Ritualizing Politics and Politicizing Ritual: A Study of Kullu Dussehra

Introduction

Unlike the Dussehra celebration in the other part of India, Kullu Dussehra is a week-long annual congregation of the devi–devtas initiates in the mid-October of each year from the mythological point of view. Dussehra is a religious festival traditionally celebrated across India commemorating two religious-mythological events—the victory of goddess Durga over Mahishasura; and the triumph of Rama over the ‘demon’ king Ravana. These mythological events symbolize the victory of ‘good’ over ‘evil’. ¹ In the Hindu religious texts, the myths are projected as gods are the ‘rakshak of Dharma’ (the protector of dharma). On the concluding day of Dussehra, the effigies of Ravana, Meghnath and Kumbhakarna are burnt in a spectacular event. It has consistently been appearing that the political leaders are impersonating Rama holding a bow shoot a fiery arrow to the effigy of Ravana. This symbolic act associates the political leader with the mythical images of the great ruler Rama, the protector of Dharma. This ritual role becomes significant for the political leader or lawmaker to the ritual role of protection of Dharma. Ravana’s effigy burning in the Dussehra festival is becoming a ritualistic aspect of the politics of modern India. The effigy carries the face of a political opponent to compare them with the demon Ravana. ² Sometimes effigy of a political opponent is being burned to demonize and declare the opponent an evil and constraint in the path of Dharma.

In Modern India, Dussehra is celebrated as a ‘performative idiom of kingship, symbolically indicating the consecration and legitimization of royal or political power’ (Berti, 2011, p. 130). This performative role associates them with the pan-Indian imagination of ruler or lawmaker as the protector of dharma. It propagates the notion that the duty of the king/lawmaker should be the protection of dharma. The narrative has a historical connotation in Hindutva politics. ³ It is an occasion for the right-wing political parties to consolidate Hindutva. As the events commemorate two mythological events propagating ‘the victory of good over evil’ and ‘protector of dharma’; it allows retelling the myth to consolidate the Hindu identity and the political imagination of the protection of the Hindu dharma by the lawmaker (Narayan, 2009, p. 23).

The paper, however, explores the modus operandi of the community, kingship and modern nation-state in the spatial distribution of power in the ritual space of Kullu Dussehra. The ritual space comprises multiple agencies from the community, king, and state representatives. This apparent mutual co-existence of multiple agencies contradicts the ideological orientations. The study also explores the intersection of kingship and the modern nation-state in the spatial distribution of power in Kullu Dussehra. At the outset, it is essential to mention that the broad categorization of the various agencies helps to conceive the power dimension at the micro and macro level because the ritual and cultural performance need to be contextualized in the socio-economic and political domains (Berti, 2011, p. 128). The paper tries to understand the power politics in relation to caste and social hierarchy in the Kulvi community. Such an understanding challenges the monolithic perspective of encountering the hetero-normative behavior of Indian social dynamics. The study applies an ethnographic approach by drawing semi-structured interviews from the different agencies collected extensively in Kullu Dussehra.

Furthermore, the study focuses on political factors of mobilization in the ritual space of the Kullu Dussehra, where the ritualistic aspects of politics are most important to galvanize the ideological orientation of different agencies. Ritual is assumed as a non-political event, but it has, on the one hand, an ostentatious political intention. On the other hand, politics has a ritualized performative role that appropriates different discursive constructions for its existence in the popular pantheon. This phenomenon from the post-Independence Himachal Pradesh has a deep historical root and is persistent in the present time. The paper revisits an age-old debate about the role of ritual in politics, and politics has a ritualized aspect that needs to be performed at multiple levels.

Institution of Devtas: Kullu, ‘Valley of Gods’

Regional diversity and localized character are the essential characteristics to understand the diversity of the Indian rural culture (Jodhka, 2015, p. 1). The localized character of Kullu is exceptional from the other parts of India because of its core feature of the localized character of the institution of devi/devtas. Himachal Pradesh is recognized as Dev Bhumi, that is the land of god and devi/devtas occupy a significant position in the everyday life of rural people of the state; it is regulating and organizing socio-economic and political aspects of everyday life of the community (Jodhka, 2015, p. 1). Kullu is called the ‘Valley of Gods’ in Dev Bhoomi, Himachal Pradesh because the tradition of worshiping gods is very ancient in the valley and there are numerous gods. Each village has a god, in some villages there may be two or more gods; each family has its own god, kuldevta (Shegal, 2018, p. 60). However, the form of worship of gods is unique from the rest of India. Here the gods are living beings and moving beings rather than being statues fixed within the temple. Each deity has his palanquin, they are generally devoid of any statue.

