But interestingly enough, worshiping of Siva, even in any symbolic form, was completely prohibited for followers of the dharma. In Bhima Bhoi’s Śrutinişedha Gitā, such stand is justified by charging the deity with wrong doings and moral irresponsibility. The Dharma’s such position on Siva is if taken as double standard, we would lose the points of cultural logics produced and reproduced during different phases of contesting hegemony. It is important to note here that even though scholars till far believe that Shiva is a Vedic god; the finding of Pasupata in Indus Civilization, condemnation to falus (Linga) worship in Rig Veda, symbolizing the Brātas or worshiper of Rudra as people of impure ethnicity, special attachment of non-Aryan tribes (like Shavara, Pulinda, Kirāta) and anti-Vedic Asuras with Shiva in Purānas and epics, Shiva’s sketch as a peasant in folk tales- myths-celebration of whole eastern India, his identity as creator in different tribal (such as Kondh, Bhunjiā and Pahariā) myths, his presence among the trio of the Gond as Lingādeo, presence and importance of non-Brahman priests (especially non-Aryan tribes) in numerous Shiva temple in different parts of Indian subcontinent, Shiva’s central position in anti-Vedic Āgama traditions like Lingāyata, Lokāyata, Pāśupata, Nātha etc. – altogether proves Shiva’s non-Vedic and non-Brahmanic origin. When in some of the earlier phases of cultural resistance, the folk deity Mahadeva/Siva was represented by the subaltern leadership as symbolic Supreme Being, in the subsequent phases the deity lost cultural significant in creating counter hegemony to Brahmanism since his position had been largely absorbed by the latter circle. Yet in the inter-phase of transformation from agama to nirguna, the cultural legacy was still intact in the metaphysical level, but socially not significant enough. Mahima Gosain was, perhaps, conscious about of triviality of Saivism in constructing a resisting platform in the 19th century Orissa, though he himself carried on the legacy basically through alternative myths and narratives.
More importantly, while the earlier santhas (nirgunas) of Orissa were more or less attached to the temple of Jagannath at Puri and idientified the deity with the Śunya, Mahima Dharma’s resistance to Brahmanical morality radically proliferated in challenging the very existence of Jagannath in the grand temple by rejecting the idols just as dry wood which followed-on the supplementary logic of transforming the deity into a disciple of Mahima Gosain. In Bhima Bhoi’s Nirveda Sādhanā, Jagannath is found as Govinda Das, the first disciple of the Gosain. In the poetic justice of Bhima Bhoi, the real Jagannath left the temple just to follow the Gosain when the drastic Kaliyuga approached the earth. As per the text, after the transformation of Jagannath into Govinda Das, what found in the grant temple as idols is nothing else but dry wood, useless and no divine goal can be served by them. Perhaps such cultural metaphor practically articulated in an incident in 1881, when a group of Mahimā Dharmis from the then district of Sambalpur vigorously attacks the Jagannath temple at Puri, obviously to burn down the idols.
The above cultural logic of Mahima Dharma needs to be understood in term of structural dominance of Brahmanism that grew around the cult of Jagannath and had reached to its height by the mid 19th century in Orissa. Till the 16th century the deity at Puri was yet Maha-sunya and Maha-Bodhi, which proves existence of non-Brahmanic morality, especially that of nirguna in the temple. But the nirguna tradition around the temple or elsewhere in Orissa got gradual setback after the contesting Vaishnavism of Chaitanya entered to the scenario through royal patronage of Prataprudra Deva.
Despite of the following facts: (a) that the Chaitanya faith was drawn upon the popular residue of tantra that was a radical resisting religious force of the land in an earlier period, (b) that caste was not a matter to follow Chaitanya or to be a devotee of Sri Krishna and (c) the Brahmanical ritualism was not a requirement for the devotion in the faith; the faith itself never contested with the caste morality of Brahmanism. By the time of Chaitanya, some of the relics of tantra had transformed into black magic, some was mostly absorbed by the Brahmanical circle and was fascinated into non-resisting paradigms and a few of the elements was intact in the alternative religious current of marginal people. Chaitanya faith never engrossed the religions of the marginal people. The divine love suggested by Chaitnya, in reality, was a form of non-resisting residue of tantra that had nothing to do with an alternative social order. This is one side of the picture. In the other side, the caste liberality which is upheld by many as something revolutionary, did work in the faith for a non-remarkable short phase. Within few decades of the death of Chaitanya, caste was systematically introduced in the sampradaya as well it becomes more orthodox with the cannon written by the goswamis of Vrindabana. Along with, the followers demarcated themselves as Goudiya Vaishnavas (Vaisnavas by high-caste or followers of Chaitanya faith; technically, high Vaisnavas) and the other as jat Vaisnavas (Vaishnavas by low-caste or deviants; technically, low Vaishnavas). Incorporation of Brahmanical scriptures subsequently became a feature of the faith. Relatively we may see the heavy attachment of the goswamis with the Jagannath temple at Puri, which perhaps consequently made the temple a strong hold of Brahmanical morality or at a minimum level, left no space for the sustenance and growth of anti-Brahmanic morality around the temple and in periphery. Correspondingly, plethora of Krishna bhakti kavyas in Oriya literature written in between mid 16th and 19th century those were drawn upon the duality in devotion of Chaitanya and scriptural sophistication of the goswamis, did something like calming down the resisting religious current and hijacking the subaltern strands.
