**5. Prioritizing** *Yugal-arcana¯***: Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı and Deification of Vis.nupriya in Colonial Times ¯**

The stitching together of new narratives on Vis.nupriya by biographers of the colonial period not ¯ only allowed her to emerge as a biographic subject—imbued with a sacred aura, a divine personality, and as a true companion of Caitanyain the path of religiosity—but some of them also put forward a new theological perspective of Gaura–Vis.nupriya as a ¯ *yugal-avatara ¯* (divinely incarnated couple), who needed a separate mode of worship (*yugal bhajan* or *yugal arcana¯*). Just as Laks.m¯ı-Nar¯ ayan, ¯ S¯ıta-R¯ am, R ¯ adh ¯ a-K¯ r.s.n. a, and others are worshiped in their *yugalasvarupa* or couple form, similarly Gaura–Vis.nupriya are worthy of dual worship. One biographer even posited that just as R ¯ ama had ¯ made S¯ıta su ¯ ffer in the *tretayuga ¯* , Kr.s.n. a did the same to Radh ¯ a in the ¯ *Dvaparayuga, ¯* similarly Caitanya made Vis.nupriya su ¯ ffer in the *Kal¯ıyuga*, thereby drawing a spiritual equivalence among the three divine pairs (Sarkar 1915 ¯ , Preface). Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı asserts that although generations of Vais.n. ava writers have produced literature about Caitanya, they have not written anything about Vis.nupriya, apart from ¯ describing her marriage and Caitanya's didactic lectures to her on the virtues of asceticism immediately prior to his *sam. nyasa ¯* . He contends that just as Caitanya's intense devotion to Radh ¯ a–K ¯ r.s.n. a was to teach people the spiritual techniques to savor the feelings of divine love, Vis.nupriya's intense pangs of ¯ *viraha* (separation and longing) for Caitanya contained within it the essence for enabling a devotee's *hitartha ¯* (welfare), *asv ¯ adan ¯* (tasting/experiencing), and *bhajansadhan ¯ a´¯sik´sartha ¯* (teaching the ways of *sadhan ¯ a¯* or worship). Thus, Haridas contended that Vi ¯ s.nupriya's laments, too, qualified to be treated as divine ¯ *l¯ıla¯* (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1914). In effect, the new mode of worship propagated by some in the colonial period hinged on the larger question of autonomy of worship within Vais.n. ava circles. Were new ways of innovative worship to be permitted?

Gaura–Vis.nupriya worship does seem to have attained considerable prevalence in the second and ¯ third decades of the twentieth century (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1914). In a series of articles, the periodical *Visvabandhu* in 1919 relates the visits of its editor Vidhubhus.an Sarkar to di ¯ fferent places of East Bengal and Tripura and the setting up of Gaura–Vis.nupriya icons at those places. ¯ <sup>40</sup> The biographical compilation of Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı refers to several tours conducted by him in East Bengal where he cites instances of Vais.n. ava devotees accepting Gaura–Vis.nupriya worship and even public celebrations commemorating ¯ the marriage ceremony of Gaura–Vis.nupriya icons ( ¯ Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1963, pp. 191–210). In a passionate appeal to his readers intended to promote the efficacies of such worship in a section titled *Upade´s ´satak* in his journal *Vis.nupriya-Gaur ¯ a¯nga ˙* , Haridas stated: ¯

'Vis.nupriya, who dwells in the heart of Gaur ¯ a¯nga, is the divine potency of the Lord; She is ˙ also the supreme goddess ... she is the essence of pure, selfless and transcendental devotion. If you want to witness the personification of devotion then meditate upon the image of Vis.nupriya. She is the goddess of the domestic establishment for all Vai ¯ s.n. ava householderstheir Laks.m¯ıDev¯ı. Worshipping her daily along with Gaura¯nga will ensure that your home ˙ will be safe from all problems-your residence will emerge as a centre of devotion and be prosperous like the establishment of Laks.m¯ı' (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1926, p. 11)41

<sup>40</sup> 'Chut.ir Ananda' ¯ *, Visvabandhu,* 1, 1919, pp. 117–55. 'Jhulan o Janmas¯ t.ham¯ır Ananda' ¯ *,Visvabandhu,* 1, 1919, pp. 367–84 and pp. 433–44. There are several temples dedicated to Vis.nupriya–Gaur ¯ a¯nga at Navadv ˙ ¯ıpa, at Sambalpur in Orissa, a Sr´ ¯ı Vis.nupriya Gaur ¯ a¯nga sevashram at R ˙ adh ¯ akund in V ¯ r.ndavana, and at Rishra in Howrah district. Today, Vi ¯ s.nupriya is also ¯ the name of a halt station near Navadv¯ıpa in the Katwa-Howrah train line.