The mechanism of the deities has a predetermined management system which is uniquely defined tradition. Kardar Sangh is the institution of the management of the devi–devtas. The head of the Kardar Sangh, Mukhya Karder (the Chief administrator), communicates with the king, state representative and Kardar of the deities. Each deity has a Kardar who is the caretaker of the administrative and financial affairs of the respective deity. The word Kardar is derived from Farsi, perhaps by the time devi/devtas got the land and properties and became property owners. Earlier, the post was hereditarily passed from generation to generation. The District Collector appoints them and is responsible for collecting revenue relating to gods and goddesses. In order to control the centralization of power of the deity’s hierarchization, the Kardar Sangh is established by the present royal descendant, Maheshwar Singh. ⁴ The priests of the deities are the Pujari; they are upper caste Brahmin, and they are selected hereditary. The mediator of deities, Gur are the shamans and oracles who are authorized spokesman of devi/devatas whose selection is a serious affair and full of mystery. Generally, Gur is the lower caste peasant community. The musicians of deities, Bazantris, are the former untouchable Dalit people. ⁵ The mechanism of the devi–devtas, a traditional norm of the hierarchy of performative roles, is distributed in the community.

Deities are being carried by palanquins, decorated with metallic mohras, adorned with variegated cloths and flowers, and lifted on the shoulders by two men. ⁶ The palanquins are accompanied by Bazantris, attendants, devotees and carriers of symbols of royal or divine artefacts. The palanquins often become animated or possessed of spirits and show various human moods and behavior like anger through rushing frantically or happiness by dancing in a leisurely manner, meeting with friends, and relatives, besides speaking through the medium of Gur answering to various queries of the devotees. The movements of deities and palanquins are believed to be directed by the deity’s will and feelings. ⁷

The festival starts only in the goddess Hadimba’s presence; she arrives at Kullu from the temple in Manali on the first day of Dussehra. ⁸ The moment she reaches Kullu, the palanquin of Raghunath is brought out to Dhalpur Maidan, the ritual ground. She is very much revered in Kullu and is also called the aunt of Raghunath (another name of Rama). All other deities also come to pay homage to Raghunath in his temple in Kullu. Around four o’clock in the afternoon, all the deities being carried on the palanquins gather on the main festival square. Some of them enter the square rocking frenziedly, and the devotees holding them rejoice, singing and dancing, often going into a trance. The ratha of Ragunath is pushed forward by fervent crowds towards another square. All the deities follow their master. On the seventh and the last day, Raghunath is called for Lanka Dahan (burning of Lanka). The idol of Raghunath is kept in the ratha. The bushes are gathered and burnt as representing the Lanka of King Ravana at the bank of River Beas.

Reinterpretation and Appropriation of Myth

Kullu Dussehra establishes the cult of Rama in the Himalayan region. It legitimizes the institutional notion of the divine right of Rama and his human representative, the king in a region of a vast diversity of tribal traditions. Dussehra is an occasion to prove the great desire of the radical image of Rama and Durga. These exclusive images of god/goddess consolidate the belief of essentialized narrative of evil-non Hindu. The appropriation of Rama propagates the concept of Ramrajya (the kingdom of Rama) where the upper caste and lower caste live together in harmony. ⁹ ‘Here the myth gets converted into the instrument of power for both the political agency and the leading section of the society. Thus their relationship with the myth and ritual is only socio-cultural has now been converted into a political one’ (Narayan, 2009, p. 36). There are widespread stories narrated the event:

King Jagat Singh, having caused a Brahman to commit suicide is affected by these symptoms: whatever he eats is full of worms and whatever he sees is full of blood. He consults a Baba bābā, ascetic who advises him to bring to the palace the statue of god Rama situated in a temple of the plains, to offer him his kingdom and to rule as god’s governor. The Baba is sent by the king to the temple where, thanks to his power to become invisible, he steals the statue and brings it back to Kullu. There, the king offers the throne to the god and declares himself as his delegate and first servant. (Kamla Kishori Sharma, the king’s family priest). (Berti, 2009, p. 110)