With the arrival of Chaitanya, Vaisnavism culminated at Puri which had started sometime around the 12th century. As a result, the gyanamarga (path of knowledge) or alternatively sunya-marga (path of void) of the nirgunas in Orissa got a drastic jolt. We have marked that the nirguna gyanamargis inherited anti-Brahmanic essence of Sahajayani tantra through the Natha Panthis. On this particular aspect they had been being derogatively identified as crypto-Buddhists by the Brahmanical circle from an earlier time. Now the followers of Chaitanya joined with the Brahmans in condemning the Gyanamargis. In the situation of complex aggravation, the latter group came under something like political compulsion to partly compromise with the Chaitanya faith that was quite contradictory to their own view. Perhaps they were conscious about legends of royal atrocities on the apparently Buddhists (most probably Sahajayanis) due to the conspiracy of Brahmans. Historically the alternative stand to Brahmanism never got an open space where there existed the Raja-Brahman nexus. Therefore, almost all sahajayanis, tantric saivas and other in the agama tradition kept their doctrine secret under deep mysticism. Their doctrine, specifically the knowledge of the body was revealed for few dependable initiated disciples only. The gnyanamargis as well continued the technique of mysticism. In addition, outwardly they fashioned their way as Vaishnavism as if there was no contradiction with the Chaitanya faith; but in their inner way of sādhanā, they stuck around the doctrine of nirveda and pinda-brahmanda as revealed from hundreds of texts authored by them. In other words, the nirgunas still contested with the Brahmanical circle as well with the popular Chaitanya cult, but they could not openly appropriate their own faith. Latter Nirguņas of Orissa, therefore, detached themselves from the grand temples. Many of them established their tungis far away from the religious capital.
By the 19th century the cult of Jagannath was not centric to the coastal belt only, rather it had spread to the hinterland in a gradual process after the 16th century. This was followed by the disintegration of the regional empire in Orissa due to Afghan, Mughal and Maratha acquisition of the province. In the changed circumstances the Gajapati of Puri lost political power and subsequently his authority was reduced to a mere Zamindar of few estates. The most fertile costal tract came under the direct control of central authority, while the less fertile hilly and forest tract was given to the local Rajas on basis of a nominal annual tribute. Garjats, the little territories of the local Rajas was autonomous in internal matter though the Rajas did not have private property right. Many of the local Rajas were of obscure origin. During this stage they gradually aspired somewhat like authentication of their political position and legitimization of their social status. At the same time, due to minimization of authority of Gajapati and continuous attack on the temple of Jagannath, the Brahman population of the costal belt not finding enough patronage in that region made their slow plight to the hinterland. The Rajas of Garjats welcomed and sponsored them as they started composing Raja Puranas (myths of the origin of the Rajas) narrating the Rajas as superior beings sent by the god to legitimize their status to rule over people. The Rajas too inspired to build temples for Jagannath at their capital as a ‘symbol of kinship and royal authority’. More Brahmans from the costal tracts were invited for priesthood in the temples. The migrated Brahmans were provided with ample tax-free fertile lands as brahmottara (gift to the Brahmans) for their service along with other gifts.
Even though there was earlier Brahman settlement in all over the interior region and they were patronized in the courts and temples of the local rulers, their dominance in the cultural affair was limited. Almost all rulers in these regions had patronized the local tribal goddess and in many places appointed the tribal priests and even elevated the goddesses to the position of Esta Devis (tutelary deities). With the migration of Utkaliya Brahmans to the Garjats along with the cult of Jagannath through royal patronage, structural dominance of Brahmanical morality ever grew in the interior tract of Orissa which was once upon a time dominated by aboriginal tribes. Such process further accelerated during the colonial rule in 19th century, when even the zamindars, middlemen like thekadars and village headmen like gauntias built temples for Jagannath and extended the patronage to Brahmans in their localities and villages.