<sup>41</sup> *'Sr´ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ı Gaurabaks. a-vilasin ¯ ¯ı Vis.nupriya dev ¯ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ı Gaura¯ngaprabhur svar ˙ up ´ ¯ sakti; tinio parame´svari.* ... *tini parabhakti svar ¯ upin ¯ ¯ı. Yadi bhaktidev¯ı'r ´sr¯ımurti dekhite c ¯ ao – ¯ Sr´ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ı Vis.nupriya dev ¯ ¯ır Sr¯ımurtir dhyan kariya. Tinii grihi Gaurbhakta Vai ¯ s.n. aver gr.hadhis ¯ t.atr ¯ ¯ı Laks.m¯ı dev¯ı. Sr´ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ı Gaurangasundarer sahit tnah ˙ ar svar ¯ up-´ ¯ sakti bhaktirupin ¯ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ı Vis.nupriya dev ¯ ¯ır n¯ıtya puja kariya, tom ¯ ar sarb ¯ apad ¯ dur haibe,- gr ¯ .he bhakti o Laks.m¯ır bhand ¯ . ar haibe'*.

The connection of Vis.nupriya with Lak ¯ s.m¯ı is significant since the latter was identified within Hindu Bengali culture with notions of abundance, wealth, beauty, and prosperity (Chakrabarty 1993, p. 7). One must keep in mind that notions of domesticity, conjugality, and love were undergoing a transformation in the colonial environment. In an era when companionate marriages among Bengali Hindu bhadralok were becoming more relevant and prescriptive texts regarding the ideals of the housewife and about desirable forms of marriage and domestic life were circulated in the printed domain, the idea of conjugal worship seemed fitting. Conjugal life still hinged on uninhibited patriarchy—'the husband is god on earth, the lord and master to whom the wife must offer unquestioning bhakti' (Raychaudhuri 2000, p. 352). Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar's (1820–1891) crusade to rehabilitate widows through scriptural and modern legal sanction in the mid-nineteenth century had also brought to the fore the plight of the Hindu widows. Although no direct connections can be drawn with these historical facts, the value systems contingent to such a context probably had an impact on the formulations of Gaura–Vis.nupriya worship. ¯

Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı was one of the most vocal ideologues who promoted the Gaura–Vis.nupriya¯ hypothesis. He was born in 1867 in the village of Dogachia in Nadia district of Bengal in a Brahmin family. Many of his family members, including his father, were *kathaks* or professional narrators of mythological/scriptural traditions who originally hailed from Panch Khand village near Dhaka Dakshin in Sylhet District of Bangladesh. His father was employed as a *kathak* in the aristocratic household of the Pal Chaudhuri zamindars of Ranaghat in Nadia district. In most of his works, Haridas refers to ¯ his lineage from the medieval *pada* composer Dvija Balaramd ¯ as' family at Dogachia in Nadia. ¯ <sup>42</sup> He took an active role in the literary propagation of Vais.n. avism and published a large number of works related to the Caitanya heritage, including, *Gaura-G¯ıtika¯* (1912), *Ba¯ngalir ˙ T. hakur ¯ Sr´ ¯ı Gaura¯nga ˙* (1914), *Nitai-Gaura ¯ Sr´ ¯ıvigraha L¯ıla K¯ ahin ¯ ¯ı* (1922), *Mahaprabhur Navadv ¯ ¯ıpal¯ıla¯* (1917), *Mahaprabhur N ¯ ¯ılacalal ¯ ¯ıla¯* (1923), and *Sac ´ ¯ıvilap G ¯ ¯ıti* (1925). There was also a set of biographies on Vis.nupriya, namely, ¯ *Vis.nupriya¯ Carita (1913), Vis.nupriya Sahasran ¯ am stotra ¯* (1922), *Vis.nupriya Ma ¯ ngal ˙* (1933), and *Gambh¯ıray¯ Sr´ ¯ıVis.nupriya¯* (1933), and a single work on Laks.m¯ıpriya, Caitanya's first wife, titled ¯ *Laks.m¯ıpriya Carita ¯* (1915). For some years from 1926 on, he also edited the monthly devotional journal *Vis.nupriya Gaur ¯ a¯nga ˙* .

It seems that Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı was quite an eclectic Vais.n. ava who tried to consciously cultivate his connections with a variety ofVais.n. ava sripats and individuals.<sup>43</sup> Haridas also attended the ¯ *virahotsav* or death anniversary celebrations of Narahari Sarkarat ¯ Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a in 1926, where he interacted with Rakh ¯ al¯ ananda and Gaurgu ¯ n. ananda ¯ T. hakur and other members of the group including Visvesvar ¯ Bab¯ aji, the author of ¯ *Rasaraj Gaur ¯ a¯nga Svabh ˙ ava ¯* . He mentions that 'By the *kr.pa¯* (grace) of the T. hakurs' ¯ of the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a group one can receive *dar´san* and visualize the sweet *rasaraj¯* image of *Nadiyan¯ agar ¯ ki*s´*ora* Gaura¯nga' ( ˙ Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1963, p. 233). It is significant that in this context, Haridas mentions that ¯ 'I am not sure whether anyone from the group opposing Gaura¯nga's ˙ *nagari bh ¯ ava ¯* was present or not. But if one of their members were present then he would surely have realized the *mahan prabh ¯ ab¯* (significance), *mahatmya ¯* (glory) and the *cittakar ¯ s. ak* (enthralling) nature of Narahari Sarkar's songs. If ¯ by following his [Narahari's] *bhajan path* one has to go to hell even that would signify attainment of supreme approbation!' (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1963, p. 237). He even advised the critics opposing the Sr´ ¯ıkhand. <sup>a</sup>