In the seventeenth century, when the king of Kullu Jagat Singh adopted a divine instrument of royal model and ‘dedicated’ his kingdom to Rama, the king projected himself as gulam (servant) of Rama. He declared that he would rule the kingdom of Kullu on behalf of Rama. It established the supremacy of the king and his divine role as the servant of the ruler Rama and imposed supremacy of the Arayan god over the non-Aryan deities. It legitimized kings’ power over the territory of the huge diversity of the tribal population.

The myth of the ‘demon’ Hidimba has also been appropriated and legitimized by the royal family. Hidimba in the Mahabharata is a tribal figure who has been demonized and subjugated. However, the royal narrative introduced her as a maternal aunt of the Rama and the dadi (great grandmother) of the royal family of Kullu. The present descendant of the royal family Maheshwar Singh narrates the lineage of Hidimba with his family:

Mahesvar Singh considers this goddess as his dadi (grandmother). He explains that Hirama is the local name for Hidimba, the Rakshasi who in Mahabharat, married Bhima, one of the five Pandava brothers, the hero of the epic … ‘we are from the Pandava family and Hidimba had married into our family! For this we call her dadi’ (Berti, 2006, p. 48).

This reinterpretation of the myth appropriates the ‘Rakshasi’ (demon) Hidimba, who is linked as the maternal aunt of the Rama and the grandmother of the Kullu royal family. The underline significance of the reinterpretation of Hidimba’s association with the royal family is crucial for seeking tribal legitimacy for the Arayan hegemony. ‘In the popular imagination, they (Dalit and tribal figures) are being reinterpreted and reinvented as Hindu mythological figures in order to fit them into the meta-narrative of Hindutva or linked with the story of Lord Rama in Ramayana’ (Narayan, 2009, p. 20). Here the process of ‘aculturalisation’ of the dominant system, that is the force of the Arayan tradition accommodated in the hegemonic process of the appropriation over the vast majority of the non-Aryan deities. ‘As a part of this political strategy, it is now unearthing local myths, local history, local past and local issues to link Dalits with the forces of Hindutva’ (Narayan, 2009, p. 20). For instance, Harcourt in 1871 observed that in Kullu:

The faith is Hinduism, but it is not the religion of the orthodox.… The religion of the majority of the Kooloo people is a sort of demon-worship, which may be deemed an offshoot of the Hindoo mythology, and reverence for the temples that contain statues of the noticeable gods; but their affections are more particularly concentrated in their own local deities, whose help they invoke in trouble, and by whom they swear when taking an oath (AFP Harcourt, 1972, p. 59).

Kullvi Community, Caste and Institution of Devas

The rural Himachal Pradesh is maintained by the self-sustain rural economy. Unlike the other parts of India, the modern market economy cannot intervene in rural life dominantly. The main reasons are geographical and ecological factors of the region. Apart from the self-sustaining community system, Himachal Pradesh is not free from hidden caste discrimination in everyday life (Jodhka, 2015, p. 3). The self-sustain system of the community and the ritual institution of devta make the caste system indomitable in the region. These institutions constitute an informal power structure, contributes to the region’s formal power structure (Singh, 2019a, p. 11). The institution of devtas and their tents in the ritual space is not simply about the manifestation of religious life; these are the reflections of the social life organized around devi/devtas. The institution reproduces the local caste hierarchy in rural Himachal. Every caste group of the community has a prior responsibility associated with the ritual role, albeit in a hierarchical system. As Parmer and Rana rightly pointed out that

[T]he institution of village god is so intricately linked with lives of the village dwellers that it tells on their social, political and economic well-being (Parmer & Rana, 2003, pp. 1–4).

For these people, village deity is lived experience. Devtas play a crucial role in reproducing community life and keeping everyone together within a hierarchal order, both at the local and district levels (Parmer & Rana, 2003, pp. 1–4).