Repudiating Jagannath, hence, was a strong response to the structural dominance of Brahmanical morality that grew with the changes in socio-political and socio-economic institutions all over the geographical stretch of Orissa. By the 19th century Jagannath itself had become the symbol for Raja-Brahman nexus. Mahima dharma’s resistance to Brahmanical morality, therefore, further reflected in its cultural confrontation with the nexus by promulgating that both Raja and Brahmans are sinners and extending its stand to some service castes like dhoba and bhandari those were supporting components in the feudal hegemony in the sense of structure, though socio-economically they comprised the subaltern strata.
From Resistance to Submission
We may see, in a priestly and caste driven society of 19th century Orissa, condemning the caste hierarchy and every related aspects attached to it and even, for the first time challenging the existence of Jagannatha, while the deity had already secured a very important position both socially and politically in the heartland of Orissa many century earlier to the founding of Mahimā Dharma, shows the vigorous dynamics of resistance to dominance in the Dharma. Though caste and its related aspects, as I have pointed out, have been the central concern of many religious movements in India, Mahima Gosain takes more radical steps that he declares the Brahmans as shiner and adds the Rajas, the feudal head, too in this list. In one hand, while the ascetics of his faith have to take cooked food from any of the households irrespective of caste, on the other, they too are prohibited in taking food or any of the religious grants from Brahmans, Rajas and the associated service castes. In religious gathering the followers in common also had to eat together whatsoever theirs castes might be. Though we have no evidence, whether Mahima Gosain was critical on the endogamous relation of caste or not, he clearly forbade the social practice of caste hierarchy from his dharma, and even outlawed those people who suggest and interpret caste order. Anti-idolatry or anti-ritualism or whatever was in his doctrine, kept the Brahman priests a distance away from the daily life and life-cycle of the followers of the dharma; for instance, marriage among the Mahimāities was just a matter of offering a garland by the bride to the groom in presence of other members of the community whilst enchanting ‘Alekha Mahimā’, where priests, mantras and established norms are of no use.
Need not to repeat, whatever we see as the social dynamics of Mahima Dharma was the symbolic effectiveness of the perspective knowledge of self-body with other extended logics. As long as all these worked in a framework of ideality, Mahima Dharma was a resisting movement asserting a different moral code and thereof affirming a different social order. As soon as all these faded away from the perception of the leaders and followers of the Dharma, it gradually became submissive. When we generally talk on the decline of the dharma, we take the tendency of gradual decreasing in the numbers of followers into account but not sufficiently reflect on the behavioral trends which decide the degree of resistance or submission. What I consider to say, the behavioral pattern of Mahimā Dharma in the 20th century, which is submissive enough in the end marks the declining. Behavioral pattern itself depends upon perception and the perception is no way independent of cultural experience and experiences of other type like social and political or that gained through training.
Mahima Gosain, as the sole founder, himself formulated and enumerated the ideological perspective of Mahima Dharma around the cultural metaphor of nirveda and pinđa-brahmānđa, which was particularly drawn upon his own cultural experience. The Gosain assigned Bhima Bhoi to compose text on the basis of the same metaphor as a bundle of theories or philosophy and hence it is obvious to found them in the works of Bhima Bhoi. Anti-Brahmanic consciousness and concept of social equality in the works of Bhima Bhoi is the reflection of his perception of Pinda-Brahmanda that gained through training. The Gosain perhaps had too taught the theory and the particular way of sadhana to some other desciples as it is evident from the story of Govinda Baba narrated in Nirveda Sadhana. But it seems that the Gosain stick to the tradition by revealing the knowledge to only few disciples whom he thought eligible. Or he did reveal the theory for all initiated, but the theoretical whole of the dharma could neither articulated socio-culturally nor became prolific enough due to certain reasons. The populace that was targeted by Mahima Gosain as potential followers had no previous experience in cultural and socio-political contestation with Brahmanical structure, though they were subjugated by the latter. It is because of the fact that during the time none of the alternative socio-religious strands had any visible existence in the society; rather those were in dying situation in the marginal sphere of Guru and Shishya in the form of secrecy and mysticism. Hence the dominant morality regarding caste and other social practice was in full effect modus operandi and modus vivendi on the subjugated and subaltern mass. Both exclusively and inclusively, the consciousness of the subaltern mass was bound to perceive the Brahmanical ethics and morality as something sacred that comes from the source of knowledge or wisdom as it was shaped by the same ethics due to dominance. It can be seen as intellectual subordination. Therefore, they could not perceive the theoretical base of the dharma. Rather their perception concentrated around the age-old inducing concepts like divine origin of the Gosain, the Kaliyuga cricis and Kalki Avatara, which were sufficient to drape the central concern of the dharma.
