India Dissents: 3,000 Years of Difference, Doubt and Argument

INTRODUCTION

India and the Plurality of Dissent

Bow to him who is the word

both occult and manifest,

his glory revealed by the power

of the independent mind.

—From Subhashitavali, an anthology of Sanskrit verse compiled in the fifteenth century by Vallabhadeva (translated by A.N.D. Haksar)

It can be reasonably argued that in India, from the beginning of its civilizational enterprise, nothing has remained singular for long; in fact, nothing has been, in a sense, allowed to be singular for long. Whether God or religion, philosophy or metaphysics, language or custom, cuisine or costume, every realm is marked by plurality. It is not accidental that in many Western languages the word India is plural—‘Indes’, meaning ‘Indias’.

It is impossible, therefore, to talk about the Indian tradition: there are multiple traditions, all authentically and robustly Indian. Even within a single major religion, Hinduism, there are four Vedas, millions of gods, eighteen Upanishads, six schools of classical philosophy, two epics (and numerous versions of both), four purusharthas or goals of life. It can be easily claimed that India as a country—and, equally, as a civilization—is an unending celebration of human plurality. This is how it has survived through millennia.

Central to the plural tradition, or sensibility, is the notion that there are many ways of looking at and living in the world. Plurality accommodates differences; and differences, in their turn, embody and enact dissent. When the Vedic seer ordains, ‘Aano Bhadrah Kratvo Yantu Vishwatah’ (Let noble thoughts come to us from all directions), what is being sanctified is the idea that there are many different ideas and truths spread all over the world and they are all welcome. Another Vedic saying, ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (The world is one family), embraces all humanity, and therefore every idea, emotion, lifestyle that exists. Such openness and acceptance, or, at the very least, accommodation, is the core of the Vedic cosmic vision. Through the millennia, many dilutions and distortions may have occurred in real life and practice, as would inevitably happen everywhere, but Indian tradition and civilization never lost this remarkable, largely inclusive vision.

Dr Amartya Sen has pointed out in his book The Argumentative Indian that the ‘Nasadiya Sukta’, the Hymn of Creation, a major verse in the Rig Veda, ends with radical doubt:

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced?

Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has risen?

Whence this creation has risen—perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not—the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows—or perhaps he does not know.

This is evidently the beginning of Indian skepticism. Nothing, not even the creation of the universe, or the supremacy and omniscience of God, is taken for granted. It may be noted that the hymn is also clear that the gods came after creation—they are, in that sense, no different from fish or trees or human beings. Into a major sukta of perhaps the oldest and one of the most important texts of Hinduism, then, the Vedic seers inserted a deeply metaphysical note of dissent.

A similar note was struck by a rishi named Kauntya, who declared that if what had been said in the Vedas could not be communicated in any other language or in any other way, the Vedas must be meaningless. This was pure blasphemy since the Vedas were held to be inviolable, ‘apourusheya’. But Yaska, an ancient grammarian and commentator on the Vedas, includes this view in Nirukta, his compilation of Vedic interpretations which became one of the central texts of Sanskrit scholarship.

In these and other passages from the earliest texts of Hinduism, there is ample evidence that the Indian traditions begin with enquiry, doubt and challenge—the hallmarks of plurality.

These traditions continued and grew with the other major religions that arose in India—Buddhism, Jainism and, later, Sikhism. Their founders, Buddha, Mahavir and Nanak, dissented from the ritualistic and caste rigidities of orthodox Hinduism to discover new paths of spirituality, metaphysics, social organization and liberation. Here was religious plurality being created through religious dissent. Buddhism and Jainism were particularly radical faiths; they were not posited on the notion and existence of God, and they rejected completely the scriptures of Hinduism and many of its foundational concepts like the eternal soul and the four goals of life. The rejection was forceful, fearless and rooted in intellectual inquiry and debate.

Buddha, the great challenger, was later included as one of the ten avatars of God—Dashavatar—in classical Hinduism, along with Rama and Krishna. Here, too, was proof of India’s irrepressible plurality and genius for accommodation!

~

There was also a strong and multi-layered tradition of disagreement and debate in the fields of thought, conduct, knowledge and morality in pre-modern India. Two aspects are easily noticeable. First, no one could propose a new concept or insight or theory without first faithfully summarizing the existing body of reflection on it. This was ‘poorvapaksha’, and only then could there be ‘uttarpaksha’—the thinker or debater proposing that which he or she claimed to be different or new, delineating it in meticulous detail. This was the standard intellectual practice.

Secondly, any new or different idea, theory or insight had to be publicly debated and accepted before being given a place in the scheme of things. The institution of shastrarth—philosophical contests—was well entrenched and there are many examples of this. The most celebrated instance is of the great thinker Shankaracharya having to engage in a shastrarth with Mandana Mishra and his wife Ubhaya Bharati over several days. There are many examples of such discussions and debates between Shaivites and Vaishnavites, Hindus and Buddhists, Buddhists and Jains; between different schools of philosophical and ethical thought; between agnostics and believers. The interrogative and dialogical ethos also finds place in literature, and the epic Mahabharata is full of such dialogues and debates. It is apt of Dr Amartya Sen to have called us ‘argumentative’ Indians: these age-old conventions of dissent, dialogue, debate and disagreement are ample evidence that India created a civilization which was marked by curiosity and quest, by questions and doubts, by accommodation and acceptance of contrary viewpoints.

It cannot be denied that India had a very restrictive, indefensible caste system and many elements of a feudal structure. But simultaneously it also had a republic of the imagination in which ideas and wisdom had a democratic remit. Almost everything, including God, gods, spiritual ideas and practices, metaphysical and philosophical concepts, notions of morality and political structures, has been brought into the realm of debate and interrogation. When in 1950 we declared ourselves a democracy it was, in many ways, a culmination of some age-old ideas of the democratic spirit.

