Introduction

It is becoming the accepted mode of behavior and discourse these days in anthropological and historical writing on religion for authors to communicate to their readers something of their backgrounds, perspectives, experiences, and even foibles. Scholars who have gathered important ethnographic material on pilgrimages in India, for instance, often sprinkle into their narratives stories of their torn, bloody feet, statements of their feelings of comradeship and annoyance with their pilgrim co-travellers, and even acknowledgements of their bungles; in her recent book, Victory to the Mother, Kathleen Erndl admits that at the climax of her seven-day journey to the mountain temple of Vaisno Devi in northern India, she was so excited and nervous that she fumbled with her camera and was unable to get her flash to go off.2

It is in the spirit of such openness, such willingness, you might say, to bear the academic soul for scrutiny, that I present the following short paper. It comes out of a larger project I am currently engaged in, on the history of Durga Puja in Bengal, and summarizes the most interesting, and most vexing, interpretive and historical problem I have encountered during the course of my research. Below, I will present the interpretive dilemma, tell you the contradictory evidence I have uncovered in attempts to answer it, and conclude with my own preliminary reflections. This is not the isolated, insignificant interpretive problem it may seem; at base this hermeneutical struggle indicates the complexity of the changing relationships between the Muslim nawabs, the Hindu zamindars, and the British East India Company in eighteenth century Bengal, especially as these relationships bear on the nexus of religious and economic interests.

The Interpretive Dilemma

The problem started for me when I began researching the history of Durga Puja in Bengal. I noticed that my English and Bengali sources consistently presented me with contradictory explanations for the rising popularity and success of the Puja, first in the seventeenth century, but later and more prominently in the eighteenth century, which witnessed an explosion of interest in the Sakta deities, Kali and Durga.3 Some sources are specific and attribute the first public Durga Pujas to particular figures: for instance, candidates include a zamindar of the Rajshahi district in what is now Bangladesh, who sponsored the festivity as a substitute for an asvamedha ceremony, upon his succession to the zamindari in 1583;4 the head of the Sabarna Ray Caudhuri family, which ceded the East India Company the lands which became Calcutta and which has been celebrating the Puja since 1610;5 and, perhaps most often cited, Raja Krsnacandra Ray, zamindar of the Nadia district from 1728-1782, who instituted the public worship of Durga on a grand scale, exhorting those tenants in his district who were rich enough to do likewise.6 In spite of the early dates of some of these Pujas, none of my sources disputes the fact that it was during the 1700's that interest was greatest in Durga.7 What is unclear from the reports, however, is the reasons behind this great upsurge of attention to the public worship of the goddess, especially as these reasons relate to shifting power configurations in the region. As I shall show briefly below, some historians argue that the Pujas became popular during the period prior to the Battle of Plassey and the transfer of power from the nawabs to the East India Company in 1765,8 when the nawabs' lenient rule allowed for the amassing of great wealth among the Hindu zamindars. Others believe, on the other hand, that the lavish Durga Pujas were attributable to a new climate of stability and opportunity under the British, after or in anticipation of 1757, when--in contrast with the earlier, nawab-governed period--the zamindars dared show off their wealth and assert their prestige. At stake in these competing arguments are reconstructions of the relationships between zamindars, nawabs, and the British, as well as judgments concerning the relative values of Muslim and Christian rulership.

Two Opinions

Let me start with the second opinion first. According to this view of the rise of the Pujas, conditions in the rural areas, under nawab rule, were harsh and not conducive to such demonstrations of pomp and prestige that the Pujas would necessitate. Only when it was clear that the control of the nawabs was waning could Raja Krsnacandra, and others like him, feel free to engage in traditional acts of patronage. I quote from a representative English-language newspaper published in Calcutta in 1820:9

[T]o the bigoted Mussalmans, the worship of the Hindoo gods was ever viewed with feelings of jealousy, if not of extreme hostility ... [T]he English government ... has allowed for general diffusion of wealth and security of property. Formerly, such a display of wealth would have subjected the patron to the rapacious exactions of his petty sovereign. Under the present system, the government makes no inquiry into the private wealth of its subjects. In consequence of this security, the natives have given themselves up to unlimited extravagance in all that relates to their public festivals.

