The Rishi of Bangladesh

A History of Christian Dialogue

Dr Cosimo Zene, Cosimo Zene

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781136861468
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Asian History
• Index: History

This book is a study of the changing relationship over time (1856-1994) between the Rishi, an ex-Untouchable jati of Bengal/South-West Bangladesh, and various groups of Catholic missionaries. The book's originality and importance lies in its multi-disciplinary approach which combines anthropological fieldwork, historical research, philosophical enquiry and contemporary missiological debates. Moreover, it addresses issues of great current relevance in its discussions of Orientalism, Neo-colonialism and Otherness.

PART ONE

---

THE RISHI IN SOUTH-WEST BANGLADESH

---

Introduction

Strictly speaking, the Rishi are not the only Untouchables present in this part of Bangladesh, although they epitomise the reality of such groups as they are known all over South Asia. The Namasudra, the Jele, the Malo, the Dom or the Pods, among others, are also present in South-West Bangladesh but, for many reasons, they seem to have lost their ‘strict’ Untouchability. Not only do the latter treat the Rishi as Untouchables, but the Rishi themselves seem to be divided into different segments, lending credence to the view that Untouchables in general share a cultural consensus with the Hindu caste system that excludes them and defines them as fundamentally low. In this respect, taking the Dumontian view of ideological homogeneity of the caste order to its extreme, Moffatt maintains that Untouchables ‘participate willingly in what might be called their own oppression’ (1979: 303). This view has been recently challenged by Deliège who criticises Moffatt for moving from ‘a structural concept (replication) to a cultural one (consensus)’ (1992: 165), confusing, in a way common among structuralists, ‘their models with the reality’ (ibid.: 167). Deliège points out that even Dumont’s pure/impure dichotomy ‘does not explain everything’, even when used by Untouchables, since ‘the existence of a “dominant” ideology does not rule out the development of other ideologies’. In fact, ‘the Harijan sub-culture is not necessarily a counter-culture, but it may take the form of an open opposition to the oppressive system’ (ibid.: 168). Deliège’s critique is at its best when he points out that Moffatt’s view of Untouchables as ‘ahistorical passive victims’ does not take account of the many Dalit movements in India today. This opens the way for Deliège to relate the impurity of Untouchables to their ‘powerlessness and servitude’, stressing that ritual segregation and economic disabilities go hand in hand. Given this premise, it is surprising that Deliège does not feel the need to address directly those elements that are, according to him, ‘theoretically incompatible’ in the Untouchables’ position, given that the latter ‘are both the victims and the agents of the caste system, its defenders and its enemies’ (1992: 171).

A common feature of the history of Untouchable groups is their experience of permanent exclusion, of having been made different, born not to be respected as Others, but to be oppressed. For the Rishi this becomes a plea, almost an invocation and a supplication: Amrao je manus! We too are humans! The Rishi, just like other Untouchables I would suspect, are convinced that their separation from the Oneness of humanity is basically man-made, and they do not accept their fundamental impurity. It is this central Upanishadic idea of Ek/Eka (One/Oneness) — not as a written code but as a living reality implicit in the Rishi way of thinking — that seems to motivate them to replicate, reproduce or re-create the system, despite running the risk of falling prey to the dominant ideology.

The patterns of spatio-geographical and physical exclusion imposed on the Rishi are a clear sign of their total segregation from society: their hamlets are outside the village area, usually in secluded spaces, with poor or no communications at all; they cannot enter the temple, but are called to play in front of it as musicians and drum players; they occupy the far end of the market-place; at school, children are either separated from the rest or attend from the veranda; they are not served in public places. The physical space denied to the Rishi represents their separation from all other spheres of life: religious, cultural, political and economic. The symbolic meaning of ‘empty space’ which separates the Rishi from the village is illustrative of an ambiguous, liminal, and dangerous position, destined to remain permanent, vis-à-vis society.¹ There is no right of appeal against their burden of (eternal) guilt. This means that, even in everyday life, if something happens in a village, they are the first to be blamed and no civil or legal authority is ready to defend them.

It is only from this perspective that we can make sense of the Rishis’ drive to return from the periphery to the centre and oneness of society, their desire to abolish the ‘empty space’, and their eagerness to adopt those signs that are commonly used in society to make someone manus. ‘Replication and consensus’ can be explained as a need to use a language understood by others. But the Rishi do not necessarily attach to this language the same meaning. As Deliège reminds us, although Untouchables use the categories of purity and pollution, they do not consider themselves as ‘inherently polluted’ (1992: 166) and their internal subdivisions are more territorial than hierarchical (1992: 164). As we shall see, not only are the Rishi aware of the disadvantages such divisions create for them, but they also lament the divisions created by others to weaken their political power, as in the case of the Dumuria Rishi. As for the use of Hindu religious symbolism by the Rishi, my informants, like those of Moffatt (‘Only Hindu Gods are available’; [1979: 268]), are aware that they have borrowed their forms of religiousness from the Bara Hindura (‘big’ Hindus) since this is what is available to them. However, far from representing ‘consensus’, the mere fact of adopting Hindu symbolism becomes a challenge to the system itself.

