Hinduism expansion in India: Annihilation or assimilation?
Hinduism
considered among one of the largest Religion in world has been rethought for
decades now and scholars has begun questioning its origin and nature. Due to
its broad and panoptic nature it subsumes among it a lot many practices, custom
and tradition. Moreover, when many scholars argue that Hinduism is just a name
given to myriad of accumulated cultures is begun to be seen as a religion only
from 19th century. Hence, it has become very important today to know
about its true character. Appropriation and Assimilation runs simultaneously in
the process of making any entity. In case, of Hinduism this must have been the
case however, it becomes important what was on greater side also, the tribal
nature of Hinduism we see today has it been incorporated into it? Or is it the
opposite?
While tackling
with any question pertaining to Hinduism, N.K. Bose’s work “The structure of
Hindu Society” becomes very important. As Bose turns out to be 1st
anthropologist who attempted to present organised principles of Hindu society.
By his knowledge on Vaishnava literature in Bengali and his familiarity with
distribution of temples, he has shown that ‘tribal’ and ‘non-tribal’ groups
have lived in mutual awareness of each other. Also, he points to the fact that
Indian languages have never made clear division between the term ‘tribe’ and
‘caste’ and the same term ‘jati’ in Bengali is seen to be used for both.
These fundamental aspects becomes very important while studying any dimension,
whether society, economy or religion as these shows that though tribal culture
often associated with local, marginalised or often termed as ‘low cultures’
based on the degree of their isolation may not have been that isolated as
thought to be and it is very natural that they evolved with contributing, or
adopting in and out with the so called ‘great culture’.
According to Bose
in India the two mode of social organisation, which may be loosely described as
the ‘Brahmanical’ and the ‘tribal’ have coexisted for a long time.[1]The Brahmanical mode always
attracted the other due to its superior technological base and the adaptative
ability of it which led the tribal to become part without abandoning their
customs. Many revivalist movements like the ‘Sanskritization’ brought these tribes
in mere consanguity with the wider and the superior Brahamanical social
organisation. His study on the Juangs or Savaras and Mundas and Oraons reflect
upon these arguments as these tribes are seen clearly to practise both the
‘Sanskritic’ and ‘non-Sanskritic’ elements. Bose has mostly given economic
reasons for such accultarations. For him stability and change to the social
life almost totally depend on the economic factors. This aspect he fused with
tribal life to show their adaptation to non-tribal one’s. For example, he
argues that the inability of shifting agriculture to provide desired needs
resulting in an increase on the burden of land led to tribes being adjusted to
advanced economic methods of the non-tribes.
Bose also proves
his argument by looking upon the technique of oil pressing in serakela
district. He felt that the tribal people were under constant pressure to
abandon their isolation in favour of absorption into the wider society, and
this pressure was mainly generated by economic circumstances.[2]He argues that when
external pressure led the stucking of tribal economy due to their technological
backwardness, they got absorbed to Hindu civilisation.
If we look upon the Tribal religious practices,
we do see many practices which can be associated beneath the Hindu Brahamanical
culture while there are some who are autonomous, which still bear intrinsic
tribal character. For example, the Juang tribe of Orissa, who leave in the
upper areas of Mahanadi has many features like the bath, the fast, the incense,
the use of turmeric and sun dried rice, the invocation of names like
Lakshmidevata, Rishipatni- give evidence of Brahamanical culture.[3]However, some practices
like the cock sacrifice, the worship of Burambura, Buramburi etc do have
intrinsic Juang character. Though Bose has shown tribal culture to be primitive
which got absorbed within the Brahamanical social organisation. Many
anthropologists criticize this view claiming tribal culture to be rich,
positive, harmonious and autonomous. For example, K.S Singh in his work,
“Hinduism and Tribal Religion: An Anthropological Perspective” argues the other
way round claiming that both Hinduism and Christianity are in fact trying to
tribalise themselves.
K.S Singh goes on
saying that many elements of tribalism gets into the named great traditions
time o time and they cease to exist. So, there is high chance that those
elements will vanish from the present tribal culture and come to be associated
as being always the part of Great traditions which they are not. He claims that
many of the elements described as tribal or aboriginal, particularly the tantra
traditions had already been absorbed.[4]The process got completed
in early medieval period itself with tantra works being written down in
Sanskrit. Sir Alfred Lyall argue that Brahmanism is a proselytising religion
and it still does so in 2 modes: 1st being the gradual Brahmanising
of the aboriginal, non-aryan, or casteless tribes who pass into Brahmanism by
natural upward transition, leading them to adopt the religion of the castes.