According to other sources of this same persuasion, the trouble was not simply fears of Muslim greed, but actual experiences of oppression. Aparna Bhattacharya, a modern day historian, writes that the worship of the powerful Goddess Durga attracted the Hindu rajas as a means of overcoming their inferiority complexes, vis-a-vis the nawabs; further, they hoped that they might imbibe some of Durga's strength, which could be used for political purposes.11 This sense of subjugation was apparently not entirely fictitious; there are indications that Hindu zamindars were not on the best terms with their nawab rulers, who were displeased with the zamindars' rebelliousness and, later, increasing attachments to the British in the region. Murshid Quli Khan (1704-1725) was a notoriously strict revenue collector, punishing those who failed to comply; even under the more tolerant Alivardi Khan (1740-1756), the Bengali economy began to be impoverished, with the rajas' assets increasingly squeezed. The Burdwan raja, Tilakcand, wrote to the Company in 1757, on the eve of Plassey,

By the rapaciousness of the government nothing is left to me. These three years I have no power left me in my country, and my own servants refused to obey me. But by the blessing of God by your coming the country shall flourish, and all men have their hearts at ease. I hope in God your power will be as great as I could wish it, that you may be good to every one. On this depends my own welfare.12

This view, in which the impetus to large-scale celebrations of Durga Puja was a result of British tolerance and governing policies, certainly finds corroboration in the urban streets of Calcutta, where from the 1790's we find much evidence of Hindu nouveaux riches sponsoring Pujas in grand style. Opportunities as middle-men, translators, financiers, merchants, and clerks brought new wealth to many, who used the patronage of religious festivals as a means to confirm, and enhance, their growing social status. Newspaper reports are full of descriptions of the rich and their Pujas, and until the 1830's, Europeans attended the functions with evident pleasure.14

I said above that there were two explanations for the rise of Durga Puja. If the first paints a dismal picture of nawab rule, contrasted with a rosy description of British rule after Plassey as the fertile ground for new expressions of religiosity, the second does the same in reverse. Here, it is the Mughal representatives, and later the semi-independent nawabs, who, prior to Plassey, bring sufficient prosperity and stability to the region to allow the flourishing of zamindari interests. There is much to commend this argument.

Indeed, the rise of several of the zamindari houses in Bengal occurs in the context of the seventeenth-century Mughal need for loyalty and non-threatening allies in Bengal, who could help bring the newly conquered territory under imperial government control. The Burdwan zamindari, for instance, by 1702 the premier estate west of the Hooghly, grew in fortune and prestige from the beginning of Jahangir's reign through that of Muhammad Shah. Murshid Quli Khan, the first nawab to rule Bengal with some independence from the arm of Mughal control in Delhi, consciously attempted to support and even aggrandize the large zamindaris, such as Burdwan, Birbhum, Bisnupur, Nadia, Dinajpur, and Natore. These increasingly wealthy zamindars modeled themselves after the nawabs and their courts, patronizing indigenous crafts, industries, and religious institutions, to indicate social position. Although there are very few references to Durga Puja before the mid-eighteenth century in the rural areas, the patronage of these Hindu landowners in other religious spheres is well documented; from the early eighteenth century they spent lavishly at marriages and funerals, went on pilgrimages, built mosques, temples, and charitable institutions, and supported Brahmas, paits, and Muslim holy men (pirs) with land and cash donations.15 Such modeling after nawabs, coupled with increasing inter-zamindar rivalries for local prestige, certainly predate Plassey.

This second view on the history of Durga Puja is not content to argue that conditions prior to the British were favorable for the sponsorship of religious festivals; it also asserts that after the coming of the British the ability of the zamindars to patronize religious functions was severely hampered. Again, there appears to be much merit to this contention. It is a well known fact that after Plassey the British bled Bengal, squeezing the rural zamindars, breaking up their estates for arrears of revenue, demilitarizing their lands, and making no allowance for reduced revenue payments during the devastating famine of 1769-1770. Almost all the major houses of Bengal suffered during the last quarter of the eighteenth century, their zamindars struggling--some successfully and others not--to keep a grip on their estates. In 1758 Raja Krsnacandra, who had helped the British to victory at Plassey, defaulted in Company payments. Under his grandson and great grandson, Isvarcandra and Giriscandra, respectively, much of his Nadia property was sold, due to revenue debts. The Burdwan zamindari under Tilakcand (1744-1770) sank to its lowest levels ever by the time of his death in 1770, during the Bengal famine, when he and his family were reduced to indigence. William Hunter writes that

The Maharajah of Burdwan, whose province had been the first to cry out and the last to which plenty returned, died miserably towards the end of the famine, leaving a treasury so empty that the heir had to melt down the family plate, and when this was exhausted, to beg a loan from the Government, in order to perform his father's obsequies.16

As I consider the discharge of my debts to Government as prior even to the provision of my food and raiments, I readily submit to this. But since the Poojah Dessehra is near at hand and this festival supersedes amongst those of my caste all religious and worldly affairs, God forbid that the customs which have been kept up of old [should be compromised,] seeing the same would reflect greatly on me in the opinions of men in general. I therefore hope that you will grant me some allowance to support the charge of the Poojah and that I may in a becoming manner be thereby entitled to keep up my reputation.

