2. Interview Results

1. The Name

It is evident, that the name of the community is related to its land of origin, Śākadvīpa—a fact that was repeated to me in every interview. In Uttar Pradesh (Delhi), the most common spelling of the general name of these Brāhmaṇas seems to be ‘Śākdvīpī’, attested also as surname in the Anglicized form Shakdwipee (cf. INT. 1), maybe due to significant immigration from Rājasthān. In Rājasthān, next to ‘Śākdvīpī’ we also find the form ‘Śākdvīpīya’ (Engl. Shakdweepiya), which is definitely a typical secondary derivative form. On the contrary, in Bihār they call themselves ‘Śākaldvīpi’ Brāhmaṇs; the origin of the lateral consonant -l- is not clear to me.

2. Numbers and Surnames

According to their testimony, Śākadvīpīya people are present all over India, and especially in Rājasthān and Bihār, the most ancient places of settlement. One of my interviewees, Mr. C. Shakdweepiya from Udaipur, prepared a catalogue of the names, addresses, contacts and family history of every Śākadvīpīya family in Rājasthān (year 2003/04). In the Mārvāṛ and Mevāṛ regions alone, there are 400 Śākadvīpīya families (INT. 3, 11.23). In Bīkāner, they are around 25,000 in number, and in Rājasthān they seem to be around one 100,000 (INT. 5, 3.35). My interlocutor added that Bīkāner is the city with the densest concentration of Śākadvīpīyas, and that they are numerous in the Magadha-Bihār region, too. In Jodhpur, Rājasthān, they represent the eight percent of the total population (INT. 4, 0.19).

They have also adopted typical surnames, some of which are particularly meaningful; these will be discussed later. The surnames differ according to the state, too. For example, Sevak is still used only in Jodhpur and Bīkāner (INT. 5, not recorded information). The most common surnames are (all given in English spelling): Mishra, Bhojak, Mag, Pathak, Sharma, Pande, Sevak, Upadhyay, Vyās, Maharshi, Davera, and naturally Shakdweepe and Shakadveepiya.

3. Śākadvīpa

We have dealt with the possible coordinates of the mythical Śākadvīpa in the second chapter. What emerged from the interviews is that people have different ideas about this legendary island: all the interviewees in Bihār (INT. 6, 7, 8) told me that Śākadvīpa was coextensive with Iran, without a doubt. My hosts in Patna, who did not want to be interviewed because they claimed not to have a good knowledge of the topic, even though they were part of the community, stated that the ancient Śākadvīpa was part of the Iranian lands. Moreover, my first interlocutor in INT. 6, added that for this reason, contemporary communities still have some Iranian features. I asked for more information about this topic, but he did not reply.

In Uttar Pradesh and Rājasthān, people were generally more cautious in their claims: ‘Śākdvīp^[1] is one of the ancient dvīpas... Some people think that it can be identified with Persia’ (INT. 1, 5.38); ‘I do not know exactly where is Śākadvīpa. There are some theories about that, it’s near Iran... It’s near … Śākdvīp... I learned in... Atlantic Sagar. Exactly I don’t know where... Exactly I am not having any proof of this, from where we have come’ (INT. 5, 2.29). Only in one case did the interviewee deny a possible link with Iranian lands, connecting the etymology of the name Śākadvīpa with the Śāka tree: ‘From the śak tree. Some thinks it is related to Sakas... like Kūṣāns, Hūṇās … But that’s not true. It is the śak tree, a tree that has constantly various fragrances...’ (INT. 3, 0.23).

Therefore, the general tendency of identifying Śākadvīpa with Iran is present, or at least the people belonging to these communities claim to have foreign origins. Śākadvīpa is, above all, a mythical island, and they are proud of having this peculiarity in their tradition. In the end, origins do legitimate; and distant origins, in terms of time or space, legitimate even more fully, because they are in a certain sense inaccessible.^[2] For this reason, the Śākadvīpīyas let their being foreigners to become their peculiarity and their cohesive point; this is reflected in their name, too. On the other hand, for this reason they still have problems being accepted as Brāhmaṇas: ‘But we are not considered Brahmins from a great part of Indian society... […] Because we are foreigners’ (INT. 7, 14.43, 14.51).

4. Migration to India: Legend and History

The Sāmba- and Bhaviṣya-purāṇas deal with the legend of Sāmba contracting leprosy and praying to the sun god for his recovery; then he finds a statue of the sun in human appearance in the river Candrabhāgā and brings 18 families of Magas, the Brāhmaṇas of Śākadvīpa, to properly worship the idol of the sun. Having considered the version of the legend transmitted in the later poems (cf. paragraph 3.2), we notice that the Magas/Śākadvīpīyas are brought to India from Śākadvīpa not only to pray to the sun, but also to directly heal Sāmba (and not only him) from leprosy. In fact, over the centuries, this group must have specialized in Āyurvedic medicine, and they have come to be directly associated with the ability of healing. In a certain sense, the ancient power of the sun to cure all diseases has been transferred to the Śākadvīpīyas.

