Damodardev: The Branch the Kings Funded

The whole difference is a list, and it is short.

What it kept

• The sacred thread, the upavita, and the varna identity it marks
• Sandhya and other daily brahmanical observances, alongside the Vaishnava practice rather than instead of it
• Vedic mantra at initiation and at life rites
• Brahmana satradhikars, so the headship of a Brahma Samhati sattra runs within a varna
• Image installation in some establishments, where the stricter branches keep only the book on the throne

What it holds in common with the rest

Ekasarana. Krishna alone, the name as the method, the Namghar, the borgeets, the bhaona, the sattra structure, the Kirtana Ghosha.

Which is the point that gets lost in the argument: the Brahma Samhati is not a different religion and does not claim to be. It is the same devotion with the brahmanical apparatus left in.

The argument for it

And it should be stated fairly, because it is a real argument and not a rationalisation.

The position is that bhakti and varnashrama duty are not in conflict. A brahmana who takes up devotion to Krishna does not thereby stop being a brahmana or acquire a reason to abandon rites that were given to them. Sankaradeva did not instruct brahmanas to throw away the thread, and the Bhagavata itself is a text embedded in a world with varna in it.

And there is a practical version of the argument too, which is that a movement that demands the abandonment of every existing social identity recruits only from people who have nothing to lose, and a movement that lets people keep their identity recruits from everybody, and the second one is larger.

Which is empirically correct and is exactly what happened.

The argument against it

Also real, and it is the founder's own.

Sankaradeva initiated a Muslim tailor, a Garo, an Ahom and men from half a dozen tribal communities, and made no caste requirement, and the entire spread of Ekasarana in the sixteenth century ran on that.

A thread is a caste marker. Keeping it inside a devotional order means the order has a visible internal division that the founder had removed, and that division does what such divisions do.

And the office of satradhikar being reserved by birth is the whole of the argument in one sentence.

What actually resulted

Hierarchy, in the ordinary way, and it is documented.

And it is worth being precise rather than sweeping. The Brahma Samhati is not uniquely responsible for caste in the sattra system; the previous entry recorded that caste crept back across the institution generally, including in branches that had no doctrinal room for it.

But the Brahma Samhati had doctrinal room for it, and that is a difference.

And the counter fact, which belongs here

The Brahma Samhati produced Assamese prose.

Bhattadeva, properly Baikunthanath Bhagavata Bhattacharya, 1558 to 1638, in the Damodardev line, wrote the Katha Bhagavata and the Katha Gita: sustained, structured prose in Assamese, at a time when almost nothing in any modern Indian language existed in prose at all.

He is called the father of Assamese prose and the claim is not regional inflation. These are among the earliest substantial prose works in any modern Indian language.

And this came out of the branch with the brahmanical learning, the Sanskrit training, the endowments and the leisure, and it did not come out of the austere branches, and an honest account has to say so.

Which is the uncomfortable general pattern: institutional wealth and inherited learning produce scholarship, and the movements that refuse both tend to produce song instead. Both outputs matter and they are not interchangeable.

And here is the part that makes this entry worth reading even if you have no interest in Assam.

The Ahom state changed its mind

The Ahom kingdom persecuted Sankaradeva, executed his son in law, drove him out, and later imprisoned Madhavdeva.

And then, over the following century, the same state became the movement's principal patron.

What it patronised

Not evenly.

The four great royal sattras, the rajaowa sattras of Majuli, are Auniati, Dakhinpat, Garamur and Kuruwabahi, and all four are Brahma Samhati, and all four were established or endowed under Ahom kings in the seventeenth century.

What they were given

• Devottar land, in large grants, revenue free
• Paiks, that is assigned labour, men owing service to the institution under the Ahom state's own labour system
• Standing at court, with satradhikars as figures of consequence in the kingdom

Which turned sattras into estates.

Why the state chose that branch

The answer is not mysterious.

A movement organised under brahmana heads, retaining Vedic forms, holding land and reporting to the court is a movement a kingdom can work with.

A movement that admits everybody regardless of birth, holds nothing, and treats the community itself as an object of reliance is a movement a kingdom cannot easily place.

States fund the version of a religion that is legible to them, and that is not a comment on the Ahoms in particular, and it is happening somewhere right now.

What it did to the movement

It made one branch rich and made the others subordinate, and it converted a devotional order into a landholding interest with a stake in the existing arrangement.

And the arrangement produced grievance.

The Moamoria rebellion

And this is where it goes.

The Mayamara Satra was a Kala Samhati establishment, the branch descending from Gopal Ata of Bhawanipur, and its following was largely from the Moran, Chutia, Ahom commoner and tribal communities: exactly the people the founding movement had recruited and the state's chosen branch had not.

They were badly treated. The record includes humiliation of the Mayamara head and his followers at court, and the general position of a large low status congregation under a state aligned with a rival order.

In 1769 they rose.

The Moamoria rebellion ran, in phases, for roughly the next thirty five years.

The rebels took the capital at Rangpur more than once. The Ahom king was driven out. The kingdom's administration collapsed in large areas. The loss of life was enormous and the population of upper Assam fell sharply.

