Conflict Over Worship: A Study of the Sri Guru Dattatreya Swami Bababudhan Dargah in South India Sudha Sitharaman ISBN 81-7791-195-3 © 2010, Copyright Reserved The Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) is engaged in interdisciplinary research in analytical and applied areas of the social sciences, encompassing diverse aspects of development. ISEC works with central, state and local governments as well as international agencies by undertaking systematic studies of resource potential, identifying factors influencing growth and examining measures for reducing poverty. The thrust areas of research include state and local economic policies, issues relating to sociological and demographic transition, environmental issues and fiscal, administrative and political decentralization and governance. It pursues fruitful contacts with other institutions and scholars devoted to social science research through collaborative research programmes, seminars, etc. The Working Paper Series provides an opportunity for ISEC faculty, visiting fellows and PhD scholars to discuss their ideas and research work before publication and to get feedback from their peer group. Papers selected for publication in the series present empirical analyses and generally deal with wider issues of public policy at a sectoral, regional or national level. These working papers undergo review but typically do not present final research results, and constitute works in progress. CONFLICT OVER WORSHIP: A STUDY OF THE SRI GURU DATTATREYA SWAMI BABABUDHAN DARGAH IN SOUTH INDIA§ Sudha Sitharaman© Abstract The dargah at Bababudhan hills has today become a site of self-identification, exclusion and tensions among groups in the State of Karnataka (South India). This paper seeks to explore the complex interactions between individuals and communities in terms of the changing dynamics of religion, ritual practices and religious identities in the context of the post-colonial secular, liberal nation state. An attempt is made here to make sense of the ways in which worship works its way through contemporary demands at the shrine. An Initial Foray There has been, in recent years, a deluge of research on Sufi shrines and saints in India . These studies are cent red around two themes: first, on the description and analysis of ritual practices in these shrines and second, on the miracles performed by the saints and subsequent religious conversions. Most of these studies tend to look at the symbolic meanings (and experiences) and/or their psychological or social functions (harmony and integration).1 However, studies investigating the ways in which shrines are entrenched in modern day politics remain neglected. This enquiry, broadly speaking, deals with ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ and the ways in which implicate each other. This concerns not just the way in which cultural organisations and political interests have used religion to justify a given or imagined social order (e.g. by the Hindu Right) or to challenge and change it (e.g. Sufism); but more importantly, how the nation state constructs clearly demarcated spaces and regulates them in accordance with a religious ideology, and further authorises religious personalities and ritual practices. I attempt to elaborate on these themes through a reading of debates surrounding the ritual practices in the shrine, Sri Guru Dattatreya Bababudhan Swamy Dargah2, located on the hills of Dada Pahad (the hill of the Sufi), also known as Chandradrona hill, the highest peak in Chikmagalur district of Karnataka (South India). § Acknowledgements: The first note of thanks goes to Firoz M Khan, for offering to share the numerous court orders concerning the shrine. I am deeply indebted to G K Karanth, Manu Chakravarthy, Shiva Sundar, G S R Krishnan, Ramesh Bairy, M R Rakshith, and, P Sudarshan, for their comments on this article. Fieldwork was conducted in Bababudhan dargah, Chickamagalur, Karnataka, South India between March and May 2005. Occasional visits were made in December 2003, December 2005, February 2008 and March 2009. I would like to thank Sayyed Ghouse Mohiuddin Shakhadri, Yoginder Sikand and S L Peeran for their inputs. A version of this paper was presented at the Panel on ‘Ritual Transfer’ at the conference on “Ritual Dynamics and the Science of Ritual” (September 29 – October 2, 2008), in Heidelberg. Suggestions made by Gita Dharampal-Frick, Robert Langer, who chaired the Panel, were used for writing this paper. Thanks, are due too, to the numerous participants of the Panel, Torsten Tschacher, Subhadra Channa, Tulsi Patel, and in particular my discussant Soumen Mukherjee, for their useful feed back. I am grateful to John Stratton Hawley for his comments and support. Suggestions from anonymous reviewers