Smarta tradition: Mystic manoeuvres
The Smarta tradition and feudal patronage institutionalised divisiveness for political ends
Religion is a tool for governing in place of the ruling establishment. Kings had no direct contact with the subjects and had to depend on Brahmins and warlord Kshatriyas. In exchange, the power was assigned to them to become a stronger reactionary feudalist force.
Historian Romila Thapar wrote, “The balance of power between the king and the feudatories could fluctuate, since it was based on the king’s control over the feudatories, despite his dependence on them for revenue and soldiers. Fortunately for the king the balance was usually inclined in his direction, as he had the support of the political thinkers, generally Brahmans, whose interest it was to support the authority of the institution which safeguarded their well-being.”
The Bhakti movement moved in a spiralling pattern for the reasons mentioned above. It stumbled on every step. The more alarming and worrying was what Thapar said later, “Even more fortunately for the king the sanction obtained from the older texts supported his claim in broad terms. Thus the principle of hereditary kingship was heavily stressed.”
The kings of the Ahom dynasty were traditionally known as Chao–pha. But after the conversion of Suhungmung in 1497, they were conferred the title of Swargadeu, which means Lord of the Heavens. It was planned to infer a trend from the Hindu text to keep the throne within the kinship only. It spread to other matters of society.
The intellectual conspiracy to spoil the social harmony and uplift started here dramatically. Brahmanical Hinduism invented the ‘Smarta’ tradition, founded by philosopher Adi Sankaracharya in the eighth century. It was based on ancient texts and dominantly reinforced the caste-based discrimination within Hinduism.
Now, this divisive system was vehemently supported by kings and feudalists because they wanted to subjugate the working class. This divisiveness was an important reason for restricting the Bhakti movement midway.
This trait was also seen in Greece and Rome, where pluralists cleverly demonstrated their supernatural connection with God for political and social interests. People were impressed to fear God. Such fear was ‘superstition’.
French philosopher Denis Diderot’s Encyclopédie (1751) defines superstition as “any extraneous matter of religion in general”, and it is specifically associated with paganism. The means of paganism here are polytheism, witchcraft etc.
Smarta cult
Many observers say that the ‘Smarta’ cult was imported from Bengal. The name of ‘Smarta’ may be imitated or taken, but the theme was indigenous. To continue the monarchy and governance, it was essential to diminish democracy in the Bhakti movement. The caste classification principles of the Shakta were the only remedy to implement. So, it was born out of a strategy for the compulsion of power politics.
Initially, the Ahoms were influenced by the Sankari or Neo–vaishnavite Satra. They (Siva Singha and others) formally accepted the initiation of Niranjan Bapu. Finally, he was conferred the title of Satradhikar of Auniati satra. The Satras got a lot of incentives in kind and cash during that period. The disciples of the satras were even exempted from the “Paik” system.
But later, the change in the stance was more politically motivated than religious. Kshitimohan Sen wrote in Medieval Mysticism of India, “The devotees of medieval India are divided into two sections —orthodox and liberal. The orthodox are called “Sanatan”. Although they are eager to have reformation in casteism and customs, ultimately, the casteism remained within the Sanatani traditional religious verses of Hinduism. On the other hand the liberals had overthrown the casteism, customs and religious language.”
Sankardev’s Sama Advaita
Sankardev was a great scholar of Sanskrit. Not using Sanskrit in his religious literary creation is a prime sign of liberalism.
His theory or principle emanated from different socio-spiritual backgrounds of Assam. Sankardev arranged the Assamese society in such a harmonious manner that they formed a new rational (statewide) philosophy.
We would name the theory of Sankardev’s ‘Sama Advaita’ (Egalitarian monism). Democratic egalitarianism is his fundamental preaching.
The Smarta tradition and feudal patronage institutionalised divisiveness for political ends. But Sankardev’s Sama Advaita stands out as a radical counter-current—rejecting caste, privileging the vernacular, and advancing democratic egalitarianism—offering a rational, inclusive philosophy that challenged both religious orthodoxy and feudal authority.
MORE ARTICLES BY THE AUTHOR