<sup>42</sup> Haridas had a transferrable job in the colonial postal department, where he ultimately rose to the position of Post-master ¯ that took him to various places across India. It was while holidaying at Motihari in Bihar, at his brother Gurupada's place, that Haridas became aware of his family connection with the medieval Vai ¯ s.n. ava pada writer Dvija Balaramdas (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1963, p. 141). He had already been impressed after reading Si´ ´ sir Ghosh's *Amiya Nimai Carit* and had personally come in contact with Ghosh. In 1923 or thereafter, he took retirement from colonial service and devoted his life to religious service at Navadv¯ıpa. Incidentally, Haridas had a daughter named Sushila Devi whose husband Anandamay Bhattacharya died of ¯ kalazar in little over two years into their marriage. Thereafter, Haridas kept his widowed daughter with him. His personal ¯

empathy for his daughter's plight must have certainly heightened Haridas's sympathy for Vis ¯ .nupriya.¯ <sup>43</sup> Such persons included Vamsidas babaji (a detached recluse Vais.n. ava of Narottama Das's lineage), Basanta Sadhu (a fellow believer of *nagari bhava* from Tripura affiliated to the Nityananda tradition), and Nityagopal Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı (a descendant of Vis.nupriya's brother's lineage at Navadv ¯ ¯ıpa). As a part of his social service programme, Haridas set up a free medical camp ¯ at Navadv¯ıpa in 1926 known as *Vis.nupriya d ¯ atabya cikits ¯ alaya. ¯* He vigorously campaigned in favour of vegetarianism among gosvam¯ ¯ı Brahmins and personally led campaigns to raise funds for the construction of a pilgrim lodging house at Ajmer and for providing civic amenities at Vr.ndavana ( ¯ Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1963, pp. 356–58).

group in the public literary sphere to attain salvation by visiting Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a in person and witnessing the purity of their path. Thus, Haridas was full of praise for the ¯ *nagari bh ¯ ava ¯* emotion and tried to justify its greatness within the contemporary Vais.n. ava public sphere.

It is significant that inspite of propagating the virtues of *nad¯ıya n¯ agar ¯ ¯ı bhava, ¯* Haridas couched his ¯ views within parameters of sexual morality that had become the norm of *bhadralok* responses in the colonial period. In his *Vis.nupriya- Gaur ¯ a¯nga ˙* journal he stated:

'I have said before that keeping illicit woman-partners by devotees of Gaura, whether they are *vairagis* (ascetics) or *gr.his* (householders), is a sign of fake Vais.n. avism. Many educated Vais.n. avas have already become cautious about its pitfalls. They are realizing that the poison which they had consumed from *sadhu-ve´ ¯ s¯ı pakha ¯ n. dis* (counterfeit gurus) have led them far away from Mahaprabhu's true path of *visuddha* (pure) Vais.n. ava teachings. They are extremely sad and ashamed that the fallen gurus who keep the company of illicit women have been the cause for a decline of their own religiosity. It is indeed depressing that so many shameless *si´ s.ya-vyavas ¯ ay¯ ¯ı* (disciple-businessmen), householder-guru-gosains, marketers of idols and fake religious leaders have converted the pure Vais.n. ava religion desired by Mahaprabhu into a business. But such men will never be able to fully stop their illicit relations with women since their religious-business is intimately connected with it' (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1963, p. 357)

