bulleh shah 3

7/24/2019 Bulleh Shah 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bulleh-shah-3 1/36

The Portable Bullhe Shah: Biography, Categorization, and Authorship in the Study of Punjabi

Sufi PoetryAuthor(s): Robin RinehartSource: Numen, Vol. 46, Fasc. 1 (1999), pp. 53-87Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270291 .

Accessed: 10/03/2014 19:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270291?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270291?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap



THE PORTABLEBULLHE SHAH: BIOGRAPHY,

CATEGORIZATION,

AND AUTHORSHIP

IN THE STUDY

OF

PUNJABI UFI POETRY1

ROBIN

RINEHART

Summary

The

Punjabi

poet

Bullhe

Shah

1680-1758)

s revered

y

Muslims,

Hindus nd

Sikhs.

n

the extensive

ody

of

nterpretive

iteratureevoted o his ife and

work,

scholars avecontested

is

religiousdentity,

haracterizing

ullhe

Shah n

various

ways, .g.

as

a

Sufi,

Vedantic

ufi,

r

a

Vaisnava

Vedantic ufi.This

article

xam-

ines

the

nature f thedebates bout

Bullhe

Shah's

identity,

nd

how thesedebates

have haped hevaryingortrayalsfBullhe hah's ife, he orpus fhispoetry,nd

the characterizationf his

religious

ffiliation.

argue

hat

series

f

unexamined

assumptions

about

henature

f

biography

nd its

relation

o the

development

of

a

worldview,

bout he

ategorization

f

religious dentity,

nd about

henature

of

authorship

have

created

hese

onflicting

ortrayals

f the

poet

and his

work,

making

ullhe

Shah

a kind f

"portable"

igure

ho s

placed

n

widely

ivergent

contexts.conclude

y rguing

hat

ullhe hah's

portability,

rhis

placement

ithin

differentontexts

for

different

urposes),

s

itself

useful

opic

for

nalysis,

nd

provides

he

basis

for

potentially

ore ruitful

tudy

ot

nly

f

Bullhe

Shah's ife

and

work,

ut lso

of his

audiences

nd their

esponses

o him.

There s noHindu, heres noMuslim,

Let

us

abandon

ur

pride

nd sit

together

ike

young irls

t their

pinning

wheels

I

am neither unninor hi'ah. 've

chosen he

path

f the

ineage

f

peace.

BullheShah2

I

Portions

f

this

paper

were

presented

t

the 1996 conferencef theAmerican

Academy

f

Religion

nNew

Orleans,

A,

and

at

the

1997

Seventh nternational

Conference

n

Early

Literature

n New

ndo-Aryananguages

n

Venice,

taly.

he

authorwould iketo thank onference

articipants

or heir

omments,

s

well as

Tony

K.

Stewart

nd

Patricia

onahue,

who read earlier rafts f

this

paper

and

made

very elpful uggestions.

2

Punjabi

verse

from

ayyad

Nazir

Ahmad,

Kaldm-e-Bullhe

hdh,

p.

83.

This

and subsequentranslationsre the author's. orother ersions f thispoem, ee

?

Koninklijke

rill

NV,

Leiden

1999)

NUMEN,

Vol. 46

This content downloaded from 129.2.19.102 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:50:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions






54 RobinRinehart

In the ndian

ubcontinent,

here ommunalonflictsre

tragic

yet

ommonplace

eature

f

the

andscape,

t

s

intriguing

nd

per-

haps

ronic

o

find

poet

laimed

y

different

eligious

ommunities.

The

popularity

f

Bullhe

hah's

oetry

rosses othhe

ontemporary

communaloundaries

etween

he

eligious

raditions

f

slam,

in-

duism,

nd

Sikhism,

nd

the

political

order etween

akistannd

India hat ivides he

Punjabi-speaking

egion.

usicians,

rom he

amateur

inger

ho

performs

or

neighborhood

riends

nd

family,

to

nternationally

cclaimedrtists

uch s Nusrat ateh

Ali

Khan,

sing

is

poems.

ines romome fhismost elebrated

oems

ave

entered

he

Punjabi anguage

s

everyday

diomatic

hrases.

here

are ountless

rinted

ditions

fhisworkn both

he

Gurmukhi

nd

Urdu

cripts.

e

figuresrominently

n

most

urveys

f

Punjabi

iter-

ature,

nd

heres

an

extensive

ody

f

nterpretive

iterature

evoted

to

analysis

fhis

biography,

is ntellectual

evelopment,

is

iterary

style,

ndhisworldview.llthosewhowritebout im

hapsodize

about he

eceptivelyimple legance

fhis

poetry,

he

eauty

f

his

expression

fhis

onging

or

God,

ndhis killful

seof

mages

rom

the

veryday

ife ndfolklore

f

the

ural

unjab.

Bullhe

hah's ross-communal

opularity

aises

many ntriguing

questionsbout eligiousnd communaldentityn the ndian ub-

continent,

ndtheres

in

fact vast

body

f

nterpretive

iterature

concerning

ullhe hah's

ife

and work. his

iterature,owever,

raises

many

more

uestions

han

t

answers.or

here

s no consen-

susas to who Bullhe hah

was,

how

he

livedhis

ife,

where is

religiousllegiances

ay,

revenhow o read he

message

f

his

po-

etry.

ndeed

irtuallyvery

spect

f Bullhe

hah's ife nd work

is

contested,

rom

he

asicoutlines

f

his

ife

o

the

mport

fhis

poetry.nterpreters

ave

ought

o claim im or ne

religious

om-

munity

r

another.

n

some

tudies,ullhe

hah s

presented

s

an

Singh, . 78; Faqir,p. 218; Ramakrishna,. 65; Rafat, . 177. The referenceo the

spinning

heel s common n

Punjabi

poetry;

t referso the

practice

f

young irls

getting

ogether

o

spin

cloth

s

part

f their

owry.

he

young

irls

re

ikened

o

humans

reparing

o meet

God.







The Portable ullhe hah 55

enthusiastic

dvocate f

the

Hindu

radition;

n

others

e

is

a

model

Muslim,

nd in still

others,

e

is

shown o

have

been

deeply

n-

fluenced

y

Sikhism.Over

a

century's

orth f

study

has created

multiple,

adically ivergentortrayals

f this ne

poet.

But a closer ook

at

this

scholarly

iterature,

ith ts

divergent

views

of the

poet

and his

work,

makesclear that or

ll

its

paeans

to

objective

istorical

econstruction,

t s at heartmore

evealing

f

the

personal

nd/or ommunal iases of

the

nterpreters

hemselves.

The central

rgument

f this

ssay

s that henature f

the

tudy

f

Bullhe Shah

itself the

questions

sked,

and

the

ways

n which

those uestions avebeen answered has led toan interpretivem-

passe

that

eveals

armore

bout

BullheShah's critics han

nything

about

Bullhe

Shah

as a historical

igure.

hese

conflictingnalyses

are

produced

y

three

losely

related

ssumptions

bout

a)

the

na-

ture f

biographical

nformation

nd ts relation

o the

development

of

a

worldview,

b)

about henature

f

religious

dentity

nthe

ndian

subcontinent

n

the 18th

nd

20th

enturies,

nd

c)

about henature

of

authorship.

hey

re further

omplicated

y

the imitationsf the

manuscript

nd

other vidence

vailable.

My argument

s

based

upon

a

reading

f the

range

f

critical

work

ublished

n

Bullhe Shah

n

Pakistan,

ndia,

nd north merica

nd

Europe.

Rather han

resent-

ing detailed econstructionfthedifferentnterpretationsf Bullhe

Shah,

will describe he

general trategies

presuppositions,

se

of

evidence,

orms f

argument)

sed

n

varying egrees

n

virtually

ll

of these

tudies,

egardless

f their inal onclusions bout

Bullhe

Shah.3

Obviously

not

all

the

analyses

f

Bullhe

Shah which cite

use

all the

strategies

hat

detail

below,

but each exhibits

ome of

the

general

endencies

hat

will

describe.

he

goal

of

many

rit-

ical

studies f Bullhe Shah and his

work s to anchorhim

firmly

within

pecific

istoricalnd

religious

ontexts,

ontexts hich erve

to

"explain"

he

poet

n some

way.

Yet

the fact

hat

ifferentnter-

preters

ave

placed

Bullhe Shah

n such different

ontexts

uggests

3

For

a moredetailed iscussion

f the

ange

f

nterpretations

f

Bullhe

Shah's

life nd

work,

ee

Rinehart,

Interpretations

f

Bullhe

Shah,"

nternationalournal

of

Punjab

Studies,

,

1

(1996),

pp.

45-63.