Whether in traditions of creative expression or in the repertoire of intellectual articulation, in India dissent from faith or from the State has always not only been acknowledged but has also been allowed to grow. The vital condition of plurality has often been strengthened and expanded through dissent. For instance, when the tyranny of classical Sanskrit was questioned and subverted, the many modern Indian languages we speak today came into being. The vernacular did not demolish the classical, or even aspire to occupy the hallowed space of the classical; instead, it became a dissenting parallel. Every modern Indian language embodies and sustains a world-view that deviates from the classical world-view of Sanskrit. The presence of nearly a thousand versions of the Ramayana in India, ranging from Santhali and other tribal versions to retellings from the Jain point of view, is evidence that the dominant narrative and the world-view it enacted and expressed was creatively challenged and transformed. A Kannada Ramayana or a Hindi Ramcharitmanas deviate quite substantially from the original in Sanskrit by Valmiki, and all of them had validity.

It is also interesting to note that Buddhism and Jainism, born as religious and radical dissent, also got divided into different sects over time. The Mahayana and Hinayana sects in Buddhism and the Shwetamber and Digamber sects in Jainism can, arguably, be seen as dissent within an overriding structure of faith.

In Sanskrit drama, a lot of which has been preoccupied with the ironies of life and fate and the celebration of gods and regal heroes, there was, too, the irrepressible vidushak, the fool, the court jester, who not only provided comic relief but also sarcastic comments on kings, gods, fate and so on. He spared no one and his utterances were never censored or objected to. This tradition seems to have continued in more earthy and robust ways in folk theatre across the country. In many of these popular forms, watched night after night by thousands of faithful viewers, sometimes it is the narrator who assumes the role of the vidushak, just as he or she also enacts the hero or other heroic or divine characters.

The easy morality of the pious was also challenged—or ignored altogether. In the twelfth century, Jayadeva composed Geeta Govind, a bold erotic poem which depicts in vivid detail the love and lovemaking of Radha and Krishna. Apart from occupying a central place in the classical dance form Odissi, this masterpiece of the Bhakti movement is still sung daily in temples across India, from Kerala in the south to Manipur in the north-east.

The Bhakti period, beginning in the sixth century, saw a great and golden flowering of poetry and many other arts. While making God or gods accessible to all, without the negotiating instruments of priesthood, mosque, temple or holy books, this poetry democratized religions and spirituality. Most of the poets belonged to the lower classes (for instance, Kabir, a weaver; Madara Chennaiah and Ravidas, both cobblers; Soyarabai, a Mahar; Namdev, a tailor) and their poetry liberated devotion and poetic expression from the stranglehold of the Brahminical class. This poetry, widespread and popular till today, has been the most eloquent and passionate articulation of dissent, subversion and interrogation.

It may be recalled that during the freedom struggle, important political leaders recalled the work of Bhakti and Sufi poets to evoke a spirit of freedom and forge a unity of purpose amongst the masses. This was done most crucially and effectively by Mahatma Gandhi. In the prayer meetings of the Mahatma in Sewagram and elsewhere, the devotional poetry of all the major religions of India and the rest of the world was sung. These prayer meetings became a unique forum of political dissent vis-à-vis the colonial power. We may also recall that the Mahatma was shot dead while going to a prayer meeting by a Hindu religious fanatic a few months after Independence: a blinkered, exclusivist vision had announced itself through murder almost at the very moment of the birth of free India.

As we come to modern, independent India, there is no doubt that while many towering figures played a role in shaping it, the central figure was Mahatma Gandhi. In many ways, he epitomized radical dissent in the twentieth century. He articulated and practised the concepts of civil disobedience, satyagraha and non-cooperation. While all over the world empires have been demolished through armed revolution and wars, Gandhi, dissenting from them all, took to truth and non-violence. A deeply religious man, he also maintained that all religions were true but that all of them were also imperfect, thereby suggesting that they needed to learn from each other. He went to the extent of proclaiming that if it was proved that the Vedas supported untouchability in India, a form of racial and caste apartheid, he would reject the Vedas.

The fact that it was at Gandhi’s behest that the brilliant iconoclast B.R. Ambedkar, who often opposed him bitterly, was included by Nehru in his cabinet and assigned the job of drafting the Constitution of India is yet another instance of the Mahatma’s respect for dissenting voices.

~

In 1950 India chose to become a democratic republic and adopted a Constitution that guarantees every citizen, among other freedoms, the freedoms of life, faith and expression. This was entirely in keeping with the millennia-long Indian tradition of creativity, reflection and fearless articulation. The Constitution also prescribed that any infringement of these basic freedoms by the State or anybody else would be legally actionable and an independent judiciary would be charged with the task of protecting them. However, it has not been easy to ensure these freedoms, which are also organically related to the right to dissent. Unfortunately, the conduct of the State, our political parties and other institutions has been often hypocritical, even cynical. While they zealously guard their own right to protest, they all resent and endeavour to suppress dissent and interrogation among others, especially individuals.

In recent years these paradoxes have assumed violent and murderous dimensions. It began with the assassination of the Mahatma himself. Since then, self-styled ‘armies’ of upper-caste landlords have slaughtered the dispossessed who have dared to ask for what is rightfully theirs. The Naxalites have killed innocent civilians who did not follow or support their violent means. And in many parts of the country—Kashmir, West Bengal, Assam, Manipur, Bastar, to name a few—the State, insurgents and communally furious groups have taken to annihilating those who oppose them.

Democracy’s one glaring failure in India has been that it gives the elected representatives of the people unbridled power and sanction to crush or curtail the people’s right to question, differ and disagree with the government and official narratives. The Emergency, imposed by Indira Gandhi’s regime in the mid-1970s, was the first clear evidence of the danger that democracy reduced to mere numbers in Parliament could pose to liberty and human rights. The judiciary, which should have acted to check the excesses of a government that had turned dictatorial, also failed in its duty.

Forty years after that dark period in Independent India’s history, the spirit of democracy is being undermined and subverted again. A political party—the Hindu majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—that was elected with less than 32 per cent of the total votes polled, has been in power since the summer of 2014. In just over three years in office, it has either directly suppressed dissent, especially on the university campus, by terming it anti-national, or has kept quiet when Dalits and minorities have been attacked, often brutally, by social outfits affiliated to it. There are open attempts to punish dissent by raising the bogey of beef-eating, religious conversion, ‘love jihad’, national security or ‘hurt sentiments’.