The process like Sanskritization, Brahmanisation, counting in census data etc
all have led to large number tribals to being associated within the ambit of
Hinduism and Christianity during the 19th century.
Inspite of the
long years of interaction with the Hinduism, Christianity etc the tribal
religion has not lost its distinct identity. Many elements of tribal religion
are as alive and vibrant as ever.[5]However, there are many
evidences of relationship between the tribal religion and Hindu shrines. The
Soliga tribe of Mysore regard local Vaishnava diety Rangaswamy as their
brother-in-law. They also observe fast on Saturday. The Chenchus of Nallamalai
hills adopted Shaivism in middle ages making Shiva (Srisaila Mallikarjun) as their
brother-in-law. However, they later adopted Vaishnavism to make Narashimha as
their brother in law.
Another good
example is the worship of Jagannath cult in Hinduism. Jagannath is crafted in
wood and wood as a medium is widely used among the Mundari groups of tribal
people. Many Mundas associate Jagannath as their god Marang Buru. It was the
Savara community who discovered Jagannath as their Savara deity. Like Jagannath
there are examples of many dieties who are associated with myriad of tribal
cultures with having association with Brahmanical Hinduism. For example,
Danteshwari of Bastar who is apex tribal in the Bastar, she is also worshipped
as local deity Mauli at village level and she is also Kali and Mahadurga, twin
faces of Mahashakti.[6] Similarly Chamudeshwari of
Mysore sets upon another example.
G.D Sontheimer
also argues on this speciality of Indian culture taking Jagannath cult as the
best example for showing the unity of different aspects of Hinduism
concentrated in one cult and the nearly uninterrupted continuity from tribal
beliefs to the highest philosophy.[7] In iibidVana, the more the
tribal cults were integrated by an exceedingly slow, but steady process over
centuries.[8]Slowly they got transformed
and assimilated to cult and rituals of Kshetra. Thus, the natural element got associated
through the myths used by ritual experts. Though they got transformed their
association could be still study as there still exist some manifestation of
Brahmanical themes. For example, Brahma, himself the unmanifest brahman thought
to be creator of world in Hinduism is very mush associated with forest as we do
see that fish, tortoise and boar were forms of Brahma before they got linked to
Vishnu as his Dashavataras, another supreme god among the trinity. Even lord
Jagannath whose murti is made of wood by finding a holy wood again shows forest
and trees as a source of renewel.
Sontheimer also
points to an interesting fact that it was in the forest, away from the settled
society, where the Buddhist monk, the Brahmin: vanaprastha, the samnyasin, the
Saivite Gosavi, the Lingayat virakta could have those spiritual insights and
revelations which caused them to formulate principles of universal
applications. The dandakaranya or dandakavana is said to be the quintessence of
the world and the seed of dharma and the Mukti in the Brahmanapurana[9]. Also, Shiva with his
manifold manifestations can be seen as one of great integrators of vana and
kshetra.
Symbols do play a
very important role in studying a societies economic, social, political and
religious aspects. In arena of religion symbols can open up those arenas for
study which hardly any aspect can do. Anncharlott Eschmann has thus highlighted
upon this aspect in her article, “Sign and Icon: Symbolism in the Indian Folk
Religion.” -In India, the tribes who used to live in large part of the country
even presently occupying much of area follow their own social order and
religion and hardly worship an icon and have almost no anthromorphic
representations of dieties which would be relevant to the cult. Practically
only elementary symbols or aniconic signs are relevant to the cult.[10]For example, trees, pots,
stones etc. Also, the divinity can be represented mostly by several signs
combined together to infer upon an imagery or more appropriately a symbolism of
the divine one. These signs are not icons as they do not indicate a form of a deity,
however, they do represent his presence, having a symbolic effect. These are
signs are used for performing the sacrifices. While these sacrifices are
performed, we do see that these signs represent the deities symbolically as
they are on the receiving end of it though it maybe to a lesser extent but we
do see a person, i.e. the shaman who communicate with the god, conveying the
divine presence inside him. Eschmann argues that but indeed the same function
is provided by the icons in later Hinduism-namely to mediate the real presence
of the divinity with which the devotee can communicate.[11]
Eschmann takes
the word Hinduization rather than Sanskritization for integration of tribal
religion in Hinduism as the later one is very much derogatory and is criticized
because of its limited use to language integration. She argues that the process
of Hinduization is basically affected in two directions. On the one hand, gods
of tribal religions, with their symbols and cults take up Hindu elements-names
of gods, rites, conceptions-and through this, ephemeral though this
assimilation may be, are “reputable” for Hinduism.[12]According to her this
takes place most in Hindu village, i.e.
in the folk religion. These are also called the “Little Tradition”. But
these little, regional tradition is also an independent component of the Great
Tradition which gradually gets integrated to it.
