sign in sign up
<<
Home , Doms, Kalita (caste)

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 HISTORICITY OF CASTEISM: AND THE VAISHNAVA MONASTERIES AKHYAI JYOTI MAHANTA

M.PHIL SCHOLAR

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY, ASSAM

E-MAIL: [email protected]

PHONE NO: 8822322781

Abstract

Assam has a long history of immigration from different corners of India and Asia as a whole and hence it truly manifests the notion of diversity in its social setting. Although geographically it is situated in a relative isolation from the center of the country, in the socio-political domain it is too lined with the traditional Hindu social structure. While every Indian is more or less aware with the history and prominence of caste in the Indian society, Assam is no exception in this regard as it too has a long history of casteism witnessed and expressed with its regional varieties. Assam came in touch with Brahminical with the arrival of the Aryans and with the aegis of the royal dynasties casteism spread across all communities especially with those who affiliated to Hindu religion. Hence a hierarchy based on caste identity remained intact with the social lives of the region. While sectarianism denies all discriminatory practices, the vaishnava monasteries in Assam could not escape the order of the caste system and thus moved away to a great extent from its fundamental ethics of reformism and the goal of making a unified society. So, this study attempts to analyze how Assam was engulfed by the caste regulations where the ethnic hold was quite strong and also explain the process of reproduction of casteism within the religious ambience of the vaishnava monasteries.

Key words: caste, history, vashinavism, monastery, ethnicity.

I. Introduction

“It is impossible to understand an institution adequately without an understanding of the historical process in which it was produced.”1

- Berger and Luckmann

Caste is the primordial domain of understanding social stratification in Indian society. The social divisions based on the varna system has been the underpinning of the prevailing hierarchies and hence the social locations of the individuals and the communities are highly determined by it for generations. Assam is said to be nominal in terms of casteism and Mahatma Gandhi too acknowledged the flexible presence of casteist outlook in the Assamese society due to the far-reaching impact of the Bhakti movement introduced by Srimanta Sankardeva, the medieval saint and social reformer, in the region (, 2017). The idea of aggressive untouchability may not be seen in this state unlike the pan Indian context but Assam too came under the universal effect of Brahminism in various phases of history. Experiencing the discriminatory social system set under the norms of Brahminical Hinduism, Sankardeva brought Assam into the fold of sectarian Hinduism in the form of Neo- which aspired to build an inclusive society and makes religion accessible to all irrespective of their caste, community or religious background.

1 (Berger and Luckmann, 1991: 72).

3623 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 Accordingly the vaishnava monastery called the institution was established as the center of developing and preaching the vaishnavite ethics across all sections of the society. But these monasteries too came under the purview of caste considerations after its formation and thus could not prevent the expansion of casteism in the society. Therefore, this discussion looks at the historical process of penetration of casteism into Assam as well as the monasteries of the region.

II. Unfolding the History of Caste System in Assam

History of a place is uncovered often through its textual and oral narratives where both myth and reality merge together to make a complex whole and thus the origin and development of a discourse in a particular area has to be dug out of this contested history and tradition. The inflow of Brahminism and the later development of casteism in the satra institution was not an abrupt and exclusive phenomenon. It was the prevailing caste order in the contemporary Assamese society that helped in reproducing the caste hierarchy among the Vaishnava monks who were otherwise supposed to be progressive towards social causes. This very notion of casteism has to be understood from the larger picture of Aryan influence upon the land of (ancient name of Assam). Noted historians like Dr. Prafulla Mahanta and Laxminath Tamuli have viewed that historically ancient Assam was a separate country outside the geographical boundary of Hindu or Aryan Bharata. Exclusion of Brahmaputra from the seven sacred rivers of India qualifies this argument. According to Dr. Mahanta, as mentioned in his book Axomiya Madhyabitto Srenir Itihas, the creation of the royal mythical characters in or Mahabharata was in reality a failed attempt of the to transform Kamarupa-Assam into an Aryan colony by establishing Brahminism as a rapacious folk tradition of the region (, 2013).