All these actions are throwing India into social turmoil. If you disagree with or question the government, you are branded an enemy of the country. The distinction between the State and the nation is being blurred. A large majority of Indians—almost 68 per cent—did not vote for the BJP in the 2014 national elections. But that has not prevented the party from arrogating to itself the right to decide what Indian society should be, what we can hear, see, eat, wear, speak, read or think. The Narendra Modi regime appears to have convinced itself that it has the democratic right to crush all dissent, disagreement and opposition, even independent thought.

A lot of this is sought to be justified on the grounds that Indian traditions are being wrongly interpreted, and that there’s an urgent need to correct such distortions and prevent a civilizational collapse. In providing such a corrective, bypassing the rule of law is unavoidable, and violence is acceptable, even necessary. Also central to this enterprise is propaganda and distortion of history. A massive cultural amnesia is being spread through biased, unpardonably partisan cultural events, education and media. Majority Hindu communities are told repeatedly that they have been wronged, discriminated against and unjustly treated. Selective facts and figures and downright lies are being brazenly propagated by right-wing groups that have appropriated the right to speak for all Hindus, and the current Indian State is either complicit or provides tacit support to these divisive forces by its silence and inaction.

When three courageous intellectuals, namely, Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and M.M. Kalburgi, were killed for no ostensible reason except for the fact that they were rationalists and creative dissenters who questioned religious tradition, it brought the simmering intolerance against rationality, knowledge, reason and creativity into the open. The governments at the Centre and in the states reacted to these murders with callous disregard, and investigations into the killings were delayed for several months. Some of us writers, nearly fifty from various Indian languages, spontaneously decided to protest by returning our Sahitya Akademi awards and other state honours. A statement we issued in November 2015 summarized the situation and our concerns:

We are deeply disturbed at the growing trends of violence, intolerance, and undermining of the age-long plurality of faith, belief, values, viewpoints, etc.; the almost daily assault on amity and mutual trust. We believe that at this juncture of our democratic existence and growth, there is, unfortunately, increasing evidence of the emergence of an ethos of bans and disruptions, physical assault on and suppression of dissent and difference. We strongly hold that Indian tradition, Indian democratic polity and indeed its complex social structure have been sustained and nourished by an innate and deeply rooted sense of multiplicity, mutual respect and trust amongst communities and values of cooperation, social amity and harmony. We are witnessing a socio-political climate in which minorities, whether of faith, belief, opinion or ideas, are feeling threatened. We see that voices of dissent and difference are being increasingly subjected to unethical attacks, character assassination, mudslinging, etc. We also watch that some of the most important national institutions of culture and education are being meddled with, their stature and vision being systematically diluted and devalued. We are forced to conclude that the liberal space, both of thought and action, is fast shrinking. As members of the creative and reflective community of India we have decided to raise our voice in protest and in resistance.

We urge the people of India, our fellow-citizens, who are primarily and ultimately responsible for strengthening and sustaining both Indian democracy and Indian tradition, to pay heed and act in unison to ensure that the divisive forces do not succeed and that both democracy and tradition continue to deepen and nurture our plurality. We call upon the political parties, the Central Government and the State Governments that they actively discourage such trends [and refrain from] supporting or encouraging by deed or in action, by words or silence, institutions and groups which are undermining the cardinal republican values and which are working to spread an atmosphere of hatred, revenge, violence without fear of the law and in utter disregard of the constitutional spirit of India. We wish to remind them that they draw their legitimacy from the Constitution and, therefore, it is incumbent upon them not to bypass or subvert the basic principles and vision of the Indian Constitution. We wish to request our MPs that they should fully and responsibly use their right of free speech in the Parliament in public interest.

We appeal to our fellow writers, artists, intellectuals, academics, scientists and all thinking people across the country to be alive and alert to the threats and dangers that our pluralistic culture, creative and intellectual courage, dissent and difference are facing and offer the divisive forces moral, creative and intellectual resistance at all levels. We must not allow misinterpretations and vested misreading of our culture, our traditions, our religions and forms of spirituality, [and] of our intellectual, ethical and spiritual underpinnings, to go unchallenged and uncontested.

This protest was immediately joined by over 400 artists and art critics, more than 100 historians, social scientists and intellectuals and nearly 500 scientists and technocrats. The President of India, the then Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and a few prominent industrialists and film personalities also warned against growing intolerance. The protest had international resonance as well, and the International PEN passed a resolution condemning violence against the creative and reflective community in India. Even the then President of the USA, Barack Obama, at the end of his Indian visit pointed to the growing religious intolerance in India.

Indian literature in the last seven decades or so, since Independence, has been written, historically for the first time, in a democracy. Equally remarkable, though hardly noticed by political parties or modern sociology, is the fact that this literature has been largely anti-establishment. It has been, both eloquently and subtly, adversarial towards controlling regimes and narratives. It has questioned the country’s political setup and ideological muddle and the established norms of morality. It has lamented or raged against the continuing and growing injustices and inequities in our society. It has protested the tyranny of the market and big business, the shrinking conscience of the elite and middle classes, the imposing zeal of the global, the disappearance of the local and the displacement of the community by the market.

In a manner of speaking, some of the values that informed the freedom struggle, including constant questioning of the State, continue in post-Independence Indian literature. These values are also alive, and often centre stage, in the visual arts, theatre and other forms of creative expression. The nation-wide spread of these values must also be seen as an unbroken continuum of the vital, irrepressible millennia-old Indian tradition of difference, doubt, disagreement and resistance. Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi, to name just three creative minds, spoke as Kabir or Akka Mahadevi did centuries earlier, or the anonymous sage-poets who composed the ‘Nasadiya Sukta’ of the Rig Veda. It is a comment on where we are as a society today that unlike the Rig Vedic poets, unlike Akka and Kabir, the three rationalists were killed for expressing themselves.

Despite the challenges and dangers that artists and thinkers have faced in recent times, Indian literature continues to celebrate and nurture plurality, dissent and difference, and remains open to new ideas and insights from all over the world. Three distinct movements can be mentioned in this context: Marxism, feminism and the Dalit movement. Each of these has been born in dissent from the dominant literary and cultural establishments and has brought within the geography of creative expression new experiences, new perceptions, new anxieties, new aesthetic strategies, thus enriching the spirit of plurality and democracy.

