4. Literature

Today’s Śākadvīpīya communities are very active and productive, at least those in Rājasthān and Bihār. Middle-aged people in particular are doing their best to keep their tradition alive. My hosts in Bīkāner have published the international magazine Brahmāṇḍ Cetnā since 2010, and Dr. Bharti Bhojak is especially active in editing the issues. She got her Ph.D. in Computational Mathematics and, being interested in astronomical calculation, she chanced upon Varāhamihira (cf. INT. 5, 13.09). From that moment on, she decided to cultivate the knowledge of the past and traditions of her community, and founded the magazine. It is a monthly magazine and its contents are varied; in each issue, there are some articles about the Śākadvīpīya tradition, as well as news and communications about the Bīkāneri community, wedding ads and obituaries. Some space is also given to letters, poems and messages. The content of the articles is varied, and ranges from recipes to the value of the Sanskrit language. For my purpose, it was useful to examine the topics of these articles to find out if they deal with some topics unknown to me. Based on the period of the year, they contain information about festivities and explain the history of some notable figures. I found articles on food items (allowed and not allowed), on plants, on the nāgas, on the Magas and the Sāmba legend, on Varāhamira, on astrology and the planets, on Bhojakas, on sun temples and mantras. Therefore, the topics were not new to me, even if they were obviously enriched with their own perspective; in particular, the papers on Varāhamihira and on historical matters have scientific value, and they are furnished with a bibliography. This magazine is primary addressed to Śākadvīpīya people, with the purpose of teaching them about their own tradition and informing them of the news about the Bīkāneri community; however, being an international magazine, it has the aim of spreading Śākadvīpīya culture all over the world.

Other magazines are the Magabandhu, edited in Rāṃcī (Jhārkhaṇḍa), where there is a high concentration of Śākadvīpīya people (cf. INT. 5, 3.35), and the Śākdvīpīya Brāhmaṇ Bandhu, edited in Bīkāner as well. I do not know of the existence of any Bihāri publications.

Finally, yet importantly, new Sanskrit works have been born in the Śākadvīpīya environment. The previously mentioned Śīlavrata Sharma, ‘Śīlva jī’, is the author of the poem Śrī Sūryāṣṭakam, a praise in honour of the sun god. The 85-year-old poet composed his work in Sanskrit, and provided a Hindī translation as well. Such examples are significant firstly in demonstrating that the Sanskrit lyric tradition is still alive, and secondly in highlighting the fact that Śākadvīpīyas are actually part of this living tradition.

To take stock of the results of this ethnographic experience, I would like to quote HERZFELD again: ‘[…] The circularity of this process […] is the key to understanding history, not as a set of referential data, but as something that people use to buttress their identity against the corrosive flow of time’ (2001: 59). I think that this is the point of the Śākdvīpīyas’ reinterpretation of their past: they zealously try to preserve the peculiarities that lie in their history. They indeed want be part of Hinduism, but they have different characteristics than other Brāhmaṇas; they are justified by ancient texts, legitimized by later poems and have enduring Iranian elements in their cult. The continuation of their tradition is undeniable, and I think this preservation of their traditional features is mostly due to their endogamous marriages. They had the opportunity to transmit stories and ritual practices from one generation to the next, even if younger generations are no longer interested in them. According to one of my interlocutors, ‘Young people are not interested in these things. That’s why many people, also belonging to the community, they don’t know anything and their information are not correct’ (INT. 6, first interlocutor). He thinks that even middle-aged Śākdvīpīya people are not reliable when it comes to traditional matters. In any case, it is the natural tendency of traditions to slowly modify and maybe be replaced with new ones, but the unusual feature, in this case, is that the traditions have being transmitted with accuracy, with references to different textual sourcess, and completely forgotten by the new generations. If this study had been carried out only 50 years ago, the details of the tradition would have been even better preserved, and each person would have been able to tell the past of their community. This is apparent from the stories my interlocutors told about their grandfathers’ knowledge. Probably, in several generations, everything will be forgotten and they will simply become Hindū Brāhmaṇas; the mark of their peculiar past will be retained only in their name.

Another interesting fact is that the members’ knowledge of their past depends on their level of education and not on the nature of their activities: the learned members of the communities in Rājasthān and Bihār actually know more about their tradition than the Rājasthāni priests, who are completely involved in religious matters, but have scant education. The only respect in which the priests seem to adhere to tradition is their interest in and knowledge of astrology. The divinatory art is generally the prerogative of the priests of ancient cults, but Śākdvīpīyas have specialized in this art, becoming the best in the field of astrology.

Finally, I would like to briefly discuss the differences between the communities in Rājasthān and Bihār. They have different habits based on their geographic location; obviously, the communities’ traditional customs have merged with regional ones. For example, Brāhmaṇas should be strictly vegetarian: in Rājasthān, as mentioned previously, they also avoid tamasic food; in Bihār, they are not even vegetarian. The names change based on geography and the local languages. In Bīkāner, Rājasthān the majority of Śākdvīpīyas are priests without any education; in Bihār they are mostly doctors or professors. In this variegated scenario, different versions of their history and customs merge. After all, ‘[…] truth claims are filtered through differing interpretations of key cultural categories’^[1], and this can happen according to the regional origin of the speakers. My question: is it possible that these dissimilarities characterized the different textual traditions on their origins even in ancient times? I think this is also a good point of departure in rethinking our approach to their history. Our tendency is to try to find their unifying aspects and to collect the common data. Naturally, there are some prominent features, nowadays and in the past, which have characterized the Śākdvīpīya tradition and identity; these features emerge against a landscape of incongruous traits, which are as important as the shared ones. Moreover, the nature of Purāṇic literature, for example, may have allowed much integration over the centuries, and even if the Sāmba-and the Bhaviṣya-purāṇas are generally considered northern works, they may have absorbed different traits and textual traditions of the different northern areas. Therefore, when the narratives do not agree, it does not necessary mean that there have been some errors in the transmission of the data; moreover, this is valid for ancient times, too.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

HERZFELD 2001: 67.