Generally, my interviewees were all aware of the Purāṇic legend of Sāmba’s disease and his recovery. In their stories, it is the sun god who cures Sāmba,^[3] thanks to the intervention of the Śākadvīpīyas, specialists in sun worship (INT. 2, 0.25; 5, 0.41; 7, 13.41). Those priests came to India and settled first in Multān (cf. INT. 5, 0.41), the first of the three sun dwellings mentioned in the Purāṇas. This place has become associated with the name Mathurā, also adopted as a family name in the Magavyakti (Mahurā > Mahurāśi). Then, they spread out all over India, especially to Magadha-Bihār, which is probably one of the most ancient settlements, and to Rājasthān, Tamil Nadu and every other part of India (cf. INT. 5, 0.45).^[4] Therefore, even the mythological journey from Śākadvīpīya had its stages. On a historic note, one of my interlocutors told me that, after the Partition in 1947, many Śākadvīpīyas who were settled in Punjab moved to the Sindh region (INT. 1, 13.17). It is interesting to note that many people in this group were actually living in north-western India/Pakistan until the middle of the twentieth century. This may be a confirmation of their having come from the west, and that the legend of the migration may underlie a historical truth. If we also consider the current king of Ayodhyā is a Śākadvīpīya and that, according to the Sāmvavijaya and the Khalavakracapeṭikā the Magas/Śākadvīpīyas were brought to Ayodhyā to help Rāma and Rāma’s father, it is impossible not to think about a connection between myth and history. Moreover, one of the names in the Magavyakti is Ayodhyāra, which means that those people should at least have come from that city, as the name testifies to their social presence there. A similar circumstance obtains for their legendary settlement in Gayā, another mythological settlement, again in Magadha-Bihār, in which we find epigraphic evidence of the presence of this group. In this case, my opinion is that the myth and history merged, influencing each other continuously. This, I think, is the peculiarity of historical chronicles in India, or rather, the peculiarity of Purāṇic chronicles. The Purāṇas, being ‘histories of ancient times’, narrate stories of real and mythological kings, and historical facts, confirmed by other sources, which are enriched by the presence of gods and heroes.

In any case, the story of the migration represents a common heritage of all the contemporary Śākadvīpīya communities, a peculiarity of their identity. Some of the versions of this legend have further implications. According to my seventh interviewee, the Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇas refused to come to India to help Sāmba in his recovery, so Kṛṣṇa devised a plan: ‘He sent Garuḍa to a field in which the children of these doctors used to play. The bird stayed there and then he flew away; sixteen children hung to Garuḍa’s body and flew to Dvārakā with him. […] Those sixteen children then married local girls and they settled first in Bihār, Gayā region, then to Jodhpur/Jaipur region and all over India. They gave names to sixteen purs. They are related to cities. It is said also that they gave names to the cities in relation to the parts of Garuḍa’s body they were attached while flying to India’ (INT. 6, first interlocutor). This story is clearly very similar to the one contained in the Sāmvavijaya. The number of the boys coincides and the deceptive way in which Garuḍa attracts them, even though it is different (in the Sāmvavijaya he offers them delicacies), has the same purpose.

In another version, Kṛṣṇa offers the Śākadvīpīyas the opportunity to stay in India, but they refuse (cf. Sāmvavijaya 5). Again, he cheats them, feeding Garuḍa with apples containing some gold, which impede Garuḍa from flying and forces the priests to remain in India (cf. INT. 7, 14.15). I could not find any trace of this story in the ancient literature.

Further questions can be raised about Garuḍa, the mythological vehicle of Kṛṣṇa, probably a huge bird. If the myth really represents a historical event, of which contemporary Śākadvīpīyas are convinced, Garuḍa may have been a ship, which in reality sailed from Iran to India in reality. I have heard also about the possibility of a prototype of a plane, which is perfectly in line with the mounting Indian belief that the ancient sacred texts already contained all the ideas about technology and progress.

5. The Sacred Text

Like all the other Hindūs, the Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇas rely on the Vedas as their primary source. The importance and centrality of these texts to Hinduism, and the fact that people from Śākadvīpa rely on them as well, is the first point of unity with other Brāhmaṇas. Their peculiar identity must not clash with the social need to be accepted and legitimated. They are indeed part of Hinduism, and the Vedas are the most ancient scriptures, the utmost in terms of wisdom and sacredness. The most interesting piece of information came from the oldest member of the Śākadvīpīya community in Patna: he told me that the existing Vedas are four, but that the ‘Śākaldvīpis had another one, but it was destroyed’ (INT. 8, 2.18). I tried to ask more about this fifth Veda, but he told me they did not know its name. They just knew it existed and then it was destroyed. This is incredibly meaningful, and can be connected with two points: in the Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (I. 140, 37), some ‘reversed’ Vedas are mentioned^[5]; these Vedas, which are defined as viparīta-, had been proclaimed by Brahmā in ancient times, like the other Vedas (Bhaviṣya-purāṇa I. 140, 36). Moreover, in this remark we find a trace of the Saura-purāṇa, probably identified with ‘the book of the Magas’ mentioned by Bhāvaviveka, which does not exist anymore. Even in the Rajasthān Oriental Research Institute manuscript of the Magavyakti, I found a mention of this work in the annotations, testifying to the fact that people at the end of the nineteenth/beginning of the twentieth century still had knowledge of this text. We cannot rule out that this Saura-purāṇa may simply have changed its name, or that people employed this expression to indicate another text. In any case, the reference to a specific work, now lost, sounds too familiar to be a coincidence. Furthermore, the fact that only the 95-year-old Biharī member informed me about this point, may indicate that middle-aged Śākadvīpīya people are no longer aware of this information.

