Bhakti-Kal and Caste Question

 

Bhakti-Kal and Caste Question

-    Kanwal Bharti

 

(An abridged version of talk delivered on 23^rd October, 2024 at Calicut University)

(Translation from original Hindi to English: S R Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front)

I say this with emphasis that in Indian history two periods, only two periods, came as a boon for the Dalit castes. One was the Muslim period and the other was the British period. If the Muslims and the British had not come to India, the fortunes of the Dalits would probably never have risen in this country. It was in these two periods that the Dalits realized their human nature. And they developed a yearning and struggle for freedom from slavery. Even today I shudder to think that if the Muslims and the British had not come, what would have happened to us? Would the Hindu kings and princes have given us human rights? Would the Hindus who did not give water to the Dalits from their wells, have given them the right to education and freedom? I leave these questions for your consideration.

Remember that the Bhakti movement came in this Muslim period itself. Islam had come to India in the seventh century itself. Obviously, when Islam came, Muslims also came with it. In other words, Islam came along with the Muslims. With this, a big revolution came in the field of language. Sanskrit, which was the elite language of literature, lost its dominance and local dialects started becoming the language of poetry. Brahmins looked at this language other than Sanskrit with hatred and despised it by calling it asadhu, uncultured, uncivilized, and corrupt. A writer named Gunadhy had written a book named Brihatkatha in Paishachi language. Because of writing in this language, the king of that place insulted him in the court.

The second big revolution happened regarding caste. Siddhas came in the eighth century itself, whose period is till the twelfth century. There were 84 Siddhas, out of which 28 Siddhas were Shudras and 4 were women. Other Siddhas included Brahmins, Thakurs and Vaishyas. Thus, we see that in the medieval period, the caste system was broken in the field of knowledge. There were castes, but there was laxity in their Varna-karma. In the Varna system, only a Brahmin could be a religious teacher, but this bond was broken in this period. Along with the Shudras, women also became religious leaders. In this century, Sarahapad was born. He was a Brahmin. But he strongly refuted the Vedas, scriptures, yagnas, varna system and caste. One of these Siddhas was Machhendranath, who started the Nath sect. His disciple was Gorakhnath. Gorakhnath made Shiva-bhakti so popular and so widespread that from east to west and north to south, there is no province where Gorakhnath does not have influence among the common people. You will be surprised to know that even today, in every corner of the country, a huge population of Dalit-backward castes consider Gorakhnath and his disciple Jahar Peer, who was a Muslim, as their deity.

The Bhakti movement comes in the tradition of these Siddhas and Naths. When the Bhakti movement started, there was a strong stream of Nirgun poets in it, which was against caste. In this, another stream was started by Brahmins, which was in favour of caste. This stream was started in opposition to Nirgun, i.e. in counter. We know this as Sagun Dhara. This stream was started in the name of Vishnu's incarnations Ram and Krishna. But none of the saints of Sagun Dhara denounced caste, rather they remained staunch supporters of the caste system. Dr. Ambedkar has written that Saint Gyan Dev was so enamoured of his Brahmin status that when the Brahmins of Paithan refused to accept him in their community, he moved heaven and earth to get recognition as a Brahmin among them. Similarly, there was Saint Eknath, for whom the film 'Dharmista' was made to show him as a hero, because he had shown the courage to eat with an untouchable. He did this not because he was against caste, but he did it believing that if he got contaminated by this, he would become pure by bathing in the Ganga. Yatha - Antyajacha Vithaal Jyaasi/ Ganga Snaane Shuddhatva Tyaasi. This saying has come in Chapter 28 of Eknathi Bhagwat. There was a saint Ramanand, who is imposed on Kabir and Raidas as a false Guru. He used to say, "He who worships Hari, becomes Hari's." But no verse of his is found in the refutation of caste. Kabir has a Sakhi - "Sakat Brahmin jini mile, baisno mil chandal/ ank maal de bhentiye, mano mile Gopal." If you meet a Shakta, Brahmin and Vaishnav-Chandal, then do not meet the Shakta and Brahmin, because both are the same. But if you meet a Vaishnav-Chandal, then embrace him, because he has not got the status of a Vaishnav, he is considered an Untouchable. These were the Untouchable Vaishnavs made by Ramanand. He used to initiate Brahmins in the temple with proper rituals with chanting of mantras, but he would make the Untouchables stand outside the temple and say from a furlong away, say- Ram Ram. When they said, Ram Ram, then Ramanand would say to them, "Go, your initiation is done, you have become a Vaishnav." But they were never allowed to enter the temple. Those Untouchable Vaishnavas were made to do the cleaning work outside the temple.

