Bengal: Contradictions and Changes

(written from the perspective of an upper-caste male Hindu Bengali, with due apologies)

“Yaar, these days it has become so difficult for a Bengali to get into Delhi University”, a friend of mine from academia (who was by the way not a Bengali) was telling me, “and you know why? Because Bengalis are not loyal, you don't expect a Bengali to be a chamcha. But it is necessary to be loyal to some bigwigs if you want to get into the academic profession, or get promoted within it.”
I silently nodded in approval. I understood this to be a back-handed compliment. Why on earth disagree with someone who was saying a word or two in favour of the poor Bengalis in these rather tough and tight times? However, I wanted to add something of a silver lining to the otherwise bleak prospect of the Bengalis, so I pointed out “but then there are two disciplines, Economics and English where the bigwigs don't always get sufficient number of eligible candidates who are loyal too, so a Bengali can still get into academia without any loyalty provided he is from these two disciplines.”
That friend of mine gave a sardonic laughter. “things... not so easy, my dear. Academics in our country always suffer from too much of interference from powerful people.”
I gave him the example of Vivekananda. There was a time when he was Narendranath Dutta, and he badly needed a schoolteacher's job. But couldn't get any since he was not a Brahmo, and almost all the schools were run by the Brahmos at that point of time. Eventually got a job at Vidyasagar's school, but then lost it as he failed to curry favours with Vidyasagar's son-in-law who was the boss of the school. We mutually agreed that loyalty problem existed in academia since time immemorial.

However, as we were drawing near the place where he would get down (the conversation took place inside an auto rickshaw), I asked him a politically correct question: “don't you think this is kind of stereotyping, grand narrative and all? I mean, why, even a Bengali can be a chamcha like anyone else”. He chuckled, “then he will be isolated from the fellow-Bengalis, your people will mock him”, and got down.

Stereotyping is a culturally incorrect act. But as Terry Eagleton points out, it would be highly unnatural and unusual if a certain people after sharing a common habitat and history for a thousand years don't come to share some mutual characteristics as well.

Perhaps he was right. Bengalis are more comfortable in playing the rebel than playing a conformist. I started looking at this idea from different angles. It is not as if we are never loyal or committed to anything, but it is indeed true that we are less likely to remain loyal for long to any faith or tradition or boss. A land where water, foodgrains fruits and fish were abundant, one's survival did not depend much on loyalty and allegiance, since such multitudinous resources could not possibly be controlled by any singular authority. And I am not giving any value judgments. Its just that Bengalis like to take unprecedented steps once in a while. They are not afraid if that violently disrupts their long-lasting constancy to something. But hang on, am I carried away in my theorization by the recent climate of political change in Bengal?

That brought to my mind this question: is there any pattern to be drawn from history of Bengal, based on loyalty and disloyalty?

A cursory glance at the history of Bengal indeed revealed some startlingly pendular movements, a baffling dialectics of periodic 180 degree changes, a series of volte-faces we made throughout our history. Our origin was Dravidian and Austric. Initially this region had five kingdoms as the Puranas say: Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Poundra and Suhma. These names are indicative of a Dravidian lineage and an Austric etymology. For details one has to see Nihar Ranjan Ray. Then We had the Aryans. Some historians say that the Alpine Aryans came to Bengal and some other parts of India, who were non-Vedic. So, you get your first conflicts, Nordic vs. Alpine, or Aryan vs Dravidian, or many other permutations and combinations of Aryan (Nordic vs Alpine) Vs Dravidian vs. Austric.

The first organized religion to which Bengal was exposed was not Sanatan Dharma (the Brahminical, Vedic religion), but Buddhism. Entire eastern India turned Buddhist, in fact. By all probability very few Nordic (who were Vedic Aryans) settlers might have been there in Bengal to put up any effective resistance against this egalitarian, anti-Vedic, Godless religion that effectively demolished the Brahminical hegemony and whose effects would last for more than next thousand years.

Then, the first king of any recorded historical significance who rises from Bengal, King Shoshanko, who controls and dominates a large part of North India and is an arch-rival of Harshavardhan, is a Brahmin. He is staunch anti-Buddhist, a follower of lord Shiva, and he is infamous for destroying the Bodhi tree at Bodhgaya (the tree beneath which Buddha attained enlightenment). Some descriptions about his physical features (for instance, he had red hair) indicate that he might have been a Nordic!

