User blogs
by Rupam Kumar Boro
Srimanta Sankaradeva being a pivotal figure is actually divided into the polarity of intellectual and common people. The intellectual is immersed in bringing out a new paradigm of his works, and the common people are subjected to the influence of ‘Kirttan Ghoxa’.
We are bound to cite such remarks after going through the crucial book Sankaradeva Adhyayanat Bixangati by Dr Sanjib Kr. Borkakoti (Pragya Mediahype, 2024). The first publication dates back to the year 2005. After a gap of about two decades, its second publication came out in 2024. Surprisingly, the article cherishes its dignity not only from the perspective of time period and relevance but also the challenges it throws upon the readers. The book exposes the falsification and various baffling statements associated with the life and philosophy of Gurujana.
In the very first article titled ‘Mahapurux Srimanta Sankaradevar Bixoye Chaitanya Panthir Apaprasar’, Dr Borkakoti presents to us the views and statements of a critic who asserts that Sankaradeva received theological knowledge from Chaitanyadev and also about the alleged influence in His work of arts, typically from Bengal. There is an absence of tagging the word ‘originality’ to Gurujana’s works by this critic, and the cobweb of ‘influence’ appears to be the keyword, at least, after reading this article.
For instance, according to the above-mentioned critic, our ‘Sattriya’ dance form is still in its budding state, and it is mostly influenced by the sect of Chaitanyadev. Secondly, Sankaradeva pondered about religion and culture much later than Chaitanyadev. Thirdly, besides Sankaradeva, Madhavdeva and Damodardeva, too, got the insight of religion from Chaitanyadev. Fourthly, Sankaradeva received the knowledge of ‘Ek Sharan’ from Chaitanyadev. Fifthly, the songs composed by Sankaradeva had their influence from Chaitanyadev. Dr Borkakoti shows how far these statements are from truth.
‘We come across a sentence where our author cites an example of an essay’, the writer who complains of Sankaradeva to plagiarise a ‘shloka’ from Chaitanyadev (page 28). Our author refutes it by stating that there is no such evidence of that ‘shloka’ to be composed by the saint of Bengal.
The next consecutive four articles are titled ‘Srimanta Sankaradevar Bixoye Baampanthir, Apaprasar’. ‘Srimanta Sankaradeva Adhyayanat Bibhranti’, ‘Sankari Dharma aru Xamantajugiya Arthaniti’ and ‘Srimanta Sankaradeva aru Marx’. Two prominent books termed to be ‘classics’ are chosen for discussion by our author. Praxanga Sankaradeva (edited by Dr Sivanath Barman) and Srimanta Sankaradeva: Kriti aru Krititva (by the same author) face a massive challenge as the opinions reflected in the mentioned books are questioned and critically analysed with a note of corrections. It is interesting to note that on careful reading of the essays, readers will observe how Dr Borkakoti has delved into the foundation of Marxism to watch how Sankaradeva has been studied.
For the book Praxanga Sankaradeva, the leading critics who have contributed their writings are Dr Hiren Gohain, Dr Amalendu Guha, Bhabananda Dutta, Anil Roychowdhury, Dr Dhrubajyoti Bora and others. Unhesitatingly we can say that rarely we see any scholars, critics and readers raising objections against these scores of eminent writers. At least from a literary point of view, we trust in their writings. Even to understand Sankaradeva, the admirers come with a preconceived notion that something innovative or close to “eternal truth” will be revealed. To doubt their observations and to speak against their ideas based on our judgement is to invite bitter criticism from all counters. This is how the chain of thought patterns is sustained among us.
Readers who are quite familiar with Dr Borkakoti’s magnum opus, Purnanga Katha Gurucharit (3rd edition, Aank Bak, 2024), can feel the painstaking effort and an admirable range of exhaustive studies that he has done to meaningfully accomplish the task for our community. Unfortunately, very few include his name and credit his task but are smart enough in plagiarising his works.
The above-mentioned four essays were written in the nineties, but how these books and the viewpoint of our author will stand in coming times is the question of the hour. For the author of Kriti aru Krititva, no trace of any alteration of his opinions is noticed. Under such situations it becomes our prime responsibility to read with an impartial view and come to a definite conclusion which is satisfying and also well-accepted by academicians.
Every ideology has definite loopholes which cannot be overlooked. One needs to understand its scope of implementations. With the brutal change in time, ideology may become unfit depending on situations. To assert Marxism/communism to be the only reliable microscopic yardstick in interpreting every minute account can topple us from forming a balanced picture. The results can be fatal if views outside the Marxist periphery are not at all welcomed and the subject is overthrown. There is no such formula that a particular theory or ideology can be an effective/accurate tool to judge people and events in every circumstance.
Dr Borkakoti has extracted sentences from the book Praxanga Sankaradeva which he objects to and instead gives his opinions. For the convenience of our readers, we would mention a few of them, such as the ‘bhakti’ movement propagated by Sankaradeva being a hindrance in achieving socialism, the Mahapuruxia culture having its resemblance with the Manipuri and the ‘Baul’ culture of Bengal, the possession of materialistic pursuits being considered a sin, feudalism being embedded in the ‘bhakti’ movement of Sankaradeva, and so on. Our author rectifies these statements successfully.