I had told you yesterday also that the Nirgun and Sagun saints of the Bhakti period should not be considered the same. Ramvilas Sharma and some other Brahmin critics have committed the crime of mixing them, but you should not commit this crime. Both are different. Now I will tell you why the Brahmins needed to start the Sagun stream? The main reason for this is Islam, which transmitted such a stream of monotheism and love among humans, especially humans of lower castes, that Brahmin-religion and the caste system were in danger. Many critics, among whom Hazariprasad Dwivedi is the main one, do not believe that Islam had an influence on Bhakti literature. They say, everything has come from the Vedas and Vedanta, Kabir's revolution also came from the Vedas and Vedanta and Tulsi's Varnashrama too. Is not this amazing knowledge! But he also says emphatically in the introduction to Hindi literature that 'even if Islam had not come, twelve percent of this literature would have been the same as it is today.' That is, he believes that Islam had four percent influence on the literature of the Bhakti period. But this four-anna effect had only so much effect on Brahmin saints that they loosened the shackles of untouchability to prevent Shudra castes from converting to Islam, but did not abolish them. And Tulsidas was so harsh towards Shudras that he considered the rise of Shudra poets as the ill-effects of Kaliyug. He could not tolerate that a Shudra becomes so elevated due to his qualities that he starts preaching to Brahmins by birth, “Are we any less than you?” “After becoming Shudras, we are like Brahmins, but we are less than you/ The Brahmin who knows Brahma, scolds him even after seeing him with his own eyes.” The beauty-consciousness of Nirgun poets was that “Do not worship a Brahmin, who is devoid of qualities/ Worship the feet of a Chandal, who is proficient in knowledge.” This is the verse of Saint Raidas. This Nirgun beauty-consciousness kept worrying Brahmins in the society for a hundred years. In opposition to this, Tulsidas established the Varna system in the sixteenth century and said, “Pujiye Vipra Seel Gun Heena/ Nahin Na Shudra Gun Gyan Praveena.” Those who have read Ramchandra Shukla will know that Shukla ji has called Kabir arrogant, uncivilized, and uncultured. Is not it surprising that he did not see arrogance, arrogance and uncivilizedness in Tulsidas who said, “Pujiye Vipra Seel Gun Heena/ Nahin Na Shudra Gun Gyan Praveena,” but he saw it in Kabir who was refuting the discrimination. Among the saints whom Tulsidas has worshiped in Manas, Brahmins are the first to be worshiped by him. “Bando Pratham Mahisur Charana/ Moh Janit Sansay Sab Harana.” This is such a big support of caste in Tulsidas. Therefore, I am repeating my point again that the Nirgun and Sagun poets and saints of the Bhakti period should be considered as one. The Saguns did not oppose the caste system, only the Nirgun poets did. Caste was not a matter of concern for the non-Dalits then and neither is it now.