I have repeatedly stated that Bhima Bhoi faithfully brought forward the concept of knowledge of Body that was learned from his guru. But it does not means that the poet had perceived the resisting soul of his dharma in the same way as it was laid by the guru and the earlier nirgunapanthis. Divinity of Mahima Gosain may not be the handy work of Bhima Bhoi, but he too fashioned the Gosain as someone of divine origin, the Sunya Purusa as well the real Kalki Avatara who can save the innocent mass from the drastic Kaliyuga crisis. In between the dilemma of the philosophy of Sunya and the guru as Sunya himself, I may point out that we find many contradictory, cluttered, blurred and something very naïve constructions in the works of Bhima Bhoi. But for our purpose such complexity and naïveté in these works matters a lot since it is basically for the fact that in the cultural context of Mahima Dharma, Bhima Bhoi is the ‘other person’ who was just assigned by his guru to disseminate the doctrines of the dharma. Culturally Bhima Bhoi had no share in any historical ground of the cultural struggle around the hegemonic structure. Ethnically, (being a Kondh by tribe) Bhima Bhoi’s cultural inheritance was rooted in the folk religion(s), where the concept like veda or nirveda had no role.
We are informed by the available records that the dharma had many thousand followers during the 19th century, but no record confirms us that socio-religious solidarity or cohesion of any other type on the basis of any morality among the followers could establish. The Gosain, who had already secured popularity and respect at Kapilash by serving the pilgrims visiting to the shrine of Mahadeva and helping in regaining health of the sick people by taking special care of them, after enacting the new faith in the then tributary state of Dhenkanal in between fifth and sixth decade of 19th century, succeeded in gaining more and more devotion from the people, especially those are from the subaltern strata, preliminary in central and eastern Orissa and then, in a vast stretch. Very shortly he became able to initiate many thousands of in his faith both in lay and ascetic orders. Later on, his ascetic disciples being assigned to circulate his doctrine, travelled locality to locality for the purpose of spreading of the dharma. The seemingly liberal religious policy of the colonial government to some extend provided scope for free movement of the Gosain concomitantly their subordination in the Brahmanical religious order and socio-economic suffering led thousands people to follow the new faith; but the belief in the immortal divinity of Mahima Gosain was another factor for the increasing popularity of the dharma. When the Gosain died in 1875, therefore, many followers dropped their confidence and returned to their previous faith again. Organized conspiracies of the people from the upper strata of society of course have the role, but such conspiracy succeeded largely due to the absence of any theoretical whole in the perception of the followers. Furthermore, contestation within the ascetic order of the dharma grew just after the death of Mahima Gosain, which led to the bifurcation into two sects of ascetics on the simultaneous grounds of: (a) whether to ordain bakkaļa (bark) of kumbhi (Careya arboria) tree or kaupina (saffron waist cloth) and (b) whether to maintain rank among the ascetics on the basis of religious experience. Nothing ideological confrontation was there behind the bifurcation. In western part of present day Orissa, however, even after the death of Mahima Gosain the popularity of the dharma multiplied till the end of the century, most probably for the active role of Bhima Bhoi, the tribal poet. But in the social indication end, in the very nature, there as well the dharma gradually centered around the divinity of the poet, not on the cultural logic of resistance.
It is not surprising that, therefore, after Bhima Bhoi the concept Pinda-Brahmanda or Nirveda is found in none of the works written by the insiders. Neither the ethno-historical materials I have consulted nor anyone in my ethnographical fieldworks also uphold such conception. Visvanath Baba, one of the prominent insider of the dharma, who becomes active 1930s onward till the late eighties and authored many books and essays interpreting the philosophy of the dharma have nowhere supply a bit of information of the perception. Along with, what we see, resistance to Brahmanical domination and caste hierarchy or whatever the phenomena within it, as well found absent both in behavioral and textual tradition of the dharma in post-Mahima Gosain and post-Bhima Bhoi period.