56 RobinRinehart

that

e

has n fact

ecome kind

f

portable"

igure.

conclude

y

suggesting

han

close

nalysis

f

this

ery portability"

Bullhe

Shah's ocation

n differentontexts

helps

s to understand

ot

only omething

bout he

oet

himself,

ut lso

about is udiences

and he

arying

ays

nwhich

hey

espond

ohis

poetry

nd tories

ofhis ife.

The

cholarlynalyses

f

Bullhe

hah

all

oughly

nto wo

major

groups:

ne

places

ullhe hah

quarely

ithin

he slamic

radition,

and

the

otherocates

ullhe hah's

true

nspiration

n theHindu

tradition.

here re ubsets

ithinach

group.

n

the

slamic

roup,

some ortrayullhe hah s a Sufi hampionfthe ppressede.g.

Taufiq

afat,

ayyad

Nazir

Ahmad),

therss

a

pious

followerf

Islamic

aw.4

n

the

Hindu

roup,

ome

tyle

im Vedantin

the

most

prominentxample

eing

ajwanti

amakrishna),

thers

Vaisnava

Vedantin

e.g.

Sadhu

Ram

Sharda),

nd

still thers

rgue

hat

e

was

profoundly

nfluenced

y

thewords

f

the

arly

ikh

gurus

s

well

e.g.

Surindar

ingh

Kohli).5

n thediscussionhat

ollows,

will

provide epresentative

xamples

rom

ach

camp,

with urther

references

n thenotes.

Bullhe hah and

Biography

The

starting

oint

ormost tudiesf

Bullhe

hah eemsnno-

cent

nough.6

hen ndwhere

as

he

born?What ind

f

ducation

4

See also Ghafran

ayyad,

.

16;

Kuldip

Singh, .

47; Rafat,

.

3.

5

See,

for

xample,

Kala

Singh

Bedi, "Bullhe

hch

de Kaldmdd

GurbdnI

dl

Tulndtmak

dhiain"

n Rattan

ingh

Jaggi,

d.,

Khoj

Patrikd,

ain

Bullhe

Shah

Ank

Patiala:

Publication

ureau,

Punjabi

University,

991),

pp.

134-150.This is

an

especially ntriguingrgument,

or ts

proponents enerally

ee the nfluence

of Sikhism

n

seemingly uasi-Vedantic

tatementsttributed

o

Bullhe

Shah.

The

unstated

ssumption,

hen,

s

that

ikhism

s

very

much

part

f the

Hindu

radition,

a

notion

t

odds

withmuch f the olonial nd

postcolonial

olitics

frecent ikhism

(which

has

sought

o distance tself

rom

Hinduism).

6 See, for xample, harda, . 149; AtamSingh, . 2; Ramakrishna,p.40-41,

43-46; Kohli,

pp.

12-23;Bhatti,

p.

1-4,

12-13;Puri

nd

Shangari,

p.

1-31;

Bhasa

VibhagPunjab,pp.

5-11; Kaur,

pp.

1-4;

Kuldip Singh,

pp.

1-18; Rafat,

p.

1-6;

Ahmad,

.

5.







The Portable ullheShah 57

did his

family

rovide

or

him?

What was the social status

f his

family?

What

werethe formativenfluences

n

his

early

ife?

What

was his

religiousdentity? nfortunately

or

historians,

he nforma-

tion s

sketchy.

ost

agree

that ullhe Shah ivedfrom

680-1758,

that

he

was born

nto

family

f

Sayyid

Muslims

i.e.

who

traced

their escent

rom

he

amily

f the

prophet

uhammad),

nd that e

received he ducation

ypical

or

young

man

of

such

status.nter-

estingly,

ost tudies on't

ctually

escribewhat uch neducation

would

be;

it

s

implied

hat

t would

ntail

nstructionn

Arabic nd

Persian,

with

tudy

f

the

Quran,

he

slamic

egal

tradition,

nd

the

Persian

iterary

radition.he evidence or uchclaims s the work

attributed

o

Bullhe

Shah,

which ontains eferences

o

the

Quran,

the slamic

egal

tradition,

nd Persian

ufi

iterature.

What s the

purpose

f such

uestions? hrough roviding

nswers

to

them,

nterpreters

stablish

ullheShah

as

a

historical

igure

ho

lived n

a

particular

ime

nd

place.

Having

stablishedhe ime

nd

place, they

an

then

dentify

ertain

ocial,

political,

eligious,

nd

other

actors hich

might

ave had a

bearing

n his

ife.Such

gen-

eral

nformation,

long

with

nformationbout he

ype

f

family

nto

which

he was

born,

nd

the

education

e

received,

s

presumed

o

reveal heforces

hat

haped

his

worldview.

lthough

here s indeed

consensus n themost asicdetails f

Bullhe

Shah's

early

ife,

what

follows rom

hese etails

s

less

easy

to

establish.

While

we can cer-

tainly

escribe

he

social,

religious,

nd

political

limate f Bullhe

Shah's time n

very

eneral

erms,

ehavenoevidence hat emon-

strates

onclusively

ow this limate ffected

ullhe

Shah.And even

if

we can establish acts bout his

family

nd

their

eligious

lle-

giances,

hisdoes

not

necessarily

mean

that

ullhe

Shah had

those

same

religiousllegiances,lthough

his s what

most

nterpreters

ug-

gest.

For

example,

n discussions

f therole

of Bullhe

Shah's

family

environment

n

shaping

is

thought,

he

uestion

withwhichmost re

concerneds whetherullheShah'sfather as a strict ollower f s-

lamic

aw,

or a Sufiwho was not

overly

oncerned

ith

following

law to the etter. he conclusion hatmost

nterpreters

each s more

a functionf their wn

reading

f Bullhe Shah's worldviewhan







58 RobinRinehart

reflection

f

any

conclusivevidence

ne

way

or

theother.nter-

preters

ho

lace

Bullhe

hah

n some

ategory

elatedoHinduism

are

particularly

een o demonstrate

hat

ullhe

hahtranscended

what

hey

onsiderhe

dry egalism

f

slam t

a

young ge

as he

moved owards

higher

evel

f

spiritualomprehension

Vaipsava

Vedanta r

Vedanta).

ant

ingh

ekhon nd

Kartar

ingh

uggal,

for

xample,

rite f

Bullhe

hah's romantic

efiancef

Muslim

sharia."7

The ntention

most

ften

nstated)

f

hese

reliminary

uestions

about

ullhe hah's ife nd imes

s

to

establish

ullhe hah

within

a nexus

f

factors

social,

eligious,olitical,

ducational,

amily-

related)

hich

will

both

eterminend

explain

he

ontentf

his

poetry.

he thread f the

rgument

eems o

be that

nce

we have

established

ullhe

hah

s

having

een

haped

y

these

articular

forces,

ecan hen etermineis

particular

orldview,

hich ill e

reflected

nhis

work.

hus

he nitial

onjecture

bout

ullhe

hah's

early

ife s

gradually

eifiedntohistorical

facts";

hese acts

re

then

sedto

support

urther

onjecture.

ome

argue

or

lifelong

consistency

n Bullhe hah's

work;

thers

ee evidence or series

of

developmental

hases

ulminating

n

final,

ost dvanced orld-

view. heassumptions that hedetails fBullhe hah's iography

will

hen

lluminateither

osition:

ither

e

adopted

ndmaintained

a

particular

orldviewt some

point

n

his

life,

r

he

developed

through

eries f

ystematic

tages

hat

roduce

meaningful,

ecov-

erable

attern

o

his

hought.

The

problem

ith hismethod

s that

t

creates

circular

rocess

of

nterpretation.

any

f

he

etails

hat

rovide

he awmaterialor

Bullhe

hah's

iographies

ave een

gleaned

rom

is

poetry;

hese

details now nstantiated

facts"

in turn

re

used to

explain

ther

aspects

f

his

poetry.

hus

nterpreters

se

Bullhe

hah's

ife

o

ex-

plain

his

poetry,

ndhis

poetry

o

explain

is ife.Yet eldom

an

7

Sekhon

nd

Duggal, p.

71. Formoreon

Bullhe

Shah and Islamic

aw,

see

Sharda,

p.

157-60;

Atam

ingh, .

6;

Ramakrishna,

p.

47-49; Kohli,

.

41;

Kuldip

Singh, .

47;

Rafat,

.

3;

Sayyad, .

16.