When Bheeshma, the sagacious elder in the Mahabharata, lying on a bed of arrows, close to death, was asked about raj dharma, or royal duty, he said that it was the duty of the king to respect the wise men who lived in his domain, not engage foolish and greedy persons in running the affairs of the state, and protect his subjects from all kinds of fears. In Tulsi’s Ramcharitmanas, an epic which in north India enjoys the status of a scripture, Rama, after being coronated as the King of Ayodhya, beseeches the citizens to intercede without any fear if they ever feel that he is acting unethically. In the winter of 2015 and later, some of us tried to remind the powers that be of these wise insights contained in our glorious literary tradition. They responded by orchestrating a campaign against us, indulging in character assassination and accusing us of ‘manufactured politics’.

Commenting on the climate of intolerance, the Economic and Political Weekly wrote recently, ‘While Dabholkar, Pansare and M.M. Kalburgi’s murders (as well as the harassment meted out to others like them) are deplorable, what is even more despicable is the silence of large sections of the population and the continuing support of political interests to their tormentors. This lack of response is a clear indication that citizens feel they are not safe if they speak out against entrenched religious vested interests and that the State will not take their complaints seriously. A society that cannot tolerate dissenting views or keeps quiet in the face of a violent reaction to such views is staring at a cultural and intellectual abyss.’

Anticipating the difficult time that is upon us today, the great Hindi poet and literary and cultural commentator Gajanan Madhav Muktibodh wrote nearly half a century ago:

Litterateurs and poets

thinkers and artists and dancers

are all indifferent:

It is all a rumour, they think.

They are all parasites

of the bloodsucking classes.

They are all impotent

and self-indulgent.

They are all

Superficial, unaware of the way

the oppressors run riot—

a fire here

a firing there.

But we can derive satisfaction and confidence from the fact that there are, in fact, writers, artists, intellectuals, teachers, students, and many nameless brave men and women who have refused to be silent. They have protested and continue to raise their voices against oppression, demagoguery and bigotry. They have stood by the glorious and unbroken tradition of plurality and dissent in India. This collection brings together some the best recorded examples of this tradition, in written and spoken words, over three millennia. It is by no means exhaustive. Readers will find many words here that they recognize, and many words that they have heard or read that aren’t here. Perhaps the latter will find their rightful place within the covers of this volume in future editions. May this volume grow; may the spirit and tradition of dissent in India grow ever larger.

Hopefully, many of us will continue the good fight—the fight, through creative and intellectual means, for the values of freedom, justice and equality enshrined both in our tradition and our Constitution. We owe it to the Indian heritage that we profess to be so proud of.

ASHOK VAJPEYI

DISSENT IN HISTORY

NASADIYA SUKTA (THE HYMN OF CREATION)

from the Rig Veda

A canonical text of Hinduism, the Rig Veda is also, perhaps, the world’s oldest religious text still in use. It is believed to have been composed between 1500 and 1200 BCE and comprises 1028 hymns and 10,600 verses organized into ten mandalas or books. The Nasadiya Sukta is the 129th hymn in the 10th Mandala. Especially considering when this hymn was composed and where it was preserved for posterity, it is one of the most remarkable articulations of radical doubt in human society.

There was no non-existent then, nor existent;

There was no in-between and no heaven beyond.

What stirred? Was there fathomless water or deep abyss?

There was neither death nor deathlessness then;

There was no night, and no sign of day.

The One breathed without air; there was nothing else.

There was darkness covered in darkness then;

A formless, unseen ocean was everywhere.

In the emptiness, the One emerged from the power of heat.

Then was desire born, and of it the first seed of thought.

The sages who looked within their hearts with wisdom,

They knew that in the non-existent was the existent.

They stretched their cord cross-wise and saw:

There is something above and something below;

There is the great seminal above and the vast fertile below.

But who really knows? Who can tell where all arose?

For the gods themselves came after Creation.

Who then shall proclaim how Creation happened?

Then He, who created all that is, or did not,

Who looks upon everything from the highest heaven,

He alone knows. Or maybe He too does not.

Translated by Sharad Raghav

THE AJIVIKAS AND THE CHARAVAKS

The Ajivika, founded around fifth century BCE by Makkhali Gosala, was a heterodox school of Indian philosophy that rejected ritualistic Vedic society. It believed primarily in Niyati, that is determinism and fate. According to it, there was no free will or cause-and-effect determining a person’s destiny.

The Charavak, was a school of materialism in Indian philosophy that flourished around sixth century BCE, rejected the authority of the Vedas, belief in Karma and Moksha and all forms of received knowledge, in favour of knowledge gained through lived experience. The Charavaks were among the earliest voices of revolt and protest in Indian philosophy.

Makkhali Gosala

Makkhali Gosala (c. 484 BCE) was a contemporary of Mahavir and Gautam Buddha. He was a disciple of Mahavir for six years before separating from him due to their difference in beliefs. He believed that everything was preordained and no amount of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ deeds, or penance would help anyone escape their fate.

There is no deed performed either by oneself or by others [that can affect one’s future births], no human action, no strength, no courage, no human endurance or human prowess [that can affect one’s destiny in this life]. All beings…are without power, strength or virtue… There is no question of bringing unripe Karma to fruition, nor of exhausting Karma already ripened, by virtuous conduct, by vows, by penance or by chastity. That cannot be done. Samsara is measured as with a bushel, with its joys and sorrows and its appointed end. It can neither be lessened or increased, nor is there any excess or deficiency of it. Just as a ball of thread will, when thrown, unwind to its fullest length, so fool and wise alike will take their course, and make an end of sorrow.

Brihaspati Sutra

The Brihaspati Sutra, composed around 600 BCE, is the foundational text of the Charavak school of Indian philosophy.

There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world,

Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders or priesthoods produce any real effect.

The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s three staves, and smearing one’s self with ashes,

Were made by Nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and manliness.

If a beast slain in the Jyotishtoma rite will itself go to heaven,

Why then does not the sacrifice forthwith offer his own father?

If the Sraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead,

Then here, too, in the case of travellers when they start, it is needless to give provisions for the journey.

If beings in heaven are gratified by of our offering the Sraddha here,

Then why not give the food down below to those who are standing on the housetop?

While life remains let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt;

When once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return again?

If he who departs from the body goes to another world,

How is it that he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred?

Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here

All these ceremonies for the dead—there is no fruit anywhere.

The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.

