Ascetic Life

39 VI. ASCETIC LIFE [Ascetics of various sorts will be visible all through our travels, and it is essential for you to have some idea of who they are, and the social functions they play] 1. Introduction The previous chapter examined the roles that pandas play in Hardwar's religious life. Their individual importance comes from the rites they perform for their hereditary clients, particularly death rites, whose psychological importance helps sustain this connection. On a collective level, the Ganga Sabha seeks to protect and enhance Hardwar's religious atmosphere, and thus to protect member interests by retaining some control over Hardwar. In both cases, the pandas are a "closed" community—only Hardwar brahmins are entitled to perform these rites, cultivate these relationships, and belong to the Ganga Sabha. Such strict boundaries have protected the pandas’ ritual monopoly, but also locked the community into a tightly-defined role. As social changes over the past century have eroded the pandas’ economic prospects and earning potential, these same changes have also diminished the importance of their traditional status as Brahmins priests (purohits). Both factors are significantly different for ascetics, Hardwar's other resident religiosi. Whereas pandas are born (as Hardwar brahmins), ascetics take on this identity through conscious choice, and are thus a more "open" group. Ascetic groups show far greater variety than the pandas, and draw members from all parts of India and all social strata, although one still finds rank and status distinctions. Ascetics play important roles in Hardwar's religious life, but these tend to complement the pandas roles, and individual ascetics have greater latitude to shape their roles. This variety and flexibility have allowed some ascetics to adjust more successfully to Hardwar’s changing social environment, and to take greater advantage of its opportunities it brings. Hardwar not only has a long history as an ascetic center, but ascetics and their institutions have visibly shaped Hardwar's social and economic life. Most prominent among these are the Dashanami sanyasi akharas, militant organizations ("regiments") whose members were drawn from most of the Dashanami sub-groups.1 As noted in chapter three, these akharas were Hardwar’s ruling power in the eighteenth-century, and have since remained influential. The advent of British rule shifted their power from military force to their influence as wealthy landowners, which was reflected in their relationship with the British government—which reinforced sanyasi status by delegating 1 The ten Dashanami orders are divided into dandis and gosains (Sarkar n.d. 56). The dandis (which initiate only Brahmins) come from the Sarasvati, Ashrama, Tirtha, and half of the Bharati orders. The akharas draw their members from the gosains—who belong to the Giri, Puri, Sagar, Van, Aranya, Parvat, and the remaining Bharati orders, and draw members from throughout 40 powers to the mahants during festival times.2 In the early twentieth century ascetic bodies were the district’s largest landowners, and although land reforms have diminished their holdings, they retain considerable influence. This influence is clearly shown through various high-profile activities. Some of these are explicitly intended to transmit religious or cultural values—their temples are sacred centers, and they sponsor various sorts of religious events. Other activities seem more like public service-- medical dispensaries, schools, and free kitchens—and the Niranjani Akhara also runs a library, reinforcing an image of promoting literate culture. 3 Yet it also seems fair to characterize the akharas as in decline, precisely because their deeply entrenched institutions have made them less adaptable to social change. Their influence stems from their control over land, whose importance has diminished with the advent of different sources of wealth. One response to this change has been to take part in this new economy—in the 1950s the Niranjani akhara raised capital by selling land in the Sharvan Nath Nagar neighborhood, and it has also invested in commercial ventures such as large hotels, to reap the benefits from the tourist economy.4 From all reports the mahants are good businessmen, are committed to managing the akhara’s resources, and still control considerable wealth. Yet a more fundamental change has been the akharas’ declining importance within the ascetic world. Even fifty years ago the akharas were still the center of ascetic life, and joining one was the primary means to become a powerful ascetic. This required years of service and paying one’s “dues” before finally reaping the benefits, which is clearly no longer true. The akharas still control many of Hardwar’s most important temples, are still the Kumbha Mela’s central ritual agents, and are still very wealthy, but they don’t have a lot of warm bodies, as the 1998 Kumbha Mela processions clearly showed—some sanyasi processions contained only few dozen members, and even the Juna akhara had only a few hundred.5 Akhara membership has also declined because a viable alternative is being “ashram baba”—“entrepreneurial” ascetics who found their own institutions and seek independent Hindu caste society. 