ThePortable ullhe hah 59

either

trategy

e

grounded

n solid

historical

vidence. ur vidence

about

Bullhe

hah's

ife,

eyond

hatwhich

may

be

inferredrom

is

poems,

s

sketchy

s best.To be

sure,

here re

multiple

agiograph-

ical accounts

which

provide

wealth

f

alleged

nformationbout

significant

ventsn his

ife,

ut

hey

re

grounded

n

the imsof ha-

giography,

ot

ritical

istoriography.

he

interpreters

ever eemto

take

nto

ccount

hat he

primary

ource fthis

llegedly

istorical

materials

Bullhe

Shah's

poetry

and even

that

ody

of work s

problematic.

The

Bullhe

hah

Corpus

As

part

of

their

nalysis

f

Bullhe

Shah,

most

nterpreters

lso

seek

to define

corpus

of work

clearly

uthored

y

the historical

Bullhe

hah.

The

earliest

urviving

anuscripts

f Bullhe hah's

po-

etry

ate o at east

one

hundred

ifty ears

fter

is death.

he

writ-

ten

manuscripts

re

transcriptions

f musical

erformances

f

Bullhe

Shah's

poetry;

hey

eflect ialectal

ariations,

pparent

nterpolations

and elaborations

rom he

performers

hemselves,

nd

n some

cases

versesor entire

oems

that

re

found n the

works f other

oets

(often

with

he

ignature

ine of

another

oetpreserved

ntact).

ub-

sequent rintedditions howthat hecorpus fpoetryttributedo

Bullhe

Shah both

varies

widely,

nd

has

expanded

ubstantially

ver

time,

developmentypical

f the workof

many

medieval ndian

poets.

f we

begin

our

analyses

f Bullhe

Shah

by

positing

im

as

a

historical

igure

with

n

identifiable

orpus

f

work,

we are

im-

mediately

acedwith n insurmountable

roblem

we can

neither

establish

hehistoricaletails

fBullhe

hah's ife

with

ny

ertainty,

nordo we have

themeans

o

establishwhich

oems mong

hose

t-

tributedo

himwere

omposed

y

Bullhe

Shah

thehistorical

igure.

Howthen s the

orpus

efined?

The

implicit

ssumption

f Bullhe

Shah's

nterpreters

s

thathid-

den somewhere ithin he

fanciful,

onflicting

ictures

ainted

n

hagiographies,

nd somewhere

ithin he

overgrown

orpus

f

po-

ems ttributedo Bullhe hah

ies a

clearly

efinable istorical

igure,







60 Robin

Rinehart

who

roduced

doctrinally

nd

tylistically

onsistent

ody

f

poetry,

andwho

may

e uncovered.

et

we have

ittle

nformationtherhan

the

hagiographical

radition

ith

hich

o

establish

etails

f

Bullhe

Shah's

ife,

nd

virtuallyothing

ther han he

oetry

ttributedo

Bullhe

hah

o define

is

philosophy

nd

worldview

if

ndeed

e

was

philosophically

onsistent

hroughout

is

ife).

fthe

nformation

about

is

ife s

problematic,

nd

he

orpus

fhis

poetry

s

suspect

(at

east

nsofar

s

attributing

ithero

historically

ocatable

igure),

then

sing

neto

establishhe ther

s

clearly

difficultethod

o

defend. ut his s

the

nstatedactic

sed

byvirtually

ll

nterpretersofBullhe

hah,

nd t becomeshefoundationor urther

nalyses

and ssertions

bout

ullhe hah.

Interpreters

irst

f all

assume

hat ullhe

hah's

ife

haped

is

worldview,

notion

hich hen ecomes he

basis

for

etermining

the

uthenticity

f

the

various

oems

ttributedo

him.

Once

nter-

pretersosit particular

eading

f Bullhe

hah's

ife

for

xample

as

a

law-follower,

r

egally

ax

Sufi)

hey

an

hen se that

eading

as

a

criterionor

etermining

hich

oems

re uthentic.f

Bullhe

Shah

was a

strictollower

f

slamic

aw,

hen

ny

oems

which re

critical

f

slamic

awmust e

spurious.

lternatively,

f

Bullhe hah

was ax nhisobservancef aw, uch oemsmust egenuine.r,

if

one

posits

series f

developmental

hases,

hen

poem

ejecting

Islamic

aw

could

be

attributed

ither o an

early

r ater

hase

f

development.

he

result

s

satisfying

or

nterpreters,

or

his ircular

hermeneutic

trategy

imultaneously

roduces

more

harply

ocused

corpus

f

poetry

nd

biography.

t

not

nly

liminates

articularo-

ems,

but

lso

any

problematic

biographical"

nformationn those

poems.

t s

on

the asis fthese inds f

preliminarynquiries

nto

the actors

nderstood

o have

haped

is ife based

upon

eading

Bullhe

hah's

ife nto is

work,

ndhis

work

nto is ife

and

sing

oneto defendhe

ther)

that

nterpreters

uild

heir

laims bout

Bullhe hah's ommunaldentityndworldview.8

8

Hawley

has identified similar

rocess

t

work n the traditions

urrounding

the

medieval

Hindi

poet

Sfirdis,

whose

poems

are used to

generate agiographical







ThePortable ullheShah 61

The

Categorizationf

Religious

dentity

This

circular

ermeneutic

trategy

an

easily

serve

the

purposes

of an

interpreter

ho wishesto establish

ullhe

Shah

as

a

repre-

sentative

f a

particular

ommunity

r

worldview.

When

nterpreters

try

o

identify

nd

name

Bullhe

Shah's

worldview,

hey

irst f all

presuppose

particular

deological

ramework,

ith n

implicit

n-

derstanding

f the

range

f

possibilities

vailable.What

deological

categories

ere vailable

o a late

seventeenth/early

ighteenth

en-

tury

oet?

For

most

nterpreters,

he

question

t itsmostbasic evel

resolvesnto wofundamentalategories:slam ndHinduism.ullhe

Shah

mustbe

placed

n

either ne or the other

f

these

ategories.

Yet to make o

seeminglyimple

classifications not

nly

difficult,

but lso

politically harged.

As

is the

case

with

many

ther

oets

of northndia

e.g.

Kabir,

Gurn

Nanak),

he

poetry

ttributed

o

Bullhe

Shah contains lements

that

nterpreters

ssociate

with oth Islam" and "Hinduism."

ullhe

Shah's

vocabulary

s themost ommon

tarting

oint

or

nterpreters;

they

ocus on terms

hat he

poet

used

for

xpressing vertly

eli-

giousconcepts

e.g.

namesfor

god, terminology

or tates

f

mysti-

cal

realization).9nterpretersenerally

ssume hat heuse of words

whose

origin

s Persian r Arabic ndicates

predilection

owards

Islam;

the use of Sanskrit

r

Sanskrit-derived

ords

Hinduism.'o

Surindar

ingh

Kohli,

who

styles

Bullhe

Shah

a

Vedantin,

ists a

number

f

Sanskrit-derived

ordsfor ove

from ullhe

Shah's

po-

ems as

a

means

of

bolstering

is

assertion hat

Bullhe

Shah

was

accounts,

which

n turn ffect he

reading

f

the

poems

attributed

o him. John

Stratton

awley,

Authornd

Authority,".

280.

9

There

s

one

interpreter

ho

challenges

his

trategy:

rilochan

ingh,

n

his

article

Bullhe

hah

ddt

asawwuf'

p.

430)

argues

hat he

imple sage

of

a Hindu

term orGod

does not

necessarily

akeone

a

Hindu.

10Usbornep. 10) for xample,writes hatBullhe Shah'spoems"showvery

little

laboration

f

thought

r

magination.

ome

of them avea

larger

roportion

of Sanskrit ords han ne

might

xpect

n

a

Muslim

writer,

ut his

may

be because

there

werefewerArabic nd

Persianwords n

Panjabi

t the ime."







62 RobinRinehart

influenced

y

Hinduismmore

han

slam."

And

Sadhu

Ram

Sharda,

who considers

ullhe

Shah

a

Vaisnava

Vedantin,

rgues

hat

ven

in

poems

n which

Bullhe

Shah

uses slamic

erminology,

the

pirit

thereins

undoubtedly

edanta."2

n

contrast,

aufiq

afat,

who

por-

trays

ullhe

hah s Sufi

hampion

f he

ppressed,

rgues

hat ven

when

Bullhe

Shah makesreferenceo Hindu

deas,

he uses

Arabic

phrases

o make tclear hat e is firstnd foremost

Muslim.13

n-

terpreters

lso

weigh

he

elative

requency

f referenceso the

myth,

history,

nd literature

f

Islam

and Hinduism. here re

yet

further

characterizationshat re ess

clearly efined,et

t

theheart f

many

interpretations:

amely,

he

nterpreter's

eneral

mpression

fBullhe

Shah's

worldview,

ased

upon

the

nterpreter'seading

f

his

poetry.