The essential crux of the theological paradigm designated as *Vis.nupriya tattva ¯* by Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı was that there existed parallels between Vis.nupriya's ¯ *Gambh¯ıra l¯ıla¯* at Navadv¯ıpa with Caitanya's *Gambh¯ıra l¯ıla¯* or activities as exhibited at the place of his residence at Ka´¯si Mi´sra's house in Puri (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1914; Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1933, Preface; Vyakaran. t¯ırtha 1932, pp. 1–15). As Caitanya's preachings at Puri were intended to teach devotees specific aspects of Radh ¯ a–K ¯ r.s.n. a bhakti, in a similar manner, it was an urgent necessity to unveil the teachings of Vis.nupriya at Navadv ¯ ¯ıpa for the general welfare of all living beings (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1933, preface). He contended that Vis.nupriya is the ¯ *abaran ¯* (external garment) while Caitanya is the *mula tattva ¯* (fundamental theory), and both are equally important for worship by devotees. He pleaded with his readers to accord Vis.nupriya her rightful place within Vai ¯ s.n. ava worship. She was not only *bhaktisvarupa ¯* and embodied the *hladin ¯ ¯ı-´sakti* of Caitanya, but also personified *dasyabh ¯ ava ¯* (devotion through service) towards him. In a surprising reversal of *svak¯ıya-parak ¯ ¯ıya¯* duality, Haridas¯ contended that since Caitanya represented the conjoined form of Radh ¯ a–K ¯ r.s.n. a, it is Vis.nupriya alone, ¯ being his *hladin ¯ ¯ı-´sakti* (the lord's divine pleasure potency), who can bring pleasure and happiness to him. In this framework, Vis.nupriya enjoyed complete theological equivalence with R ¯ adh ¯ a: 'Just as ¯ Caitanya and Nityananda were K ¯ r.s.n. a and Balarama respectively, so was Vis.nupriya an incarnation of ¯ Radh ¯ a'. Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı asserted that if *Navadv¯ıpadhama ¯* (the abode of Navadv¯ıpa), the *Navadv¯ıpa parikara* (associates of Caitanya at Navadv¯ıpa), and the *Navadv¯ıpal¯ıla¯* (the divine sports at Navadv¯ıpa) were to be regarded as *nitya* (eternal), as they are formulated within Gaud.¯ıya theology, then factually speaking, it should be equally impossible to deny not just the eternal presence of Vis.nupriya in Navadv ¯ ¯ıpa, but also the validity of Caitanya's worship in the emotion of *madhurya bh ¯ ava ¯* . In a direct defense of *Nad¯ıya n¯ agari bh ¯ ava ¯* tendencies, Gosvam¯ ¯ı raised the question: 'Who is there to stop one if he feels *kamin¯ı bhava* (physical attraction) towards the *Rasaraja ¯* Caitanya (who is in a constant state of erotic bliss)?' (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1933, Preface). Responding to the challenge of those who questioned how Caitanya could, being in *Svak¯ıya bhava ¯* as the husband of Vis.nupriya, be conceived and worshipped in the ¯ mood of *madhurya bh ¯ ava ¯* (blissful emotion) by a devotee, Haridas countered that from a devotee's ¯ perspective, the adoption of a *Rag¯ anug ¯ a bh ¯ ava ¯* (inwardly generated passion)—that is the highest form of devotion—never seeks to establish the devotee's personal relation with the lord even in a *parak¯ıya¯* paradigm (whereby spiritual experiences are savored by the devotee as an unmarried feminine lover of the Divinity). It only prescribes one to adopt the attitude of a *sakh¯ı* or a *manjar ˙ ¯ı* (a form of worship where the devotee assumes the mood of a female servant of the *gop¯ıs*) and assist in the *l¯ıla¯* (celestial sport) of the divine couple. If this is the case, then obviously in a *svak¯ıya* paradigm (whereby spiritual experiences are savored by the devotee as a married feminine lover of the Divinity) the devotee should adopt the same attitude of a *sakh¯ı* (friend) of Vis.nupriya in assisting the eternal satisfaction of ¯

Caitanya and Vis.nupriya ( ¯ Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1933, preface). This represented a radical alteration of theological perspectives prescribed by the Vr.ndavana Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ıs. In effect, Haridas tried to approximate his ¯ formulations to the essence of the Gaura–Vis.nupriya relationship as an eternal bond much like the ¯ timeless union of Radh ¯ a–K ¯ r.s.n. a. As Tony Stewart points out, the followers of the Gaura–Vis.nupriya¯ *l¯ıla¯* portray the relation as 'healthy and socially acceptable', one that promoted 'an ideal of love that did not undercut social mores' (Stewart 2010, p. 160). In fact, with time the entire paraphernalia of Radh ¯ a¯ with her as.t.asakh¯ıs (Eight primary friends) and sixty-four *manjar ˙ ¯ıs* (female servitors) was replicated for Vis.nupriya (with her inner circle eight friends namely, K ¯ ancan ¯ a, Manohar ¯ a, Suke´ ¯ s¯ı, Candrakala, Amit ¯ a,¯ Surasundar¯ı, Premalatik ¯ a, and Sakh ¯ ¯ı Vis.nupriya) by apocryphal texts such as ¯ *Sr´ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ıGaura-Vis.nupriya¯ As.t.akal¯ ¯ıya Sm. aran. a Manana Paddhati* (Maitra 1960, pp. 122–23).

An examination of the specific terminologies deployed by contemporary writers to refer to Vis.nupriya reveals the strategies of deification involved. While Caitanya was referred to as ¯ *Vis.nupriyan¯ atha ¯* (the Lord of Vis.nupriya), Vi ¯ s.nupriya herself was identified as ¯ *svarn. a-kanti-sampann ¯ a¯* (having a body of golden hue), *Gaurabak*s.*a-vilasin ¯ ¯ı* (literally one who dwells in the heart of Caitanya), *Bhakti-svarupin ¯ ¯ı* (personification of devotion), *Premananda-v ¯ r.ddhi-karin ¯ ¯ı* (one who magnifies the bliss of love), *Dayamay ¯ ¯ı* (Merciful), *Ks.ema¯nkar ˙ ¯ı* (an epithet used for Parvati/Durga meaning one who brings about welfare of all beings), *Navadv¯ıpa-svarupa ¯* (one who personifies the sacred territory of Navadv¯ıpa), *C¯ıramangalmay¯ıjagadjanan¯ı* (Mother of the world who bestows eternal auspiciousness), and *Kalikalu¯s. a-na´¯sin¯ı* (as the destroyer of the contamination of the Kali Age) (Sarkar 1914 ¯ , pp. 1–4; Sarkar¯ 1915, preface; Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1914, Preface). There were some appellations such as *Rasika, Rasar ¯ up¯ a¯*, and *Rasamay¯ı* (filled with passion), which pointed back to the conceptualization of *Rasaraja ¯* as formulated in the *Vam´s¯ı Sik´sa¯* mentioned earlier in Section 2. On the whole, however, most epithets elevated Vis.nupriya to the level of a Goddess. Some usages, such as those about Vi ¯ s.nupriya's glowing body ¯ color, even paralleled Caitanya's description as *Gaura*.