This fuzzy picture of ancient Assam is yet not transparent, but the migration history of ancient Assam in the first millennium provides a glimpse of the arrival of Aryan communities to the region after the immigration of the Mongoloid and the Austro-Mongoloid people around 500-100 BC. This paved the way for significant Aryan migration from northern and eastern India and author Dr. Dhrubajyoti Bora states that they were the forefathers of the present day Kalitas and many Brahmans of Assam (Bora, 2013). On a similar note author B.C Allen states,

“…that they were the remains of an Aryan colony who settled in Assam at a time when the traditional castes were still unknown in and that the word „Kalita‟ was originally applied to all the Aryans who were not Brahmans” (Barpujari, 2007: 154).

The ancestors of Kaibarttas of Assam also travelled to this region along with them. It is mention worthy that the Vedic Indo-Aryan origin of this first groups of migrated Brahmins is again a matter of controversy. As mentioned in H.K. Barpujari’s history text The Comprehensive (Volume V), during the 11th century when Ballala Sen, the King of Bengal, (1178-79) ordered to examine the qualification of the Brahmans, some of them were said to have less proficient in the knowledge of Hindu rituals and lax in their practice (Barpujari, 2007). According to some tradition, a major section of this group of Brahmans immigrated and settled in Assam. This might be a reason of non-existence of kulinism2 as well as rigid caste divisions in this region than Bengal or other parts of the country. Nevertheless, the Brahmans are considered to be superior in the caste hierarchy of Assam. Those were priestly and scholarly people with expertise in agriculture, administration as well as in religious activities. So, eventually they received patronage of the ruling classes and royal dynasties of the region and the process of Sanskritization3 or Aryanization was introduced among the tribal kings including the Barman kings, the first historical dynasty of ancient Assam (Sharma, 2009). According to Huen Chang’s report of Kamarupa, many kings including Kumar Bhaskar Barman tried to strengthen the Varna system in their country under the supervision of the Brahman priests, but due to the widespread ethnic hold the caste divisions could not be rooted in this land compared to other parts of India. Still their influence continued even during the British regime when along with teaching and literary works they engaged in other worldly pursuits such as low ranked government service holders, mouzadars4, writers, clerks etc.

2 Kulinism is the strict form of caste marriage or hypogamy. 3 Sanskritization is lifting one’s identity on the caste ladder through renunciation of old rituals and practices and enunciation of the new. 4 Mouzadar is a person entrusted with the responsibilities of collecting revenues. (Source: Saraighat Abhidhan)

3624 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 The Ganaks and Daivajnas are placed next in the hierarchy who like the Brahmans also learn gayatri5, wear sacred thread and undergo purifying ceremonies. The criterion is they cannot act as priests except of the lower castes. Followed by them come the whose origin can be traced back to the seven houses of Kshatriyas who were brought to Assam by the Kamata King Durlavnarayan. Traditionally they were given the profession as scribes or account keepers. The Kayasthas in Assam wear sacred thread along with the Brahmans and they are said to be derived from socially mobile Kalitas. Among the Kalitas there are basically two broad categories Barkalitas, who are said to be real Kalitas and Saru Kalitas, who are originally Kewats. The traditional occupation of Kalitas is agriculture while its sub-castes are engaged in various low earned professions such as potters, barbers etc. The Borkalitas do not usually perform intermarriage with Saru Kalita and other sub-castes. The Kalitas are followed by the Kewats, Ahoms, Chutiyas, Koch or Rajbansis, Mech, Bodos, other tribal communities and their sub-groups and sub-castes. Observing the loose yet complex caste hierarchy in Assam B.C. Allen divided castes of the Brahmaputra and Surma (Barak) valleys into three groups: a) Brahmans or ‘twice-born’, b) Clean Sudra from whose hands Brahmans usually take drinking water without degradation c) castes not included in these categories (Barpujari, 2007).