Perhaps

he best llustrationf this

trategy

s

a

chart

ound

n

Ahmad's

edition

f

Bullhe

Shah's

poems,

whichhe

considers

he

most

valuable

art

f

his effort.

e

askednine

Punjabi

poets

oread

sixty-six oems

ttributed

o

Bullhe

Shah

poems

which

ad

already

been

chosenfor

Ahmad's

dition)

nd selectthe

ones

that

eemed

authentic

o

them.Ahmad

notes

that he

poems

that

received

he

highest

umber f votes

rom he

poets

were

lso those

most eloved

by

the

people.14

or

Ahmad,

whoseBullhe hah

s a

champion

f

the

oppressed,t s the people"whocanrecognizehegenuinerticle.

Similarly,

bdul

Majid

Bhatti stablishes he

"style

nd

point

f

view" of Bullhe

Shah

as a

criterionor

etermining

uthentic

oems;

he furtherotes hat

n

these

rounds

e eliminated

oems

ttributed

to Bullhe hahwhichwerenot

directly

elated o the

Quran

nd

other

Islamic

iterature,

nd nstead ontained eferencesothe

Ganges

iver

(sacred

o

Hindus)

nd

Shdm

"the

dark

ne";

an

epithet

f

Krishna)

as God.15

t

is those

very

ame

poems

which

provide

vidence

or

thosewho wishto

style

ullhe

Shah

a

Vaisnava.

Ramakrishnaotes

1

Kohli,

p.

43.

12

Sharda, . 150.

13

Rafat,

.

18.

14

See

Ahmad's hart

t

the nd

of his

"Introduction"

o

Kaldm-e-Bullhe

hdh.

15

Bhatti,

.

10.








that here re

many oems

ttributed

o

Bullhe

hah,

but

he

uthentic

ones

re

distinguished

y

his force nd

implicity."16

he cites

oems

which he

believes o

exemplify

Vedantic

pirit

even

when

they

contain

slamic

references).17

either

hatti's

style

nd

point

of

view" nor

Ramakrishna's

force nd

simplicity"

s

explained,

ut

each was

clearly

crucial

oncept

n

these

nterpretations.

Other

nterpreters

elyupon

their ense

of

Bullhe

Shah's use

of

rhyme

nd

meter,

nd stablishhis s

a

criterionf

uthenticity.

afat

maintainshat ullheShah

followed

o

particular

ules f

rhyme

r

meter,

hereasAhmad

rgues

hatmetrical

onsistency

s

an indica-

tion

of an authentic

ullhe

Shah

poem

in

some

instances

e

rear-

ranged

he ines

of

versesfrom ther ditions

nd

performances

o

create

new

metrically

onsistent,

nd

therefore

uthentic,

oems).18

It

is

important

o

note

herethat

particular

nterpreter's

ense

of

what

ctually

onstitutes

he

"real"

corpus

f

Bullhe

Shah's

poetry

itself

hapes

he

nterpreter'seading

fthe

worldview

fthat

orpus;

the

nterpretivetrategy

hus ar s based

upon

a series f

mutually

dependent

actors

life,

poetry,

orldview none of which

has

an

independent

rounding

ith utside

vidence o

support

t.

The

degree

f

circularity

ncreases.

Themost ignificantiftsmergemongBullheShah's nterpreters

as

they

efine

is

religiousdentityyplacing

imwithin

particular

category. mong

hose

who

categorize

ullheShah

as

first

nd fore-

most

Muslim,

his

precise lacement

ithin n Islamicframework

varies.

While he is

virtuallylways

cast

as a

Sufi,

o

some,

he was

a

Sufi

who adhered

irmly

o thedictates

f

slamic

aw,

nd to

oth-

ers,

he

was

a

Sufiwhose

ntense

mystical

xperiences

ranscendedhe

needfor

predictably

ry egalism.

or hosewho ocateBullhe

hah

withinheHindu

radition,

here

re

particularhallenges.

hathehad

some connection ith slam cannot e denied

his

very

name,

fter

all,

suggests

hat

he

was

Muslim,

nd not

Hindu),

nd

thus

Bullhe

16

Ramakrishna,

.

64.

17

Ramakrishna,

.

64.

18

Rafat,

.

29; Ahmad,

p.

11,

12.







64 Robin

Rinehart

Shah

s defined

n

varying

uises

s a Vedantic

ufi,

r sometimes

a

Vaisnava

edantic

ufi.

nterpreters

aking

hese

ategorizations

give

nly

ominal

ecognition

o

slam,

nd

rgue

hat he

eal

heart

of

Bullhe

hah's

eligiosity

s

in Vedantar

Vaisnava

edanta.

Bullhe

hah's

nterpreters'cceptance

f slam

nd

Hinduism

s

the

ppropriate

asic

ategories

ests

pon

hree

ey

resuppositions:

a. Islam and Hinduism re twodistinct

eligious

raditions,

ach

with

clear,

efining

eatures,

nd

definable,

ometimes

ierarchically

ranked

ubsets,

uch

s

Sufismas

a subset

f slam)

nd

Vedanta/Vai-

snava

Vedanta

as

subsets

f

Hinduism).

nterpretersroceed

s if

there

ere

elf-evident,

greed pon

nderstandings

f

what onsti-

tutes

slam

nd

Hinduisms distinct

ategories.

hus t s self-evident

that

nterpreters

hould sk nto

which f the woBullhe hah

fits;

the

way

o make uch determination

s

to

nventory

he

features

of his

poetry,

nd

assign

hem o their

espective

ategories.

hen

there

re

features

ssociated ith

oth

ategoriesresent,nterpreters

adopt

ifferent

trategies.

ome

adopt "majority

ules" riterion

by weighing

he

features

gainst

ne

another,

ith he

majority

f

references

etermining

he

dominant

ategory

more

eferenceso

"Islamic" lementshan Hindu" lements eans ullhe hahwas

Muslim).

thers

nvokeriteria

f

uthenticity

nd

philosophicalu-

rity:

f

the

nterpreter

s inclinedo

place

Bullhe

hah

n

the

at-

egory

f

slam,

hen Hindu" eaturesre

ikely

o be

considered

non-authenticccretions

n the

Bullhe

hah

orpus

and

of course

similar

trategy

s

possible

or

omeone

ishing

o

place

Bullhe hah

within Hindu

ramework).

b. There re

distinct,

dentifiable

oundaries

etweenslam

and Hin-

duism,

nd

as so

conceived,

slam and Hinduism

ave

nothing

n

commonwith ne another

thus

n idea

is eitherslamic

or

Hindu,

butnotboth). ny orm f

religious

xpression

hichontainsle-

ments rom

hese

wo

eparateategorical

onstructs

equiresxpla-

nation,

hichn

some ases nvolveshe reationf a

"hybrid"

r








"syncretist"ategory,

uch s

"Vedantic

ufi."19he

basic

categorical

structures assumed o be

valid,

nd n a case where

Bullhe

Shah's

expression

eemsnotto fit he

existing

ategories,

ither new

hy-

brid

ub-category

s

created,

r t s

assumed

hat

here s a

problem

in

the

poet's corpus

tself

i.e.

if

nterpreters

ould determine

hich

of the

poems

ttributedo

BullheShah

are

authentic,

hose uthentic

poems

would

surely ield

clear

philosophical ategory).

hat the

categories

hemselves

imply

might

otbe the orrect nes to

nvoke

forBullheShahis notan

option

hat he

nterpreters

onsider;

he

categories

hemselvesre not

hallenged.

c.

The

categories

Islam" and

"Hinduism"

nd the

boundaries ow

understoodo

eparate

hem ave remained

onstant i.e. twentieth-

century

onceptionsf

what onstituteIslam" and "Hinduism"

may

be read back nto

Bullhe

hah's

lifetime.

urrent

onceptions

f Is-

lam and

Hinduism

re to a

large

xtent he

product

f

colonial nd

post-colonial

iscussions

f

religious dentity,

nd

reflect oncerns

which re

ikely

uite

differentrom

ny

we

might

dentify

n

Bullhe

Shah's time. n the

present

ay,

here re

multiple nderstandings

f

"Islam" and "Hinduism."t is

therefore

specially

ritical hat nter-

preters

e clear aboutwhat

xactly

hey

mean when

they

se

such

labels,whethert be for hepresent r thepast. Theymust ealize

that heir wn

understanding

f "Islam" or "Hinduism"

whether

they pell

t

out

or not

may

not

be the same

understanding

hat

their eaders ave.And

they

must

lso

take

nto

ccount

he

fluidity

of

such

ategories

ver

ime.

f

we are

treating

ullheShahas a his-

torical

igure

ho ived t a

specific

ime,

n

a

specific

lace,

whose

worldview

as

shaped

n

part

y

the

ocial

and

religious

limate

f

his

time,

hen

we

musthave a clear dea of whatthat

ocial and

religious

limate

was. How did

people

conceive f Islam

and Hin-

duism n the

early ighteenthentury? erhaps

hehistorical

igure

19

For a veryuseful iscussion f theproblems fusingterms uch as "syn-

cretism" nd

"hybrid",

ee

Tony

K. Stewart nd Carl

Ernst,

Syncretism"

n Peter

Claus

and

Margaret

Mills,

eds.,

South

Asian

Folklore:

An

Encyclopedia

Garland

Press,

orthcoming).







