SANKARDEVA AND HIS LEGACY

Arup Saikia

(arupsaikia07@gmail.com)

Assam is not a nation-state. The demography of Assam never subscribes to the concept of a nation state. Ethnic nationalism only matters. The Ahom or Koch Kingdom were based on their unique ethnicity. The Assam state has been facing difficulty and challenges since its birth. The Bengalis being our powerful neighbours, both communities claim to inherit the civilised legacy of India in their own aspects, everywhere from language to culture. This war of nerves will continue. Because the war started with the prestige or egos of the two communities, Sankardeva and Chaitanyadeva are also not exempted from it by their disciples. The only panacea is to rise alone. The perceived survival crisis of the Assamese community arises frequently from vague nation-state feelings. This is for religio-social misrepresentation and distrust in various forms. To dispel distrust, we have to go closer to nation-states. The element of Vaishnavism can teach people in multiple ways. The Vaishnavism characteristics catalyse nation-building procedures. The journey of the Bhakti Movement encountered frequent obstructions. One is social, and others are political.

This kind of two-pronged attack on the Bhakti cult is a matter of serious concern. It is historically true that the resistance faced by the Bhakti movement for survivability is orchestrated by the orthodox. Some Brahmins, including Damodardeva, joined the Sankari fold but later broke away to pursue independent institutions based on the “basic structure” of Sankardeva. The “basic structure” is not the religious ideals of Sankardeva but the social strategy to institutionalise his own ideals. Obviously, the base of Damodardeva was built under the aegis of Sankardeva, who later changed his path. The rivalry reached such an extent that, after the demise of Sankardeva, Damodordeva very actively initiated people into his faith or fold. The support of Saint Mathura Das and Narayan Das for Madhavdeva at this critical juncture is very important. Otherwise, the Vaishnavite project of a classless society would have been stagnant, even for a while. Seeing the extreme conservatism of society, Sankardeva also seems to compromise partially on casteism. Sankardeva entrusted Brahmin Damodardeva to initiate Brahmin disciples. It’s against the tenets of Neo-Vaishnavism. Any ruling establishment in all the periods wants their subjects to remain divided for convenience of ruling. This may be one of the reasons that the casteist sect of Damodardeva got more liberal endowment from the monarchy than that of others. So Damodardeva is credited with bringing physical extravaganza to the Bhakti cult by constructing many spectacular xatra. The infrastructure of Damodordeva’s xatras is more perfectly arranged than that of Madhavdeva.

Some elements of Assamese Vaishnavism we are yet to propound to build democratic liberalism. Coordination is not contract work to complete in a specific time. It’s like a natural phenomenon that will continue into infinity. But we have to find a niche to observe during the process. The casteism embedded in the Aryanized society of Hinduism. But from the Assamese perspective, the monarchs and majority subjects are also newly converted Aryanized Hindus. So casteism isn’t in their blood. So why is there so much conflict in monarchy regarding casteism?

The casteism in monarchies is more political than social. Monarchy is a strategy or diplomacy to survive. Naturally, casteism is its tool. The Assamese tribes can’t abnegate their habits anyway. Religious conversions may be accepted as a mere rule. But to convert socially, it takes years or many generations. Food habits, customs, professions, and marital practices all depend on social culture. The tribal society of Assam is originally casteless. So, the xatra of the casteless Kala Sanghati was very rapidly successful to initiate indigenous Assamese tribes without any royal patronage. The spirit of Moamoria disciples were so high, they even successfully revolted against ruling establishment.  

Are the Brahmins responsible for division of society?

Not exactly. At the beginning of Hinduism, the society had no caste system. The Brahmins had propagated Hinduism with responsibility. The tribal Varmans were the first aryanized royal dynasty of Assam.

Who has converted them to Hinduism?

Definitely the Brahmins. Religion is the kingdom for religion practitioners, in simple language. The said practitioner (Brahmin) tried to create a class to serve them. Therefore, the generosity of the Brahmins significantly deteriorated gradually.

Later, after the introduction of commodity products, the Brahmins couldn’t sustain their previous dignity at all. The commodity product is the noteworthy reason for the success of Sankardeva’s Eksarana (monotheism). The Bhakti movement was conducive to general traders instead of the feudalistic economy.

Now should Sankari organizations engage in direct confrontation with the Brahmins?

No, it will be counterproductive again.

Sankardeva took a diplomatic stand against the opponents. Mahapurush Sankardeva knew well that everyone’s equal representation could only enlighten a new path up to the farthest point. The preachers of the Bhakti cult spread their teaching to some religiously vacuum places. The union between the aryanized king and the Bhakti preacher produced a prototype of Assamese society. The previous caste less tribal society was, as such, not a developed society. That was running in primitive style. Only through assimilation or aryanization are their lifestyles uplifted. They were all “Shakta Hindus.” The “Bhakti movement” is only a refined form of Hinduism—not a new religion. It is difficult to ascertain what would have happened if the Bhakti movement hadn’t been introduced. One thing is clear: we can clearly say that Hindu conversions to Muslims would have been in greater quantity without the Bhakti movement.

AHOM AND ARYANIZATION: Except for a few sects like Brahmin or Kalita, the entire Assamese community was not originally Hindu, as stated earlier. They are later aryanized. This formula is genuinely applicable to the Ahom community as well. The founder monarch of the Ahom dynasty, Sukapha, came to Assam (1228) with a few thousand people. (The exact number is not sure.) No woman accompanied them except for a few queens and noble ladies. They are all married, local women.

What kind of assimilation is this?

The assimilation or merging of Ahom in Assamese culture is different from that of others.

Is Ahom a community or a culture? 

The ethnic assimilation process of the Ahom was done mostly through marital relations. The community of Yunnan province in no way exists in Assam. The few thousand created lakhs. The Ahom people only retain their surnames.

Ahom is a culture, not exactly a community.

TAI LANGUAGE: Now, many Ahom scholars are trying to preserve their Tai language. The language they practice in Assam isn’t a pure form of the Tai language spoken in Yunnan province of south-west China. The Indo-European linguistic tradition has a lot of influence on the presently discovered Tai language.

The Ahom people, out of diplomacy, had the natural option to accept Assamese language and culture. So the set-up of Assamese society was genuinely built in the Ahom kingdom. Sankardeva was tortured and deported from the Ahom kingdom for socio-political reasons. But the growth of Sankari culture was very rapid in the Ahom kingdom, even after the demise of Sankardeva. This is for the essence of Assamese scent in the Ahom Empire.

The worship of the Shaktas centres around Shaivism. But in Assam, the people preach more of Lord Vishnu. The influence of Lord Vishnu is paramount. Even the name of Lord Rama isn’t very prevalent. So the monism of Sankardeva was crafted well in the Bhakti cult. Mahapurush Sankardeva seems to be akin to the qualified monism of Ramanuja. Sankardeva is following neither the qualified monism nor the absolute monism of Shankaracharya. Sankardeva advocates humanism and sees the difference between the soul or universe and God. The paramount position of Lord Krishna very clearly distinguishes the status of Sankardeva’s Bhakti cult in Assamese tribal society. Sankardeva very strategically honours Lord Krishna as the supreme personality of the world. He hasn’t dishonoured anyone for their beliefs but has tried to nullify the system. Because monism always believes that all gods God, goddesses are part of Lord Krishna, they believe in oneness.

 (Author Arup Saikia is a noted cultural enthusiast, Bhaona artiste and writer)