Basavanna was one of the guiding lights of Lingayata Sharana Movement of 12th C Karnataka. He and other leading figures (sharanas) of this movement are well known for their radical Bhakti philosophy which propounded dignity of labour; ending caste and gender discrimination in practice and in theory in all social and spiritual matters and incisively ridiculing meaningless Vedic rituals and temple worship, while extolling the virtues of an intense communion with a personal God. However, very little has been written about their radical economic philosophy and statecraft. Excerpts from this paper by M M Kalaburgi attempts to fill that void.
Basavanna was one of the guiding lights of Lingayata Sharana Movement of 12th C Karnataka. He and other leading figures (sharanas) of this movement are well known for their radical Bhakti philosophy which propounded dignity of labour; ending caste and gender discrimination in practice and in theory in all social and spiritual matters and incisively ridiculing meaningless Vedic rituals and temple worship, while extolling the virtues of an intense communion with a personal God. However, very little has been written about their radical economic philosophy and statecraft. Excerpts from this paper by M M Kalaburgi attempts to fill that void.
It is an ancient concept in India that if a nadu*( a cluster of villages) is to have the status of a kingdom, it has to have the sevenfold limbs: territory, king, minister, subjects, treasury, army, and fort. Since the royal treasury was the lifeline of the other six limbs, it was of the utmost importance. The Treasury was made up of war-booty from time to time, the annual tributes by feudatory chiefs, and perennial taxes from local sources. The man who looked after the bhandara i.e. Treasury was the bhandari or finance minister.
It is well-known that Basavanna was Bijjala’s (A Kalachuri dynasty King who ruled in Kalyana, Karnataka, 1130-1167 CE-Ed) finance minister. In olden times, people believed that the Royal Treasury was the king’s own. In those days, the emperor at the apex, the chieftain of the nadu, the feudatory chief at the mandala*( a group of nadus) dispensed the Treasury as if it were the private property of the ruling classes.
The Treasury would be spent for the benefit of the priestly class of a religion, construction and upkeep of temples, nurturing agraharas (exclusively Brahmin settlements-Ed), gifts and alms on religious occasions and such other purposes. This is evidenced by records concerning temples and agraharas of medieval Karnataka.
This is the way in which the Treasurer of those times used to oversee the management (or mismanagement?) of the Treasury. In these circumstances, Basavanna emerged as the Finance Minister. It was the veritable arrival of a chaste person at such a degenerate state of affairs. Principled as he was, the very first question he asked himself was “Whose is this Treasury, after all? Whoever has the right to it?”
The Virashaiva Puranas, Basavarajadevara Ragale (epic biographical poem on Basavanna in Kannada by Harihara, 13th C), in particular, seem to hold an answer to this question. Basavanna is appointed clerk of the Kalachuri Treasury. By and by, he rose to be Finance Minister. It was a rich Treasury growing up since the Chalukyan times.
As he opens the doors of the Treasury on the first day of his assuming charge, Basavanna utters:
Oh my! Such a priceless wealth
Was not handed out to bhaktas,
Parasiva’s bhaktas
Alas! It is going to the crows
Alas! It is going to the lokayatas
The phrases “Oh my! Such a priceless……” indicate the magnitude of the Treasury. “Alas! It is going to the crows” signifies its excessive abuse. This abuse is nothing but the aforesaid wanton enjoyment by the kingly and priestly classes. In poet Harihara’s view, they are lokayatas i.e., hedonists, who don’t have a right to the Treasury. The true heirs are the lingayatas i.e. prasadavadis* (prasada: receiving everything as a gift from the Godand using the bare minimum for oneself and dispensing the rest for the benefit of the community. Prsadavadis are those who practice this principle). In sum, even if a hedonist himself is the king, he is not the owner of the Treasury. But even if the prasadavadis be poor subjects, the Treasury belongs to them. This is the philosophy of Basavanna. In Harihara’s poetry, Basavanna says about the Treasury: “The belongings of bhaktas are not to be spoilt”
When he is spending it for them, his words are: “I am a servant serving you, your own money on demand”. When Bijjalla objects to the use of the Treasury for the bhaktas, Basavanna throws a hint that the Treasury is not Bijjala’s, but of the bhaktas by saying, “Do the shivabhaktas ever desire your belongings? They are taking what is only theirs”
After Basavanna took charge as Finance Minister, Bijjala must have been annoyed at finding it difficult to spend the Treasury according to his own whims and fancies, since Basavanna believed in the principle that not the king, but the bhaktas were the owners of the Treasury. On the other hand, what with the flow of money stopping for construction of agraharas and gifts for priests, Basavanna incurred the wrath of the priests who had all along been enjoying the benefits from the Treasury.