The biggest rebellion against caste in the Bhakti period was done by the Nirgun saints of the fifteenth century, and this rebellion was to reject the power of Brahmins in the society. No Nirgun saint made a Brahmin his Guru. This was the first attack on the root of caste. Because the root of caste was only Brahmin. That is why Kabir said in a sky-piercing voice, 'Brahmin is the Guru of the world, but not the Guru of the Sadh/ He died after delving into the four Vedas.' He said, Brahmin may be the Guru of the world, but he cannot be the Guru of the Sadh. Nirgun saints called themselves Sadh, not Sadhu. By rejecting Brahmin, they cut the root of caste. Because Brahmin was the one who established caste. Nirgun saints believed why make a Brahmin their Guru? What does he have other than imparting knowledge of the books of Vedas and Puranas? What does he have other than teaching to declare this world as false and the other world as true? He is a Shudra, he is Untouchable, he is a Mlechha, he is entitled, he is not entitled, what does he have other than this rhetoric? He is so afflicted with the complex of superiority that he considers everyone else to be lowly except himself. Just yesterday in the session Professor Madhav Hada had said that the thinkers of the West considered the Indian thinkers to be of second class. But he does not tell that the Brahmin thinkers also consider the Shudra thinkers to be of second class. By putting stamps and tilak on their bodies the Brahmins make one feel that they are not like other humans, they are different from them, they are superior. In this way the Brahmin likes social inequality and social isolation. Kabir had asked such a Brahmin by putting a finger in his eyes—if you are superior by birth, then why were you not born with these three sticks from birth? Just like everyone else, you are also born from a drop. But if you are different, then why were you not born from some other way? If you were born from Brahma's mouth, then you would have come out from his mouth only - 'Jo karta varna bichaara/ janmat teen danda anusar/ jai tu bahan bhabhi jaaye/ aan vaat kahne nahin aaye.'

And the contagious disease was so dreadful for the Brahmin that if even the shadow of a Dalit fell on him, he would immediately take a bath. Yesterday, Avdhesh Pradhan ji, while referring to Bhaktmal in his lecture, had called it a great book on coordination of Sagun-Nirgun poets. But this book is not about coordination, but a book that distorts the characterization of Nirgun poets. This book was written by Nabhadas in the sixteenth century, in the period of Tulsidas. Nabhadas is said to be a Shudra. I do not know whether this book was written by Nabhadas, or some Brahmin wrote it in his name. But this is the same text which has fabricated the stories of Kabir and Raidas being made disciples of Ramanand. In this Bhaktmal itself, it is mentioned that when Kabir was called for a discussion with Ramanand, Ramanand had put a thick sackcloth curtain in between so that Kabir's shadow would not spread contamination. Was such a strange creature who believed in untouchability fit to become Kabir's Guru? Would Kabir have made him his Guru? Never. Kabir says, "A Guru is needed who makes the disciple Brahma." One who makes the disciple's body Brahma. Kabir has said a very beautiful thing that the condition of a Brahmin is like a boat of blind people, in which all the blind are sitting and they take it in whichever direction they want, they have no goal - Kabira, the story of a Brahmin, so the boat of blind people/ All the blind people sit together, take them wherever you like.'

 The God of the Nirgun saints was Niranjan, devoid of caste and class. Their Nirgun God had no form, no class, no lineage, no clan, and no abode. But the Sagun saints did not believe in a formless God. Their work could not be done with just one God, and it cannot be done even today. Because a temple of formless God cannot be built, his idols cannot be made, and plays cannot be performed in his name. If Sagun Brahmins believed in a Niranjan Parmatma, then they would have had to insist on social equality. Then what would have happened to the Varna system, for the establishment of which they created so many incarnations and stories? Remember, they needed to establish Sagun deities, because they had to declare the Varna system as a divine system, which they could do only by making Brahma its creator.

Kabir has refuted such devotion, and rebuked such devotees, for whom caste existed earlier. See these verses of his---

Jab tak naata jati ka, tab tak bhakti na hoye.

If any warrior does devotion, he loses caste, class and family.

Where there is devotion, there is no disguise, there is no Varnashram.

