Paltu Sahib: They Set Fire to Him

The form he is identified with, and it is worth understanding because the form is doing half the work.

What it is

Six lines, and the thing that makes it a kundaliya is that it comes back.

The word the verse opens with is the word it closes with.

Structurally it is a doha followed by a rola, where the last part of the doha becomes the opening of the rola, and the rola's last word returns to the doha's first, so the whole verse loops.

Kundal means a coil or a ring, and that is what the form does: it goes out and comes back to where it started.

Why that suits him

Because it produces an inescapable ending.

A verse that ends on the word it began with has closed. There is no room for the listener to slide off the end of it, which is exactly what you want if you are making an accusation and the audience would prefer not to have heard it.

And because it is memorable in one hearing, which for a shopkeeper addressing people in a market town rather than readers with a manuscript is the entire requirement.

What he uses it for

Attack, mostly.

And the targets are the ones the whole nirguna tradition names, with his own edge on them.

One. The priest as a businessman.

His trading vocabulary does the work here and it is devastating. He describes religious service in the language of weights and measures: what is being sold, what is being received, whether the scales are honest, whether the customer is being shortchanged. Coming from a man who actually kept a shop, the comparison is not rhetorical.

Two. Ritual without change.

The standard sant target and he is blunter than most. The bathing, the tilak, the counting, the fasting, and the man doing all of it who has not altered.

Three. Caste.

He attacks it from below and directly, and his position is the one Kabir and Ravidas hold: birth confers nothing, purity is not transmitted by descent, and the people enforcing it have an interest in it.

Four. Pilgrimage.

Which in a town like Ayodhya was not an abstract subject. A man in a pilgrimage town telling arriving pilgrims that the place will not do anything for them is interfering with an economy.

Five. Fear.

And this is his own theme more than the tradition's.

Paltu Sahib returns constantly to the person who knows something and will not say it. The one who agrees quietly and nods in public. The one who is waiting for a safer time. He treats that as the actual failure, more than ignorance, and he says so in a town where saying things was demonstrably unsafe.

Which is not a coincidence and which the next section is about.

Reading him

The Paltu Sahib ki Bani is in print in Hindi in several volumes.

He is harder going than Kabir because the language is more colloquial and more local and less anthologised, and there are fewer good selections.

And he is worth the effort because almost nobody in the tradition is as funny, and because the anger in him is clean: he is not sour, he is not superior, and he includes himself.

The tradition says he was burned alive.

What the accounts say

That his attacks on ritual, on caste and on the priesthood made him enemies among the religious establishment of Ayodhya, and that they killed him for it, by setting fire to the hut or the straw heap he was sitting in.

The versions differ on the details, and several of them add that he went on singing from inside the fire, or was seen afterwards, which is the tradition doing what traditions do with a martyrdom.

How to hold it

Three things, in order.

One. The specific event is not documented outside the tradition.

There is no court record, no contemporary account from outside his own following, and no way to establish what happened at Ayodhya on a particular day in the eighteenth century. A reader should hold the burning as what his tradition says rather than as an established fact.

Two. It is entirely plausible in kind.

Because the pattern is attested across this literature, repeatedly, in cases where the documentation is better.

This series has already recorded a great deal of it. Jnaneshwar's family was destroyed by a ruling of the Paithan brahmanas. Chokhamela and Nandanar were kept outside temples and Chokhamela was killed in a wall collapse doing forced labour. Balarama Das was thrown off the Puri chariot. Bamakhepa was beaten by temple servants. Sankaradeva's son in law was executed and Madhavdeva was imprisoned. Jagannath Das was punished for reading to women. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati faced an attempt on his life. Tukaram's manuscripts were thrown into the river.

Religious establishments in India have used violence against people who attacked them, consistently, for a very long time, and a nirguna sant telling pilgrims in Ayodhya that the pilgrimage was worthless was doing something that had cost other people a great deal.

Three. And this is not a fact about one tradition.

Every organised religion, in every period, in every part of the world, has done violence to people who said the wrong thing about it.

Naming it inside Hinduism, on a Hindu devotional site, is not an attack on Hinduism. It is the ordinary maintenance a tradition does on itself, and it is the reason Kabir, Paltu, Akho, Bhoja Bhagat and the rest exist inside it rather than outside it.

And the part that is not history

People in India are still killed over what they say about religion.

Not in the eighteenth century. In living memory, and recently.

Writers and campaigners who criticised religious practices have been shot in this country in the last dozen years. People have been killed by mobs over rumours about what they ate or what they were carrying. Others have gone into hiding, been given police protection, or stopped writing.

This entry is not going to litigate any individual case, because that is political history and this is a devotional site.

What it will say is the principle, which does not belong to any side.

An argument about religion is answered with an argument.

If somebody says something about your tradition that is wrong, the response available to you is to say why it is wrong. The response not available to you is anything else.

And a tradition that cannot survive being criticised in public was not surviving on its merits anyway, which is the point the Akho entry makes at length: Hinduism produced its own harshest critics and kept them, and that is a strength rather than an embarrassment.

If you see it starting

A crowd forming around an accusation about religion is the most dangerous ordinary situation in India.

• Police 112. Call before it develops, not after
• Do not join, do not film for circulation, and do not forward. Forwarded rumours are what assemble these crowds, and a person forwarding a message they have not checked is part of the mechanism
• Get the person out if you can do so safely, and do not attempt it if you cannot
• Cybercrime 1930 and cybercrime.gov.in for the messages, because the message is usually the beginning

On Paltu Sahib's own theme

And the honest limit on it, which this series has now applied several times.