However, by its very nature, the Gaura–Vis.nupriya hypothesis violated the basic tenets of ¯ the seemingly illicit affairs of Kr.s.n. a as developed by generations of Vais.n. ava theologians. It remained marginalized within Bengali Vais.n. ava discourses since it contained within it a contradictory potential—it could be subverted for passionate ends of physical fulfillment that the tradition despised, and at the same time, it was theologically inferior to the Parak¯ıya conception ( ¯ Stewart 2010, p. 160). Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı tried his best to circumvent both these possibilities by trying to synthesize a sanitized notion of *Nad¯ıya n¯ agari bh ¯ ava ¯* whereby the eternal svak¯ıya relation between Caitanya and Vis.nupriya¯ was projected as a correlate of the eternal relation of Radh ¯ a–K ¯ r.s.n. a. He attempted to insert and prioritize the Gaura–Vis.nupriya¯ *tattva* within the theological frame of Vais.n. avism, keeping all other parameters intact. However, the very innovativeness of this motley formulation itself became the reason for its lack of popular appeal among the wider Vais.n. ava community. It appears that the new version of *yugal-arcana¯* or *yugal-bhajan* of Gaura–Vis.nupriya ( ¯ Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1914; Vyakaran. t¯ırtha 1932, pp. 1–15) veered rather close to esoteric conceptions of *yugal-sadhan ¯ a¯* that were already well established within Vais.n. ava–Sahaj¯ıya circuits ( ¯ Dasgupta 1946, pp. 113–46). Many of the terminologies and concepts used by Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı directly alluded to *Nad¯ıya n¯ agari bh ¯ ava ¯* tendencies in pre-colonial Vais.n. avism. Thus, the Gaura–Vis.nupriya theorization was vigorously contested and denounced by conservative ¯ quarters.44

<sup>44</sup> Apparently, a spate of articles were published in different journals such as *Si´ ´ sir*, *Anandabaz ¯ ar¯* , and *Hitabad¯ ¯ı* by men such as Vaikunt.hanath De, R ¯ adh ¯ aballabh Caudhur ¯ ¯ı, and Man¯ındracandra Nandi, the zamindar of Saidabad in Nadia and the patron of the *Sr´ ¯ı Gaura¯nga Sevaka ˙* journal. *Si´ ´ sir* raised the alarm that 'Is it not a sin and a crime to preach such immorality about Caitanya in the name of religion and religious practice?' For instance, Yogendracandra Deb, the editor of the *Sr´ ¯ı Sr´ ¯ı Sonar Gaur ¯ a¯nga ˙* published from Comilla in East Bengal, led a concerted backlash against the 'fabricated' narrative of the *navya Gaura nagari v ¯ ad¯ ¯ıs* (neo-*Gaura nagara v ¯ ad¯ ¯ı*) attempts in 1926 (Deb 1926, pp. 665–82). Deb felt compelled to take a stand as he contended that many educated Bengalis in their simplicity were being duped by the apparently 'sweet' views of this group. The crux of the arguments posited by his journal was as follows: First, they argued that the new version was distorting established ritual practices of worshipping Caitanya, Advaita, and Kr.s.n. a. They specifically objected to the statement ascribed to Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı that Bengali Vais.n. avas regarded both Kr.s.n. a and Caitanya as complete godheads

Interestingly, in hindsight, it seems that the argument for a national devotional culture through the *Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯* by Si´ ´ sir Kumar Ghosh among others was not merely an exposition of a modernist ¯ regional cultural expression as some historians would like to frame it (Bhatia 2009, pp. 225–91). It also played a crucial role in allowing contemporary relatively marginal proponents to voice their own opinions. Ideologically, for instance, some contributors to the *Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯*, such as Haridas¯ Gosvam¯ ¯ı and Jagatbandhu Bhadra, were clearly non-mainstream in their approach. Bhadra's Vai ¯ s.n. ava anthology *Gaurapadatarangin¯ı* is a classic expression of diverse shades of poetical writings including Sahaj¯ıya themes. Harid ¯ as Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı himself had high regard for Si´ ´ sir Kumar Ghosh, as his biography ¯ shows, and it is quite revealing that Ghosh was considered by him as 'a believer of *vi´suddha* (pure) *Nad¯ıya n¯ agar ¯ ¯ı bhava'. ¯* After Ghosh's death in 1911, Gosvam¯ ¯ı decided to continue the former's unfinished work and even dreamt of Ghosh's soul entering into his body (Gosvam¯ ¯ı 1963, pp. 174–75).<sup>45</sup> Marginal and non-conformist views also found an expression in the pages of some other periodicals such as *Vais.n. ava Sangin¯ı.*<sup>46</sup>