The legend of their migration and the description of their practices, as we have repeatedly seen, is mainly contained in the Purāṇic literature, in particular the Sāmba- and Bhaviṣyapurāṇas. Generally, my interlocutors stated that Purāṇas are the texts in which the history of their community is narrated, and their content is reliable; they all accepted their authority except for one interviewee, who affirmed that the Vedas are the only source, because the Purāṇas are late texts, and for this reason, they are not reliable.^[6]

Beside the Vedas and the Purāṇas, the epics also serve as works of reference; the Mahābhārata was frequently quoted during the interviews. During the seventh interview, my learned interlocutor, Professor of English at the University of Patna, mentioned the references to the classes of Śākadvīpa in book 6 of the Mahābhārata (15.51); he said that the number of the puras, which we will discuss later, is 72, like the 72 Brāhmaṇas in the Mahābhārata (10.27). Then, in Bīkāner my interviewees told me the story of Barbarika, the grandson of Bhīma, a very peculiar character in the Mahābhārata, who had a power that can be compared to the efficacy of Āyurvedic treatments (cf. INT. 5, especially 39.05). Therefore, Mahābhārata is also a focal text for Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇas, and they are even mentioned in it. The Sāmvavijaya also associates their history with the vicissitudes of the epic’s heroes, and they were present at the battle fought by Kṛṣṇa, Bhīma and Arjuna against the king of Magadha (cf. paragraph 3. 2. 1).

During the interviews, nobody mentioned the Rāmāyana, but during lunch at my hosts’ parents’ house in Bīkāner, they showed me their domestic altar and gave me a small book in which was contained, according to them, their most important prayer, the ādityahṛdayastotram. This stotra is part of the Yuddha Kānda (105) of the Rāmāyana, and it is pronounced by the sage Agatsya when Rāma’s battle against Rāvaṇa is about to begin. In the Sāmvavijaya, the Magas are invited to Ayodhyā to celebrate Rāma’s aśvamedha.

Therefore, the central texts of Hinduism are indeed the fundamental texts of the Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇas, since they are actually Hindūs. Moreover, they have tried to connect their own history with the great heroes of the epics, and even to the Vedic texts, in order to be fully legitimized.

6. Nature, Āyurveda and Food

The Śākadvīpīyas ‘[…] have always been interested in natural sciences. The sun god is the only visible god. You can see him’ (INT. 2, 0.06); ‘[…] even if people do not worship him, he stays still’ (INT. 6, first interlocutor). This is a central point in the Śākadvīpīya cult: they worship the sun for its visibility. In the Sāmba-purāṇa (2, 19), it is defined as pratyakṣa-. His seven horses are considered the seven colours of the rainbow.^[7] Therefore, nature and the biology are very important to their cult. Traditionally, it seems that the Magadhan area, also called Greater Magadha (cf. BRONKHORST 2007), had another style of natural observation and medicinal practices, different from the Vedic ones. Strabo, in his Geography (15. 1. 70), states that in this area the Brāhmaṇas (Brachmanes) used to practice natural philosophy and astrology.^[8] Āyurvedic medicine was probably founded in the Magadhan environment, enriched by non-Brāhmaṇical cults. This parallel non-Vedic tradition of healing placed emphasis on the direct observation of phenomena; in particular, it is the disequilibrium of the bodily elements that produces disease.^[9]

Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇas have always had a particular interest in Āyurvedic treatments and in the knowledge of natural medicine. For example, in Rājasthān they are not only strict vegetarians, but they also avoid foods like garlic and onions, categorized as tamasic food. On the other hand, they use many plants for cooking. Particularly beloved is the tulsī/tulasī plant, the holy basil (Ocimum tenuiflorum), which is generally held most sacred by the Hindūs, especially Viṣṇu worshippers. In fact, it is believed that this plant consists in the hair of the goddess Lakṣmī, one of Viṣṇu’s wives, who was reborn as Tulasī, daughter of king Dharmadhvaja.^[10]

This Śākadvīpīya interest in medicine has its roots, according to my interlocutors’ opinion, in the Purāṇic texts: the sun healed Sāmba from leprosy, and they followed his example. In the Sāmba-purāṇa (11, 46), the Aśvins are qualified as physicians. Saṃjñā, having the form of a mare, was in the forest; the sun god, as a horse, approached her, but she refused him, probably because she had not recognized her husband. Then ‘she vomited the semen of Vivasvat from her nostrils. In this way the two Aśvins, the great physicians, were born.’^[11] According to the legend, Āyurveda was created by Svayambhū, ‘l’Être existant par lui-même’^[12], i. e. Brahman. Since men were not able to understand it in that form, Svayambū recomposed it and taught it to Prajāpati, who, in turn, transmitted it to the Aśvins.^[13] Therefore, in the sun’s family, this curative ability is a common trait. The Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇas being part of the sun themselves (we will discuss this point later), they share this interest in healing diseases.

One interviewee (INT. 5, 9.07) told me, ‘Our ancestors were doctors and we learned how to make medicines with the use of some leaves. And before one thousand year we can say that all community members, all community population was spread all over India, then they are not doing really anything, they have fallen down all these things, and Āyurvedic doctors are limited nowadays. One or two know these things. But our ancestors were perfect doctors, Āyurved doctors.’