In the Kullvi community, caste is predominant in socio-economic life; their ritual life is intrinsically associated with caste-based social performance. Ritual is not an exceptional thing to manifest the caste-based social hierarchy in the ritual activity of the community. Everyday life of the community is regulated and organized in a caste-based social hierarchy. The overt manifestation of caste-based ritual duties is highly practiced and expected to celebrate the community. Like other apparatus in Indian society, caste seems to prevail over a lengthier period. It is normalized by the other socio-economical and other religious apparatuses. This procedure amplifies and appropriates the discursive power that has taken the form of caste apparatuses. These apparatuses prevail over generations and organize social dominating forces. ¹⁰

Politicizing Ritual: Subversion of Caste Hierarchy

The ritual performance at Kullu Dussehra manifests a hegemonic overview of the society where god would speak in the language of power. It seems social transformation is impossible on the ritual ground. However, the nomenclatures of the ritual conceal its intricacies of the hegemonic codification of ritualistic social behavior of the community. The ritual appropriates and reiterates the caste-based social hierarchy where each stakeholder is categorized based on the caste-based ritual performances. Nevertheless, this ritual space is also a site of symbolic struggle and a field of contestation of community. It can be a powerful tactic to subvert the power relationship.

The traditional belief associated with low caste Gur subverts ritual and caste hierarchy and challenges the symbolic power nexus of the upper caste. Though social and ritual power is under Brahmins’ control, untouchables have the ‘diabolic’ power. The diabolic provided the untouchables a hope of social revision by threatening and negating the symbol of hierarchy. ‘It was the consciousness of diabolic that provided a sense of power to an untouchable community’ (Sharma, 2010). The Gur of the lower caste deity accrued liminality by performing the ritual role, which is a complete inversion of the positional hierarchy of the caste structure. They are capable of defiling by touch and performing the sacrifice and appropriates the brahminical domain. The lower caste Gur acquires the curative and afflicting power by his ritualistic role; shamanism, various types of mantras (formulaic ritual incantation), magical practice and sacrifice help him to subvert the hierarchy of purity. The performance of the curative role allows the Gur to acquire liminality; he tactically uses the brahminical symbol of asceticism and purity. In the curative rites, he purifies body and spirit. The Gur abstains from physical isolation from domestic duties, and in the morning, he takes a ritual bath and vows to fast all day. He offers homage to his respective deities. The deity possessed him and went to a state of trance, and they acted as shamans. During the performance of the ritual, Gur undergoes a ‘cyclic liminal metamorphosis’ from the untouchable householder to a priest the lower caste members (Sharma, 2010). The ritual polluted are as powerful as ritually pure; the top of the hierarchy is not as potent as the bottom of the caste hierarchy.

The manifestation of social hierarchy makes the ritual space a contradictory religious ground where the existence of power politics attributes to the collective will of the society at large. Here the power of resistance operates at multiple levels within the community across caste hierarchy. The undermining caste factors are evident unequivocally in the distribution of the ritual space where it is expected to perform caste-based social behavior from each community member. The tactical use of the caste-based performative role challenges the superior authoritative forces of the Brahminical ideology. It proliferates an atmosphere of ideological conflict, which provides a symbolic balance of compatibility and negotiation of opposing forces. The tactical use of ritual by marginal Gur makes a performative role that proceeds to the political dimension of authorship. This microphysics of power constructs an alternative form of discourse that challenges the authoritative dominant strong power. ¹¹ This subverted role of the Gur is an alternative mode of organization of society and the exceptional development of the particular category of alternative apparatus. Lower caste uses the mechanism by imbibing ‘opaque power’ and thereby achieves and exercises the political power to ‘the legitimating and exclusionary aim’ in the Brahminical apparatuses.

Kullu Dussehra and State Patronage

In Kullu Dussehra’s ritual sphere, the share of power is spatially distributed, and the manifestation of royal power is celebrated and transmitted in public (Berti, 2011, p. 127). Dussehra is, in fact, an occasion for the local deities to arrive at Dhalpur Maidan to pay annual homage to Raghunath and his human delegate, the king of Kullu. Paying homage to Raghunath designates the power, privilege and monetary profit for the community. The physical position in relation to the location of Raghunath’s chariot in the ritual space is crucial for the community since it visualizes and shows the importance of the deities in the local pantheon. In the exercise of royal power, the notions of honor, privilege and precedence are pivotal to show the presence of the king in the physical space. This phenomenon has been persisting and developing after abolishing the kingdom, even in the time of post-independent Kullu.