Culture is a relative system where it is influenced by and has influence upon other cultures. Although the Brahminical Varna order could not properly enter into the lifeline of the great Assamese society, it did make a mark on this region by formulating a hierarchy among various groups through Hinduization process. According to the historian H.K. Barpujari, unlike the occupational divisions, the caste system in Assam appeared entirely as a matter of race (Barpujari, 2007). Similarly, author Audrey Cantlie states that majority of the indigenous Hindu population in Assam consists of Brahman, Kalita, Kewat and Kaibartta, Koch, Rajbansi, Ahom, Chutiya, Boria, Nadiyal and Chandal etc (Cantlie, 1984). It implies that the Varna model is difficult to apply in case of Assam. There are no Vaishyas in Assam and the British administrator Edward Gait remarked that though the Brahmans continued to exist as mentioned in Manusmriti6, but the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras had disappeared and the Kalitas took their place. They are originally Aryans, but not Brahmans and in lower Assam the Kayasthas, who wear sacred thread along with the Brahmans, gradually merged with the Kalitas. So, the Brahmans and the Kayasthas thus appeared as clean castes by positioning themselves above all other social groups (Barpujari, 2007). Further, there are no Kshatriyas found in this region although social groups like the Ahoms and the Koch reined the land for centuries. According to Cantlie,

“The Ahoms, who were the rulers of the State before its annexation by the British, now rank low in the hierarchy and Brahmans do accept water from their hands” (Cantlie, 1984: 245).

The castes in Assam are not undifferentiated blocks and they are divided into sub-castes. For instance – the Koch caste is divided into Great Koch (Hinduized) and a number of lower divisions and the Brahmans accept food and water from the former group only. Similarly, the Kewats are divided into agriculturalists (halova Keot) and fishermen (jalova Keot). While the former group is considered relatively a clean caste, the latter is given a parallel position with the untouchable Doms of Bengal. Kaibarttas in Assam come under this category (Cantlie, 1984). But occupation has never been a defining factor in terms of caste identity as many of them such as Kalita, Keot, Ahom, Bor Koch, Chutiya are engaged in occupations like agriculture for a long time. Edward Gait also writes,

“…The oilman is generally a Kewat, the potter a Kalita, a Kewat, or a Chandala; the barbar is usually a Kalita, and so on for all the rest. The professional castes are non-existent” (Barpuzari, 2007: 151).

The Hinduization as well as the Sanskritization by the Brahmans first introduced the hierarchical caste system in Assam and with the hope of getting social and economic recognition from the mainstream society and following the ruling class, many social groups and indigenous tribal people became part of this so called uplifting process. But the ritually complex Brahminic Hinduism as well as the exploitative authoritarian temperament of the Brahman caste never really elevated the position of the neophytes for which they resorted to the Vaishnava gurus of the monasteries for their emancipation. As mentioned by Chandan Kumar Sharma,

“It facilitated the entry of a large number of tribal people to the fold of Hinduism without any of the difficulties that orthodox Brahminic Hinduism has posed” (Sharma, 2009: 368).

5 Gayatri is a hymn from Vedic texts. 6 Manusmriti is an ancient legal text written by pundits where all rites, rituals and propositions for every societal issue were mentioned.

3625 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 Due to this Hinduization process and the later caste mobility, the Guxains7 of different monasteries have multiple caste backgrounds. Cantlie writes,

“The first satr ̅dhik ̅r of Barpeta was Mathuradas Ata from the Candal community (scheduled caste)….Sesa, Katani, Budbari and Chaliha satras have Kaibartta adhik ̅rs who are called today. Now all the non-Brahman adhik ̅rs call themselves Kayastha, but originally it was not so (statement of a Mahanta)” (Cantlie, 1984: 177).

So, the Guxains are considered more as a religious category than a caste.

Thus, there is a constant upward and downward (those who have left Hinduism and taken up their original tribal identity) mobility in the history of casteism in Assam which even sometimes make the census statistics not completely convincing. Again, there is difference in treatment to the same castes in lower and upper Assam as well as in the region. Besides, many people have converted themselves to , Buddhism and Islamism but retained the titles of their forefathers for which tracing their original caste identity is a labourious process. Therefore, it can be said that casteism in Assam has always been fluid and intricate affair.