In the Magavyakti (II, 13) too, we find mention of their ancient skills:

āyurvedamahāstrabhagnanikhilakleśoccayās saṃtataṃ
rejus te ḍumarauravaṃśaja-magā yeṣāṃ yaśobdhīn yayau //

‘The Magas born in the family Dumaraura, with the multitude of pains completely defeated with the powerful bow of Āyurveda, are continuously resplendent, and their fame rises.’

The power of Āyurvedic treatments, according to my fifth interviewees, had been described already in the Mahābhārata, with the character Barbarika.^[14] He was the grandson of Bhīma and Hidimbā, and received his education partly from his grandmother, who was born rakṣas, and partly from a Śākadvīpīya teacher, Nija Sid Singh. He acquired the power to target, to destroy and, if he wants, to regenerate^[15]; this is clearly the most powerful weapon on the battlefield of the Mahābhārata and, in this way, one single man can easily exterminate his enemies. Kṛṣṇa asks him for a demonstration of his powers, in which Barbarika uses the leaves of the pīpal tree.

This procedure, in three steps, is associated with Āyurvedic treatments (INT. 5, 41.30):

‘Now, Āyurvedic persons prepare their medicines with such kind of things. […] But first part of the treatment is target only the ill part, like the leaves of the pīpal tree. Then destroy only this and if anyhow there is destroy of the regular cells, the third part must be regenerating. Then we have complete treatment. Such kind of treatment comes from the ancient system. […]’

Śākadvīpīyas are very interested in natural science, and this is the reason why they have always been considered good doctors.^[16] Even nowadays, in Bihār, many Śākadvīpīyas still enter the medical profession.

Finally, Prof. K. Bhojak, in Bīkāner, provided me with a list of famous Āyurvedic doctors who were Śākadvīpīyas.^[17]

They were all active in the nineteenth century, or at least before 1950:

-Dr. Atma Ram Sharma: He worked in Jaipur, and had a medical laboratory at the court of Jaipur, because he worked for the king. He was learned in Āyurveda.

-Paṇḍit J.T. Bhojak: He was an astrologist and also prepared some medicines with gold and silver.

-Śrī Gaṅganagar: He was from Bīkāner. He was learned in astrological medicine and in the preparation of shanka^[18].

-Paṇḍit Bhram Bhat Sharma: He was in Delhi, in Kamla Nagar; he was a priest, a preacher and a teacher. He gave also medicine to people.

-Dr. Rameshwar Sharma: He worked in Bīkāner and in Jodhpur.

7. Ritual Practices and Festivities

The most important religious activity for a Śākadvīpīya is the pūjā honouring the sun god. According to one of my interlocutors (INT. 3, 0.54), they perform the havana pūjā, which is the offering in the fire.^[19] In any case, they have to pray the sun god with mantras twice a day, at dawn and at sunset, the two turning points (INT. 5, not recorded). We find an indication of the importance of these two moments of the day also in the Sāmba- (15) and Bhaviṣya-purāṇas (I. 123). I had the opportunity to attend a sunset pūjā, in which the Śākadvīpīya community of Bīkāner gathered to light seven sticks of incense, like the seven horses, for worshipping the sun’s statue; then they offered water. The offering of water is the main ritual action, and that is the reason why water is so important to the Śākadvīpīyas. They also have to look at the sun in the early morning because it is very good for the eyes (cf. INT. 5, not recorded). I was also informed that ‘it is scientifically proved, that looking at Lord sun for three to four minutes is good for health. When the sun rises, we can look straight to it. We also teach our children to look at it. Then, during the day, you can look at it with your hands like this... Crossed fingers. This is very important for heath, very good for eyes’ (INT. 3, 4.01). Once again, the biological/healing aspect is present here, and the visibility of the sun is a health matter.

These daily cultual practices rech their apex during the two Hindū festivities in honour of the sun god. One of these is Sūrya (or Ratha) Saptamī, seven days in the bright half of the month of Māgha (around the beginning of February), during which the birth of the sun god is celebrated and the sun statue is adorned and carried around the city in procession (cf. INT. 3, 0.54). The fast in honour of the sun, called Ratha Saptamī Vrata is described in the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (I. 50). In the Varāha-purāṇa (177, 59–60) it is stated: ‘59. He [Sāmba] arranged there (the festival of) Rathayātrā suggested by the sun. 60. On the Saptamī day in the month Māgha people conduct Rathayātrā there […]’ (IYER 1985: 530). For the Rājasthāni Śākadvīpīyas, Sūrya Saptamī is definitely the most important festivity of the year. People gather in the main temples to observe the sunrise. On the contrary, in Bihār the most important festivity is Chhath, celebrated on the sixth day of the month of Kārtik (end of October/beginning of November). This festivity, which generally lasts four days, consists of fasting and praying of the sun; people generally gather for the morning pūjā near ponds or other bodies of water. My host family in Patna told me that it is the most important event of the year. Beside the ritual practices, they also have a big party while waiting for the sunrise, adding a festive dimension to the religious ceremony. In Bīkāner I was informed that they do not celebrate Chhath, which is celebrated in Bihār and is the only occasion on which women can look straight at the sun, even in the morning. This piece of information was not confirmed by the Bihāri Śākadvīpīyas I met.