It is difficult to document exactly when the Gaura–Vis.nupriya dual worship program lost relevance ¯ in the twentieth century but there is reason to believe that it could not emerge as a spontaneously accepted popular notion. Although, there may be found some Gaura–Vis.nupriya temples in certain ¯ parts of Bengal even today, they do not enjoy much prominence within the tradition. In all probability, the spread of Gaud.¯ıya Mat.hs and other affiliate monastic establishments in the twentieth century gradually squeezed out from the mainstream such divergent alternate imaginings.<sup>47</sup> It should be noted, however, that women perform a critical element in the religious activities and *seva* of institutionalised Vais.n. ava temples—they take part in ritual fasts, prepare and serve food for the deity which is partaken later as *prasad*, lead women's congregational devotional singing, and so on and so forth. This has been documented for the Radharaman Temple in Vr.ndavana in the modern period ( ¯ Case 2000, pp. 45–62). In the audiences' quest to 'see divinity', Vis.nupriya still plays a crucial role in the ¯ *a*s.*t.ayama l¯ıla¯* or the eight day performances dedicated to Caitanya organized by members of the patron family of the Radharaman Temple (Case 2000, pp. 111–50). It is also true that *l¯ılak¯ ¯ırtan* players across rural Bengal still sing the Caitanya *l¯ıla¯* episodes that feature Vis.nupriya during specific times of the year. Given ¯ the fact that Vais.n. ava conceptions across various layers of beliefs are superbly mobile—'a *goswami's* or *babaji's* sense of Vr.ndavana travels with him in his imagination; a ¯ *sahajiya's* sense of place travels with her in her body; an ISKCON devotee experiences the pleasures of serving Vrindavan wherever she renders her devotional service; and all Bengali Vais.n. avas experience Vrindavan's spiritual/sonic

<sup>(</sup>*Svayam Bhagavan*). Secondly, they objected to Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı's contention that 'A hundred thousand Radh ¯ as were not ¯ equal to one Vis.nupriya. A hundred thousand R ¯ adh ¯ a-bh ¯ ava condenses to create the basis for Vi ¯ s.nupriya¯ *tattva*.' The third objection was against Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı's acceptance of the view about Caitanya's deliverance of prostitutes such as Satyabal¯ a referred to in the apocryphal text ¯ *Gobindadaser Ka ¯ d. cha¯*. They severely castigated Gosvam¯ ¯ı for claiming that the Vais.n. ava hagiographers have shown that *Svak¯ıya* and *Parak¯ıya bh*a¯*vas* are seen in the case of both Gaura¯nga as well as ˙ Kr.s.n. a. Lastly, they critiqued the supposedly immoral bearing of Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı's celebration of the *m*a¯*hatmya ¯* (glory) of *Parak¯ıy*a practice among ¯ *Sahaj¯ıyas¯* and *Ki´sor¯ıbhajana* among others at Navadv¯ıpa (Deb 1926, pp. 665–82). Similar views were expressed by other conservative writers as well.

<sup>45</sup> It is incidentally important in this connection to note that Si´ ´ sir Kumar Ghosh and his family members were proponents of occult beliefs in mesmerism, clairvoyance, and séances, and experimented with techniques to communicate with the world of the dead (Bhatia 2020). For instance, in the article *Atm¯ ar parak ¯ ay¯ a prabe´ ¯ <sup>s</sup>*in the *Vis.nupriya Patrik ¯ a¯* of 1898 (vol. 8.1 pp. 41–48), the issue of transmigration of souls into the bodies of other living persons was discussed in the context of members of the Brajal¯ıla entering the bodies of their devotees. ¯

<sup>46</sup> Thus, in the *Vais.n. ava Sangin¯ı* in 1912, we find Gaurgun. ananda ¯ T. hakur, who published the text ¯ *Sr´ ¯ıkhander Prac¯ ¯ına Vais.n. ava*, contributing a poem titled *Gaura Kalankini* (Unchaste women for Gaura), and in the same vein Haridas Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı wrote *Piriti Mahima¯* (The Glory of Love).

<sup>47</sup> Bhaktivinod T. hakur (1838–1914), along with his fellow associate Jagann ¯ atha D ¯ as B ¯ ab¯ aji, had initiated the worship of ¯ Gaura–Vis.nupriya at Yogpith temple in Mayapur in 1893. His son Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati (1874–1937), the founder of ¯ the Gaud.¯ıya Mat.h, while accepting the legitimacy of the *Gauramantra*, conducted debates at Kasimbazar in Murshidabad on 24 March 1912, where he defeated the *Gaura nagara v ¯ ad¯ ¯ı* standpoint of Gaurgun. ananda ¯ T. hakur of ¯ Sr´ ¯ıkhand. a and started the worship of *Sr´ ¯ı Guru Gaura¯nga G ˙ andharvik ¯ a Giridhar ¯ ¯ı* across sixty four mat.hs during his lifetime (Sardella 2013). It appears that the Gaud.¯ıya Mat.h under the inspiration of Saraswati and his emphasis on asceticism skirted any alternate imaginings of Caitanya's pre-ascetic relations even with his wedded wives.