were also helpful and I thank them. This article is part of a larger project financially supported by the Indian Council for Social Science Research, New Delhi. The usual disclaimers apply. © Selection Grade Lecturer in Sociology, Government Arts College, Bangalore. Presently, ICSSR Fellow, affiliated to Centre for Study of Social Change and Development, ISEC, Bangalore. Scholarship on Islam in South Asia has often identified dargahs3 (shrines) and mazars (tombs) as centres of spiritual healing and has highlighted their association with the personality, and the power of certain ‘dead’ individuals. The dargah in Bababudhan houses the chillah (alt ar or seat of the deity) of Dada Hayath Qalandar4, while many see it as a temple of Swamy Dattatreya5. Further, others believe that Dada Hayath Qalandar and Swamy Dattatreya are two forms of the same divinity. Dattatreya, of the Hindu Puranas, is the three-headed reincarnation of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara and is accompanied by four dogs.6 Dada, as the legend has it, was a close associate of Prophet Mohammed, who traveled to India to preach Islam. Sayyed Shah Jamaluddin Maghribi, popularly called Bababudhan,7 a native of Baghdad came to Chikmagalur in the 16th century via Yemen, continued this lineage and played a major role in reviving the dargah. For centuries, both Muslims and non-Muslims have worshipped at this shrine. The practice of worshipping saints at the tombs, and praying for their intercession, has remained an issue for a number of theological debates among Muslims for centuries. Among others, one of the main points of disagreement has cent red around questions of syncretism‘ ’8, or ‘Hindu influence’ and ‘Hindu participation’. A long-standing argument against the worship of saints is that the imputation of divine powers to the saint and his tomb threatens the monotheistic nature of Islam, that it goes against the very fundamental concept of touh id, which considers worship of anything other than Allah as amounting to shirk (polytheism) and a bid’a, an innovation contrary to sunna, the normative example of the prophet. The fundamental issue here is whether ‘mediation’ of the saints amounts to shirk.9 However, the Sufi orders maintain that while all prayer is directed to Allah, the saint being seen merely as a messenger, the practice is therefore not un-Islamic. Noting the limitations of an exclusively textual understanding of such phenomena, studies on Islam point to the importance of ‘folk’ religion of the Muslims (Ahmad 1973; 1976; 1981). Ahmad, for instance, points out that saint worship is essentially a Hindu institution absorbed by Indian Islam. He argues that Islam in India is “heavily underlined by elements which are accretions from the local environment and contradict the fundamentalist views of the belief and practices to which Muslims must adhere” (Ahmad 1981: 81). Among other things, Ahmad emphasizes the uniqueness of syncretic aspects of Indian Islam.10 Robinson, on the other hand, attempts to show the gradual marginalisation of syncretic practices and how Muslim societies have moved towards a greater realisation and victory of what he calls a “pattern of perfection” (2000: 52), which is readily discernible in the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet. For Robinson, the course of Islamic history is clear. As knowledge of this perfect Islamic pattern spreads in countries like India, the process of Islamisation will sweep away the various ‘dubious’ practices that have crept into local Islamic cultures (Das 1984: 294). Behind the apparent divergences between views of scholars, there is a remarkable similarity wherein Ahmad and Robinson come to identify ‘tradition’ as an unchanging set of cultural prescriptions that stand in contrast to what is changing, contemporary or modern. Departing from the dichotomies11 of ‘elite’/‘folk’, ‘orthodoxy’/‘heterodoxy’, ‘tradition’/’modern’, ‘purist’/‘syncretic ’ Islam and in taking exception to the claim “of collapsing Hindu participation with the influence of Hinduism into a single phenomenon” (1992: 548), van der Veer offers an ethnographic solution through an analysis of rituals in his study of a Sufi shrine of the Rifa’i in Surat (Gujarat).12 Van der Veer shows that Ahmad’s notions of “syncretism” and the “Hindu” character of saint worship do not figure in the debate on shrine-worship here. He writes that neither the “participation” of Hindus nor the “influence” on 2 Muslim practices or even “syncretism” is an issue of contention among the Muslims in Surat . Further, he asserts that the debate on Muslim ritual practice is largely an “internal” one (within the Muslim community) and conclu des that they avoid discussions on “religious nationalism or communalism” (1992: 545-564). The