Then the next significant historical change in Bengal is the ascension of Pal dynasty. They were Buddhist. Their first King, Gopal, was chosen democratically by an assembly of feudal lords of Bengal. They rule us uninterruptedly for next four hundred years, which is no meagre achievement, in fact very few dynasties of the world have that kind of record till date. And it is commonly agreed that the Bengali people were formed during this period, that our first literature the Charyapada hymns were written during this period (9th century AD) and that they have been the dearest to the Bengalis among the history's hall of fame and as it is pointed out by Nihar Ranjan Ray, Bengali farmer girls still sing of King Mohipal while beating the chaff from the rice grain. There is a proverbial saying 'Dhan Bhangte Mohipaler Geet' (singing of Mohipal while making rice from paddy ).

Curiously, there is another proverb which comes to my mind, 'Dhan Bhangte Shiber Geet' (singing of Lord Shiva while making rice from paddy) which refers to anything incongruous and out of place. I personally believe that the latter proverb indicates that there must have been an attempt in some period to replace Mohipal's song with one devoted to lord Shiva which didn't go well with the public. It refers to the long battle between Buddhism and Sanatan Dharma fought on the terrains of Bengal.

And this brings us to the next volte-face Bengal would take, with the the coming of the Sen dynasty. They were going to implement a dogmatic Sanatan Dharma, which will have the Varna hierarchy, something Bengal didn't have till date, and in order to be able to do that, they brought Brahmins from North India. Their first kings were followers of Shiva. Already some centuries elapsed after the great Shankaracharya's re-establishment of Shaivaite Hindusim in the rest of India, so we can say that Bengal's turn to Sanatan Dharma was an eventuality. Besides, at its fag end, Buddhism was no longer a proto-communistic kind of thing. It was full of Tantra and black magic and esoteric sexual/fertility cults (what would be theorized as Vajrayana), and probably the legendary North Indian identification of Bengal with black magic began from this period. Under such circumstances, probably the Brahminical hierarchy looked more neat and clean than the occult practices.

Since Bengal did not have the usual Varna hierarchy, so all the different profession-based classes from the Buddhist past were blanket-accommodated under the category of Shudra. Even today, Bengal has got only Brahmins and Shudras, and no other Varnas. Bengali Baidyas are considered to be Shudras which is baffling, because Baidyas are said to be Brahmins (Baidya-Brahmin), they wear sacred threads, give their name as Sharma during all rituals, and all traditions of antiquity place them at the zenith of Brahminical hierarchy. According to Sanskritic tradition, a Brahmin who studies one Veda is a Pathak, who studies two Vedas is Dwivedi, Trivedi who studies three and Chaturvedi who studies four. One who studies Ayurveda after reading all the four Vedas is a Vaidya. How come they belong to Shudras? It can possibly be explained with the hypothesis that they were Buddhists to agreed to be a part of Brahminical resurgence.

The last Sen who was to rule entire Bengal (his descendants continued to rule parts of eastern Bengal for next two hundred years) was Lokkhon Sen. He, unlike his father and grandfather, turned to Vaishnavism. So probably, Sanatan Dharma's age old fight between the two gods, Shiva and Vishnu was to be reenacted once more on this newfound terrain of Bengal. But before there could have been any decisive outcome in this incipient struggle, Bengal was occupied by Bakhtiyar Khilji.

Islam came to Bengal in a major way. Prior to this, only some sailors from some navigating people of (mostly) Eastern Bengali origin took to Islam, since Islam now had a control over sea trade.

A lot of Buddists turned to Islam. A lot of Shudras did the same. And though a lot of them were forced, but not all conversions were done forcibly.

Political core of Bengal would be controlled by Pathans and Mughals for more than next 500 years. But during this period Hinduism would have the following evolution. Tantric cults from Vajrayana Buddhism would merge with Shaivaite cults of Sanatan Dharma, and give birth to one major school of Bengali Hinduism, namely, Shakto (worship of Shakti). The marriage of Durga and Shiva symbolically signifies this merger.

The other major (and rival) school was that of of Vaishnavism (reinvigorated after incorporation of Buddha into its pantheon as the ninth avatar of Vishnu), which though existed throughout Sanatan Dharma's history for thousands of years, but which now would be reborn in a radically new manner owing to the influence of Bhakti movement of the medieval age. Chaitanya would be the prophet of this newly born Boishnob movement. Many consider his movement to be a regeneration of Buddha's principles of equality and community erected on a base of devotion (Bhakti). If Shakto cult draws from Vajrayana Buddhism, Boishnob cult probably draws from classical Buddhism to some extent.