The trajectory of the Kullu Dussehra showed that the political leaders who did not belong to the royal family continuously tried to valorize the ritual space to appropriate the legacy. To transform the ritual into a national festival is one of such occasions which occurred in the 1970s. It happened smoothly because the participation was reduced due to land reformation, which allowed the tenants to become landholders. Thus, many maufidar gods were reduced to poverty, and the followers could not sustain a week-long congregation at the capital. ¹² In the 1960s, a Member of the local legislative assembly and the minister in congress local government, Lal Chand Prarthi felt the urgency to intervene in the Kullu Dussehra affair of regeneration and reinvigoration of the festival. He considered the festival as the most important cultural heritage of the valley. He initiated the patronage of the festival by the remuneration he received from the then Punjab government. The remuneration was granted and increased every year. The government initiated a remuneration for the week-long congregation at the capital (Berti, 2011, pp. 135–140).

Bringing the devtas to Dussehra is no longer a financial scarcity for the Kulvi community, but honor and privilege for them and their devtas. Each group of devotees does its best so that its deity gets remuneration and honors from the administration, offerings from devotees and visits from the other participants in the festival. All these things are essential for the deity’s prestige and can increase his fame and power. ¹³ Recognition of the deities is under the jurisdiction of the committee of the Kullu Dussehra. Each year there is the inclusion of the list; however, the inclusion is an ambiguous process.

Ritualizing Politics: King and Modern State

Kullu Dussehra manifests the intersectionality of the traditional notion of kingship and the modern nation-state, which exist simultaneously. On the one hand, the ritual space constitutes the centralization of the king’s discursive power; on the other hand, the contradiction of modern nation-state patronage. The representative of the democratic state challenged the King’s sovereign power over the ceremonial procession of the deities. King is the recipient of the devotion and respect from the deities carried by the communities. King’s symbolic role of the performative power was challenged by the secular democratic notion of the state. In 1972, Lal Chand Prarthi wanted to perform Dussehra on his own, superseding the king’s presence. He brought Raghunath’s chariot to the festival ground without putting the god inside since Raghunath’s statue was in the king’s possession. Just four or five gods participated in this procession of the ‘empty’ chariot. ¹⁴

In spite of Prarthi’s efforts, the king succeeded in preserving the ritual control over the Dussehra festival. Lal Chand Prarthi and other Congress party politicians who took control of the Dussehra Committee after him had to accept limiting their presence and influence on the festival to the dance programs only and leave the ritual phases to the king. A separation was thus progressively created between the ‘ritual scene’ of the Dussehra, whose protagonists were the royal family members, and the ‘folk dance scene’. Here, in their role as local representatives of the state, Congress party politicians also had control over the Dussehra Committee. In that role, they also took part in the festival as cultural benefactors, and they could use the festival as a public place for their political propaganda (Berti, 2009, p. 16).

This controversy ended when the current head of the royal family, Maheshwar Singh, entered into politics. He maintains a close relationship with the deities. This apparent interpersonal affair with the deities is not a private affair; these are political interference. Seeking political legitimacy from deities is the king’s reliability in the electoral politics of the vote bank. Maheshwar Singh has political lineage with the deities in electoral politics. He started his political career as an MLA of Mandi Constituency in 1977 from the ticket of Janta Dal, the formal Hindu Nationalist Party. Because of his recognition as a king and his sister having married the Mandi royal family, he seemed to be the most suitable candidate. After that, he was selected as a member of Lok Sabha for the third time and one tenure Rajya Sabha member. ¹⁵ Finally, Rani Pratibha Singh defeated him in the assembly election in 2004. His political role merges with the ritual role as raja. He is the private owner of the royal temple of Rama and still performs the role of Mukhya Karder (Chief administrator) and thereby, establishes a political alliance of the god’s followers.

Although the state governed Dussehra committee finances the deity’s remuneration of the trip, the king’s legitimacy is sustained, the king continues to be the main protagonist of the religious ceremonies. He continues to maintain a link to all village deities and he is still considered as the king. King’s symbolic authority has never been scraped from the imagination of the community.