III. Sub-Sect Formations – the Gateway of Casteism into Monasteries

The authoritative presence of Brahminism was in its peak during the time of Sankardeva and the Assamese society was in a state instability because of widespread differences among people on the basis of caste, class, gender and religion. Therefore, according to the notable Sankardeva scholar Maheswar Neog, Sankardeva envisaged to bring about a modern and comprehensive outlook of life and a healthy structure of social behavior with an all-pervasive organizational set-up (Neog, 2004). And to bring this goal into reality, Sankardeva established naamghar8 and consequently the satra institution to create a democratic society by giving equal space and honor to people of all sections.

Sankardeva’s indomitable scholastic personality was a terror for the Brahman priests. Scholars like Hiren Gohain and Dr. Nagen have clearly mentioned that Sankardeva had never directly criticized and abused the Brahmans and their Vedic culture, but he strategically endeavored to reduce the extremity of orthodox beliefs and practices by challenging the caste conservatism and exploitation brought by Brahminism into the peaceful society of Assam. Though he succeeded to a great extent in terminating the disparities among the people and germinated the early seeds of nationalism in the Assamese society, it was devalued with the reemergence of Brahminism after his demise in 1568 (Bora, 2013).

As mentioned in Lila Gogoi’s Asamar Sanskriti, Sankardeva left seven religious gurus behind him whom he gave equal honour and responsibility (Cantlie, 1984). But among them Madhabdeva was his favourite and Sankardeva chose him as his successor which was despised by Damodardeva (Damodara Vipra) as he wanted to succeed the headship of the order after Sankardeva. Due to this when guru Sankardeva passed away, Damodardeva refused to attend his first death anniversary organized by Madhabdeva to symbolize his disowning of Madhabdeva’s leadership. This led to the beginning of schism and development of sub-sects called ‘Samhati’ in the post-Sankarite period and the Damodoriya schism was known as Brahma-Samhati. Another Brahman disciple Harideva also started a new schism and gradually they both merged together to introduce their sub-sect as Brahma-Samhati. In most of the Brahma-Samhati satras the headship is offered only to Brahmans and they perform Brahminical (Vedic) rites and rituals side by side with the Vaishnava devotional practices. There are four principal satras of this Samhati namely Auniati, Dakhinpat, Gadamur and Kuruwabahi (in district) which are together called ‘Bamuniya chari satra’9 (, 1988).

After Madhabdeva’s demise there was again a question arose regarding the leadership of the order. Both Gopala Ata and Mathuradasa Budha Ata claimed themselves to be real successors of Madhabdeva and this difference gradually widened to form two other sub-sects called Kal- Samhati and Nika-Samhati. Kala-Samhati is liberal on many social issues and it carries an indifferent attitude towards the Brahminical practices (Goswami, 1988). Dihing and

7 Guxains are the upper caste group in the vaishnava monasteries and they are considered as the guru category. 8 Naamghar is a place of community worship. 9 Four satras headed by Brahmans.

3626 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 Mayamara deserve special mention among the monasteries of this Samhati for their importance in the political history of Assam. On the other hand, Nika-Samhati strictly follows the religious activities and is discipline in terms of food, dress and manner for the purity of mind and body. Due to this consciousness of maintaining outward cleanliness and other formalities, this Samhati got the name ‘Nika’ (means clean). They give more importance to Madhabdeva as guru instead of Sankardeva whereas the latter is considered the guru of their guru. Barpeta, Kamalabari and Madhupur are some famous satras affiliated to this Samhati. Further, there was a bitter relation between Mathuradasa and Chaturbhuja on the debate of whom to be called their guru between Sankardeva and Madhabdeva. The Bardowa groups of monasteries claimed that Purusottama and Chaturbhuja being the two grandsons of Sankardeva should be the legal successors of this order. Thus this contentious situation finally brought another sub-sect called Purusa-Samhati.

In terms of religious and ritualistic activities there are no radical differences among the sub-sects but these old internal debates had germinated the seed of entering the external socio-political paranoia to this holy institution. The emergence of four divisions within a short span of time bifurcated Sankardeva’s goal of having a unified society into pieces. In his absence, when it required flourishing his altruistic ideologies across the region, the entire social order of the satras moved in an opposite direction. Gradually the hunger of wealth and power diluted the religious gurus of these institutions from their assigned role of spreading humanity and creating equilibrium society. In this critical juncture of delusion and de-morality, casteism caught hold of the mind of these religious pontiffs who, at that time, blindly reproduced the Brahminical caste hierarchy and prejudices among its own followers to maintain their authoritarian position intake.