66 RobinRinehart

Bullhe hahdid

not

hink

n

terms f "Islam" nd "Hinduism"

s

definitive

ategories,

nd

other

ategories

ay

havebeen

f

greater

import

o him.

While

most

nterpreters

o not skthese

uestions,

they

re

central

o

a

defense f

the

nterpretations

hat

hey

on-

struct.

Despite

uch

fundamental

roblems

n

the

move

o

categorize

Bullhe hah,

nterpretersenerally

roceed

rom his

oint y

ad-

ducing

vidence or

he

articular

ategorical

lassificationhat

hey

have hosen. he

nterpreter

ho abels

ullhe

hah

Vedanticufi

presentsoems

aid o

express

edantic

deas2o;

he

nterpreter

ho

classes ullhehah s

completely

uslimets orth

oems rimming

with eferenceso slamic

ore.21

Making

Categories

Work

The

wide

ange

f

ategorizations

f

Bullhe

hah'sworldviewnd

religious

dentity

from

aw-abiding

uslim o Vedantic

ystic

-

shows

ll too

learly

he

ifficulty

n

placing

im n

any

articu-

lar

ategory

hat ll

his

nterpreters

ill

find

cceptable.

n

part,

he

range

f

categorizations

s a functionfthe

varying

nitial

nterpre-

tivemoves

iscussedbove

the

mutually

ependent

elationf

his ife ndpoetry.utthesemultipleategorizationso not xist

in

solation;

any

f

them re

presentedxplicitly

s correctiveso

other

ategorizations.

ullhe hah's

nterpreters

ill

many

ages

with

defenses

f

the

particularategories

hat

hey

ave

hosen,

nd

ri-

tiques

f

he

ositions

f

therditorsnd

nterpreters.

any

ditions

begin

with

ritiques

fother

ditionsfBullhe

hah's

oems.22

a-

makrishna's

ortrayal

f

Bullhe hah

s

the

uintessential

dvaita

20

See,

for

xample, amakrishna,

p.

54-61.

21

In

some

nstances,

he

very

ame

poem

s

used

to

illustrate oth

positions.

Forexamples fthis, ee Rinehart,Interpretationsf thePoetry fBullheShah,"

pp.

53-57.

22

See,

for

xample,

aqir's

ntroduction,

specially p.

12-13;

Ahmad,

p.

6-12;

Ramakrishna,

p.

69-71.








Vedantin eceives

he

sharpest

riticism,

articularly

n

works

ub-

lished

n Pakistan.23

The esultsthat

great

eal

f

nk as een

pilledefending

ari-

ous ssessmentsf

Bullhe

hah,

ithittle

uestioning

bout hether

themeans

f ssessmenthemselvesre alid. ullhe

hah,

owever

styledy

his

nterpreters,

imply

oesnot

it

eatly

nto

ny

f he

basic

ategories

hat ll

his

nterpreters

ssume,

hethernerelies

on a

poorly

dited

rinted

dition,

r ranscribeshe

oems

s

they

are

ung y

performers,

r

uses he est ritical

ditions

vailable,

uses

ust

few

oems,

r

many.

s a

result,

substantial

ortion

f

the iteraturenBullhehahs devotedot o he oetrytself,ut o

makinglausible

he ariousabels hat ave een

roposed

or

im.

Those ho

ortray

ullhehah s

drawing

is

nspirationolely

rom

the slamic

ystical

radition

and

ertainly

ot

rom

indu

mysti-

cism)

must

efendhis

tance

y

xplaining

ny

oems

if

hey

ccept

thems

"authentic")

hich

uggest

therwise,

nd

hey

ustlso

r-

gue

gainst

hose

ho

ortray

ullhehah

n

other

ays.

hose

ho

argue

hathe ulk

f

Bullhe

hah's

nspiration

ame romutsides-

lammusthow

hyhey

elieve

his

obe

o,

nd

must

emonstrate

whatmakes im "Vedanticufi."t s worth

oting

hat

espite

he

ubiquitous

seof

ategorization

s a

primary

eans

f

nterpreting

Bullhe hah's ork,one fhis nterpretersverctuallyelineates

ordefineshe

ategories

hat

heymploy.

nstead,

hey

resent

he

categories

s

self-evident,

nd hen

onstructccountsf

how ullhe

Shah ame o

fit

nto

articularategories.

Themost

ommon

trategy

n

hese

ccounts

s to

contruct

uasi-

historical

arrativesbout

he

evelopment

f

ufism

n

the

unjab.

Interpreters

ho

tyle

ullhe hah Muslim

uggest

hat he n-

tecedentsfhis

hought

re

o

be found

nly

withinhe

ufi radi-

tion.

hemost etailedersion

f his

rgument

s foundnKhan's

Akhidullhe

Shdh.

han

egins

ith

discussion

f he

edas,

p-

anishads,

nd

ankara's

dvaita

edanta,

nd

rgues

hat

hilehere

23

See,

for

xample,

rilochan

ingh,

.

430; Rafat,

p.

2,

8,

223-224;

Khan,

p.

40;

Sayyad,p.

40;

and for

n

especially

iting ritique,

hmad's ntroduction.

Kohli,

p.

55,

quibbles

with

omeof Ramakrishna's

nterpretations

s

well.







68 RobinRinehart

may

e

superficial

imilaritiesetween

ankara's

deas nd hose f

Bullhe

hah's,

t would

imply

e a

mistakeo assume

ome

direct

connection.

ullhe

hah's

eal

nspiration,

e

argues,

s

ibn-'Arabi's

theory

fthe

nity

f

being,

r

wahdat

l-wujald.

han

resents

o

specific

istoricalvidenceo

substantiate

his

laim;

his

rhetorical

strategy,

owever,

s to make

historically

lausible

henotion hat

Bullhe hah's deascould

have

ogically

ome

only

rom heSufi

tradition.24

In

contrast,

nterpreterslacing

ullhe

hah

n

Hindu

ramework

argue

hat ufismtself as its roots

n

ancientndian

hilosophy,

and/or

hat

he

unjabi

ufis eremore

rofoundly

nfluenced

y

heir

"Indian"

i.e.

Hindu)

nvironmenthan he ufi

radition

tself.

harda

presents

hemost etailed ersionf

his

osition.

e

boldly

sserts

that the

eclaration

f elf-deification

y

Abu

Yazid,

he

isciple

f

Abu

Ali

ofSind ndMansur

l-Hallaj

swithoutdoubt

borrowing

from

ndian

edanta."25

e further

rgues

hat

espite

laims hat

bn-

'Arabi's deas

reachedndia

n the

hirteenth

entury,

ny

imilarly

pantheistic

a

term

e

uses

quite

oosely)

deasfoundn the

unjab

through

he eventeeth

entury

ere

nspiredy

Vaisnava edanta,

the nfluencef whichwas

so

great

hat onverts

o

Islam

began

reconvertingo Hinduism.26harda lso draws ague onnections

between

ufism

nd heBuddhistndNdth raditions

f ndia. he

gist

f

he

rgument

s that

nything

oteworthy

n

Punjabi

ufisms

due

only

o ts

ndian

i.e.

non-Islamic)

ntecedents.

The

reation

f

hybrid

ategories

uch

s

Sharda's

Vaisnava

edan-

ta"

presents

pecial

roblems

or

nterpreters.

he

arger

ategories

f

Islam ndHinduismre

generallyecognized

nd

ccepted

eansf

classification,

espite

heir rawbacks.

erms

uch

s

"Vedantic

ufi,"

however,

renot n common

sage

either

n

scholarly

r

popular

works,

nd

require

ore

xplanation.

nterestingly,

nterpreters

ho

make se

of

even hese

ybrid

ategories,

hose

meaning

s

by

no

24

Khan,

pp.

17-53.

25

Sharda,

ufi

Thought,

.

70.

26

Sharda,

ufi

Thought,

p.

77,

181-183.








means

elf-evident,

o not

define r defend he

ategories

hemselves.

Instead,

hese

nterpretersgain

turn o

quasi-historical

xplanations

of

how

Bullhe

Shahcame to

adopt

he tance

f

the Vedantic ufi."