He wrote about the person who knows something and will not say it, and he treated that as the real failure.

And he was killed.

Which makes the courage his and does not make it a general instruction.

A person who chooses to say a dangerous thing about their own tradition is doing something admirable. A person who tells somebody else to do it, from safety, is not.

This is the same distinction the Bhima Bhoi entry draws about the vow to accept hell, and the Malukdas entry draws about the python. The rule is constant: a statement a person makes about their own risk is a vow, and the same statement pointed at somebody else is an instruction, and the person pointing is never the one who burns.

Where to go

• Ayodhya, where Paltu Sahib's seat is, and where the Sarayu, Hanuman Garhi and the old town are
• Jalalpur and the Ambedkarnagar country, associated with his origins
• Hathras and Kara, for the other figures in this batch

A daily practice from this entry

• Ram, in the nirguna sense he used it
• A kundaliya, read aloud, because the loop only works out loud
• And the Paltu question, which is his own and which he paid for: what do I know that I am not saying, and who exactly am I afraid of

Who: Paltu Sahib, eighteenth century, of the Faizabad and Ambedkarnagar country of eastern Uttar Pradesh, settled at Ayodhya, with dates that are not secure and accounts that differ. He was of a Kandu family of grain parchers and small traders and he kept a shop, which is audible in the poetry, since his images are weights, measures, scales, adulteration, credit, the customer who does not pay and the trader who shortchanges, so that he writes about honesty in a register a man behind a counter had thought about professionally. His guru is given as Govind Sahib, in the line the tradition traces back through Bulla Sahib, and the standing caution about Sant Mat lineage charts applies: they are drawn backwards, contested between branches and thin fast as they go back.

Ayodhya: in the eighteenth century it was a major Vaishnava centre with a large establishment of temples, mahants and priests and a religious economy of some size. And Paltu Sahib was a nirguna sant, holding that the ultimate is formless, that image worship is beside the point, that pilgrimage achieves nothing by itself, that ritual purity is a fiction, that caste has no standing and that the priestly apparatus is a business, and he said so in public, in Hindi, in a town whose income depended on the opposite.

The kundaliya: six lines, and what makes it a kundaliya is that it comes back, with the word the verse opens on being the word it closes on. Structurally it is a doha followed by a rola, the last part of the doha becoming the opening of the rola and the rola's last word returning to the doha's first, so the verse loops, kundal meaning a coil. It suits him because it produces an inescapable ending, since a verse that ends on the word it began with has closed and there is no room for the listener to slide off it, which is exactly what you want when making an accusation to an audience that would prefer not to have heard it, and because it is memorable in one hearing, which is the whole requirement for a shopkeeper addressing a market town.

His targets: the priest as a businessman, where his trading vocabulary is devastating because he describes religious service in the language of weights and measures and he actually kept a shop; ritual without change; caste, attacked from below and directly on the Kabir and Ravidas position that birth confers nothing and the people enforcing it have an interest in it; pilgrimage, which in Ayodhya was interfering with an economy; and fear, which is more his own theme than the tradition's, since he returns constantly to the person who knows something and will not say it, who agrees quietly and nods in public, who is waiting for a safer time, and he treats that as the real failure, in a town where saying things was demonstrably unsafe.

The fire: the tradition says his attacks made him enemies among Ayodhya's religious establishment and that they killed him by setting fire to the hut or straw heap he was sitting in, with versions differing and several adding that he went on singing from inside it. Hold it in three parts. The specific event is not documented outside the tradition, with no court record and no contemporary account from outside his following, so a reader should hold it as what his tradition says rather than as established fact. It is entirely plausible in kind, because the pattern is attested repeatedly across this literature where documentation is better: Jnaneshwar's family destroyed by a ruling of the Paithan brahmanas, Chokhamela and Nandanar kept outside temples, Balarama Das thrown off the Puri chariot, Bamakhepa beaten by temple servants, Sankaradeva's son in law executed and Madhavdeva imprisoned, Jagannath Das punished for reading to women, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati facing an attempt on his life, and Tukaram's manuscripts thrown into the river. And it is not a fact about one tradition, since every organised religion in every period has done violence to people who said the wrong thing about it, and naming it inside Hinduism on a Hindu devotional site is the ordinary maintenance a tradition does on itself.

The part that is not history: people in India are still killed over what they say about religion, in living memory and recently, with writers and campaigners who criticised religious practices shot in this country in the last dozen years, people killed by mobs over rumours about what they ate or carried, and others in hiding, under police protection or no longer writing. This entry does not litigate individual cases, which are political history. The principle belongs to no side: an argument about religion is answered with an argument, so if somebody says something wrong about your tradition the response available is to say why it is wrong and the response not available is anything else, and a tradition that cannot survive being criticised in public was not surviving on its merits anyway. If a crowd is forming around a religious accusation, which is the most dangerous ordinary situation in India: call police 112 before it develops, do not join, do not film for circulation and do not forward, since forwarded rumours are what assemble these crowds, get the person out only if you can do so safely, and report the messages to cybercrime 1930.

And the limit on his own theme: he wrote that the real failure is knowing something and not saying it, and he was killed, which makes the courage his and does not make it a general instruction. A person who chooses to say a dangerous thing about their own tradition is doing something admirable; a person who tells somebody else to do it, from safety, is not. The rule is the same one this series applies to Bhima Bhoi's vow and Malukdas's python: a statement a person makes about their own risk is a vow, the same statement pointed at somebody else is an instruction, and the person pointing is never the one who burns.