bliss in the sites of their musical performances' (Sarbadhikary 2015, p. 216)—it is evident that devotee imaginations regarding Vais.n. ava personalities would also be similarly complex and varied. Ascetic institutional establishments such as the Gaud.¯ıya Mat.h, however, usually do not directly engage with women's issues or provide avenues for female asceticism of the type visible, for instance, in other modern Hindu orders such as the Ramakrishna Sarada Mission (which is the female counterpart of the Ramakrishna Mission). But modern Vais.n. ava mat.hs such as the Caitanya Saraswat Ma ¯ t.h, among others, do celebrate the appearance Days (*tithis*) of several pious Vais.n. ava women, including Sr´ ¯ı Vis.nupriya, in their ritual calendar. ¯ <sup>48</sup>

#### **6. Conclusions**

The entanglements of a sentiment of love and devotion within Bengali Vais.n. avism led to a number of significant fallouts, some of which were perhaps unintended, within various layers of opinions, both within as well as outside the tradition in the colonial era. For most middle-class Bengali Vais.n. ava bhadralok sympathizers, Caitanya came to represent a humanist quotient reflective of the flexibility and liberalism inherent within Bengali culture. For scholars of literature, the Vais.n. ava celebration of love and the humanist spirit in the literary domain of the early modern period was portrayed as the most fruitful and constructive phase in the constitution of the Bengali language and literature (Sen 1896, pp. 147–219).<sup>49</sup> There were also dissidents who harbored suspicions that the spread of Vais.n. avism in Bengal and its dominant stress on love and emotion historically engendered effeminacy within Bengali society that did not augur well for its political future. For instance, the noted historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar contended that 'by its exaltation of pacifism and patient suffering ... it [Vais.n. avism] sapped the martial instinct of the [Bengali] race and made the people too soft to conduct national defense' (Sarkar 1943, p. 222). In the backdrop of this fractured receptivity regarding the legacy of the tradition as a whole, it is only to be expected that notions about Vis.nupriya would also necessarily remain contested. ¯

In sum, it is difficult to draw a simplistic connection that increased prominence to writing biographies of women associated with Caitanya by educated *bhadralok* writers in the age of religious reformism during colonial times automatically led to a greater urgency to women's issues within the Bengali Vais.n. ava movement. At the same time, it is a testament to the elasticity and flexibility of the Vais.n. ava tradition that newer images regarding Vis.nupriya could still be expounded and even eulogized ¯ by some sections in colonial times. As the preceding discussion has revealed, the Gaura–Vis.nupriya¯ sacred biographic image-building exercise was ultimately critiqued by some contemporaries as a deliberate deviation from mainstream Vais.n. ava theological perspectives. For them, such an ideal essentially meant pandering to pre-colonial sectarian and divisive agendas—a selective revitalization of *gaura nagara v ¯ ad¯ ¯ı* perspectives—that needed to be shunned. I have tried to provide a glimpse of these supposedly marginal viewpoints that usually remain lost from mainstream academic discourses.

Alternate frames of perceiving a divine pair in Gaura–Vis.nupriya, in a sense, largely came to ¯ symbolize the pathos, emotionalism, and national culture of the Bengali people. At this level, the emphasis on Vis.nupriya, as Caitanya's eternal counterpart, helped to recast and filter her image from ¯ the rather fleeting presence within the pre-colonial hagiographical literature to a celebration of new modernist *bhadralok* sensibilities of divine conjugality. At yet another level, Vis.nupriya also came to ¯ personify and validate traditionalist notions of self-less devotion and faithfulness to her mother-in-law and her lost husband; of resolute patience, perseverance, and penance in the name of religion; and of

<sup>48</sup> http://www.scsmath.com/events/calendar/index.html accessed on 14 October 2020 at 17.25 hrs (IST).

<sup>49</sup> The blurb of a relatively recent fictionalized historical novel on Caitanya has this to say regarding the legacy of the era: 'Early modernity in India had its origin in the fifteenth-sixteenth century. At least in Bengal, many features of an urban/civil culture can be witnessed during the Caitanya era. If one removes the colonial lens, one may clearly witness the early modern glory of *Gaura-banga* (Bengal). An urban spirit, trading prosperity, a desire to travel, an attempt of the regional to merge with the national, social mobility of the middle and lower classes, and increasing participation of the masses in a caste-less manner in social movements-many such elements combined to inaugurate a form of pre-colonial modernity during Caitanya's time.' (Mitra 2012; front cover blurb).

ideal widowhood (after Caitanya's demise). Thus, the colonial era threw up a mélange of possibilities in imaging Vis.nupriya, most of which could not finally find approbation from mainstream Vai ¯ s.n. ava traditions. Nevertheless, it enables us to fruitfully explore an interesting aspect within the relatively under-trodden field of women and gender studies within Bengali Vais.n. ava traditions.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** A preliminary version of this paper was presented at a conference on 'Women and History of Bengal' organized by Vidyasagar College, Kolkata in 2015. I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Amiya Sen, the volume editor, for inviting me to contribute to this special volume on "Studies in Hinduism: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments". Thanks are due to Ferdinando Sardella and the authorities of Bhaktivedanta Research Centre, Kolkata for letting me use some of their archival materials for this paper. I also extend my sincere appreciation to my colleague Durga Shankar Chakraborty for his assistance in translating some of the Sanskrit passages used in this article. I also appreciate the advice and suggestions of the three peer reviewers.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


Chakrabarti, Ramakanta. 1985. *Vaisnavism in Bengal 1486–1900*. Kolkata: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar.