The devotion which is based on love for the name, is rare in the world. Finally, I will conclude with some of Raidas sahab's Sakhis. He had called the Dalit castes as subordinates. Although politically all Indians were subordinates, but socially only the Dalits were subordinates. He said that Dalits are such subordinates, whom no one loves---

Living is a sin, O friend, know this.

Raidas Das, who loves a dependent.

Know him as a Brahmin, who is absorbed in Brahma.

Raidas, caste and class do not matter, this is the poor.

Make friendship with a Muslim and love a Hindu.

Raidas, all are Hari's light, all are our friends.

But according to Kabir, when 'Sudras and Mlechha reside in the mind, I have not recognized the soul of Ram.' The Sagun saints in whose hearts Shudras and Mlechha resided, their devotion was also hypocrisy.

Rereading of Bhakti Literature

 

Rereading of Bhakti Literature

-    Kanwal Bharti

 

 

(English translation from original Hindi: SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front)

The Hindi critics of Bhakti literature have done more to eliminate the Bhakti-era poets, especially the women and Shudra poets, than to understand them. I will not name any one critic. In my opinion, the mainstream critics are completely messed up. I think that the main concern of these critics was not to understand the facts of history, but to save religion. These critics have the same enmity with history as religion has with science. Therefore, they took a sigh of relief by placing the idol of Krishna in the lap of the widow Meerabai, and ignored the fact that Meera loved a flesh and blood yogi named Girdhar Nagar, and not Murlidhar Krishna. She wanted to live a married life with that yogi. But, how can a widow remarry? Therefore, she was made Krishna-addicted. Meera's loud screams did not reach their ears - 'Put a veil on your house, I am a helpless woman'. I, a helpless woman, have mustered up the courage to set up a home with my lover. But you must save your homes, because many widows in your homes too want to remarry and are sitting like prisoners. Similarly, critics ignored the historical awareness expressed in the poems of Akk Mahadevi of the South, and saved the religion by making her a Shiva devotee. They did not even think it fit to think that what objection can a woman's father or husband have to her worshipping? Ninety percent of Hindu women worship at home, go to the temple. Who puts a ban on this? Rather, a woman being religious is considered good in homes. As there is a folk poem- ​​'It is only in temple worship that I have seen women being respected/ If she becomes a goddess, I have seen the whole world bowing before her/ And if she strays from the norm, I see her as a prostitute.' Why would a husband strip his religious wife naked and throw her out of the house? But Akk Mahadevi was stripped naked and thrown out of the house by her husband. She was thrown out because she loved a young man named Mallikarjun. Whenever he called her, she would leave all the household chores and run away. This was a woman straying from the norm of society. Her parents had forcibly married her to a man she did not wish to. She did not want to get married. Her love was for Mallikarjun. But often men are unfaithful. Men did not show as much courage to break social norms as women did. Mallikarjun could not show courage. He left her and went away. Akk Mahadevi searched door to door in search of him. Meera's lover also did not return. She kept pleading - Jogi, don't go, don't go. But he betrayed her. A folk poet of Haryana has rightly said - 'The brave say, but the low caste is of men.' Everyone calls the brave, that is, women, low caste, but in reality, the low caste is of men. Meera had said - Whatever my lover gives me, I will wear that, whatever he feeds me, I will eat that, if he sells me, I will sell myself - 'Whatever he wears, I will wear that, whatever he gives me I will eat, wherever he makes me sit, I will sit, if he sells me, I will sell myself.' Is this a dialogue with the idol? Similarly, Akk Mahadevi said, Mallikarjun, I will not go against your orders. When will I be able to burst the pots of my breasts on your body. Can a woman say to a statue what Mahadevi said – that I will definitely leave this house by deceiving everyone/ whether it is legal or illegal/ I will openly love my beloved.’

The same was done by the critics with Lalla of Kashmir. She too had rebelled against the society and the society had also disgraced her by stripping her naked. No woman is naked on her own, the society strips her naked. The Bhakti movement will have to be understood again. This is the work of the new critics. The old critics have completed their innings. There is no hope from them. The new critics need to reread all the Bhakti period poets and saints with the facts of history.

