Buddhism in India

The Bhakti Movements 215

the wealthy and powerful; the world of the rulers was almost

entirely the world of Brahmanical influence by this time. Thus

Brahmans could easily succeed, as stories record, in bringing

Tukaram and Kabir to local courts or even those of rulers (whether

Hindu or Muslim did not seem to matter) for blasphemy and

slanders against Brahmanism. If the santsdid not seem to engage

in any serious effort to transform society—except through their

often bitter and sarcastic poetry—this was simply because it appears

to have been impossible at the time. Brahmanism in alliance with

kings, whether Muslim or ‘Hindu,’ was in firm control of the social

world.

The bhakti movements show a clear conflict with Brahmanism

and the caste and gender hierarchies it involved, but they also show

an almost overwhelming degree of Brahman dominance. Even the

framework of the legends about them illustrates the power of

Brahmanism, for example in showing them as of low birth for ‘sins’

in a former existence, or as being ‘truly’ twice-born. They were also

physically repressed. Not only were untouchable and low-caste

devotees socially and religiously discriminated against, barred from

temples and sometimes beaten when they tried to come to the god;

but the weapons of the state were used against the strongest rebels

and the possibility cannot be ruled out that opponents went so

far as to murder popular and outspoken santslike Tukaram and

Mirabai.

Bhakti was indeed a revolt against the caste hierarchy of

Brahmanic Hinduism, one that was often heroic for the individuals

involved—but it was a revolt which ultimately simply testified to

the existence of this hierarchy. Those who wanted to escape the

framework whether it be Tukaram and Kabir, Nandanar and

Cokhamela, or Bahenabai and Mirabai were in the end victimised

by it. In contrast, Buddhism fought against a Brahmanism that was

not yet in power and contested a caste system that had not yet

solifidifed and in this sense it was not a ‘revolt’ in the sense that the

bhakti movement was. Thus the conflict between Buddhism and

Brahmanism took place in a different way and had a very different

significance.

The bhakti movements in many ways reflected the social condi-

tions of the long millennium between the 8th and 18th centuries. It

was a period when Islam represented a dominant political force

and also a spiritual alternative; but since all Muslim kings (like

What of the apparent differences between the Dalit santslike
Cokhamela and Ravidas and the shudra santslike Tukaram and
Kabir? In the recorded literature it is clear that the Dalits, from
what we know of them do not condemn the caste system in the
same thoroughgoing and scathing way and are nowhere near as
critical of Brahmanism as a system. This difference can be attributed
to the much more helpless situation of Dalits who were untouchables
as compared to Shudras who were in the caste hierarchy. There is
much less space for them to even find a voice, let alone keep a
record for the benefit of historians and researchers today!
The essential powerlessness of Dalits and low castes in the bhakti
movements which were taking place in the era of the established
dominance of Brahmanism can be seen in several ways. First,
because Brahmanic dominance allowed little scope for autonomy,
the form of organisation of the bhakti cults was far different from
the regulated collective life of Jain or Buddhist bhikkus, who had a
solid residential community around them. The santsappear as indi-
viduals, sometimes eccentric, often ecstatic. The ‘guru-tradition’
they are connected to is a very tenerous one, and seems to have little
real meaning in their lives. While the ‘community of saints’ is essen-
tial for their lives, it seems to be loose and floating; they meet each
other on pilgrimages, at the shrines of their favoured deities, or in
debate and discussion. But their householder’s life remains
enveloped in a caste-bound feudal society. The bhakti community
did not provide a strong base of material, emotional and political
support of the kind that collective life fostered in the monasteries
of Buddhists. While the support of the oppressed and exploited
could support those who rebelled to some extent, it could not help
them change their lives significantly or change the world; it could
not act very effectively against the overwhelming dominance of
Brahmans and the overarching presence of the caste hierarchy. The
greatest sufferers from this lack of an autonomous ‘monastic’ or
religious community were the bhaktasfrom untouchable castes,
and women.
We can see another striking difference between the sants and the
earlier samana tradition in the lack of access to political power.
Whereas the samana philosophers and teachers engaged in dialogue
with kings and wealthy merchants, there is little of this happening
with the sants. During the periods when these bhakti movements were
occurring, we do not see them speaking to and trying to influence

214 Buddhism in India