Of recent there has been some excitement among the Hindiphone liberal

intelligentsia in India regarding Kabir, this outburst of activity has been

precipitated almost in a reactionary manner to the communally
polarizing political mobilization and identity formation of the Hindutva
brigade; this reactionary outburst has been in the form of Shabnam
Virmani's series of documentaries on Kabir in contemporary India and
the Kabir project that spawned from it. Hindutva has a very clear-cut
Saguna character.... towards Uttar Pradesh it assumes the shape of
Rama's cult, in Maharashtra the Brahmin orthodoxy rallies under
Parshuram's banner, while these two cults are upfront about their
martial idiology, in Gujrat it has been the cult of Swaminarayan that has
been heralding the Hindutva moment, though not in such as directly
violent manner as the other two. Swaminarayan and Vaishnav Bhakti in
Gujrat has created an ethos, a background wherein the more directly
political and communal ideologies of Hindutva can be brought into play.
I will refrain at this moment to comment on Hindutva politics, rather
this short note is about the politics of appropriation of Kabir and via him
the trope of Nirgun Bhakti by the liberal intelligentsia as a tool to
counter the so obviously politicised, communal and violent utilisation of
Saguna Bhakti by the V.H.P. and Hindutva brigade.
The first question that intrigues me is that what is it about Nirgun Bhakti
of Kabir that the liberal intelligentsia finds so attractive? This leads to
the second question, what is Nirgun Bhakti? Bhakti is a devotional
attitude of surrender to Dei (God), wherein spiritual progress in not
considered a gol worth perusing, rather than the aspirant achieving
spiritual illumination through individual effort, in Bhakti one surrenders
ones' will to a greater force, trusting that spiritual advancement will
come from God's grace, the idea that one can achieve it by effort would
almost stink of pride. Nirguna Bhakti is devotion to an abstract,
unmanifest Godhead, the essence of void; and Sagun bhakti is
devotional surrender to an embodied and limited manifestation of this
infinite void.
Meera Nanda in her analysis of Hinditva and the Indian nation-state,
concludes that the Nation state project of India does not suffer from the
problem of Secularism, that is the notion that we are not secular enough,
but could be if there was more education or awareness etc. rather
Nanda says it is not the problem OF secularism rather the problem IS
secularism. That is to say that secularism and secular state and society
as envisioned by enlightenment rationality is an impossibility, the drive
to achieve the 'secular state' is a never ending telos.
In this kind of a situation where there is desire without closure, that is
the wish to be secular without any clear notion as to how to, Nirguna
Bhakti selectively appropriated from Kabir seems to offer a way whereby
secularism can be achieved by making religion an invisible presence.
To see how this is done we must look more closely and the Nirguna
slogans that the intelligentsia have crystallized from Kabir's mystic lyric
poetry. Nirguna is touted as the devotion of one true God without
sectarian biases or any kind of exclusivity, it is the lowest common
denominator in the religious scenario, which creates the possibility of a
syncretic space that is infinitely flexible and infinitely accommodating.
Repeatedly Kabir is quoted as criticising the external trappings of
religion, mocking idol-worshipping and chanting of mantras, constantly
we are hammered with the idea that the same God resides in all humans
and hence all are equal. Philosophically that matter is moulded as one
that of an enlightened humanitarian monism versus a superstitious and
bigoted polytheism.
However, the actual history of theistic philosophy in India has
mostly been one of dualistic-non-dualism. That is the idea that there is a
mid-ground where Saguna and Nirguna bhakti flow into each other.
While the liberal intelligentsia celebrates the Kabir that mixes Hindusim
with Islamo-Sufic monism, it is completely ambivalent to the Kabir that
does the opposite; bringing Hindu dualism into Sufism. Not only Kabir
but many medieval poets such as Raskhan, Khalas, Yari Sahib and
others were Sufis but wrote Saguna poetry particularly in Radha Krishna
bhaav. Why is this history of syncreticism sidetracked by the liberal
intelligentsia? Why are we blind to the Kabir that loved Krishna and
Rama? The answer is precisely because it makes the religious visible.
We can see similar erasures with the more mystical aspects of Kabir,
while he does mock empty ritualism and idol worship and incessant
mantra chanting, fasting and other austerities, there is a whole lot of
Kabir that talks about the importance of Shabda and Naam, which is
nothing but the correct mantric initiation from a Sadguru.
In so far as the idea of a secular god that is equally present in
all humans, has to be maintained, there is an engagement with Kabirs
tantrism, his Hansa, his talk of Ida and Pingala, a considerable amount
of lip-service is paid to these ideas, but that is about where it ends. The
Kabir revivalists are not interested in knowing how Hansa-hood, or
Paramhansa-hood is to be achieved, how Ida and Pingala are to be
balanced or how the Sushumna is to be activated. Every one will sing
Jheeni jheeni beeni chadariya but when Kabir said Das Kabira Jatan
kar oodhi, Jyon ki tyon dhar deeni chadariya no one asks HOW? .
Kabir is obviously talking about a physical discipline, not any embodied
discipline but rather a discipline of embodiedness itself. It is this practice
that made him who he was, that precipitated his revelatory insights.
Even the idea that God resides in all humans equally is so much hot air
unless it arises from a direct perception of God. Which is why, there
cannot be a secular religion, because even though God resides in all and
takes care of everyone, yet it is only to a select and exclusive few that
God appears; only a select few, a microscopic minority are favoured by
Gods grace in the form of Darshan. Fewer still manage to reach moksha.
Kabirs socialism, his humanitarianism came from an extremely sacred
place, it is impossible to retain the social implications of his religiosity
and ignore his religion itself, such an attempt is untenable, superficial
and hollow.

To end I would bring in an analogy in an attempt to explain the
difference and the connection between Saguna and Nirguna Bhakti.
Practicing Nirguna Bhakti is like expecting the Prime Minister of the
country to take care of me. While my well-being is his responsibility in a
general manner, it is not so in a particular manner. If I have a grievance
I cannot march into the Prime Ministers office and ask for his help. I can
if Im lucky see him once or twice at the republic day parade or at a
social function or if I make an exceptional effort and win a Padma
Bhushan or something, then I will be granted one encounter with the
P.M. Even still I might not get him to address my concerns. Even if I do
get one meeting, there is no way I can walk up to him every time I have
a problem.
A more pragmatic approach would be to realize that while the P.M. is
concerned with my well being he/she is too busy to meet with me
personally. But I do have access to other intermediaries, I can go up to
my M.L.A. or M.P. and express my concerns to them, even though they
are busy people too, and very difficult to see, potentially it is much
easier for me to gain repeated audiences with them rather than being
able to directly approach the P.M.; they then can petition the P.M. on
my behalf. This latter approach is Saguna Bhakti. Even though vastly
different from Nirguna Bhakti, it still feeds into it, rather than standing in
opposition.