Moreover, the
signs are often seen to have become icons with time. For example, goddess
Stambhesvari, worshipped in Orissa, meaning the Lady of the Post is known to
have been worshipped in Hinduised forms since 8th century A.D. She
is also worshipped among the Khond tribe presently. Her sign is a post which is
a wood which is often replaced with time. To before the post is displayed in
Khond villages, a brahmin is brought who whispers the life-giving mantra to the
cut, giving life to it, thus making it somewhere symbolic to Hindu idol of god.
Further more rituals are accepted from Hindu icon worship. Also, somewhere a
stone is used as a post where both tribal settlement and Hindu village worship
it. This ambivalence between sign and icon, which is typical of folk religion,
continues all the time.
The process of
religious integration makes one of the important aspects of integrative Indian
culture. It is almost impossible to explain Indian culture, keeping its
diversity per say, to be of isolationist one, every aspect of it has been a
resultant outcome of dynamic process of integration, same with Hinduism.
B. D. Chattopadhyaya argued that
though goddess-worshipping is an archaic tradition, from the 4th-5th
centuries onwards, goddesses began to be a part of the Brahmanical culture.
We find many more goddesses such as
Aranyavasini, Ghattavasini, Vatayaksini from the copper plates. The
inscriptional data provided by Dr. Chattopadhyaya shows one common point that
these inscriptions were issued by a ruler or are related to a ruler in some way
or the other. Therefore, it seems that local rulers tried to patronage local
deities to seek legitimization and to strengthen their sway over their domain.
This process of integration of local
deities into Hinduism is termed by him as ‘Brahmanical mode of cult appropriation’.[13]
Conclusion
Hinduism can be
studied only through myriad facets, broadly terming itself as religion is a
failure in its understanding. It is even more than the cultural aspects. Thus,
driving present study on it mostly concerned with its organisational and
institutional aspect. Tribal religion is not something which maybe separate but
instead are effect of regionalisation. They are the local forms of Hinduism
with their shamanistic practices, rituals and worship of local dieties. Though gradually
time to time they must have been added on with greater traditions. The Bhakti
movement, Sanskritization, Brahmanization, the accounting of census has caused
their fast fusion with the greater culture giving a complex picture. Hinduism
has acquired a character of a way of living, limiting to a religion is ignoring
its multiple character.
Bibliography
2) Chakrabarti,
Kunal. “Cultural Interaction and Religious Process.” In Religious Process: The Puranas and Making of a Religious Tradition, by
Kunal Chakrabarti, 81-108. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001.
3) Chattopadhyaya, Brajadulal. “Reappearance of the Goddess or
the Brahmanical Mode of Appropriation: Some Early Epigraphic Evidence bearing
on Goddess Cults.” In Studying Early
India: Archaeology, Texts and Historical Issues, 172-190. New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003.
4) Sontheimer, Guenther-Dietz. “The Vana and the Ksetra: The
Tribal Background of Some Famous Cults.” In Religion and Society in Eastern India, edited by G. C. Tripathi and
Hermann Kulke, 117-164. Bhubaneshwar: The Eschmann Memorial Fund, 1994.
5) Eschmann, Anncharlott. “Sign and Icon: Symbolism in the
Indian Folk Religion.” In Religion
and Society in Eastern India, edited by G. C. Tripathi and Hermann Kulke,
211-233. Bhubaneshwar: The Eschmann Memorial Fund, 1994.
[1] Bose, N.K. The
Structure of Hindu Society (Translated from Bengali by Andre Beteille). New Delhi: Orient Longman Limited,
1975.p-5
[2] Ibid.,
p-19
[3] Ibid.,
P-34
[4] Singh,
K.S. “Hinduism and Tribal Religion: An Anthropological Perspective.” Man In India Vol. 73, No. 1 (1993):
1-16., p-3
[5] Ibid.,
p-6
[6] Ibid.,
p-9
[7] Sontheimer,
Guenther-Dietz. “The Vana and the Ksetra: The Tribal Background of Some
Famous Cults.”, p-118
[8]
Ibid., p-129
[9]
Ibid, p-146
[10]Eschmann,
Anncharlott. “Sign and Icon: Symbolism in the Indian Folk Religion.”, p-214
[11]
Ibid., p-216.
[12]
Ibid., p-217
[13] Chattopadhyaya,
Brajadulal. “Reappearance of the Goddess or the Brahmanical Mode of
Appropriation: Some Early Epigraphic Evidence bearing on Goddess Cults.” In Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts and
Historical Issues, pp. 175-183
Comments
Post a Comment