Daheja, Vidya. 1990. *Antal and Her Path of Love: Poems of a Woman Saint from South India*. Albany: Suny Press.

Das, Locana. 1892. ¯ *Caitanya Mangala ˙* . Edited by Ramn ¯ ar¯ ayan Vidy ¯ aratna. Baharampur: R ¯ adh ¯ araman Press. ¯


Heger, Paul. 2014. *Women in the Bible, Qumran and the Early Rabbinic Literature: Their Status and Roles*. Leiden: Brill.


Kamaliah, K. C. 1977. Women Saints of Tamil Nadu. *Indian Literature* 20: 46–65.


Kersenboom-Story, Saskia. 1987. *Nityasumangali: Devadasi Tradition in South India*. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.


Lutjeharms, Rembert. 2018. *A Vais.n. ava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarn. apura's Splendour of Speech ¯* . Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Mitra, Saibal. 2012. *Gora*. Kolkata: Deys Publication.

Mukhopadhyay, G. C. 1935. *J¯ıvan¯ı Sangraha: Dharmika, D ¯ an´ ¯ s¯ıla, Bidu ¯ s.¯ı o Patibrata Bharat N ¯ ar¯ ¯ır J¯ıvaner Citra*. Kolkata: Gurudas Chattopadhyay and Sons.

Nag, Arun, ed. 1991. *Sat¯ık Hutum Pyenc˙ ar Nak´ ¯ sa, Kaliprasanna Singha ¯* . Calcutta: Subarnarekha Publishers.


Pemberton, Kelly. 2010. *Women Mystics and Sufi Shrines in India*. Columbi: University of South Carolina Press.

Pinchtman, Tracy, ed. 2007. *Women's Lives. Women's Rituals in the Hindu Tradition*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pollock, Sheldon. 2001. The Death of Sanskrit. *Comparative Studies in Society and History* 43: 392–426. [CrossRef]

Pollock, Sheldon. 2006. *The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture and Power in Pre-Modern India*. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Premadas Mi´ ¯ sra. n.d. *Vam´s¯ı Sik´ ´ sa*. Edited by Bhagavata Kum ¯ ar Deva Gosv ¯ am¯ ¯ı. Navadv¯ıpa: Saratchandra Das. Prentiss, Karen Pechillis. 1999. *The Embodiment of Bhakti*. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ramaswamy, Vijaya. 2000. *Walking Naked: Women, Society, Spirituality in South India*. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies.

Ray, Satishchandra. 1897. *Sr´ ¯ıSr´ ¯ı Padakalpataru*. Calcutta: Indian Publication society Limited, vol. 3.

Ray, Aparna. 2014. Caitanyer Bhaktiandolansutre n ¯ ar¯ ¯ır svatikrama ¯ n. . In *Sr´ ¯ıChaitanya: Ekaler Bh ¯ avan ¯ a¯*. Edited by Tapas B ¯ asu. Kolkata: Bangiya Sahitya Sansad, pp. 285–303. ¯

Raychaudhuri, Tapan. 2000. Love in a Colonial Climate: Marriage, Sex and Romance in Nineteenth-Century Bengal. *Modern Asian Studies* 34: 349–78. [CrossRef]

Sanyal, Hiteshranjan. 1985. *Trends of Change in Bhakti Movement in Bengal*. Occasional Paper No.76. Calcutta: Centre for Studies in Social Sciences.

Sarbadhikary, Sukanya. 2015. *The Place of Devotion: Siting and Experiencing Divinity in Bengal-Vais.n. avism*. California: University of California Press.

Sardella, Ferdinando. 2013. *Modern Hindu Personalism: The History, Life, and Thought of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati*. New York: Oxford University Press.


Sen, Amiya. 2019. *Chaitanya: A Life and Legacy*. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.


Vidyabhus.an, Rasikmohan. 1917. *Sr´ ¯ıSr´ ¯ıGauraBis.nupriya¯*. Calcutta: Visvakosh Press.

Vyakaran.t¯ırtha, Gopald¯ as B ¯ ab¯ aji. 1932. ¯ *Sr´ ¯ıSr´ ¯ıGaura-Vis.nupriya-tattva-Sandarbha ¯* . Navadv¯ıpa: Rudra Printing Works. Wadley, Susan. 1977. Women and the Hindu Tradition. *Signs* 3: 113–25. [CrossRef]


Yati Maharaj, Tridandi Bhakti Pragyan. 1980. *Renaissance of the Gaud.¯ıya Movement*. Madras: Sr´ ¯ıGaud.¯ıya Mat.h.

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