The

assumption

s that

Bullhe

Shah

began

his life

planted

irmly

within he

category

f

Islam,

and

then

gradually

dopted

lements

from he

ategory

f Hinduism. he

categories

re aken s

prima a-

cie;

thus

veryoneogically egins

ife

ituated ithin

ne or

another.

The

implication

s that

ategorical verlapping

uch as that

rgued

for nBullhe Shah's case is unusual nd

requires xplanation;

here

is

no sense hat

he

ategories

hemselves

ight

e

inadequate

or

he

interpretive

ask

or

even hat

person

might

rom

he

very

eginning

exhibit

categorical verlapping").

Such

interpretations

re most

frequently

xplained

hrough

he

mechanism f influence Bullhe Shah was "influenced"

y

the

Indian

outlook,

y

Vedanta,

y

Vaisnavism.

he

concept

f influ-

ence,however,

s

highly roblematic.

irst f

all,

how do we define

influence?27

s

someone

who

s

influencedwareof

having

een n-

fluenced? oes influence

lways

have a

positive

ffect? ow

do

we

establish hat nfluence as occurred?n the tudies

f

Bullhe

Shah,

the criterioneems

to

be

nothing

more

han

n

apparent

imilarity

between conceptnhispoetrynd na separatelyonceived radi-

tion,

with o need to establish

ausality.

he

concept

f nfluences

employed

n

these

nalyses

epends pon

the

presupposition

f

the

validity

f

the

categories

nvoked,

or

t is these bstract

ategories

("Indian

outlook," Vedanta,"

tc.)

to

which he

nterpretersssign

27

The

concept

f influence

as

been the

subject

f much

nalysis

nd debate

within

iterary

riticism;

he

problematic

spects

of

defining

nd

invoking

nflu-

ence are well-attested.

he

analyses

f

Bullhe Shah, however,

make no

reference

to thisvast iterature.

wo useful ntroductionso the

use

of

the

concept

f

"in-

fluence"

n

literary

riticismre

Jay

Clayton

nd Eric

Rothstein,

Figures

n the

Corpus:

Theories f Influencend

Intertextuality"

n

Clayton

nd

Rothstein,

ds.,

Influencend ntertextualitynLiterary istoryMadison:Universityf Wisconsin

Press,

1991),

pp.

3-36,

and Louis A.

Renza,

"Influence"

n

FrankLentricchiand

Thomas

McLaughlin,

ds.,

Critical erms

or Literary

tudies

Chicago: University

of

Chicago

Press,

1990),

pp.

186-202.







70

Robin

Rinehart

the

gency

f

nfluence,

ather

han

o a more oncrete

ntity

uch s

a

particular

erson,

roup,

ext,

r

even

Zeitgeist

which,

while

till

problematic,

ould e

more

lausible,

efensible

gents

f

nfluence).

The same

questions

old true

or ther

mechanisms

urported

o

be at workn

Bullhe

Shah's

poetry,

uch s

borrowing

nd

blending

-

the

dea thatBullhe Shah borrowed

omething

rom

edanta,

r

blended ertain

spects

fSufismwith ertain

spects

f

Vedanta.

n-

fluence,

orrowing,

nd

blending

ll

presuppose

t

east wo

eparate,

distinct raditions Islam borrows

romHinduism

r,

more

arely,

vice versa.But

how

can

we

establish

what Hinduism"

nd

"Islam"

werefor he

person llegedly

oing

he

borrowing?

e can't venbe

surewhat Hinduism" nd "Islam"

and

Vedanta,

aisnava

Vedanta,

orthodox

slam,

etc.)

mean to

the

authorswho

make

such

claims

aboutBullhe

Shah,

incenoneofthem ellsus how

they

nderstand

these erms. ot

only

re these

oncepts resented

ith

ittle

r

no

supporting

vidence,

ut heir

workings

re

apparently

rbitrary.

n-

fluence,

or

xample,

eems

o

work

nly

n

one direction.

rom he

perspective

f thosewho define

ullhe

Shah

as

a

Vedantin

f

some

variety,

slam was

clearly ubject

o

nfluencerom induism.

slam,

however,

as

not

n

anyway

nfluenced

induism;

induisms inher-

ently

uperior

o Islam.

nfluence

nly

flows"

ownward;

eligious

traditions

nly

borrow"

hings

which

hey

re

acking.

hese

analy-

ses

which se

concepts

uch

s

influencend

borrowing

re

generally

made

ong

after

he

alleged

nfluence r

borrowing

ook

place,

and

those

who ssert

hem

arely

rovide

ny

pecific

vidence

o

support

their laims.

nstead,

uch

rguments

ecome he

basis

for

doctrinal

claims aboutBullhe Shahwhich n fact ell us farmore

bout

the

interpreters'

wn doctrinal

tances

han

BullheShah's.

It

is in

interpretations

f

Bullhe

Shah built

upon

nfluence,

or-

rowing,

nd

blending

hat

we

find

rguments

or

Bullhe Shah hav-

ing passed through

series

f

developmentalhases, ulminating

n

"Vedantic ufism"

r

"Vaisnava

Vedantic

ufism."

he

argument

or

developmentalhases

s a

particularlyngenious

actic

or

dealing

with he

Bullhe

Shah

corpus,

or

ny

seeming

hilosophical

ncon-

gruitiesmay

be

explained

s

expressions

rom ifferent

hases

of








Bullhe

Shah's

ife.The best

xample

f

this

trategy

s

Lajwanti

Ra-

makrishna's

resentation

f the hree

hases

of

Bullhe

Shah's

mystic

life.

n the first

hase,

he

learned

asic Sufidoctrines rom

nayat

Shah,

nd

composed

erse hat

was "weak

n

thought

nd

very

om-

monplace."

n

the

second

phase,

he

"assimilated

more

f

the

ndian

outlook,"

hich ncluded

cceptance

f some

Vaisnava

deas,

nd

fi-

nally

reached he

third nd

final

hase,

n

whichhe

became

"firm

believern Advaita."28

strength

f such n

interpretive

ove s that

it does notdemand

omplete

onsistency

f

Bullhe

Shah

throughout

his

life;

ts

greatest

eakness, owever,

s

that here s

no

evidence

other

han

he

poems

themselves

or

ssuming

seriesof

develop-

mental

hases.

Thus

any

uchconstruction

s

arbitrary

n a

number

of

counts,

or he

nterpreter

ust ssume

hat here s indeed sin-

gle,

historical

igure,

ith

relatively

ixed

ody

of

work,

nd that

internalriterialone are sufficient

or

dentifying

uccessive

hases.

Yet

even

f

we

accept

hat

here s a fixed

ody

of

poetry omposed

by

one

Bullhe

Shah,

nd that

his

poetrymay

be

organized

nto

dif-

ferent

roups

n

the

basis of theworldview

xpressed

n

the

poetry,

we have

no means

f

determining

ow to

place

these

groups.

Interpreters

ho

place

Bullhe

Shah

squarely

within

he

category

of

Islam

as

it

is

variouslyonceived)

o

so

in

part

s a

response,

oftentimes

ery xplicit,

othose

who

ee

Bullhe

hah

s

having

een

influenced

n

some

wayby

ome

form f Hinduism.

n such

ccounts,

Lajwanti

Ramakrishna

s

singled

ut

for

articular

riticism. ercrit-

ics' basic

strategy

s to use the same

argumentative

tructure,

ut

throughdducing ontrasting

vidence. ullhe Shah

may

well have

passed

hroughhases,

hey rgue,

ut

learly

heultimate

hase

was

one

in whichhe

espoused "pure"

slam free

rom

xtra-categorical

influences.

r,

Bullhe hah

may

well havebeen

ubject

o

nfluences,

but ll these

nfluencesame

from

within he

slamic radition

tself,

and not

from

nywhere

lse. This

strategy

nvolves

rguments

or

influence hich re ust as problematics thosedescribed bove,

except

hat n these

rguments,

pparent

imilaritiesetween deas

28

Ramakrishna,

p.

49-54.







72 RobinRinehart

found

n

Bullhe

hah's

oems,

nd deas ound

nywhere

n

the ufi

tradition,

hether

ullhe

hah

ould

lausibly

ave

had

ny

knowl-

edge

f hem r

not,

re ited s the truenfluences"

nhis

hinking.

Again,

here

re

weeping

istorical

laims;

ather

han he

nfluence

of

Vedanta,owever,

hese

nterpreters

nvokehe

widespread

nflu-

ence

f

bn-'Arabi's

heory

fthe

nity

f

being

wahdat

l-wujad].