And therefore, in the 20th century and after we find Mahima Dharma centered on mere astha, lost all the vigorousness of resistance. How the symbolic structures within the Dharma in its many forms rapidly changed and adopted adjustment with the dominant cultural trends worth mentionable. We may refer the specific role of Visvanath Baba in reinterpreting the dharma (while leading the larger sect that aroused out of division) that do nothing but divert the attention of rest of us. What we find in his works is often criticized and termed as Vedantisation of Mahima Dharma. In his self-styled scholarship, he claims Mahimã Dharma as the purest form of (the so-called) Hinduism and frequently uses the term ‘Vishuddha Adyetavada’ or ‘Pure Non-dualism’ as its essence. He refers hundreds of texts, largely the Sanskrit scriptures to highlight his view. Nothing in his works represents the resisting basics of Mahima Dharma those are found in the works of Bhima Bhoi. The philosophical grounds, such as Brahma, Śunya, Puruşa-Prakŕti etc., on which he reinterpret the dharma, does not consist any social dynamics, rather it marks the subversion of resistance. He is fundamentally influenced by the reformation processes in Brahmanical pantheon that starts from Shankaracharya and creates other rhetoric of Brahmanical dominance. Not surprising that the Baba received wide recognition from the elite intelligentsia those were informed by the so-called renaissance.
Towards the Conclusion
Despite of the fact that Mahima Dharma was based on strong theoretical orientation of resistance, we cannot take it as a successful movement basically due diversion of perception of it among the followers. For a short period the dharma could bring headache to the upper caste people, but soon after death of the founder the dharma became submissive. The role of Bhima Bhoi is that he did not compromise, but he could not make him free from the popular perceptions and made his guru the Supreme Being. Very soon Mahima Dharma became an astha centric cult constituting many popular notions. But the role of Visvanath Baba was completely compromising with the elites and trend of elitism in search of an identity. It is clear from the fact that for an identity he approached the people of upper strata of society who believed in the myths of Arya and Sanatana Dharma. The Baba’s attitude is, however, not completely personal; the role of socio-political phenomena in forming his ideas is worth noticeable.
I would like to suggest that resistance to dominance was never new in Indian subcontinent. History of the land witnessed many movements in the form of religion those attacked the Brhamanical morality in general and particularly the notion of caste hierarchy in different places in different phases of time. The archetype of ‘knowledge’ has been the most necessary condition for almost all these movements. In each phase of cultural resistance, such archetype helped in constructing strong theoretical orientation and provided alternative logic to discard the sastric knowledge that was advocated by Brahman pundits. Their continuity in form of cultural symbols in historical engrossment process in India mattered a lot. But the ‘common sense’ that is advocated by Gramschi and taken for granted by many post-colonialists had little role in providing an adequate platform for resistance. The strength of Gramsci’s theory, however, can help us in understanding the form and level of perception of the subaltern people those constitute the major portion in forming an organic whole of resistance. Any philosophical wave when enters into their ordinary life, their perception of it depends upon many cultural phenomena. The ideologues and leaders of such movements need to take such problems seriously.
I may add something on the archetype of knowledge. Michel Focoult titles one of his works as ‘Knowledge/Power’. Separating the two words just by a slash minimizes the difference between the two. He sees the necessary requirement of knowledge in the power structure. For him, ‘power is the story about itself’; but he does not provide any definition of knowledge. My interest in the resisting movements in India and reading Focoult for that specific reason helps me to compliment the theory. What I see – Knowledge is the art of storytelling. It does not matter whether the story is based on fact or it is just a fiction, a mental construction. The myths of the dominant tradition or those of the resistance do not depend on fact; but it depends upon logic. The required logic also may not be concrete or scientific. But it must fulfill the requirement of strength to challenge or counter-challenge the logic of other front. Importantly, what is underlined within them is the cultural process. And no cultural process is autonomous of political and economic processes.
We may not have sufficient information on Historical fact. Many historians when goes in search of fact on complex cultural past of India, they construct many fictions just to fill up the gap between two or more available fact lines. In order to overcome the limitation it is important, most importantly we need to search the process. This paper on Mahimā Dharma is only an introductory endeavor in that direction. For this reason, I have headed this last section of the paper ‘Towards the Conclusion’, not the conclusion itself.
(I thank Mr. Kedar Mishra for rendering immense help during fieldwork and data collection on Mahima Dharma, Prof. P. C. Pattnaik for his supervision and all possible kindness during my research on Mahima Dharma at Delhi University and Dr. Sudhir K. Sahu for his valuable suggestions and participation with me in handyling the complexity of history of religion and culture. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr. Prashant K. Pradhan, who is a prime cause in all ways behind this paper.)
Note: End notes and references to this paper will added latter.
Thanks for such serious work.
ReplyDelete