Belief Systems in India: The Perpetually Post-modern Macrocosm

Belief Systems in India: The Perpetually Post-modern Macrocosm

The endless definitions, descriptions and epithets for the Indian cultural as well as religious experience have all found their negation given the baffling diversity that has emerged out of our unique experience of dynamics. If the anti-colonial as well as immediate post-colonial mainstream refrain was of ‘unity in diversity’, it then moved to the descriptions of ‘mosaic’ (like under the ‘People of India’ project of Anthropological Survey of India in the 1980s). One term that was much (ab)used to show the co-existence was ‘tolerance’ on the part of an arbitrarily defined mainstream. But then, the endless ethnic clashes including caste based massacres and expressions of communal hatred brought forth the fact that not all here is about any one group’s magnanimity. It is perhaps an endless series of expressions and counter-expressions in the realm of culture, where the dominant and the marginal co-exist. The hegemony of one does not always mean the others moving into oblivion. The continuity and perpetuations always get reinvigorated or at times complemented by new trends, which can range from the destructive to disruptive to the innovative or at times, integrative.

But then, this very pluralism is the raison d’etre for the continuity of the multi-faceted tradition. Be it the concept of ‘ neti’ (this is not the ultimate truth) in classical Sanskritic tradition, the belief in ‘ekam sad, vipram bahudha vadanthi’ (the scholars interpret the same ultimate truth in different ways) under the Vedantic knowledge, the heterodox sections of institutional religions like Islam and Christianity or the simple experience of inter-faith folk and local shrines, even the best of the demagogues and ideologues have to realise-we can just agree to disagree. Indeed, what the Western World has seen as the post-modern in terms of critique of the monolithic definition of ‘rational’ and the respect for difference, could be traced in India to the most ancient times. It is perhaps a salutation to the collective unconscious of each group as well as individual that we could accept this multiplicity which may well have been discounted as chaos in many other regions.

The blending or the elite and the popular in most expressions of belief is not something unique to India. Indeed it was way back in the 1950s that the anthropologist Robert Redfield had expressed the working of the complementary forces of universalisation and parochialization during his studies in the American continent. If the first paved the way for a classical elite tradition to be disseminated to all the smaller traditions, the other was the counter force that made the universal classical tradition to adapt and adjust to the immediate cultural and belief context of the local tradition. Such syncretic forces however did not have to wait for the large spread of religions from the Fertile Crescent in India. Syncretism has been the hallmark in most of the belief, scientific or aesthetic expressions of India. If the Agamic tradition shows balance of folk, perceived heretic tradition and the classical, even scientific treatises like Varahmihir’s Brihatsamhita discuss the omens and temple architecture and sculpture traditions along side the discussions on astronomy. Bhakti traditions have found their own unique expressions which have a syncretic as well as differentiating manifestation. The dynamics of the beliefs is perhaps best seen in practices under various popular traditions than in the philosophy. Ritual perhaps is the best reflection of the spiritual. That is why even the best of universalistic impositions and the most boisterous of the glitz of designer religions and their couture lines have not been able to completely efface the multiplicity of belief systems.

The outstanding example of the dynamics of belief system interactions is perhaps the existence of communities like Ramdev Pirs who follow both Hindu and Islamic traditions. But such examples are not the only expressions. The clash and collaboration between faiths can be found in most endogenous traditions. One much discussed among the same would perhaps be the clash of the Smarthas and the Vaisnavas. Be it the clash of the ideologies (one of the first being the countering of Sankara’s Advaita by Ramanuja’s Visistadvaita) or the clash of cults and sects (like the antagonism between the Sankara and the Sri Vaisnava order or the clashes between the Bairagis of Ramanandi tradition and the Naga sects who are associated with Sankara’s tradition), they have all shaped much of our need to retain and express our unique identity. Hence being a Vaisnava Iyengar is not merely about following an ideology or mode of worship but is also about having a unique cuisine and a host of unique cultural expressions that would differentiate them from the Smartha Iyer.

The need to assert the uniqueness could take different forms, like the Vaisnavas in Coastal Andhra worshipping Vishnu’s chief lieutenant, Visvaksena during the Ganesa festival or the Ligayats in AP, Karnataka and Maharashtra going in for burial of the dead rather than cremation. The same dynamics is perhaps reflected in Islam of India, where the one time heterodox Sufism has been the force for its rapid spread. A belief that was rejected in the land of its origin due to its incompatibility with the predominant expressions of the faith became the most potent expression of Islamic traditions in South Asia. India also has a good presence of the minority Ahmediya sect that has seen its persecution almost all round the Islamic world. Perhaps the best example of the indigenous expression of Islam is the adaptations to practices like matrilineal systems among the Mappilas and the acceptance of caste order among most Muslim communities. That however does not mean that the more puritan as well as liberal traditions are lacking. Ahmedias co-exist with the Wahabis and the traditional schools of practice vie with the other interpretations. The devotional fervour towards symbols like Alam among Shiites flies in the face of all the claims of Islam being averse to diversity. The co-existence of Namdharis and Nirankaris along with the Akalis Sikhs is a similar reminder of our endless capacity to maintain our unique identity.

The differences have also been countered by the universalistic forces, and much of the unification under one umbrella has been the work of the predominantly mainstream elitist forces. The unification of most of the Vaisnava traditions in the four Schools-Sri (including the Ramanuja tradition which itself draws its line from the 12 Azhwars), Brahma (including Madhva and Gaudiya schools), Rudra (the Pushtimarga of Vallabh) and Sanak-Sanandan (Nimbarka’s order, which includes the poet Jaideva) is one such effort. Similarly, the Tantric orders of all six Deva traditions present a unique blend of folk magico-religious practices, rituals of non-mainstream ritualists and the Sanskritic Agamic traditions, which purportedly emerge directly from the Nigam or Vedic religious practice. However, even such efforts have not been able to undermine the unique expressions. Much of the cults and orders that emerged beyond the four-fold Vaisnavism (including the Ekkhoron Nama Dharma of Srimant Sankardev in Assam and the Ramanandi Srivaisnavism in Central North India) have found their unique place and have led to unique expressions like the famous Satriya tradition in Assam, the beautiful lyrics of Hitaharivansha tradition in the Braj region or the Sakhi tradition of Krishna worship. Under Saivism, the linkages that have been established by Classical scholars between the Saivasiddhantha and Kashmiri Saivism do not come to obstruct the unique cultural expressions of the traditions in the two regions. Even those shrines and deities that have been metamorphosed to universal icons from local traditions (like Sitala, the Goddess of smallpox in most of Northern and Eastern India) have retained their own local symbols and ritual practices.

The encounter of belief in India is an experience and with our limited perceptual abilities each of us draws their unique interpretations. To some of us the difference also means a lot of contradiction and conflicts, making us aspire for a clear line of community belief. It is perhaps such line of thought that has led some of us to side with the hegemonic expressions for universalisation. But time and again, each of these efforts has seen its limitations. This of course does not mean that new ideas or beliefs or any past reinterpretations should be seen only with cynicism. It is the readiness for acceptance of any new expression of faith or belief that makes us so adjusted to differences and ambiguity. And it is this spirit that has made us look beyond even the worst of communal clashes. Faith will always have its own new interpretations and expressions, for there is no end to the search for ultimate truth. As Goswami Tulasidas has said:

So janahu jehi dehu janai, Janahi tumahi, tumahi ho jai.

(‘You (God) can be understood only by the person to whom You reveal Yourself-and once anyone knows you, that person becomes You’).

So this search for truth will go on until every Nara (human) finds Narayana (God).