Here nce

gain

we earnmore bout

he

tance f he

nterpreter

han

we do about

ullhe

hah;

he

nterpreter's

nergy

as

been

xpended

largely

pon

making

hese

ategorical

lassificationsork.

At his

oint,

ome

might

e

tempted

o

dismiss

he

multiple

nter-

pretations

fBullhe hah s thework f cholars hoseommunalr

nationalist

gendas

ave bscured

rinciples

f sound

istorical

nd

literary

nterpretation,

nd

earch

ormore

objective"

tudies.

ut t

is

especiallymportant

o

note hat his

tyle

f

nterpretationerme-

ates

irtually

verything

rittenbout ullhe

hah,

ven

n

tudies

y

scholars

ho

resumably

renot

rimarily

oncernedith

particu-

lar ommunal

r

nationalist

rogram.

irst f

ll,

he

rimary

ource

of Bullhe hah's

poetry

s in the

very

ditions

fhis

poetry

hich

place

him nto ifferent

ategories

n the asis f

varying

ommunal

agendas,

nd t s

very

ard o

gnore

he

disparate

nterpretations.

But

t

deeperevel,

ven hose

nterpreters

ho

hallenge

hemerit

ofthese

nalyses

fBullhe

hah

do not

uestion

he

very

ature

f

the

tudy

tself

they

make he amekinds

f claims bout

ate-

gories, sing

oncepts

uch s

influence,

tc. and

present

nalyses

which re

grounded

n

the

ery

ame

ssumptions

bout he elation-

ship

etween

iography

nd

poetry,

eligiousdentity,

nd

uthorship,

albeitwith

ess communal

yperbole.

nnemarie

chimmel,

or

x-

ample,

s

keenly

ware f he iases tworkn studiesf ndian ufi

poets:

"... a number

f

authors,

articularly

he Hindus... believe

that ere ndian dvaita

mysticismained

complete

ictory

ver s-

lamic

monotheism."29

ointing

ut he

endency

mong

oth

indus

andWesterncholarsfSufismo eesimilaritiesetweenankara's

Advaita

edanta

nd

bn-'Arabi's

ahdat

l-wujiid,

he

asserts,

it

29

Schimmel,

ystical

imensions

f

slam,

pp.

386-387.








is

notcorrect o

equate

the two

systems."30

hile

maintaining

hat

therewere ndeed Hindu nfluences"

n

the

mystical

oets

of

the

Punjab

nd

Sindh,

er onclusion

s that his iteratures

"unmistak-

ably

slamic"becauseof tsveneration

f

Muhammad.31

hus

while

her

discussion f the

Punjabi

Sufis

s

considerably

more

nuanced

than hat

f

many

nterpreters32,

he still ituates

er

nalysis

within

the

basic

problematic

rameworkf

categories

nd themechanisms

by

which

hey

nteract,

uch s

influence.

imilarly,

ustansir

Mir,

in a

brief

tudy

f Bullhe

Shahand Sultan

Bahu,

while

noting

he

broad-based

ppeal

of

Bullhe

Shah, rgues

hat

othBullheShah nd

SultanBahu are

"situated

irmly

ithin

he slamic

tradition,

nd t

is

a mistake

o think hat

hey

were nfluenced

y

theHindu

Vedantic

tradition."33

hile

virtually

nyone

an

appreciate

ome

aspects

of

this

poetry,

ir

argues,

n

the

nd,

t

s

"decidedly

slamic

n

struc-

ture

nd

detail."34

oth Schimmel nd Mir

acknowlege

he

multiple

interpretations

f

Bullhe

Shah,

dismiss ather

bruptly

he

laims

for

significant

Hindu nfluence"n

his

poetry,

ndconclude

y

ituating

him

within

slam,

without

ndicating

hat he riteria

or

etermining

the

Hinduor slamic

ontent

f his

poetry

were.

We arethus eftwith

arying

odies

of

work ttributedo

a man

namedBullheShah, ndwecannot e certainwhetherll thepoems

credited o

him

are

actually

he

composition

f a

single

historical

figure.

et while

virtuallyveryone

who

writes bout Bullhe Shah

notes

he

ifficulties

nherent

n

the

Bullhe

hah

corpus,

heir

nalyses

of his work onetheless

enerally roceed

n the

ssumption

hatwe

are

in

fact

dealing

with ne

single

uthor.

t is

here

that

we

need

30

Schimmel,

Reflections

n

Popular

Muslim

Poetry,"

.

23.

31

Schimmel,

The

nfluencef Sufism n Indo-Muslim

oetry,"

p.

197-200.

32

Schimmel's

tudy

f slamic

mystical

oetry

n

vernacular

anguages

rovides

a wealth f detail

on

the

ypes

f

poetry

which

may

ndeed

have

played

role n

shaping

ullheShah

the

historical

igure

s

a

poet;

his

s informationotfound n

othertudies fBullheShah. See especially hapter ofSchimmel's s Through

Veil.

33

Mir,

Teachings

fTwo

Punjabi

ufi

Poets,"

p.

520-521.

34

Mir,

.

521.







74

RobinRinehart

to

examine

more

ritically

he

onceptions

f

authorship

hat

re

t

work

n

studiesf

Bullhe

hah.

The

mplications

f

the

Concept

f

Authorship

The

varying

nterpretations

f

Bullhe

hah,

s I

have

described

above,

ely

pon

series f

unquestioned

resuppositions

nd

ues-

tionable

rgumentative

trategies.

t he

eartf ach

f

hese

trate-

gies

ies the

uncritical

ssumption

hat

he

rue

ubject

f

this nal-

ysis

s a

man

named

ullhe

hah.

These

nterpreters

cknowledge

thathereremultiplenterpretationsfBullhe hah'sife ndwork,

but eem

o assume

hat

herean

only

e

one

rue

ne.

The

key

o

finding

he

real"

ullhe

hah

midsthe

ariously

onstructed

re-

tenderss

to

define

ullhe

hah

he

man.f

nterpreters

an

stablish

exactly

hen e

lived,

what

he

learned,

nd

exactly

hich

oems

he

composed,

hen

he

rue,

lear

icture

f

his

ife nd

work

will

emerge.

This

trategyepends

pon

n

mplicit

oncept

f

authorship,

c-

cording

owhich

he

uthor

sa

single

ndividual

ocated

n

specific

time

nd

place.

As

such,

e is

subject

o

forces uch

s

the

ocial

and

historical

onditions

nderstoodo

be in

operation

uring

is

lifetime,nd s exposedoa rangefreligiousptionsonceiveds

being

onfined

ithin

pecific

ategories.

hese

actors

ead to

the

author

evelopingparticular

dentity

nd

worldview,

hich

e

then

expresses

n

his

work.

nce

nterpreters

ave

dentifiedhis

dentity

and

worldview,

t

functions

s a

standard

f

onsistency

y

which

hey

can

udge

ny

works

ttributed

o the

uthor

amed

ullhe

hah.

This

mplicit

tandard

f

uthorship

xemplifies

particular

orm

f

what

Michel

oucault

ermed

he

author-function,"

functionound

in

literary

nalysis

n

which

he

oncept

f

authorship

ecomes

means

f

nterpreting

set of

texts

and

may

lso

be a

means

f

authentification,

nd

herefore

imitation).

Theauthorxplains hepresence fcertainventswithin text,s wellas their

transformations,

istortions,

nd

their

arious

modifications

and

this

hrough

n

author's

iography

r

by

reference

ohis

particular

oint

f

view,

n

the

nalysis

of

his

social

preferences

nd

his

positions

within

class...)

The

author

lso








constitutes

principle

f

unity

n

writing

here

ny

unevenness

f

production

is ascribed o

changes

aused

by

evolution, aturation,

r outside nfluence.35

This

conception

f

authorshiplearly epends pon single,

ixed

historical

igure

hose ife

nd

predilections ay

be seen

as

deter-

mining

he content

f his

work;

his

figure

s furthereen as

being

either

onsistent,

r

subject

o

a

process

f

ntellectual

evelopment

whichwillbe manifested

n

the

ody

fhiswork.

oucault

oted hat

the

oots

fthis

onception

f

uthorship

ie

n Christian

xegesis

nd

the

ttempt

o authenticater

reject

exts

ttributed

o

a

single

uthor.

Ofparticularnterestrethecriteria or uthenticitystablishedy

St.

Jerome,

ccording

o which

body

of work

ould

be

considered

that

f one author

f

t

reflected

a)

a

standard

f

quality

an

author's

workswillbe ofuniform

uality),

b)

a

field f

conceptual

r theoret-

ical coherence

the

uthor

ill

always

dhere

o

the

ame theoretical

positions),

nd

(c)

stylistic

niformity

there

will

be

no

significant

variation

n

the author's

tyle).