All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, and

And all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in the Aswamedha,

These were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,

While the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.

Ajita Kesakambali

Ajita Kesakambali (sixth or fifth century BCE) is the earliest documented materialist in India, and a contemporary of Gautam Buddha.

There is no [merit in] almsgiving, sacrifice or offering, no result or ripening of good or evil deeds. There is no passing from this world to the next… There is no afterlife… Man is formed of the four elements; when he dies earth returns to the aggregate of earth, water to water, fire to fire, and air to air, while the senses vanish into space. Four men with the bier take up the corpse; they gossip [about the dead man] as far as the burning ground, where his bones turn the colour of dove’s wings, and his sacrifices end in ashes. They are fools who preach almsgiving, and those who maintain the existence of immaterial categories speak vain and lying nonsense. When the body dies both fool and wise alike are cut off and perish. They do not survive after death.

BUDDHISM

Buddhism, as a faith and a philosophy, developed from the teachings of Gautam Buddha sometime between the mid-sixth and mid-fourth centuries BCE. It spread from India to Central and Southeast Asia and continues to have a wide following all over the world. The main goal in Buddhism is to attain enlightenment by following the eight-fold path prescribed by the Buddha—right views, right aspirations, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right meditational attainment. Buddhism, like Ajivika philosophy and Jainism, was opposed to orthodox Vedic rituals and practices.

Gautam Buddha

Gautam Buddha (c. 567–484 BCE), the enlightened one, was born as Siddhartha into a royal family and renounced worldly life at the age of twenty-nine.

By birth is not one outcast,

By birth is not one a Brahmin,

By deeds is one outcast,

By deeds is one a Brahmin.

~

Every man loves liberty and freedom.

Do not interfere with another’s freedom.

~

Monks, when the great rivers Ganga, Yamuna, Achiravati, Sarabhu and Mahi empty into the ocean, they no longer retain their names, but become one great body of water. In like manner the four castes, be they Kshatriya, Brahmin, Vaishya, or Shudra, when accepted into the Order, all leave their castes and lose their names. They become Samana Sakya, without exception.

~

A man doesn’t become a Brahmana by his plaited hair, by his family or by birth; in whom there is truth and righteousness, he is blessed, he is a Brahmana.

~

In whom there is no sympathy for living beings, know him as an outcast.

Visuddhi Magga

A treatise on the Theravada Buddhist doctrine composed by Buddhaghosa in approximately 430 CE in Sri Lanka.

No God, no Brahma can be found,

No matter of this wheel of life,

Just bare phenomena roll

Dependent on conditions all.

Assalayana Sutta (From Majjhima Nikaya)

The ‘Assalayana Sutta’ is a Buddhist scripture composed between the fourth and third centuries BCE. In this episode from the scripture, a young sixteen- year-old Brahmin, Assalayana, is urged by a group of Brahmins to argue with the Buddha regarding the superior and ‘pure’ nature of the Brahmins.

…The Brahman student Assalayana went with a large group of Brahmans to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: ‘Master Gotama, the Brahmans say, Brahmans are the superior caste; any other caste is inferior. Only Brahmans are the fair caste; any other caste is dark. Only Brahmans are pure, not non-Brahmans. Only Brahmans are the sons and offspring of Brahma: born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma. What does Master Gotama have to say with regard to that?’

‘But, Assalayana, the brahmans’ brahman-women are plainly seen having their periods, becoming pregnant, giving birth, and nursing [their children]. And yet the Brahmans, being born through the birth canal, say, Brahmans are the superior caste; any other caste is inferior. Only Brahmans are the fair caste; any other caste is dark. Only Brahmans are pure, not non-Brahmans. Only Brahmans are the sons and offspring of Brahma: born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.

…‘What do you think, Assalayana? Is it only a noble warrior who—taking life, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, telling lies, speaking divisively, speaking harshly, engaging in idle chatter, greedy, bearing thoughts of ill will, and holding wrong views—on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell, and not a Brahman? Is it only a merchant...? Is it only a worker who—taking life, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, telling lies, speaking divisively, speaking harshly, engaging in idle chatter, greedy, bearing thoughts of ill will, and holding wrong views—on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell, and not a Brahman?’

‘No, Master Gotama. Even a noble warrior... Even a Brahman… Even a merchant... Even a worker… [Members of] all four castes—if they take life, steal, engage in sexual misconduct, tell lies, speak divisively, speak harshly, engage in idle chatter, are greedy, bear thoughts of ill will, and hold wrong views—on the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.’

‘So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the Brahmans say, Brahmans are the superior caste...the sons and offspring of Brahma: born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma?’

…‘Even though Master Gotama says that, still the Brahmans think, Brahmans are the superior caste....’

‘What do you think, Assalayana? Is it only a Brahman who is capable of developing in any direction a heart of good will—free from animosity, free from ill will—and not a noble warrior, not a merchant, not a worker?’

‘No, Master Gotama. Even a noble warrior... Even a Brahman... Even a merchant... Even a worker... [Members of] all four castes are capable of developing in any direction a heart of good will—free from animosity, free from ill will.’

‘So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the Brahmans say, Brahmans are the superior caste...?’

‘Even though Master Gotama says that, still the Brahmans think, Brahmans are the superior caste....’

‘What do you think, Assalayana? Is it only a Brahman who is capable of taking a loofah and bath powder, going to a river, and scrubbing off dust and dirt, and not a noble warrior, not a merchant, not a worker?’

‘No, Master Gotama. Even a noble warrior... Even a Brahman... Even a merchant... Even a worker... [Members of] all four castes are capable of taking a loofah and bath powder, going to a river, and scrubbing off dust and dirt.’

‘So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the brahmans say, Brahmans are the superior caste... Only Brahmans are pure, not non-Brahmans….?’

‘Even though Master Gotama says that, still the Brahmans think, Brahmans are the superior caste....’