During the Ahom regime in early 18th century Brahminism resurrected with uninterrupted force. The Ahom King Gadadhar Singha was critical about the scarcity of serfs (paiks) in the state due to the rising number of monks in the satras who were not meant to plough in the fields and serving the thrown. But his succeeding King Rudra Singha took shelter in Vaishnavism but at the same time unlike Gadadhar he was attracted to as well. According to scholar Dr. Hiren Gohain, the Ahom King offered royal patronage to the monasteries with the motive of influencing more people and expanding geographical territory under the (Gohain, 2014). But when Rudra Singha observed opposite reaction to the Ahom feudal system under the impact of liberal Vaishnavism, he invited Krishnaram Bhattacharyya, a well known Bengali Kulin Brahmin of Nadiya (Bengal) to his kingdom to receive tantric lesions. The King brought him on the advice of another tantric scholar named Padnav Bhattacharrya and in Lila Gogoi’s book Beli Maar Gol these two tantric pundits are referred as “two ruined asteroids in the skies of Assam”(Bora, 2013: 66). Even during the time of Koch King Naranarayana two smarta pundits called Raghunandan Bhattacharyya and Pitambar Sidhanta Bagish came to spread Brahminical Varna system in Assam which was fortunately prevented by the teachings and debates of Sankardeva. But Krishnaram left no stone unturned to establish the supremacy of Brahminism and caste based divisions among the indigenous population of the region and eventually Brahminism came into conflict with the Vaishnava sect. Rudra Singha became completely blindfolded and brought Brahminical revivalism in the contemporary Vaishnava tradition of the region. Anil Roychoudhury in his work Asomar Samaj-Itihasot Nava-Vaishnav-Bad writes how the King, being directed by Krishnaram’s propositions, created divisions between the Brahman Satradhikars (satra head/ head priest) and Shudra Satradhikars ordering that no Shudra Satradhikar could give initiation to the Brahmans. He also directed that no Brahman could live in a monastery headed by a Shudra Satradhikar and ordered all monasteries to perform idol worship by employing Brahman priests. He publicly humiliated all those who refused to abide by his orders (Bora, 2013). This institutionalization of Brahminical casteism used the satras as favourable platforms in enlarging its impact over the masses where especially the Brahma-Samhati satras made the process more feasible by incorporating the Vedic rites by compromising its sectarian ethics.

By then the satras especially the Brahma-Samhati satras were getting gracious patronage of the Ahom kings with grants of revenue-free land and serfs. Dr. Amalendu Guha writes in Planter-Raj to Swaraj (1977),

“The family of Parbatia Goswami possessed as much as 41000 acres (i.e. 1, 23,000 bighas) of land, spread over 31 Mauzas. It was estimated in 1883 that Parbatia Goswami and the Madhav Debalaya between them accounted for no less than a thousand ryots. Such ryots did not enjoy occupancy rights anywhere in the ” (Sharma, 2008:59).

They continued to get patronage even during the colonial period where they received ample amount of revenue-free or half-revenued lands. The monasteries were getting very influential both economically and politically and the British rulers wanted to overpower the region with the help of these monasteries. Considering these facts, therefore,

3627 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 historians like Guha titled them as ‘religious feudal lords’ (Bora, 2013). The crave of socio-economic power made them exploit even the naïve tribal neophytes who once took religious shelter in monasteries because of Brahminical tyranny and eventually many of them were bound to resort to their original tribal identity. But this converted section was not welcomed by their old folks which ultimately forced them to resort to Christianity instead of going through an identity crisis.