The greatest challenge the Rishi seem to present to society is, in fact, the constant reminder that they too are human. They use the system by showing respectability, in terms of what is respectable for others, but without attaching ‘too much importance to the dominant values’ (Deliège 1992: 167). This is transparent in the use the Rishi make of beef, and often carrion, in their diet, though they deny it. In this respect, the attitude of Caste Hindus and Muslims is even more ambiguous, given that they despise the Rishi for eating carrion, but they are more afraid of a ‘reformed’ and educated Rishi who has abandoned such practices. Among other things, this reformed Rishi may persuade other Rishi that their work as skinners, source of their Untouchability, is what builds up the capital of ‘pure’ businessmen,² Hindu and Muslim alike (as we will discuss later in Chapter 3: ‘The Rishi and the Cow’). This is not to justify either ‘Sanskritisation’ or Christianisation of the Rishi, but an attempt to show that the ambiguities of the Rishi are often less ambiguous than those of society at large, given that the means used by the Rishi to reach their goal must not be confused with the goal itself.³

In this part, I present ethnographic material on the Rishi, seeking to highlight those characteristics according to which they identify themselves as a group and which have enabled them, despite their many disabilities, to negotiate with the Caste Hindus, the Muslim majority, and the missionary. By emphasising the Rishis’ ability for dialogue and negotiation rather than their ‘replication and consensus’ I aim to challenge a vision of static history which locates the ‘Untouchables’ in a fixed position, more as objects of study than active subjects of their own history. In the first chapter, after a discussion of the presence of the (Muchi)-Rishi in Bengal from ethnographies and Census Reports, I estimate the presence of the group in Khulna and Jessore. Particular attention is paid to the region of our enquiry, the area of the Betna, Kabadak and Bhadra rivers. After assessing recent surveys of the Rishi, I introduce in chapter two a case study of Dumuria Rishi para (cluster of houses), concentrating on the life style of this para, their occupation, and their relationship with the Caste Hindus and the Muslims. Chapter three focuses on the experience of ‘Untouchability’ of the group, its origin and continuity, and the consequences it has for the everyday life of the Rishi. The final chapter discusses their dharmikata or ‘religiousness’, as part of the struggle/dialogue to re-affirm their ‘humanity’.

CHAPTER ONE

---

The (Muchi-) Rishi of Bengal and Bangladesh

Ethnographies and census reports

Whilst the name Muchi (or Mochi) had been widely used all over the Indian subcontinent to refer to those associated with leather work,⁴ the ‘Samsad Bangali Abhidan’ refers to the word ‘Muchi’ as Carmakar or Camar, meaning ‘someone who removes or detaches, causes to come away or to come off’ (Fagan 1979). Thus common usage of the term in Bengali denotes a leather-worker, a shoemaker (repairer), a tanner and a skinner, but although all over Bangladesh ‘Muchi’ indicates one who is related to leather, especially a cobbler, in our area the word identifies a particular group, not necessarily — or no longer — connected with leather-work.⁵

Wise (1883: 360), the first ethnographer to describe this group extensively, and Risley (1891: 95–99)⁶ following him, classify the Muchi-Rishi as the ‘Bengali Chamars’ who, trying to pass incognito as Rishi, added this last name to their caste occupation. As a result, although they repudiated the name Chamar, Rishi and Muchi are synonyms of the same caste.⁷ Both Wise and Risley seem most concerned to classify the Muchi-Rishi as Chamars, who moved to Bengal from the west.⁸ Thus Wise justifies his position, alleging that the difference is related to their ‘long residence in Bengal’, which had altered them ‘in several respects’, without specifying the duration of this residence or suggesting any hypothesis to solve the problem. It has also been proposed that the Rishis’ claim to be a distinct caste from the Chamars is a ‘pure theoretical exercise since there are no Camars or similar groups besides the Muchi in the whole of the Kabadak river area’ (Tobanelli 1989: 15). Official papers, however, and Census reports insisted on calling them Chamars, while they recognised themselves as Rishi and even nowadays, although the word ‘Muchi’ is contemptuously applied to the Rishi, ‘Chamar’ is considered a term of outright abuse (Camarer bacca — Chamar’s son).

According to some dalil (land documents) collected in Dumuria, the Muchi-Rishi of that area were addressed officially as ‘Chamar’ in 1914 and 1917. Later in 1928 their name changed to ‘Rishi’ and only rece...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• List of abbreviations
• List of maps
• Introduction
• Part One The Rishi of South-West Bangladesh
• Part Two The Rishi and Christianity (1856–1952)
• Part Three The Xaverians and the Rishi (1952–94)
• Part Four Mission and Dialogue
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Index