The Ahom state never recovered. It called in a British force under Captain Welsh in 1792 to help suppress the rising, which is the first British military presence in Assam. It was weakened past the point of defending itself, the Burmese invaded from 1817, and the Treaty of Yandabo in 1826 handed Assam to the British.

So the sequence is this

A movement that abolished caste. A state that persecuted it. The same state adopting the one branch that kept caste. Land and labour granted to that branch. The excluded branch, drawn from the communities the founder had actually gone to, rebelling. The kingdom destroyed. And a colonial annexation that followed from the wreckage.

None of which is a moral about Damodardev, who died in 1598 and had no part in any of it, and who taught devotion to Krishna and the saying of the name like everybody else in this batch.

It is a moral about what happens when a state decides which version of a religion it prefers, and it is one of the clearest worked examples available anywhere.

Where to go

• Patbausi, Barpeta district, associated with Damodardev
• Auniati, Dakhinpat, Garamur and Kuruwabahi on Majuli, the four royal sattras
• Nalaca, Nagaon district, his birthplace
• Mayamara Satra sites in upper Assam, for the other half of the story

A daily practice from this entry

• Rama Krishna Govinda, or any form of the name
• A verse of the Kirtana Ghosha or the Naam Ghosa, which every branch shares
• And the patronage question, asked of any institution you support: who funds this, and what did they want in exchange

Who: Damodardev, 1488 to 1598, founder of what became the Brahma Samhati, from Nalaca in Nagaon district, born into a brahmana family close to Sankaradeva's own country and almost exactly his contemporary. Patbausi was among his important seats and he lived to a very great age.

The dispute: what his relationship with Sankaradeva actually was has been contested for four hundred years. The Mahapurushiya position is that he was Sankaradeva's disciple and his later independence a departure. The Damodariya position is that he was an independent acharya whose relationship with Sankaradeva was association rather than initiation, and in some tellings that Sankaradeva directed brahmana enquirers to him precisely because he could offer a Vaishnavism compatible with brahmanical observance. Both sides have texts and chronologies and neither has anything the other accepts. The dispute is not trivial because it is about whether the Brahma Samhati is inside the tradition or beside it, and therefore about land, the authority of satradhikars and institutional standing.

What the Brahma Samhati kept: the sacred thread and the varna identity it marks; sandhya and daily brahmanical observance alongside the Vaishnava practice; Vedic mantra at initiation and life rites; brahmana satradhikars, so headship runs within a varna; and image installation in some establishments where stricter branches keep only the book on the throne. It holds Ekasarana in common with the rest: Krishna alone, the name as method, the Namghar, the borgeets, the bhaona and the Kirtana Ghosha.

The argument for it: bhakti and varnashrama duty are not in conflict, a brahmana taking up devotion does not stop being a brahmana, Sankaradeva did not instruct brahmanas to throw away the thread, and the Bhagavata is itself embedded in a world with varna in it. Practically, a movement demanding abandonment of every social identity recruits only from people with nothing to lose, while one that lets people keep their identity recruits from everybody, and the second is larger, which is empirically what happened.

The argument against it: Sankaradeva initiated a Muslim tailor, a Garo, an Ahom and men from half a dozen tribal communities with no caste requirement, and the spread of Ekasarana ran on that. A thread is a caste marker, and the office of satradhikar being reserved by birth is the whole argument in one sentence. Caste did creep back across the sattra system generally, including in branches with no doctrinal room for it, but the Brahma Samhati had doctrinal room for it, which is a difference.

The counter fact: the Brahma Samhati produced Assamese prose. Bhattadeva, properly Baikunthanath Bhagavata Bhattacharya, 1558 to 1638, in the Damodardev line, wrote the Katha Bhagavata and Katha Gita, sustained structured prose in Assamese at a time when almost nothing in any modern Indian language existed in prose at all, and these are among the earliest substantial prose works in any modern Indian language. It came out of the branch with the learning, the Sanskrit training, the endowments and the leisure, and not out of the austere branches. Institutional wealth and inherited learning produce scholarship, movements that refuse both produce song, and both matter.

The kings: the Ahom state persecuted Sankaradeva, executed his son in law and imprisoned Madhavdeva, and then over the following century became the movement's principal patron, unevenly. The four rajaowa sattras of Majuli, Auniati, Dakhinpat, Garamur and Kuruwabahi, are all Brahma Samhati and all were established or endowed under Ahom kings in the seventeenth century, receiving large revenue free devottar land grants, assigned paik labour and standing at court, which turned sattras into estates. States fund the version of a religion that is legible to them.

The rebellion: the Mayamara Satra was a Kala Samhati establishment whose following came largely from the Moran, Chutia, commoner Ahom and tribal communities, exactly the people the founding movement had recruited and the state's chosen branch had not, and they were badly treated. In 1769 they rose. The Moamoria rebellion ran in phases for roughly thirty five years, the rebels took the capital at Rangpur more than once, the administration collapsed over large areas, and the population of upper Assam fell sharply. The Ahom state never recovered: it called in a British force under Captain Welsh in 1792, was weakened past defending itself, the Burmese invaded from 1817, and the Treaty of Yandabo handed Assam to the British in 1826. None of this is a moral about Damodardev, who died in 1598 and had no part in any of it. It is a moral about what happens when a state decides which version of a religion it prefers.