Finally, they told me about their most relevant cultic centres. Koṇārak (Koṇārka) used to be very important in ancient times, but according to my fifth interlocutor, it is not relevant nowadays because it is no longer active (INT. 5, 16.55). On the contrary, my hosts in Patna spoke enthusiastically about Koṇārak: I was informed that there is no sun idol in the temple there, but that when the sun rises, passing along the temple’s structure, the ray of sunlight illuminates the idol’s place. My interlocutor told me that admiring this phenomenon was one of the best experiences of her life.

8. Waters

We have already mentioned the fact that waters are particularly meaningful for Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇas. Water offerings are the core of their ritual practices, both in everyday life and especially during religious festivities. For this reason, particularly near Śākadvīpīya temples, we can always find a pond. Some Śākadvīpīya families also have their private basin; my hosts in Patna had their own on the top of their building, and use it for celebrating Chhath.

Waters, ponds, rivers and even the ocean are mentioned frequently in the Purāṇas; in Sāmba- 26 / Bhaviṣya- I. 129, we find the story of the idol of the sun found in the Candrabhāgā river by Sāmba.^[20] Waters are important also because they reflect the sun, which takes its terrestrial form in this way. I think there is a strong double symbology in Sāmba-purāṇa 43, when the sun’s statue is found by the Manus: when the sun rises over the ocean, it is possible to see his double form, one in the sky, the other in the water; at that very moment, the sun’s idol emerges from the waters. In this sense, through the presence of water, we can see a solar image on Earth, i.e. the reflection of the sun, every day.

The god Mitra, who has become one form of the sun in Purāṇic literature, is often mentioned in relation to waters.^[21] The nāgas, who are very prominent in association with the sun cult and the Śākadvīpīya repertoire of legends, are also strongly connected with water.

9. Differences from Other Sun Worshippers and Among the Śākadvīpīya Sub-Groups

‘Śākdvīpīyas were paṇḍits of every cult, but after Sāmba brought them to India for worshipping the sun god, they specialized in the sun cult. They spread sun cult all over India, they brought the sun cult to India’ (INT. 3, 1.14). The Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇas have been considered the sun worshippers par excellence since the ancient texts were composed. The Purāṇas present them as the only Brāhmaṇas able to properly worship the sun god. According to Varāhamihira, they are the group in charge of the sun’s idol installation and care (cf. paragraph 2.3). They are clearly endowed with a special qualification in matters of sun worshipping. In my second interlocutor’s opinion, their superior qualification lies in the fact that Śākadvīpīyas were part of the sun themselves: ‘[…] The sun generated the Śākdvīpīyas from his own body. The descendants are the other sun worshippers’ (INT. 2, 5.53). This piece of information clearly echoes the Purāṇic material (cf. Bhaviṣya-purāṇa I, 117) and the story contained in the Sāmvavijaya (twelfth ādhyāya). Their consideration may also derive from the fact that ‘Śākdvīpīyas brought to India sun cult. They were the first to build in India Sūrya mandirs; then they left and other worshippers took their place. Other priests do the worshipping part. The mantras are the same and they do pūjā in the same way. They serve water to the sun’ (INT. 3, 3.32). According to others, ‘Śākaldvīpis are not part of Sūrya family, but they are experts in Sūrya pūjā’ (INT. 8, 4.31). Their priests seem to have specialized in matters of worship over the centuries, and for this reason, ‘[…] in ancient times the king had only Śākaldvīpis around him, no other purohita’ (INT. 8, 4.40). I do not think that these differences form part of the regional dissimilarities that characterize the communities in Rājasthān and Bihār, which are probably rather due to the geographical environment. Their different opinions are based probably on the different materials they have read about their past and mythology.

Another peculiarity of Śākdvīpīya priests is that they cannot accept any reward for their religious actions. My interlocutor for the fifth interview explained that they live to worship the gods, and they do not accept any money for their ‘job’ (INT. 5, 6.00, not recorded). This feature was also noted during the seventh interview: ‘Śākdvīpīya Brāhmaṇs think that you cannot accept not even a drop of water when, for example, one helps you’ (INT. 7, 12.07; repeated in 12.26 and 15.51). This is a very important feature, which recalls the theme of Śākadvīpīyas having been vindicated as devalakas; the issue of owning property, as discussed above, probably had a social resonance, and generated the accusation of their being corrupt and not deserving Brāhmaṇical status. The contemporary Śākadvīpīyas’ statements seem to have an apologetic value; their priests do not accept even a drop of water and are a model of integrity and religious behaviour.

Among the various Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇa communities settled all over India, some minor differences subsist even nowadays among the members of each sub-group, created on the basis of what today are the various surnames. Actually, there is no difference in terms of being one of the Śākadvīpīya Brāhmaṇas; they told me they are all the same in terms of membership. Nonetheless, every surname has its own story, and some of them possess characteristic features. ‘They have different names according to their function in ancient times. (2.24) […] They were called Bhojaks because they feed the Lord sun. And Sevaks, they only put on the clothes’ (INT. 3, 2.31). Therefore, some of them are typical surnames, or shared with other Brāhmaṇas (cf. for example Sharma, widely diffused in the Brāhmaṇical caste), while others are linked to the ancient texts: above all, Mag and Bhojak are very peculiar and directly connected to the Purāṇic environment. In one of my interlocutors’ opinion, ‘Mag’ is equivalent to ‘Brāhmaṇ’: ‘”Mag” means “Brāhmaṇ”; so you can say “Śākdvīpīya Mag” or “Śākdvīpīya Brāhmaṇ”. It’s the same’ (INT. 3, 2.05). The name ‘Bhojak’ can be also connected with king Bhoja, and this etymology is already proposed in the Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (I. 140, 35a). My interlocutor, a Bhojak herself, told me their name is related to ‘the great king Bhoja’ (INT. 5, not recorded). Moreover, she informed me that, among the Śākadvīpīyas, the Bhojaks must follow 25 rules specific to their sub-group (INT. 5, not recorded). I wanted to know more about this topic; she promised she would send me more information, but I have not received anything as yet.