2 The current Mela administration has retained this practice. The government subsidizes certain festival costs (electricity, water, and telephone service), and has the akharas submit the list of qualifying members to the Mela administration. 3 The Niranjani akhara has clearly been pre-eminent at Hardwar, since they bathe first at the Hardwar Kumbha Mela, their landholdings are the closest to Har-ki-Pairi, and their mahants have considerable political capital. 4 Among the Sharvan Nath Nagar buyers were two groups of Bairagi ascetics, showing that market forces trumped sectarian differences. 5 This number may have been deceptive, since I heard rumors that Juna ranks on Chaitra Amavasya had been swelled with “one-day babas”—local thugs hired provide muscle power in the Junas’ bid to claim first place in the bathing order. The Vaishnava processions had far greater numbers, but these also included lay devotees. 41 patronage from Hardwar’s residents and visitors. For a charismatic and ambitious ascetic, running one’s own ashram is a quicker path to success—as ashram head one is immediately master of one’s own house, without having to earn seniority by years of service. This changing ascetic paradigm also reflects Hardwar’s shifting religious economy—the most desirable clients are now businessmen, not landowners, and many of them patronize charismatic individuals rather than sectarian institutions (Gross 1992: 461). Finally, a successful ashram baba can seek legitimation from the akharas by becoming a Mandaleshvar ("Lord of the Region"); this symbolic position makes him (or more rarely, her) the akhara’s spiritual adviser, and the teacher to its members.6 Another problem for the akharas has been their internal strife, particularly the Juna akhara’s attempts to raise its status. In the traditional Kumbha Mela bathing order -- which reflects group status—the Junas had bathed as a sub-group to the Niranjanis. They had sought independent status since at least 1903 (HMI Sept. 1903: 17), but gained it only in 1962, when the Junas and Niranjanis agreed that the Junas would bathe first on Shivaratri, and second on the two other bathing days (Charlu 1962: 53). The Junas now have by far the greatest numbers, which has led them to seek recognition as the primary akhara, and a riot ensued when they seized first place in the bathing order on the second bathing day in the 1998 Kumbha Mela. This attempt shows that the status in the bathing order is still extremely important, even though this bathing order no longer reflects actual power to control the Mela—which is wielded by the government. The akharas’ relative decline thus reflects social changes that have made akhara membership less compelling, and diminished it as the dominant ascetic paradigm. Further, even though the akharas still possess considerable wealth and influence, the mahants who control them are clearly not “typical” ascetics, but an anomalous minority—as CEOs of wealthy institutions, they function much like other wealthy and powerful men.7 The bulk of this chapter will examine more “typical” ascetics—meaning poorer and less influential—to look at who they are, how they live, and how the roles that they play render have helped them retain religious importance. 2. Identity And Attitudes Among ascetics themselves, one critical division is between those who have taken formal initiation, and those who have not. Initiates have become formal members of a particular ascetic group—they are Sanyasis, Bairagis, or Udasis—and display this identity 6 For example, Pilot Baba became a Juna akhara mandaleshvar at the 1998 Kumbha Mela, and reportedly paid a large sum of money for this honor. 7 Mines and Gaurishankar (1990) discus how the Kanchipuram Shankaracharya fits the South Indian notion of the “big man” (more commonly a political figure); the big man uses charisma and organizational resources to reinforce status by dispensing patronage. 42 in their dress, decorations, ritual accoutrements, and objects of devotion.8 Non-initiates are considered householders (grhasthas), regardless of their lifestyle, and one ascetic informed me of a coded language (sadhubhasha) to distinguish genuine ascetics from fake ones based on a few simple questions, and indicated that this code crossed sectarian boundaries.9 Yet even though ascetics themselves stress the division between initiates and non-initiates—which upholds their privileged status—this can mislead outsiders for two reasons. First, many other people dress, act, and function socially like ascetics, even though they have never taken formal initiation, and this makes it difficult for an outsider to any functional difference between them. More importantly, these monastic orders are not centralized religious bodies, but rather each local institution--math, ashram, or trust— is more or less independent, as are its members.

Load more