Cultural Heritage, Modern-state and Market Economy

The transformation of public religious festivals like Dussehra shows a new cultural logic of late capital time and the new perspective of the modern state to promote ritual to cultural heritage. The underlying motive is to promote the state on a global level. It has been a long tendency to promote the Kullu Dussehra on a more significant level to attract global attention. Here the modern nation-state intervenes in the ritual space to promote the cultural heritage and neo-liberal market policy. The modern ideological state apparatus uses coercive power to govern the mass citizen in governance and urges the participatory act of governance which is expected to conduct works through positive means. State’s administrative mechanism galvanizes market economic values of neoliberalism and converts the public religious festival into a heritage industry. ¹⁶ In recent times the state has been upholding the Kullu Dussehra as the ‘International Folk-Dance Festival’.

The festival, apart from the rituals, has a commercial aspect also. Traders from various parts of the state come to Kullu to sell their commodities. There are numerous stalls attributed to local Himachali handicrafts, State-sponsored NABARD stall, the Department of Tribal affair has its stall and semi-government stalls for the promotion of Handicraft and Local arts with the patronage of the state. My respondent, the Representative of NABARD Kullu Branch told that:

NABARD provides training for self-empowerment in the regional branch to promote Himachali handloom, handicraft, local art, metallic souvenirs, etc. It supports the entrepreneur financially on an amount of up to 1 lakh and Government sponsorship for a stall at a Public festival. The program assures the empowerment and civic coordination for the economic stability of the rural economy of the state. NABARD also sells the product in different government-sponsored stalls in other parts of India. ¹⁷

There are a number of stalls of local handlooms and boutiques made by local people. The Dussehra Committee organized an event of Fashion show competition of Traditional Himachali Cloths. ¹⁸ The event was broadcasted in multiple global digital platforms like Websites, Facebook and YouTube. ¹⁹ The aim of the event is not merely to promote traditional clothes at the local level but also national and international levels. This marketization of the traditional cultural artefacts is a new logic of neo-liberal market-driven economy where the women and tribal people are alienated labour. ²⁰

Tourism is one of the focal industries that the government is trying to foster on a global level. There are three stalls attributed to the tourism and allied departments. The stall showcases all the important tourist spots and demonstrates their facilities. The study of Tourism of Himachal Pradesh (James Gardner, John Sinclair, Fikret Berkes and R. B. Singh) showed that the rapid growth of the 1990s has not continued. The current tourism activity may not be sustainable. T. V. Singh’s study (1989) shows that the future of tourism depends upon the central role of global economic and geopolitical dimensions. In the present decade, we have witnessing a global economic slowdown. Here promotion of tourism is aimless (Gardener, 2002). It is evident from the study that tourism has a sustainable impact on local society, economy and environment.

Ritual space is a strategic vehicle of implementing and propagating a specific form of governmentality by the ideological state apparatus. The space of Kullu Dussehra is a manifestation of the intersectionality of tradition and modern form of governance which exist simultaneously. The strategic intervention of government agencies in the ritual space appropriates specific civic duties like government tourism policy of homestays, bread-butter and the promotion of tourism, handloom industries. On the one hand, the state agencies urge civic coordination for smooth policy implementation; on the other hand, it normalizes the state’s coercive power in civic surveillance. This disciplinary control is nothing but the ‘silent procedure’ of the ideological state apparatus for a particular form of governmentality. In this mode, coordination is crucial for the agencies to govern the mass to mobilize them in the participatory act of democracy.

Conclusion

The ritual space of Kullu Dussehra, therefore, constitutes, on the one hand, the typical caste hierarchy and centralization of the king’s discursive power, on the other hand, the contradiction of modern nation-state patronage. Performativity of ritual plays a crucial role in the stratification of power and social hierarchy. Kullu Dussehra unequivocally manifests the surprising contradiction of the pre-colonial regional form of political-religious power of the feudal king and the democratic representational mode of governmental power. These overlapping two systems challenge and coexist in the post-independence time and try to enforce the ideological orientation of authoritative domination. The former is embedded in values and models of interactions pertaining to royalty. The sense of loyalty in the community’s mind established the legitimacy of the king’s discursive power of sovereignty. The ritual space also manifests the multiplicity of power dynamics within various agencies; this aspect offers multiple possibilities of resistance within the community, king and modern state. The contradictory nature of power position is evident in the performative act of ritual between the king and the communities.