An aura of counterattack is visible from our author when he meets criticism regarding his opinions for the book ‘Kriti aru Krititva’. This very book is considered even today as an inseparable one for Sankaradeva studies. However, after going through our author’s pinpoint and rectifications, the explanations of the book dangle before us. Even in the latest publication of ‘Kritti aru Krititva’ (Assam Publishing Company, 2023), we notice the opinions are retained on the subjects that were under greater scrutiny. As a result, we believe two categories of reading communities will emerge. One, a rigid follower of Marx, reluctant to visualise any form of doubt for ‘Kritti aru Krititva’. The second one, who will be open to the views of the present book Sankaradeva Adhyayanat Bixangati, does a comparative study for that purpose. We need readers of this latter category.
In the next two articles, the focus is upon the works of the esteemed scholar Dr Maheswar Neog. For any reader well-versed in Assamese literature, Dr Maheswar Neog is a name synonymous with Sankaradeva studies. Even today for any of our questions and philosophy related to Sankaradeva, we take refuge in Dr Maheswar Neog’s works, especially his magnum opus, Sankardeva and His Times. It would not be an exaggeration to say that we blindly believe in each and every word of the book. Honestly, we even fear/hesitate to raise a question about this book. One of the probable reasons is fear from our community, which may get provoked, or from the staunch believers and academicians whose fury and verbal abuse are enough to curtail our work.
From the perspective of being a common reader, we are now driven to reread this classic book, Sankardeva and His Times, on an exhaustive note. For the convenience of our readers, we will cite only a few instances from the works of Dr Neog where Dr Borkakoti points out and rectifies the errors.
According to Dr Neog, Sankaradeva organised the ‘Doulutsav’ in a Kirttanghar during the time of ‘Cihnayaatra’. Secondly, Gurujana’s play ‘Patnipraxad’ was written in Dhuwahata (guesswork). Thirdly, the ‘paguri’ (‘turban’) and the attire put on by a ‘Sutradhar’ actually come from the Hindustani culture. Thirdly, the style adopted in Chitra Bhagavata closely resembles the Mughal style, and it cannot belong to the sixth century. Fourthly, the mention of Kirttanghar as ‘temple’ in his magnum opus.
In this way we have found that there are multiple instances where statements held to be ‘authentic’ are questioned. For us, we need to dive in to arrive at a perfect conclusion satisfying our hearts. But for research scholars, it is challenging and requires a bit of a Herculean task to revise their preconceived notions. It demands an enormous range of studies on our part to convincingly know Gurujana rather than seeking and nurturing ideas or the old-aged “truths”.
Moving towards the next article is ‘Srimanta Sankaradevar Darxan Xamparke Alochanat Bixangati’. Here we come across various statements from research scholars that are questioned and rectified by our author. These statements are extracted from the English magazine name Prachyapragya (3rd volume, 2000) published by Sankardev Institute of Culture International. In brief, the subjects that are centred under discussion are ‘rasa’ that Sankaradeva gave prominence to, the year of Sankaradeva’s demise, the supreme deity whom He worshipped, to whom Sankaradeva considered as His Guru, whether He considered ‘Maya’ to have a beginning or not, the philosophy behind the religion Gurujana propagated and others.
Looking at this debilitating condition of the journal, we arrive at a conclusion that the study on Sankaradeva is not profound. Keeping aside a few of the topics which the author admires, the rest of the errors being pointed out utterly surprise us. If academicians make such fallacies/blunders, then what sort of message can be received by us as common readers? If such flaws happen to exist in a research-orientated journal, it is a threat towards the intellectual development of a community. We are pleased that at least our author of this book is vigilant enough in detecting the misplacement of thoughts and terminologies.
The concluding article for our discussion in the book is ‘Rajmohan Nathar Sankaradeva Adhyayanat Bixangati’. Belonging to Assam, Rajmohan Nath writes an article about the life and contributions of Sankaradeva. It was included in the fourth volume of the Cultural Heritage of India published by Ramkrishna Mission. The objections raised against his writings centre around topics such as writing the name of Sankaradeva as ‘Sankar’ and ‘Deva’ separately, the birth of Sankaradeva being in the year 1486, the shedding of the ‘Shakti’ cult with the arrival of Jagadish Mishra, the time period of starting the translation of Bhagavata and its completion, Sankaradeva not giving ‘Xaran’ (‘initiation’) to women, the presence of a ‘purohit’ (‘priest’) in Naamdharma and others.
Sankaradeva Adhyayanat Bixangati needs an appreciation today from readers of all communities. We cannot deny that right from Bezbaruah and Maheswar Neog to the leading Marxist authors – all these stalwarts played a key role in pioneering our minds towards Sankaradeva studies. In its midst, the air of appreciation for them sowed seeds of emotion and arrogance into our hearts. This psyche made us overlook the rectifications.
Srimanta Sankardeva should not be an object of dichotomy among the academicians. For we, as laymen, rely upon their works. If newer discoveries are made or truths are found out, why do we hesitate to accept it? For the researcher has his pure intention to place the icon on that pedestal where both inside and outside of our region he receives the due recognition. After going through this book, one will obviously find the causes for it.
Dr Borkakoti, with his unfailing conviction, wipes out the doubts, and his vividness manifests the ‘man’ Sankaradeva before our eyes. Upcoming generations ought to read this book, as the concreteness of the author’s thought and plain way of writing are capable of drawing the attention of the young minds.
[Published in The Sentinel, 20 April, 2025]
https://www.sentinelassam.com/more-news/life/sankaradeva-adhyayanat-bixangati-a-viewpoint-from-a-common-reader