According to scholars like Hiren Gohain and Mayur Bora, two main pillars of Brahminical ideology are – strong casteist attitude and arrogance of superiority complex. But the very Brahminism was highly followed by the Brahman satra head-priests and they have also continued performing idol worship which directly opposes Sankardeva’s Vaishnava philosophy. The truth is - since the Ahom kings were promoting the Shakti cult, the Brahman Satradhikars of the satras also extended their support with the hope of continuing the royal aegis (Bora, 2013)

They were so overwhelmed by the feudal and Brahminical supremacy that they started using the imported ‘Goswami’ title of Bengal as their surname. Dutta Deva Goswami of Auniati Satra was first to use the title and in his news paper ‘Assam Bilashini’ he explained the reason of this initiative stating that this would differentiate the Brahman Satradhikars from their Shudra counterparts. They were so engulfed by the Brahminical caste consciousness that they even underrated the significance of Sankardeva and Madhabdeva as persons of Shudra origin. As written by Mayur Bora, some of the Brahma-Samhati heads stated that Sankardeva should be called ‘Sankar Ata’ by avoiding the ‘deva’ term. What they believed that no non-Brahman could take the ‘deva’ title. There are multiple instances where these Satradhikars overthrew the position of Sankardeva with insults and disrespect. Thus, this group of Brahman Satradhikars paved the way for entering the caste prejudices into this otherwise egalitarian monastery (Bora, 2013).

According to a report of Bahi magazine (1916), the Satradhikars of various satras prohibited the entry of Kaibarttas, Baniya and other lower castes into their satras, temples and prayer halls for which the Dalits had to form social movement and take legal actions for recovering their rights (Sharma, 2013). Despite of offering monetary contributions to the satras for centuries and taking religious shelter in the satras, these people never get their due respect and status and today this has resulted in conversion of many Mishing10 community people to Christianity in . Pitambar Deva Goswami, the Satradhikar of Garamur satra, was unique among them who preached, worked and voiced for an equal and liberal society. Author Dr. V. Venkot Rao in his book A Century of Government and Politics in N.E. India (Volume – V) writes,

“Pitambar Deva Goswami considered Brahminism to be primarily responsible for the subjugation of India. He therefore condemned Brahminism for its selfish activities” (Sharma, 2013: 67).

While Goswami was fighting for the rights of Dalits and other tribal communities, and relentlessly participating in the freedom movement, the then Satradhikar of Auniati Satra became restless to expel him from the position of head-priest for staining the prestigious position of the gurus. It implies that when the disciples and followers were in a subjugated situation, the Satradhikars were concentrating on increasing their wealth, power and holding on to their other privileges. The British census report of 1881-1991, as notified by critic Hiren Gohain, also showed that satras had become the hub of casteism (Gohain, 2014) and the gurus and their kins transformed from a feudal upper class to a priestly upper caste by introducing themselves as Guxains. Under the influence of those Guxains, the tribal neophytes and the upper sections of the sub-caste also began practicing endogamy and became conscious during social intercourse to protect and maintain their purity and social status.

Though the Kal and Nika Samhatis remained relatively exceptions in this respect, the Purusa-Samhati could not escape from the Brahminical influence and they too secretly followed some Brahminical rituals like gayatri, funeral, sacred thread ceremony etc. and kept the casteism to some extent. According to Cantlie, the Purusa-Samhati maintained an intermediate position in terms of caste distinctions, but anyway the caste distinctions in varying degrees had already entered into this sectarian belief system (Cantlie, 1984). The Brahman and the Kayastha Satradhikars, aiming to sustain their higher class and caste position, gradually turned the designation of head-priest into a hereditary vocation and especially the Purusa-Samhati stressed upon this principle. According to this principle,

10 Mishings are an indigenous ethnic group of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.

3628 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 “In satras where the satradhikar marries, the office passes from father to son, or in some cases from elder brother to younger brother. In satras where the satradhikar is celibate, a young boy from a Gosain family is given to the satra at a young age and trained as the intended adhikar” (Cantlie, 1984: 154).

The dharma sastras11 played a significant role here as the Guxains of all monasteries acted as the guardians of the society by implementing the rules ordained by these sacred texts. Their ideological temperament being based on the dharma sastras, most of them stood against the reform movements of the late 19th and early 20th century that sought for widow remarriage, opposed child marriage and demolition of untouchability. Dambarudhar Nath remarks

“They also acted as protector of the varnasrama dharma, and did not approve any form of inter-caste marriage in the society” (Nath, 2011: 46).