‘What do you think, Assalayana? There is the case where a consecrated noble warrior king might call together one hundred men of different births [and say to them], Come, masters. Those of you there born from a noble warrior clan, from a Brahman clan, or from a royal clan: taking an upper fire-stick of saala wood, salala wood, sandalwood, or padumaka wood, produce fire and make heat appear. And come, masters. Those of you there born from an outcast clan, a trapper clan, a wicker workers’ clan, a cartwrights’ clan, or a scavengers’ clan: taking an upper fire-stick from a dog’s drinking trough, from a pig’s trough, from a dustbin, or of castor-oil wood, produce fire and make heat appear. What do you think, Assalayana? Would the fire made by those born from a noble warrior clan, a Brahman clan, or a royal clan—who had produced fire and made heat appear by taking an upper fire-stick of saala wood, salala wood, sandalwood, or padumaka wood—be the only one with flame, colour, and radiance, able to do whatever a fire might be needed to do? And would the fire made by those born from an outcast clan, a trapper clan, a wicker workers’ clan, a cartwrights’ clan, or a scavengers’ clan—who had produced fire and made heat appear by taking an upper fire-stick from a dog’s drinking trough, from a pig’s trough, from a dustbin, or of castor-oil wood—be without flame, colour, and radiance, unable to do what a fire might be needed to do?’

‘No, Master Gotama. The fire made by those born from a noble warrior clan, a Brahman clan, or a royal clan...would have flame, colour, and radiance, able to do whatever a fire might be needed to do. And the fire made by those born from an outcast clan, a trapper clan, a wicker workers’ clan, a cartwrights’ clan, or a scavengers’ clan...would have flame, colour, and radiance, able to do whatever a fire might be needed to do. For all fire has flame, colour, and radiance, and is able to do whatever a fire might be needed to do.’

‘So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the Brahmans say, Brahmans are the superior caste...?’

‘Even though Master Gotama says that, still the Brahmans think, Brahmans are the superior caste....’

‘What do you think, Assalayana? There is the case where a noble warrior youth might cohabit with a Brahman maiden, and from their cohabitation a son would be born. Would the son born from the noble warrior youth and Brahman maiden be like the father and like the mother? Should it be called a noble warrior and a Brahman?’

‘Yes, Master Gotama...’

‘What do you think, Assalayana? There is the case where a Brahman youth might cohabit with a noble warrior maiden, and from their cohabitation a son would be born. Would the son born from the Brahman youth and noble warrior maiden be like the father and like the mother? Should it be called a noble warrior and a Brahman?’

‘Yes, Master Gotama...’

‘What do you think, Assalayana? There is the case where a mare might mate with a donkey, and from their mating a foal would be born. Would the foal born from the mare and the donkey be like the father and like the mother? Should it be called a horse and a donkey?’

‘Master Gotama, from the mixed breeding it would be a mule. Here I see that it [the mixed breeding] makes a difference, but there [in the other two cases] I don’t see that it makes a difference.’

‘What do you think, Assalayana? There is the case where there might be two Brahman-student brothers, born of the same mother: one learned and initiated, the other not learned and uninitiated. Which of the two would the Brahmans serve first at a funeral feast, a milk-rice offering, a sacrifice, or a feast for guests?’

‘The Brahman student who was learned and initiated, Master Gotama... For what great fruit would there be for what is given to one who is not learned and uninitiated?’

‘What do you think, Assalayana? There is the case where there might be two Brahman-student brothers, born of the same mother: one learned and initiated [but] unvirtuous and of evil character, the other not learned and uninitiated, [but] virtuous and of fine character. Which of the two would the Brahmans serve first at a funeral feast, a milk-rice offering, a sacrifice, or a feast for guests?’

‘The Brahman student who was not learned and uninitiated, [but] virtuous and of fine character, Master Gotama… For what great fruit would there be for what is given to one who is unvirtuous and of evil character?’

‘First, Assalayana, you went by birth. Then, having gone by birth, you went by mantras. Then, having gone by mantras, putting them both aside, you have come around to the purity of the four castes that I prescribe.’

When this was said, the Brahman student Assalayana sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.

Translated by Thanissaro Bhiku

Terigatha

Terigatha or Verses of the Elder Nuns is a collection of poems by Buddhist nuns from around 600 BCE and one of the oldest scriptures composed by women. In this important text, the nuns not only recorded their lives but also addressed questions regarding gender equality and the role of women in society.

Punnika and the Brahman

—Punnika

[Punnika:]

I’m a water-carrier, cold,

always going down to the water

from fear of my mistresses’ beatings,

harrassed by their anger and words.

But you, Brahman,

what do you fear

that you’re always going down to the water

with shivering limbs, feeling great cold?

[The Brahman:]

Punnika, surely you know.

You’re asking one doing skillful kamma

and warding off evil.

Whoever, young or old, does evil kamma

is, through water ablution,

from evil kamma set free.

[Punnika:]

Who taught you this

—the ignorant to the ignorant—

‘One, through water ablution,

is from evil kamma set free?’

In that case, they’d all go to heaven:

all the frogs, turtles,

serpents, crocodiles,

and anything else that lives in the water.

Sheep-butchers, pork-butchers,

fishermen, trappers,

thieves, executioners,

and any other evil doers,

would, through water ablution,

be from evil kamma set free.

If these rivers could carry off

the evil kamma you’ve done in the past,

they’d carry off your merit as well,

and then you’d be

completely left out.

Whatever it is that you fear,

that you’re always going down to the water,

don’t do it.

Don’t let the cold hurt your skin.’

[The Brahman:]

I’ve been following the miserable path, good lady,

and now you’ve brought me

back to the noble.

I give you this robe for water-ablution.

Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

~

Mutta

So freed! So thoroughly freed am I!

From three crooked things set free:

from mortar, pestle,

and crooked old husband.

Having uprooted the craving

that leads to becoming,

I’m set free from aging and death.

Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Dharmakirti

Dharmakirti was a Buddhist philosopher and logician from the sixth or seventh century. He rejected all scriptures and encouraged reasoning and logical thinking because he believed that perception and inference are the only two sources of knowledge.

Believing that the Vedas are perfect and holy,

Believing in a Creator of the universe,

Bathing in holy waters to gain merit,

Having pride about one’s caste,

Performing penance to absolve sins:

These are five symptoms of having lost one’s sanity.

~

Nobody goes ahead of me

None follows me

But the way is not trampled by fresh feet altogether

So why say that I am alone?

Let them know

That this was the way

Frequented earlier

Now it may be deserted

I have plainly chosen to energize

the other path

which is different but has a potency.