The same person also explained to me the meaning of ‘Sevak’: ‘Also Sevaks have their own story. In Jaina temples, only in Jodhpur and Bīkāner, there were no priests; so Śākdvīpīya priests, who are specialized in worshipping, all over the world, went there and did the pūjā. From that moment on, they were called Sevak, because they served the god at the temple.^[22] But this surname could sound derogatory, like servants, so people preferred not to adopt this name’ (INT. 5, not recorded). The etymology of the name is clear: in Sankrit sevaka- means “servant, attendant” (Monier-Williams’ (A Sanskrit-English Dictionary): 1247, II), from the root sev-, “to serve” (Monier-Williams’ (A Sanskrit-English Dictionary): 1247, I). According to P_AṆḌE (*: 34–36), those people used take care of crops and practise agriculture in medieval feudal society; for this reason, they were called ‘servants’. Moreover, in Jaisalmer, around the thirteenth century, the sizable Bhojaka community there was linked to the Jaina temples; the confusion between ‘Bhojaks’ and ‘Sevaks’ arose especially after 20 November 1931, when the Mārvār government decided to change the surname ‘Sevak’, which they considered derogatory, to ‘Śākdvīpīya Bhojak’. Nowadays, Bhojakas are sometimes associated with Jainas for this reason.

Some surnames are connected with the Vedic ṛṣis and sages, like ‘Maharshi’ or ‘Vyās’; others are also attested in the past, like Miśra (cf. Kṛṣṇadāsa Miśra or Rājavallabha Miśra). In any case, no real distinction is made between the different groups of Śākadvīpīyas. They rely on the system of puras and gotras only in their marriage policies.

10. Puras and Gotras

We have already discussed the similarities between the names listed in the Magavyakti and the contemporary list of puras. To better understand the dynamics of this system, I have asked my interviewees for more information about it. The rule for marriage, which is strictly endogamous, is that the couple cannot belong to the same gotra. There is no other reason, neither surnames (my hosts in Bīkāner were both ‘Bhojak’, but did not belong to the same gotra) nor regional origins (in INT. 1, 1.25 my interlocutor declared ‘[…] I would not have any problem in letting my daughter marry a men from Śākdvīpīya community in Bihār’). Generally, it is the bride who changes her gotra and becomes part of the husband’s (cf. INT. 3, 17.23 and INT. 5, not recorded). The gotras are related to the gurus, and in Śākdvīpīya tradition, there are sixteen of them. The puras, on the other hand, are connected with cities (cf. INT. 6, second interlocutor), and defined as ‘branches of the tree’, ‘[…] subdivisions of our community’ (INT. 5, not recorded). In general, they are traditionally 72 in number (cf. INT. 7, 10.27; INT. 8, 1.38), but in one case there was a mention of 16 puras, linked to the legend of the 16 Śākdvīpīya boys who came to India holding Garuḍa’s body (cf. INT. 6, first interlocutor). In my opinion, based on looking at websites and the latest magazine publications, the systems of gotras and puras have intermingled and influenced each other. As the utility of this system derives from its preservation of the non-incestuous exogamy practiced by these communities, the complete list of gotras and puras is no longer useful once it is verified that the two potential spouses belong to different groups.

11. Education and Professions

Based on their skills and specializations, the Śākdvīpīya Brāhmaṇas are traditionally associated with certain professions. Nonetheless, these differ somewhat based on the precise the geographical area and environment.

Being Brāhmaṇas, they should be involved in literary matters (cf. INT. 1, 0.39), but in Rājasthān some of them are involved in business or work for the government. In this region, they used to be very good doctors and learned men, but nowadays the great majority of them are priests who take care of the temple and the gods’ statues. In Bīkāner, almost every temple priest is a Śākdvīpīya, but there is only one university professor in the community (namely one of my interlocutors, professor of chemistry at Dungar College). In my interviewee’s opinion, the problem lies in education: whereas Śākdvīpīya people in Bihār are still well educated, in Rājasthān the lack of education has led them to the vocation of temple priests (INT. 5, 4.31). In any case, they have preserved their inclination towards astrology: even nowadays, they are very good astrologers (INT. 5, 6.10; INT. 8, 4.31). In Bihār, the situation appears to be different: many Śākdvīpīyas are indeed involved in education (generally as university professors), but they are especially prominent in the medical profession. In fact, almost all the members of my host family in Patna were doctors, both men and women. They also told me that some of their ancestors were astrologers, and the grandfather of the middle-aged sisters, in particular, had a reputation in Patna for being able to foretell the future with striking precision.