Shakto was the dominant cult among Bengali Hindus. Chaitanya was therefore the agent of change, he was the challenger. But Shaktos periodically used to attack his followers, they were violent (violence was prohibited for Vaishnavs following the Bhakti movement, whereas Shaktos had liberal recourse to violence as bloodshed was no sin in their cult) and that's one of the reasons why he had to leave Nabadwip (his hometown) finally. Of course the main reason was the threat posed by the Muslim ruler of Bengal.

Shakto remains the dominant cult among Bengali Hindus till date, and wherever Bengali Hindus go, they will build a Kalibari (abode of Kali). Till date these two cults, signified by their ruling deities Kali and Krishna respectively, are the two biggest currents of faith among Bengali Hindus.

The next curtain can be raised when Bengal is under British occupation. A society drowned neck deep in the violent orgies of Tantric cults, human sacrifices in front of Goddess Kali, and burning of Sati (wives' immolation at their husbands' pyre) will produce two great challengers of established religion: Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Vidyasagar. In Ram Mohan's project, there will be a social reformation that would like to return to the roots of Vedic religion, i.e. Sanatan Dharma. Brahmoism subsequently would be formed as a religious, social and cultural movement.

In a word, Brahmos opposed and challenged the very evolution of different religious currents in Bengal for last thousands of years. Naturally it was difficult for them to have a practical and performative dimension for their newfound religion, so they liberally borrowed from the Vaishnav practices of communal (some left-liberals have made this word a cliched signfier for religious fundamentalism, but communal is after all an adjective derived from the word community) songs and music, procession and dance, sentimental piety etc. In fact, one Brahmo leader Keshub Chunder Sen (that's how Keshob Chondro Sen's name was spelt by the British for whom he was a close ally) came to be considered as a reincarnation of Chaitanya by his followers.

If Brahmo movement, which swept Bengal as an intellectual, philosophical, social, religious and above all as an emotional current, was deriving from Vaishnavism, then Shaktos did not waste any time in striking back. Ramkrishna Paramhansa and his disciple Vivekananda revived Hinduism's Shakto cult once more.

Gradually Brahmoism receded, subsided and retreated on the face of a resurgent Hinduism. What Vivekananda did was in no way a single handed revolution. Shakto cult runs historically deeper in the Bengali mind than any other faith (in spite of Chaitanya's remarkable achievement, Vaishnavism comes second to Shakto cult), so this resurgence was made on a favourable base.

Now, I would come to another aspect of these changes, together which seem to be the only constant thing in Bengal's history. Bengali Hindus were a close associate of the British in the conspiracy against Siraj, the last free (but illegitimate, since self-proclaimed) Nawab of Bengal. In fact, Durga Puja, worship of Goddess Durga (now the biggest annual festival of Bengali Hindus), was started in 1757 to commemorate the fall of Siraj by Raja Krishnachandra of Nadia and Raja Nabakrishna of Kolkata at their respective places.

Bengalis came to form the comprador class in Imperial India. By 1857 Bengalis were so ubiquitous as lawyers, clerks, deputy collectors, doctors and teachers in British administration, that it was said about the mutinous Sepoys that at any given place, after they were done with the British, they turned their ire against the Bengalis.

Such close loyalties to the British, and again we did another volte-face. Bengali upper caste Hindus, commonly known as the baboo or Bhadralok (literally meaning gentleman) rebelled against the British in such an unprecedented manner in just 20-30 years from 1857 that the British panicked and divided Bengal. Not only at the administrative level. Also at the social and religious level. As a revenge, Bengalis turned Bengali nationalism into a pan-Indian force and metamorphosed it into an Indian nationalism. We taught Vande Mataram to the rest of India.

The moment the upper caste Hindus were turning against the British, it was also a moment when their past nemesis would come chasing after them. This is how the biggest tragedy of Bengal's history would eventually happen. The British would reach out for new allies, Bengali Muslims and the lower/oppressed castes among Bengali Hindus. Bhadraloks had a very simple-minded approach, they thought that they had to drive out the British, and once the country was free, everything would fall in place. In any case they were not able to understand the problems which were inherent in the Bengali society. Historically it would prove to be their fatal flaw. Partition of Bengal in 1905 was finally revoked by the British in 1911, while simultaneously shifting the capital from Calcutta to Delhi (Bengali Hindu was no longer a safe species to be cohabited with). However, Rasbehari Bose and Basanta Biswas came chasing after the British rulers from Bengal and hurled an odd bomb or two on them at Chandni Chowk at the inaugural ceremony of the new capital in the august presence of the emperor of Great Britain King George.