Translated by Radhavallabh Tripathi

JAINISM

Jainism is one of the earlier Indian traditions rooted in the Śramanic ethics of austerity and asceticism, as well as non-violence and respect towards all living beings. By emphasizing asceticism and divesting themselves of all worldly desire, Jain teachers and scholars challenged the hierarchies of social order, theological systems and scriptural beliefs in various contexts and forms.

Rishabhdev

Rishabhdev or Rishabhanatha is the first Tirthankara of the present cycle of time in Jainism.

O King, what for is a man walking on this earth has to be a king?

(Like any other man) he also has two feet, two ankles on them

Topped by two shanks and two knees

two thighs, one middle, one chest, one neck and two shoulders.

Calling yourself the king of the land of Sindhus

Completely blinded by conceit

Rooted firmly in your ego

You ride on this palanquin

Which carries the name of the king of Sauviras

With its wooden plank being carried on my shoulder

Picking up these poor people for drudgery

who are suffering and need to be pitied

You are completely devoid of compassion

You boast of being the protector of the people,

But you stand exposed

In the assembly of the knowledgeable ones!

Translated by Radhavallabh Tripathi

Yogindu

Yogindu was a Jain philosopher and mystic from the sixth century. He composed Paramatmaprakasa—a treatise on Jaina mysticism and the path to liberation.

‘I am a Brahman,’ ‘I am a Vaishya,’ ‘I am a Kshatriya’; or ‘I am a Shudra,’ etc.; also ‘I am a man,’ ‘I am a woman’; or ‘I am a eunuch’; all these and other like thoughts belong to a Mithya Drishti [false believer]. (81–82)

‘I am young,’ ‘I am old,’ ‘I am beautiful,’ ‘I am brave’; ‘I am a Pandit’ (a learned man); ‘I am Uttama’ [high]; ‘I am Digambara’ [naked saint]; ‘I am Bodh Guru’ [Buddhist saint]; or ‘I am a Svetambara Sadhu’ [Jain saint weaving white clothes]—those who possess such like thoughts should be considered as Mithya Drishtis. (82)

~

Those saints who give up sensual pleasures deserve encomiums; one who is bald, deserves no credit for having his head shaved. (105)

Mahapurana

The Mahapurana is a Jain text composed by Acharya Jinasena and his disciple Gunabhadra in the ninth century.

The belief in a creator is foolish and must be rejected.

If god created the universe, where was he himself before creation?

If it is said he was transcendent then, existing of himself, where is

he now?

How can an immaterial god create this material world?...

If god is perfect, how could the will to create have arisen in him?

And if he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than

a potter could.

If he is formless, complete in himself and contains all that is,

How could he have created?

For such a soul would have no desire to create anything.

If it is said that he created to no purpose, on a whim, then god is

pointless.

If he created the world as a sport, it was as the sport of stupid child

that leads to trouble.

If he created the world out of love for living things, why did he not

make it wholly blissful?

If god were transcendent, he would not create…

Uncreated, without beginning and without end, the world just is,

It endures under the compulsion of its own nature.

Somaprabha

Somaprabha composed the Kumarapalapratibodha, a text which contains the basic teachings of Jainism, sometime in the eleventh century. The following is an extract from the text in which Somaprabha declares work for the self as being superior to service of any king.

If you spend only five days in the service of a king you bring sin upon yourself

And you must go, O Soul, to the dark gulf of hell, with its inevitable, intolerable, innumerable woes.

So give up the king’s service; though it seems as sweet as honey—it brings scorn and disillusion, it is basically wretched.

Work, O Soul, for righteousness, and put aside your lethargy,

Lest in hell you find not a few unpleasantnesses.

Somadeva

Somadeva was a Digambara teacher from the tenth century. He wrote the Upasakadyayana, the text central to Jain teaching which lays down the rules and norms to be followed by the lay followers of Jainism.

Of what use is a barren cow, which gives no milk? Of what use is the king’s grace if he does not fulfil the hopes of his people? For an ungrateful king there is no help in trouble. His court is like a hole full of snakes, which no one will enter.

Hemachandra

Hemachandra, a Svetambara teacher and influential Jain scholar and polymath from the twelfth century, composed the Yogashastra—an important treatise on religion, morality, yogic practices and Jain principles.

The Gods who are tainted with the passions of attachment and hostility and hence have women and weapons along with strings of beads, who favour some and disfavour others, are not the gods to be worshipped by those who are desirous of emancipation.

Can the gods, who themselves are unsteady and disturbed by drama, boisterous laughter and music, ever lead their followers to the tranquil path of moksha? (29-30)

~

There can never be a speech/word without the speaker. Even if we believe for the sake of argument that there could be such a text possible, there still remains the doubt about the validity of such a text because it is always the integrity of the speaker that determines the validity of a speech. (31)

~

If himsa (violence) is not totally given up, sense control, inner-discipline, service to God and Guru, charities, study, and penance are all fruitless. (40)

~

In what hell will those atheists who commit heinous crimes and brutal acts and who openly preach himsa in their scriptures be born? Poor Charvaka is definitely better as he preaches himsa, no doubt, but openly. But Jaimini is no better than Charvaka as he is a monster in the guise of an ascetic who preaches that himsa is enjoined in the Vedas. Those merciless persons, who kill the animals under the pretext of offering oblation to the gods for the sake of sacrifice are condemned to most terrifying existence.

Leaving aside a religion which is for universal good and is rooted in quietude, noble character, and compassion, the dull-witted proclaim that injury to living beings also is a bonafide religion. (41-42)

~

The himsa which is committed, in order to please the forefathers, as laid down in the Smritis (the Brahmanic scriptures) by the dull-witted people, paves the way for existence in a birth in the lower regions.

To please the dead, who have already taken rebirth in other categories of existence, by acts of himsa is not possible at all. It is the considered

opinion of Acharya Hemachandra that himsa committed with a desire to please the dead ones becomes the cause of evil existence after death for the doer and one who has it done for the other. Both are ignorant about the real meaning and significance of the scriptural injunctions.

One who protects living beings, protects one’s self—just as one gives, one receives.

