Note 42 — L

In a note on the relations between Lingāyats and Brāhmans,42 Mr. T. V. Subramanyam refers to the long-standing differences between them in the Bellary district. “The quarrel,” he writes, “has reference to the paraphernalia the former may carry in their religious processions, and has its origin in a legend. The story runs that Vedavyasa, the author of the Mahābharata and a fervent devotee of Vishnu, once went to Benares with the object of establishing the superiority of his favourite deity in that stronghold of Saivism. Within the precincts of the temple, he raised his hands aloft, proclaiming that Vishnu was the supreme God, when, to the consternation of the assembled worshippers, Nandi, the trusted servant and vehicle of Siva, whose sculptured image is found in every temple sacred to his master, rose up in indignation, and cut off the right hand of the blasphemous sage. The principal insignia claimed to be used in Lingāyat processions are makaratoranam, pagaladivitti, svetachhatram, nandidhvajam, and vyasahastam. No objection is raised by the Brāhmans to the use of the first three of these, which are respectively a banner with the representation of a tortoise embroidered thereon, torches carried during the day, and a white umbrella. The nandidhvajam consists of a long pole, at the upper end of which floats a flag with a representation of Nandi, and to which is affixed an image of Basava, the founder of the sect. The vyasahastam is a similar pole, from which a wooden arm is suspended. The assertion of the prowess of Nandi, and the perpetuation of the punishment alleged by the Lingāyats to have been inflicted on Vyasa for daring to declare the supremacy of Vishnu, as symbolised by these emblems, are equally offensive to all classes of Brāhmans, as the sage is reverenced equally by Vaishnavas, Mādhvas, and Smartas. Besides these emblems, the Lingāyats claim that, during their processions, they are entitled to ring a bell, which is usually suspended from the flat end of a large ladle-like object. The Brāhmans object to this, however, as the bells are carried by low-caste persons, who ring them with their feet, to the accompaniment of chants intended to insult the Brāhmans and their religious creeds. They contend also that the hollow of the ladle is designed in mockery of the Brahmakapala (or skull of Brahma), which is very sacred in their eyes.... In the year 1811, a dispute arose regarding the display of the nandidhavajam and the vyasahastam, an enquiry into which was held by the Judge of Bellary, who issued a proclamation for general information throughout the district, prohibiting the procession altogether, and declaring that no person should attempt it, on pain of being put in irons, and sent to take his trial before the Court of Circuit.... When the Sringeri Swāmi, known as Jagadguru or spiritual head of the universe, visited Bellary in 1888, certain Lingāyats petitioned the District Magistrate, praying that, if he was to be allowed to enter the town displaying his usual paraphernalia, their gurus must also be allowed a similar privilege during their processions. The petitioners were directed to meet the agent of the Sringeri Swāmi, and they agreed with him, to quote from the Collector’s order, in a spirit of mutual consideration that the processions of the gurus of the Smarta Brāhmans and of the Lingāyats should be peaceably conducted, and that, in the latter, neither the nandidhvajam nor the vyasahastam should be used. In 1899, it was decided in a Civil Court that the bells used in the processions of the Lingāyats should be rung with the hands and not with the feet, and that the Chalavādis, or bell-ringers, should not utter any cries or chants offensive to the feelings of the Brāhmans. In 1901, the Collector negotiated a compromise between the Lingāyats and the Brāhmans of Rayadrūg, by which the display of all insignia, except the vyasahastam, was permitted to the former. Apparently, the Brāhmans have not been satisfied with the terms of this compromise, as, subsequent to 1901, they have started civil litigation, in which it is contended that the use of nandidhvajam is itself objectionable. At the present moment, therefore, the Brāhman Lingāyat controversy is exactly where it was a hundred years ago.”