Basavanna, for one thing, restricted the use of the Treasury for the enjoyment of the King and other elite. For another, he used it for bhaktas. Since the term bhakta is used as a synonym for jangama (the selfless mendicant), in this context as also from his utterance “I don’t seek caste among jangamas”, it is evident that these jangamas are not the caste-based jangamas of the present day, but the virtue-based community of knowledge seekers that was just then taking shape.
In Basavanna’s new social order, labour assumed prime importance. The wealth of the Treasury was basically a product of the labour of the community at large and that this was the class that made for the growth of the Treasury. Before preaching the value of work to them, it is the first duty of a government to provide them with food, clothing and shelter which are essential for living. Basavanna seems to have, to start with, utilized money to fulfil this bounden duty. It is but natural that, broadly speaking, this event looked like misuse in the eyes of the accusers. More so in the eyes of those who were deprived of the benefits they had long been enjoying. The slander by such people spread thick and fast in society and may have reached the ears of Basavanna. His vachanas (Bhakti poems in Kannada-Ed) allude more to the affairs of the treasury than to other political issues. Sometimes he soliloquizes to console himself, at other times, he dismisses this false accusation in explicit terms. And at yet other times, we hear the bold voice of Basavanna to the effect that, though Bijjala is preparing to take action against him, he is not the one to be daunted.
They examine my body, look into my mind
The jangamas loot my wealth no end
Oh Kudalasangamadeva(Oh lord of the meeting rivers—a signature of
Basavanna’s vachanas)
I am true to your Dream Treasury.
Maybe, under the circumstances of the accusation snowballing into a grave situation as a fallout of spending the wealth of the state for the benefit of jangamas, he throws up the soliloquy and openly dismisses the false accusation in the following vachana:
When a milk stream is flowing by the town,
Why should I float on the back of an evil cow?
Why should I be shameless?
Why, indeed?
When Kudalasangamadeva himself is with me
Why need I Bijjala’s Treasury?
After a time, when Bijjala was about to take action, Basavanna takes a hard, undaunted stand against the king:
Does the elephant fear the goat, Sire?
Instead, doesn’t it fear the goat taking it for a lion’s paw?
Do I fear this Bijjala, Sire?
Instead, don’t I fear Kudalasangamadeva who is merciful to all creatures?
There are hints in “Basavarajadevara Ragale” (epic biographical poem on Basavanna in Kannada by Harihara 13th C) Basava Purana (epic biographical poem on Basavanna by Palkurike Somanatha in
Telugu in 13th C) that a hearing was conducted on this charge. Marriage between Haralayya’s (a cobbler) and Madhuvarasa’s (a Brahmin) progeny with active encouragement by Basavanna is commonly believed to be the cause of the conflict between Basavanna and Bijjala. In other words, rejection of class distinctions per se is said to have ignited the Kalyana Kranti (revolution). But this breaking of the social barriers of caste through an inter-caste marriage was just a pretext for a breach in the relations between the two. And it would be more appropriate to assume that the real cause was Basavanna’s radical economic philosophy. The unfortunate fact is that admixture of caste overshadowed the class struggle and hogged all limelight unto itself. With the new economic policy in his head and the might of the State
Treasury in hand, Basavanna got a good opportunity of putting his precepts into practice.
Though there may have been a breach in the relations between Bijjala and Basavanna due to religio-social issues, the question of ownership of the state treasury must have been largely responsible for the breach to widen into a chasm. For, the propounding and propagation of religious principles would not adversely affect Bijjala. Besides, he too was a Shaivite. Bijjala’s power was not challenged by the eradication of gender distinctions in Basavanna’s new social philosophy. All these radical social thoughts and measures may have dented the priests’ prestige quite a bit, but it was of no direct consequence to King Bijjala. But rejections of class distinctions, especially the challenge to the king’s right to the Treasury, shook the very foundations of Bijjala’s governance and may have sparked off his embitterment towards Basavanna. Rejection of class distinctions must have added fuel to the fire.
The breach between the two wouldn’t have occurred so fast or not all, had Basavanna been some other Minister. Nor would it go to such an extreme. By appointing Basavanna Finance Minister, Bijjala was hoist with his own petard. Thus, the Sharana movement was not merely socio-religious movement, but also economic. Therefore, the view of scholars that the Lingayatabhakti movement was of purely socio-religious nature and not of socio-economic nature needs to be reviewed.
Author Prof M M Kalburgi, is a well known researcher in Kannada culture and history and a former
Vice Chancellor of Kannada University, Hampi.
English Translation: Prof Sadanand Kanavalli