12. Iranian Elements

One of the most satisfactory parts of the interviews consisted in the spontaneous reference to Iranian (or perhaps indeed Zoroastrians) influences by my interviewees. In particular, they told me that ‘[…] Zoroastrians are considered to be part of the Śākdvīpīya Brāhmaṇs. They worship fire, no? The other visible god, like sun. You know Pārsīs? They are Zoroastrians. I read they are Śākdvīpīyas, too. Also the two gods, sun and fire, are close’ (INT. 2, 2.48). I tried to ask him about any textual evidence for this identification, but he did not reply. In any case, this claim is based on logical associations: since the two gods, sun and fire, who are the only two visible gods, are very close and sometimes even identified with each other, the Fire worshippers (i.e., the Zoroastrians) must be part of the Śākdvīpīyas. Another interviewee told me ‘also Jarathuṣṭra came from Śākdvīpīya community’ (INT. 3, 1.14); I asked about the source of this information, and he replied that according to Nathamal P_ĀṆḌE*, Jarathuṣṭra belonged to the community. Actually, I was not able to find this information in the works of that they gave me. The spelling of the name of Zaraθuštra in their version is almost identical to the original. In the Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (I. 129, 43), we find the figure of Jaraśastra (also spelled ‘Jataśastra’ and ‘Jaraśabda’), son of Agni, the god of fire, and the goddess Nikṣubhā. Jaraśastra is presented as the progenitor of the Mihira race; the name clearly recalls that of Zaraθuštra.^[23] The contemporary Śākdvīpīya version adheres to the original, but given that the -z- is not preserved in Indian languages, they render it as -j-; the fricative -θ- becomes the retroflex -ṣ-. The attempt to link the two traditions is clear.

On the contrary, a very peculiar feature, attributable to the Iranian world, was described with precision, but not linked to Iranian origins. One of my interlocutors in Bīkāner casually mentioned the avyaṅga. I have previously discussed the importance of this sacred girdle, an icon of the Śākdvīpīyas (Magas and Bhojakas) in ancient times (cf. Purāṇic literature and paragraph 2.7). Showing me the sacred Brāhmaṇical cordon of a priest (cf. 5.2), my host told me that Śākdvīpīyas should also wear another girdle, a feature that characterizes their community: ‘[…] avyaṅga is found only in the Śākdvīpīya community. (2.00) What is the difference between avyaṅga and yajñobhogi^[24]? Avyaṅga now is the point that now scientifically as well as biologically the kid brings as develops. This is why avyaṅg-saṃskār has a fixed date. It is the eight year of the child. Avyaṅga is always done in the eight year. Once you have completed the eight year, the avyaṅga is done, but this was only in the ancient times. Now very few people are worried about that, even the Śākdvīpīyas today are not worried about that. So they are not going for that. And secondly, avyaṅga is a hidden saṃskār; you are really not going for the party, or for that, but the yajñobhogi you use party, you celebrate it. But avyaṅga is only between the kid and the sun. (3:17) The kid and the sun, only that two celebrate. And thirdly is that avyaṅga, when we get ten … around their waist, when they are ten around their waist. Then the yajñobhogi will be … around... [he points to his shoulder] […]’ (INT. 5, Addendum on the Avyaṅga). This biological and ritual step in the child’s life exhibits some interesting features: first, the name avyaṅga refers both to the girdle and to the ceremony during which the girdle is conferred. Moreover, the sun god bestows the qualification of wearing this peculiar ritual object in a private ceremony; this denotes an intimate relation between the sun god and his favourite Brāhmaṇas, the Śākdvīpīyas. Finally, the manner of wearing it, namely around the waist, is the same as that described in the Purāṇas and shown in the iconography of the sun in the fifth to sixth centuries. I asked my interlocutor if he knew where this ceremony came from; I told him that, in the Avesta, a ritual object with a very similar name is mentioned, which then I spelled in Avestan. My impression is that Śākdvīpīya people do not have any information about Iranian customs and religious practices, but they claim to have Iranian origins just for the sake of defining their own identity or in an attempt to justify their peculiar features. In any case, this is an astonishing example of the continuation of a tradition from ancient times. The Purāṇic texts mention and describe it, and some members of the contemporary communities still celebrate it, even if fewer Śākdvīpīyas people are aware of this tradition nowadays.

I also tried to ask directly about other peculiar ritual actions and objects described in the Bhaviṣya-purāṇa, like the patidāna or the varśman (probably linked to Avestan paiti.dāna and barǝsman), but I received no feedback, which suggested that the ritual objects described in the Purāṇic texts are generally unknown. INT. 3: (15.06) ‘Do you have any other practice? I mean, ritual practices... For example, in ancient times, did the priests cover their mouths while reciting or did they hold something in their hands?’ (15.21) ‘No, they didn’t. According to my knowledge, only Jains cover their mouths in India.’

13. Notable Figures

Finally, I would like to briefly discuss some notable figures from the Śākdvīpīya community who are held in great esteem by contemporary members.

Among the historical figures, Cāṇakya, the administrator, poet, and charismatic figure, was a Śākdvīpīya according to my interlocutors (INT. 1, 15.41; INT. 2, 3.56; INT. 3, 11.51). Varāhamihira, the famous astrologer and astronomer, belonged to the community as well (cf. INT. 1, 15.41; INT. 2, 4.07; INT. 3, 11.51; INT. 5, 10.11). According to one of my interviewees, even the great mathematician Āryabhaṭa was a Śākdvīpīya (INT. 2, 3.38).