Concluding reflections

Let me close by returning to my original question. Who was responsible for the impetus given to Durga Puja, and why? How does one adjudicate between the two opposite viewpoints which I have just surveyed, given that both contain excellent arguments? Let me make three brief comments.

First, it seems likely that some of the rhetoric, from both sides, is colored by political considerations. I detect in the early nineteenth century English newspaper reports about the benefits for Durga Puja of British rule a certain desire to justify the wresting of power from the nawabs by the Company. Likewise, quotes about the oppression of Hindu zamindars by British greed often come from sources authored by Muslims.

A second point: it is perhaps wiser to combine than to juxtapose the two viewpoints on the origins of the Pujas, as described above. Following the arguments of the second perspective, I am convinced that the zamindar-sponsored worship of Durga did originate in pre-British times and was, to a certain extent, facilitated by the nawabs' consolidation of large zamindari estates, which made their job of governing easier. For those six or so zamindaris, such as Nadia, Burdwan, Natore, Dinajpur, Birbhum, and Bisnupur, which were consciously patronized by the nawabs, conditions prior to the British were, at least to some degree, conducive of the amassing and displaying of wealth; that Durga Puja was already an accepted means to such status is perhaps best indicated by the fact that new claimants to power in the region (such as the Marathas in 1742 21 and even the British in 1765) 22 attempted to use the festival as a self-authenticating measure. Likewise, it seems clear to me that the fifty to sixty years after Plassey were difficult economically for the large landed estates of Bengal; the eroding of their wealth and autonomy rendered traditional acts of patronage burdensome. Nevertheless, I am equally persuaded, following the first argument, that life under the nawabs was not entirely easy, and that accounts of the harshness of Murshid Quli Khan, for instance, even in relation to the zamindaris he was consolidating, must be considered. Brijen Gupta, in a fascinating aside, mentions that such persecution by Murshid Quli and his successor, Shuja Khan (1725-1739), led directly to revivals of "Hindu feeling" and of "court rivalries which had been dormant for over half a century."23 If this is true, then, in a surprising twist on the two arguments surveyed above, one might say that the Pujas were given their impetus during the time of Muslim rule, not because conditions were particularly easy, but as a means to assert Hindu power in politically uncomfortable times. Finally, I am also convinced, again by the first argument, that new opportunities for Puja sponsorship did open up under British rule, particularly in the urban context of Calcutta, but also through the innovations introduced by the Barowri Pujas, necessitated, ironically, by the demise of zamindari fortunes.

Hence what we may be seeing is the need for nuance: how one experienced the gradual transfer of power from the nawabs to the English in the region, in relation to one's ability to sponsor Durga Puja, may depend on a number of factors: what type of zamindari one came from; which nawab one was living under; and whether one was in a rural area or in Calcutta.

A third, concluding comment: whoever or whatever regime was responsible for encouraging circumstances under which the Pujas flourished, the comment by Brijen Gupta, noted above, deserves a final underline. The Pujas have always been means of demonstrating wealth and prestige,24 and the worship of Durga has long been associated with sovereignty, useful in the context of eighteenth century Bengal for bolstering the rajas' claims to identity and power.25 In other words, the rise of the Pujas in Bengal in the eighteenth century signals an important transformation in the self-perceptions of the Hindu elite. In this regard, I find it fascinating that Ramprasad Sen (c. 1718-1775), the man usually credited with initiating the genre of bhakti poetry to Kali and Durga, was a patronee of another initiator, Raja Krsnacandra Ray. What the exact relationships were between the zamindar and his poet, and between the ritual and devotional worship of Durga, is now very difficult to ascertain, particularly in respect to origins. Indeed, the popularizing of Sakta deities through bhakti creates an added complication in this task of historical reconstruction.

In sum, developments in the religious career of Durga in Bengal are very much reflective of the changing economic and political relationships between zamindars, nawabs, and the East India Company in eighteenth century Bengal. That both British Christian and Muslim writers have sought to claim credit for the surge of interest in the Pujas demonstrates, to me, how important an economic and political indicator Durga's patronage was perceived to be.

Continue