This is the first problem, which arose due to not knowing history.

The second problem is of religion, which has complicated the Bhakti movement more. On the basis of religion, the critics linked the Bhakti movement with the Vaishnavism of the Vedas-Upanishads and Puranas, which is its wrong reading. In this lesson, citing the Bhagavat Purana, Bhakti herself said, "I was born in the Dravid country, grew up in Karnataka, lived in Maharashtra also, and became weak and old in Gujarat. There, under the influence of Kaliyug, the heretics mutilated me. But after going to Vrindavan, I became young and beautiful again." The Bhagavat Purana was composed during the Muslim Sultanate period, on the basis of which some critics have interpreted the meaning of heretic as Muslim. But in reality, Bhakti was weakened in Gujarat not because of Muslims, but because of Buddhists, because Gujarat was a major centre of Buddhism till the eighth century, which was destroyed by Shankar's counter-revolution.

The devotion mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana is related to Vaishnav-bhakti. It was propagated about this Vaishnav-bhakti that it was brought from the south by Swami Ramanand and established by Kabir. - 'Bhakti Dravid Upaji, Laaye Ramanand/ Pragat Kari Kabir Ne Navdeep Sat Khand.' But neither Ramanand nor Kabir is mentioned in the Bhagavata. It clearly means that this propaganda was done only with the purpose of painting Kabir in Vaishnav-bhakti.

There are two clear streams of Bhakti, one Nirgun and the other Sagun. We can also call them the left and right streams of that era. In these, the Nirgun stream believes in equality and the Sagun stream believes in the caste system. The Sagun stream is the Vaishnav stream, which is the stream of devotion to Vishnu and his incarnations Ram and Krishna. In this way, two streams were created in the Sagun stream - one of Ram-bhakti and the other of Krishna-bhakti. But no stream is formed by one or two poets. To establish a stream, at least forty-fifty poets are needed. In Ram Bhakti, we do not find any other poet except Tulsi. Then where did the stream of Ram Bhakti come from? But the critics tried to force the stream of Ram Bhakti. In Krishna Bhakti, there have been some other poets apart from Surdas, who created this stream, but it could not become stronger than the stream of Shiva Bhakti of the South. I feel that the stream of Ram and Krishna Bhakti was created to counter or resist the Shiva stream. In my view, the Sagun stream is only the Vaishnav stream.

The Nirgun stream is non-Vedic and materialistic, which flowed into Nirgunism through Charvak, Ajivika and Buddha-tradition, Siddhas, Naths. Hindu critics tried to link Nirgunism to Vedanta to finish it off. Some Muslim critics have tried to link it to Tauheed (monotheism) of Islam. Both the attempts are wrong and ridiculous too.

Nirgunism neither came from the Vedas nor from Vedanta. There is polytheism in the Vedas and Brahmavaad in Vedanta; and both have no relation with Nirgunavaad. There may be a concept of one God in Vedanta, but it considers the world to be false (Maya). Shankaracharya has also said 'Brahma satyam jaganmithya' and so has his grandfather Guru Gaudapada. But there is no such concept in Nirgunavaad. Nirgunavaad believes in the world, and rejects the afterlife. Similarly, the Tauheed of Islam talks of a formless Allah, but also talks of the Doomsday, according to which Allah sends people to heaven and hell according to their deeds. This is the quality of the God of Islam. In this way, neither the Brahma of Vedanta is Nirgun nor the Allah of Islam. Nirgun God is not the creator. Creation is a quality, and Nirgun God is devoid of this quality. Kabir asks both the Brahmins and Mullas who believe God to be the creator - 'Pandit, leave the letter and Qazi, leave the Quran, tell me the date, there was no earth or sky.' And he also asked at what auspicious time did your God create the universe and who was nearby at that time - 'There was no earth or sky, who was the Pandit nearby, who set the auspicious time, the moon, the sun and the sky.' Kabir said that Niranjan has no form, no colour, no speech, then how did he write books? In the refutation of the other world, Kabir said—

 

Mind, where will you go to cross the ocean?