These are the well-known personalities of the past. In Udaipur, my hosts informed me^[25] of other persons who have been very important to their community; some of them are mythological, others are historical figures. (INT. 3: 5.02): ‘Here is written the story of Parthdhwan (?). He was a Śākdvīpīya. There was a time in which people wanted to go and live in Sūrya-loka. Parthdhwan longed to enter Lord Sūrya’s world, too. For this reason, the practiced austerities for 300 years. The sun, satisfied with his worship, closed his eyes and suddenly seven Brahmins came out, who could perform perfectly. Each one had two daughters and two sons. […] Then, Sūryadvij. […] (7.27) Then there was Viśvamitr, who went to Australia and started the community over there. […] (11.51) You asked about the personalities... Here they are written. There was Mahaṛṣi Vasiṣṭ, who was son of Lord sun. Then Cāṇakya, Varhāhamihir, Mahākāvi Magh, Mahākāvi Vrand, Mongol Paṇḍi... Do you know him? He was a freedom fighter. He was part of the army but he decided to rebel to the fact that they used pigs and cows grass for the guns. After having left the army, he became a freedom fighter. And then Maharaja Sindh Badhur.’ Apparently, all these figures were involved in political activism, intellectual life and royal power. They informed me that even nowadays the ruler of Ayodhyā is a Śākdvīpīya (INT. 3, 0.23). Therefore, the glory of the Śākdvīpīyas, asserted in various disciplines since the Magavyakti, is still present in the form of some contemporary personalities, who are the pride of today’s communities. One example is the poet Śīlavrata Sharma, from Udaipur, affectionately called Śīlva jī (cf. INT. 3, 5.48 and paragraph 5.3).

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

The modern pronunciation of the island’s name is ‘Śākdvīp’. I have decided to adopt it in transcribing the interviews.

[2]:

Cf. HERZFELD 2001: 71, who quotes HELMS 1988.

[3]:

One of the interviewees told me that the sun did not heal Sāmba, he cured him; a cure is permanent, while healing is not (cf. INT. 7, 14.02).

[4]:

Some communities believe that, even in ancient times, some Śākdvīpīya people moved outside India, to Australia, America and Mongolia. They postulated also that ‘Mongolia’ [mɒŋˈɡoʊliə] might have taken its name from ‘Mag’ (cf. INT. 3, 7.42).

[5]:

Skr: ta eva viparītās tu teṣāṃ vedāḥ prakīrtitāḥ / vedo viśvavadaś caiva vidud aṅgirasas tathā //

[6]:

INT. 4, 7.20: ‘[…] Purāṇs are... about the Śākdvīpī Brāhmaṇs. But... I do not like the Purāṇs’ literature, I do not. Because the Purāṇs are written in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries.’ This is not completely true; not all the Purāṇas are so recent, but he tried to discredit them. Even if some of them can be judged almost modern works, because they are very recent, the central core of some Purāṇic literature can be dated back to the fourth to fifth century A.D.; citing the Vedas, which were revealed thousands of years B.C., probably confers more prestige.

[7]:

‘Do you know why Lord sun has seven horses? They are the colours of the rainbow. You see? Once again a natural reason for a religious matter’ (INT. 5, not recorded).

[8]:

See BRONKHORST 2007: 57.

[9]:

Ivi: 59 f.

[10]:

The Devī-Bhāgavata-purāṇa, skanda 9, narrates the myth of Tulsī (cf. V_ETTAMMĀNI 1978: 797 F.).

[11]:

Sanskrit (Sāmba-purāṇa 11, 46): sā tadvivasvataḥ śukraṃ nāsikābhyāṃ nirāvamat / devau tasyāmajāyetām aśvinau bhiṣajāṃ varau //

[12]:

FILLIOZAT 1975: 2.

[13]:

Then the Aśvins taught the Āyurveda to Indra, who himself taught it to Dhanvantari in the form of Divodāsa, king of Kāśi (ibid.).

[14]:

For the complete story of Barbarika see INT. 5 (my interlocutor’s version) or V_ETTAMMĀNI 1978: 107 f.

[15]:

‘He had three weapons: one was for targeting, other one for destroying, and third weapon was for regeneration […]’ (INT. 5, 39.05).

[16]:

Cf. also INT. 7, 14.51 and INT. 8, 4.31.

[17]:

I took notes while Prof. Bhojak was speaking. He provided me with this list on 5 November 2016.

[18]:

According to my knowledge, it is an Āyurvedic medicine prepared with conch shells.

[19]:

Generally havana is the offering in fire. In Vedic times, it was the first sacrifice of the day, which let the sun rise. Cf. chapter 39 of the Sāmba-purāṇa (SRIVASTAVA 2013: 129).

[20]:

The episode is repeated in Sāmba-purāṇa 43, but the Manus find the sun’s idol in the ocean.

[21]:

For some references on this topic, see for example THIEME 1957/1995.

[22]:

Cf. also I_NT. 4, 24.06: सेवक ब्रहम्ण है, ईश्वर की सेवा ।

[23]:

Cf. also PALLADINO 20??b.

[24]:

Brāhmaṇical common sacrificial cordon, worn on the right shoulder.

[25]:

They relied on PĀṆḌE*’s material.