Interestingly, the revival of Hinduism (that was preceded by the Brahmos who were by and large British collaborators, with one notable exception of Shibnath Shastry) in late nineteenth century Bengal and the Calcutta-centric limited Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment merged together in an amazing synthesis to compose the nationalistic fervour of the Bengali Bhadralok. These two apparently antithetical currents together contributed to the stauch anti-imperial feeling against the British.

But, to draw an analogy, just like today's left liberal is pitifully, crudely illiterate when it comes to nationality, religion and and caste, our freedom fighters too were colour blind to the plight of Muslims and the oppressed castes among the Hindus. Tagore novel Ghare Baire (The Home and the World), made into a film by Satyajit Ray, beautifully illustrates the birth of this tragedy, which will culminate in another (this time inevitable and final) partition of Bengal, in 1947. In all fairness, it too must be admitted that while the upper caste Hindus were busy fighting for freedom, the Muslim and Scheduled Castes' organizations were busy currying favours with the British! But then the disinherited and the alienated cannot be simply blamed.

However, the Bengali Dalits paid in their blood for their lack of farsightedness, they paid tremendously for siding with Muslim League. The tragedy of partition was in fact the tragedy of the lower caste Hindus who bore the rbunt of it.

Another change was now in the offing. A cultural nationalist politics of Swadeshi that was once pivotal in Bengal's freedom movement now started to give way to what retrospectively we might call a classic Stalinist left politics, from the 1940s. Though Congress would continue to rule Bengal for some more time, the intellectual hegemony would rest effectively with the left from 1940s and 1950s. Suddenly, from the 1950s onwards, educated Bengali Hindus are no longer comfortable in discussing their identities, religion and caste; whereas in the three immediately preceding decades they were into a vigorous identity politics of cultural nationalism, jostling for space in a severe competition with two newly emergent forces which formed a victorious alliance against them, Dalits and Muslims, in an overall communally vitiated atmosphere.

With left politics, Caste Hindus of Bengal begin to feel a bit unsure about what is to be done with the fact that they are Bengali and Hindu. They wanted to wish these identities away. They still remained, no doubt, Hindu Bengalis. But discussions and analyses are barred. Deeply swept away by a newfound brand of Marxism, henceforth Bengali Bhadraloks will give birth to a peculiar chimera of a left politics. Dalits will be still at the margins. Or they wil b worse, when lower caste refugees will be butchered by a joint operation by CPM cadres and police following a direct command of Jyoti Basu immediately after the first Left Front Government assumes power. Muslims will continue to be treated as votebanks, large scale infiltration will be encouraged from Bangladesh (for economic reasons Bangladeshi Muslims come to India, like Mexicans come to US). In 1947, after the partition, 9% of West Bengal's population were Muslim, today it is 25%, unofficial figures cite it is close to 30%. Such drastic demographic changes happened because of massive infiltrations. But there will b pathetic education levels and near-zero empowerments for them, Bangladeshi infiltrators and Indians alike.

And suddenly we shall see a Hindu fundamentalist politics to rear its ugly head in memorable time. Throughout the 1990s, India in general suffered from Hindutva politics of BJP, and they tried to make inroads to Bengal as well. So, 45 years after Syamaprasad Mukherjee, Bengal had two Hindutva politicians representing it at Govt of India as Ministers of State (Tapan Shikdar and Satyabrata Mukherjee). Both of them became MPs from two long-held left bastions. This change was, however, short lived. As if in a classic illustration of Marx's opium of the people analysis, the Hindu refugees from Bangladesh realized that BJP had nothing to offer them which might heal their wounds. Voting for that party was an imaginary solution for their loss of homeland and an illusory redressal of their wounds inflicted by Islamic fundamentalists who tortured and drove them away from Bangladesh. Once exercised, its vacuity was painfully exposed. As a result, BJP became microscopic in Bengal once more. CPM had no role to play here apart from that of a spectator, since it grossly and crudely lacks the analytical language that can allow it to understand history, identity, society, culture, caste and religion.

Bengal's changes have always been very fervent in nature. And contrary to what my friend said, I find the Bengalis to be quite loyal. Yes, they change their ideological courses from time to time as they renew and reinvent their identities in that process, but they remain relatively committed to some principles throughout that process in a pretty steadfast manner. Needless to say, this zig-zag course of Bengalis in history amply frustrates the triumphalism of bourgeis liberal rationalists, who want to reduce human history to a unilinear motion of progress.

May be in future I would like to deliberate on the next change that is now impending in Bengal. That is a history in making.