There is no path ahead, no destination to reach.

There is no water there, no boat, no boat, no puller, no one is able to pull me.

There is nothing in earth, sky, eons, nothing is gained or traversed.

He refuted the cycle of coming and going—

I will never return to this land again.

Those who have gone, will never return, no message is sent.

His refutation of heaven and hell is very logical—

Who died, who was born, brother/ Who attained heaven and hell. When a man died and was born in another body immediately, then who died? And who went to heaven? Who went to hell?

You all know that the Nirgun poets opposed the Varna system and caste discrimination. Kabir said- neither high nor low/ whose water he nurtured/ if you go to a Brahmin or a Bhabhi/ then why did you not come back. What kind of blood is ours, what kind of milk is yours/ how are you a Brahmin, how am I am shudra. Raidas said, Raidas, no one is low by birth/ the filth of low deeds has made man low. Raidas stressed on the qualities of the person- do not worship a Brahmin, who is devoid of qualities/ worship the feet of a Chandal who is proficient in knowledge.

Now I am saying one more thing here. The rejection of caste by the Nirgun poets was not a big social revolt. Do not see it as a social revolution. The Bhakti movement brought about a big social revolution is another. What is that? This is the third problem in my view, which has been ignored by Hindi critics.

The third problem is related to the question whether the Bhakti movement was a religious movement? That is, a movement of devotion to Vishnu or Shiva? Although critics of Bhakti poetry say that the movement of Vishnu-bhakti was started by Alvar saints, who were Vaishnavas; and those who were devotees of Shiva were Nayanars (or Nayanmars). But, the biggest puzzle of this movement is the entry of Shudras and women saints in the field of devotion. How was this possible? The Brahmin religion which did not allow a woman to step out of the house, for which serving her husband was the only religion, and which deprived the Shudras of even reading religious texts, which deprived the Shudras of even education, how did those women and Shudras rebel against Brahmin religion by becoming saints in this period? How did they establish their independent status? This was the biggest revolution. This was the biggest rebellion. This was the biggest revolt against the caste system.

This was the biggest revolution of the Bhakti period that a large number of Shudras and women saints challenged the law of Manu, according to which only a Brahmin could become a Guru. Manu had not given this right to any other caste. And Manu had closed all the ways for women and Shudras to become religious gurus. And those whose ways were closed, they themselves became religious gurus and challenged the Brahmin. Manu's law regarding women was that women should never be independent, they should always be under the control of their father, husband and son. But, during the Bhakti period, women broke this rule by becoming saints. They made themselves completely independent. Not only women, but Shudras also challenged the Brahmin authority by becoming religious gurus. Not only this, these women saints did not give importance to the rule of Manu regarding the sacred and unbreakable marriage bond. Women saints did not take sanyaas, got married properly, loved other men, wrote poems of love and lust and preached religion to the masses. They preached not Brahmin religion, but Nirgun religion, which was a rebellion against the scriptures and social customs. Another important aspect of this revolution is that no woman-Shudra saint made a Brahmin her Guru. They made saints of lower castes their Guru, because they knew that Brahmin is the enemy of their freedom, their oppressor. A woman saint preferred to leave her husband rather than bear his oppression. She did not come under the pressure of her parents for marriage, she opposed them. She could love another man even if she was married and leave her husband for him. She could do anything she wanted, remain unmarried, frighten her husband, and forsake her husband, home, family, caste, clan for her lover. A woman named Dalai left her husband in the desert when her lover called her. She even refused to accept God as her lover or husband. A Veerashaiva woman saint named Goggavve was so stubborn that even after she was threatened with death, she refused to marry a disguised Shiva.