The priests ordered excommunication to those who violated this norm and the social offenders were excluded from the society and were outcaste until they received prayaschitta12.

The caste rigidity in these institutions has been decreasing with time and in urban areas there is a progressive change seen in the traditional outlook of the people. But the satra inmates especially Guxain category within the satra periphery is still endowed with the caste prejudices to a great extent. Such Brahminical caste attitude thus reiterates Pocock’s statement that the sects which usually oppose caste regulations eventually become part of casteism itself (Shah, 2006).

IV. Conclusion

Assam is blessed with the egalitarian philosophies of Neo-vaishnavism that it has not succumbed to the rigid casteism that is prevalent in the North Indian society. But it is not devoid of the political touch of casteism for which the Assamese society is segregated to multiple stratified groups. This subtle expression of caste hierarchy is observed mostly in terms of social interactions and hence for instance, inter-caste marriage is not yet a permissible act in the social life of Assam. Considering the sectarian background, the vaishnava monasteries must not be swayed by the hierarchical dogma of casteism but after Sankardeva the sectarian reformative ideologies were paralyzed once this institution was bifurcated to different sub-sects due to internal conflict among the disciples. Besides, after the sub-sect formations the Satradhikars’ greed for power and authority gradually increased for which they introduced the caste hierarchy in the satras so that they could hold on to their position without any obstacle. They also did not give heed to the diplomacy behind the royal patronages that the satras were used rather as a medium to keep the society divided forever so that the subordinates could not stood against the exploitations of the royal and colonial authority. Hence, the vibes of casteism has remained pertinent in the bloodline of the natives of Assam till date.

V. References

Barpujari, H. K. (2007). ‘Social Life: Continuity and Changes’. The Comprehensive History of Assam. (3rd ed., pp. 151-171). : Publication Board Assam.

Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. (1991). The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin Books.

Bora, M. (2013). Brahmanyabadar Koliya Davar Aru Axom. (2nd ed.). Guwahati: Aank-Baak.

Cantlie, A. (1984). The Assamese: Religion, Caste and Sect in an Indian Village. London: Curzon Press.

Gohain, Dr. H. (2014). Asomiya Jatiya Jeevanat Mahapurushia Parampara. (1st enlarged ed.) Guwahati: Alibat Prakashan.

Goswami, Dr. K. D. (1988). ‘The Beginning and Characteristics of Samhatis in Assam’. Post- ́ a ̇ kardeva Vai nava Faith and , pp. 34-45. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.

11 Dharma sastras means religious texts. 12 Prayaschitta is the acknowledgement of fault and purification.

3629 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 Kalita, S. (October, 2017). ‘Philosophy of Srimanta Shankardeva and His Neo-vaishnavism: A Philosophical Study.’ IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science. Vol. 22, Issue 10, Ver. VI, pp. 40.

Nath, D. (2011). ‘The Satra Institution – Form, Life and Culture: Understanding Medieval Vaishnava Traditions of Assam’. Religion and Society in North East India, pp. 37-83. Guwahati: DVS Publishers.

Neog, Maheswar. (2004). ‘The Vaisnava Renaissance in Assam’. Cultural Heritage of Assam, pp. 117-143. New Delhi: Omsons Publication.

Shah, A. M. (2006). ‘Sects and Hindu Social Structure’. Contributions to Indian Sociology. Vol. 40. Issue 2. pp. 209-248. SAGE Publications Inc.

Sharma, C. K. (2009). ‘The Tribe-Caste Continuum and the Formation of the Assamese Identity’. In B. K. Medhi, R. P. Athparia and K. J. SVD (Ed.). Tribes of North-East India: Issues and Challenges, pp. 354-366. New Delhi. Omsons Publication.

Sharma, Dr. D. (2008). ‘Jatiya Dharmar Kalpana: Jati Gathanat Satrar Samajik Bhumika Aru Tar Proti Srimanta Sankardeva Sanghar Xonhari’. Asomiay Jatigathan Prakriya Aru jatiya Janagosthigata Anusthan Samuh, pp. 54-113. : Ekalavya Prakashan.

3630