It is a matter of great grief that the gods, who wield such weapons as bow and arrow, mace, disc, sword, trident, and shakti, are worshipped as if they are true gods. (44)

Translated by A.S. Gopani

Uttaradhayayanasutra

The Uttaradhayayanasutra is one of the four core texts of the Jain canon. It is a work in thirty-six chapters, each a sermon on aspects of Jain doctrine and discipline, interspersed with lively narratives from folk literature. It is believed by orthodox Jains to contain the actual words of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism.

One does not become a śramaņa by the tonsure, nor a Brahmaņa by the sacred syllable, nor a muni by living in the woods, nor a tāpasa by wearing clothes of kuśa grass and bark.

One becomes a śramaņa by equanimity, a Brahmaņa by celibacy, a muni by knowledge, and a tāpasa by penance.

By one’s actions one becomes a Brahmaņa, by one’s actions one becomes a kśatriya, by one’s actions one becomes a vaiśya or by one’s actions one becomes a śūdra. (79)

SUBHASHITAS

The Subhashita is a form of Sanskrit and Prakrit poetry which was popular in ancient and medieval India. These short poems carry an inherent moral and ethical message. They address issues of politics, religion, kingship and love, amongst others, by deftly presenting them in the guise of praise. Often sarcastic, they can be considered as guides to developing a richer consciousness. The

following verses have been selected and translated by Radhavallabh Tripathi specially for this volume.

Bhartrihari

Although his exact year of birth is still debated, Bhartrihari is widely believed to have been a Sanskrit poet from the fifth century. Shatakatraya, a collection of Sanskrit poetry, is widely attributed to him. His verses on ethics, morality and renunciation are examples of a mind that questioned social mores.

Do not waste effort, good man, in pursuit of too many virtues… Renunciation of worldly bonds is just vain talk of wordy savants.

~

Honest and lying; full of wrath and the sweetest speaker;

Savage and gentle; frantic after wealth and liberal;

A great squanderer and a greater hoarder still;

The king’s finesse has many faces—like a whore.

~

If you are the king

We are also superior in intellect,

which we nurtured serving our teachers.

You are known for your riches,

Our fame is spread far and wide by poets

O glorious one! There is not much difference

between you and us.

But if you turn away from us

we also are absolutely free from any longing.

Translated by Radhavallabh Tripathi

Sohnoka

Sohnoka was an eleventh-century Bengali poet who wrote in Sanskrit, and not much is known of him except for the two verses attributed to him. Through his verses, he subtly reproached the king for not paying enough attention to his subjects. The following is a verse from Saduktikarnamrita.

The terrace is shattered and foundations shrivelled

The walls are falling down and boundaries are decaying

The serpents crawl inside this house, the rats wander freely

And the frogs play hide and seek.

Wheezing sounds arise when the bats toss their wings

O king, the jewel of the Saina dynasty!

Our house is just as

the house of your enemy ought to have been!

Translated by Radhavallabh Tripathi

Kshemendra

Kshemendra was an eleventh-century Kashmiri poet writing in Sanskrit. In his poems, he commented on the avaricious nature of kings, the rampant corruption and the exploitation of the poor. Following are some verses from Sevyasevakopadesha.

They did not lose the jewel of self-respect

in the pretence of making efforts at serving [a king].

Their heads remained untouched

by the dust on the streets.

They really have earned real victory,

They are to be saluted for good.

~

What is to be done with kings

even if at all they are somehow available

after taking pains

they are all surrounded by the caucus of rogues.

We already have the real Kings of the earth—

the mountains!

Even the sages are sheltered under them.

~

Take refuge in that holy forest

Where real servants have made a permanent retreat

Where there is daily clinching of the hurry

For a nonsense prostration

Where the face is not blurred by the mud of the streets

Where there is not tussle with the security personnel on the gates

Where the cruel kings

fierce with their arrogance

are not there!

Translated by Radhavallabh Tripathi

Bilhana

Bilhana was an eleventh-century Kashmiri poet. According to legend, he left Kashmir after the discovery of his secret affair with the king’s daughter and subsequent imprisonment. He was later appointed as the chief poet in the court of King Vikramaditya VI of Kalyana, in whose honour he wrote Vikramankadevacharita.

Let the King of Kuntala confiscate everything I possess

But then my store house of learning remains alive inside me

Intact and unbroken;

You petty people! Don’t rejoice.

Very soon the rich will frequent my house,

riding on the back of elephants

swinging their long ears with sport.

Translated by Radhavallabh Tripathi

Kalhana

Kalhana was a twelfth-century Kashmiri poet credited with composing Rajtarangini, a history of Kashmir and its kings. In this epic, he didn’t limit himself to merely glorifying the kings but censured them for not devoting enough time to their subjects and leading the empire to a state of ruin.

Fie upon the state for which

sons and fathers

kill each other.

They suspect each other

and have sleepless nights.

Kings are apprehensive of their own sons,

wives, friends and servants.

We simply do not know

who will enjoy their confidence.

~

Kings waste their riches

on buying women whose eyes are like the eyes of deer

and who are unattainable.

They waste their riches on buying the hissings of horses,

vulgar talks of the touts.

They waste their time in pleasing the ladies,

in the discussions of the breeds of horses,

in the flattery of the servants,

or in discussion of hunting.

Women prevail upon them during nights.

The ministers assert themselves during the day.

What a make believe

that still the kings wield authority here!

Translated by Radhavallabh Tripathi

Anonymous Sanskrit Poet in Subhashitavali

The Subhashitavali, compiled by Vallabhdeva of Kashmir around the fifteenth century, is a collection of satirical and comic verses.

Salute the gods? But even they

cannot escape relentless fate.

Salute that fate? But even it

bears fruit to deeds proportionate.

Then, if fruit depends on deeds,

are gods and fate of any avail?

Salutations to deeds on which

even fate cannot prevail.

Translated by A.N.D. Haksar

THE VIRASHAIVAS

Vachana poetry in Kannada reached its peak in the twelfth century through the Sharana movement. This movement challenged caste hierarchies, the vanity of wealth and the evils of social divisions. It also gave birth to the Virashaiva movement, which was devoted to the heroic Shiva. The poets of these movements wrote intense, passionate verses that liberated language from the artificial conventions of courtly writing, thereby making their poems more accessible to the common person and promoting an egalitarian society.

Chennaiah

Chennaiah, an eleventh-century cobbler saint-poet, is regarded as the first poet of the