The stream of Vishnu bhakti originated during the rule of the Gupta kings, and Shiva bhakti is said to have come after the Gupta period, around the seventh or eighth century, when the Buddhist period of Harshvardhan came. This is what needs to be understood, because the systems of both these periods are at the root of the Bhakti movement of the South. However, it is also beyond understanding that there was only one-woman saint among the Alvar Vaishnavas. Vaishnavas must have prohibited the entry of women. The name of this only Alvar woman saint was 'Antal' or Andal, who wished for her divine union with Lord Vishnu, and Vishnu finally accepted her as his wife. Antal's poems reflect her protest against oppression of women. Many other women saints also followed her. But there is no description of those women saints. Perhaps there were, but Alvar Vaishnavas must not have allowed them to emerge. If Antal's poems oppose oppression of women, then the matter of her marriage with the idol of Vishnu cannot be credible. This is nothing but a myth. The idol cannot marry, no matter which god it is. It is possible that the practice of making Devdasi was started in this way, or Antal must have married a young man named Vishnu. Certainly this work would not have been easy for Antal, society must have harassed her, which is also expressed in her poems. This persecution must have reached the level of suppression, due to which no woman was allowed entry among the Alvar saints again.

Similarly, among the Nayanar women saints of the fifth century, Karekkal Ammaiyar is mentioned, who was the beautiful daughter of a pious merchant. She was a devotee of Shiva. Shiva, pleased with her devotion, made delicious mangoes appear in her hand, which also disappeared magically. When her husband saw all this, he abandoned her, and took another wife. Ammaiyar felt that her beautiful body was no longer of any use, so she prayed to Shiva to transform her body into a skeleton. Shiva accepted her prayer. Shiva made her a ghost and included her in his group. She started living in the cremation ground of Alankatu, where Shiva danced and she sang hymns. Four of her poems are known, one of which is this:

Her breasts are shrunken

And veins are prominent,

Her white teeth are replaced by empty cavities.

 A ghost with red hair on her belly,

 a pair of pointed teeth,

knotted ankles and long calves,

mourns in the desolate cremation ground,

where our Lord's hanging matted hair flies in all eight directions,

as he dances and refreshes his limbs amid the flames.

This poem tells a different story. This poem depicts Karikkal Ammaiyar's body turning into a skeleton. It seems that she was forcibly declared a ghost or witch and left in the cremation ground, where she stayed till she grew old. No god turns anyone into a ghost, nor does it turn anyone's body into a skeleton. It is also possible that she was burnt to ashes in the flames of the cremation ground. The male society punished her for that rebellion. But despite this suppression, the female rebellion did not subside, and many Nayanar women saints gained popularity. Like women, the rise of Shudra saints was also a rebellion against the Manu system.

 The Shudras whose tongues were to be cut off for preaching religion by Manu, emerged as saints in large numbers during the Shudra Bhakti period. Shudra saints also did not accept Brahmins as their Gurus, nor did they give importance to them. These Shudra saints did not respect Brahmin religious scriptures and rituals either. It was also a big social revolution that they stressed on establishing equality and love, which was not there in Brahmin religion, and which Brahmin religion rejects even today. In this context, the Nayanar saint named Kannappar was the most famous. He belonged to the Nishad caste. By the fifteenth century, this Bhakti movement had completely destroyed the fort of the Varna system. All non-Brahmin castes had entered it. Along with Shudra and untouchable castes, men and women of Kshatriya and Vaishya castes also became saints in it.

 There are seven main achievements of the Bhakti movement: one, it adopted the vernacular language as opposed to Sanskrit; two, it did not accept the superiority of Brahmins; three, it abolished gender discrimination; four, it abolished the necessity of temples; five, it created a sense of non-violence towards animals, which were cruelly sacrificed in Vaishnava religion; six, it abolished the belief in books; and seven, it rejected the afterlife and emphasized on the world.