The authorwas thus

onstructeds

a definite istorical

igure

n

whom seriesof events

onverged.36

A

similar

rocess

s

clearly

t work

n

constructions

f Bullhe

Shah

as

author,

nd BullheShah's

nterpreters

nvoke riteriaf

authentic-

ity

that re

remarkably

imilar o

those et out

by

St.

Jerome. he

varyingnterpretationsf Bullhe Shah as a definite istoricaligure

become hebasis for

multiple

laims bout

he

true

i.e.

doctrinally

correct)

ature

f

his

poetry,

ach

rooted

n

some

conception

f an

ideal,

dominant

ategory,

e it "Islam"

or "Vedantic ufism."

This

concept

f

authorship

hichBullheShah's

nterpreters

pply

has itsroots

n

eighteenth-century

estern

nderstandings

f

printed

matter,

hen

exts

ame

to be

regarded

s intellectual

roperty,

heir

authors

aving

ertain

ights

ut also

responsibilities.

o

apply

he

concept

f

legal responsibility

o the

content

f a text f

course

re-

quires

he

oncept

f

an

author s a

clearly

dentifiable,

pecific

ndi-

35

Foucault,Michel, What s anAuthor?"nHazardAdams ndLeroy earles,

eds.,

Critical

heory

ince

1965

Tallahassee:

lorida

tate

University

ress,

1986),

p.

134.

36

Foucault,

What

s

an

Author?"

.

144.







76 RobinRinehart

vidual,

s well

n

understanding

f

he exttself

s a

fixed

bject.

et

the

ature

f he

ullhe

hah

orpus

makes his

otionf

uthorship

highlyroblematic.

For

example,

f

nterpreters

re to

apply particular

tandard

f

"quality"

ow s that tandard

etermined?ould standard

evel

refer

o

expressions

f

particularhilosophicalositions,

r

formal

patterns

nthe

poetry?

eneed

only

ecall hevariousriterian-

voked n

different

ditions,

uch

s

"force nd

implicity,"

isregard

for

meter,

r

metrical

onsistency,

o

ee

the

ifficulty

ith

efining

standardor

ullhe hah's

oetry.

urther,

s

trealistico

ssume

hat

Bullhe hah's oemswere llofthe ameevel fquality?ouldn't

some

f

his

poems

e

betterhan thers?

ven fwe

eave side

he

question

f

developmental

hases

s.

completeniformity

n

Bullhe

Shah's

doctrine,

ust

we

assume hat

ullhe

hahwas

completely

consistent

hroughout

is

ife,

hat e

never

xperimented

ith iffer-

ent

deas

n

his

poetry,

r

varied is forms

f

expression

epending

upon

is udience?

he

ssumption

hat heres

a

recoverable

ody

of

poetry

omposed

y

consistent,

tylisticallynchanging,

octri-

nally

ixed istorical

igure

amed

ullhe

hah

s

problematic,

nd

yet

t

s

upon

his

ssumption

hat onstructionsf Bullhe

hah

he

author

epend.

urther,

hese onstructionsf

Bullhe

hah

s

author,

made

ong

fter hefact,re nonetheless

ositioned

s

prior

in

other

ords,

he

particular

onstruction

tself ecomes means f

explanation

nd

nterpretation.

This onstructionf

Bullhe

hah

s historical

uthor

s

especially

important

or

ssigning

im

specific

ommunal

dentity,

hether

it

be orthodox

uslim,

ebellious

ufi,

r

Vedantic

ufi.

n

eachof

these

haracterizations,

ullhe hah

s

portrayed

s

a man

haped

y

specific

istoricalactorsn his

mmediate

nvironment.

hat

ullhe

Shah ived n

he

resence

f

religious

raditions

hat renow

abelled

"Islam" nd

Hinduism"

however

uch

raditions

ay

e

defined)

s

a

reasonable

ssumption.

ut

were hese

meaningfulategories

o

Bullhe hah?Howcanweestablish hat e knew bout

hem,

ow

people

hen

nderstood

hem,

hat e

thought

bout ach?

o

answer

such

uestions,

e

are ed

back

n

a circle o

his

worktself work








which,

s

nearly

ll

concede,

annot e

conclusively

stablisheds

the

roduct

f

this ne

historical

igure.

nd

yet

what ll thosewho

define

particular

ullhe

hah

do is

to

extract

assages

rom

is

poetry

o demonstratehe Hindu

nfluence"rthe

redominance

f

"orthodoxslam"

n

the ife ndwork fthis neman.

The

strategiesnterpreters

ave

ypically

sed eaveus with on-

flicting

ortrayals

f Bullhe

hah's

ife

ndwork. et

the

very

x-

istencef so

many

ortrayals

akes lear

ullhe

hah's

mportance

in

Punjabi

iterature.

hy

s

he claimed

yPunjabis

f

different

e-

ligious

ommunities?hat

s at stake

when

nterpreterslace

him

within

particularategory?

t

s not

noughimply

o

dentify

he

problems

ith

he

oncept

f

authorship

r

the

onception

f Hin-

duism

nd

slam s

separate

eligious

raditionsndthenmove n

with

et

nother

nterpretation.

o

answer uch

uestions

equires

developing

ew

trategies

or

tudying

ullhe

hah,

is

poetry,

nd

his

nterpreters.

Reinterpreting

ullhe hah and His

Interpreters

What an we

earn romhe arious

onstructions

f

Bullhe hah

the uthor? hy oesheoccupyuch n mportantlace nPunjabi

religion?

o

begin

o

nswerhese

uestions,

e

must

egin

ur

tudy

ofthe

oet

ndhis

nterpreters

ith

new et f

assumptions:

a.

There re

multiple

Bullhe hahs."There s as

yet

no

widely

c-

cepted,

efinitiveccountfBullhe hah's ife.

ven f

new

ources

of nformation

ere

iscovered,

nd t

became

ossible

o

construct

a

reasonably

uthentic,

istorically

efensible

ccount f the ife

f

Bullhe

hah

s a

historical

igure,

uch n account ould

ikely

ave

little onnection

o,

r

hange,

he

arious

opular

nderstandings

f

his

ife.Whilewe

may airlyafely

ssume hat here

as

ndeed

a

historical

igure,

is

rue

iography

ay

no

onger

e

recoverable,

and t

may

o

onger

e themost

mportant

ssue.Ratherhan ontin-

uing

o

nterpret

ullhe hah

yrelyingpon

henotion f

a

single

correct

eading

f

his

ife,

t

s

more

seful

o ook

t

the

multiple







78 RobinRinehart

biographies

hat

lready

xist.What

o

they

ell

us aboutwhat

eo-

ple

see as

being

mportant

bout

ullhe

hah?

n

what

ways

o

the

versionsf

Bullhe

hah

differ,

nd

n

what

ways

re

they

imilar?

How do

they

ffect

hevarious ersionsf the

Bullhe hah

orpus

that xist? owdo these imilarities

nd

differences

elate ocontem-

porary

ebates bout ational

ndcommunal

dentity?

f we

accept

the

oncept

hat

ullhe

hah's eaders

nd

isteners

reate heirwn

Bullhe

hahs,

e

can

develop

new

onception

f

Bullhe

hah s an

"author"

ariously

reatedndrecreated ithin ifferentiscursive

spaces e.g.

thevarious iscussionsf

national,ommunal,

nd

re-

gional

dentity

n

contemporary

akistan

nd

ndia).

his,

n

urn,

ill

allow

us

to consider crucial

uestion:

hy

s

Bullhe

hah'sname

so

powerful?37

n

a

recent

tudy

f Sufi

ndbhakti

oetry,

homas

de

Bruijn

uggests

hatt suseful

o

consider edievalndian

oets

not

ust

s

historical

igures,

ut lsoas "rhetorical

ersonae."

n the

time etween historical

oet's

reative

ork,

nd

ts

subsequent

recording

n

manuscript

orm,

persona

evelops

hich

efers ot

only

o the

rhetorics

f the

poetry

ttributedo

the

poet,

ut lso

the

saintlymage

f he

oet

eveloped

n

popular

evotion."38

e

Bruijn's

oncept

f

the

hetorical

ersona

s a useful

ay

fconsid-

eringhe unctionnd mportancefa poet'sname s the orpusf

poetry

ttributed

othe

oet

nd he

iographical

raditionsbout he

poet xpand.

b.

Multiple

Bullhe

Shahs have

created

multiple

odies

of poetry.

Uncovering

ullhe

hah

hehistorical

igure

s

not

he

key

o un-

derstanding

ullhe

hah's ole n

Punjabi eligion.

ullhe

hah

he

beloved

oet

s in a sense work

n

progress,

nd

ccepting

his

o-

tion llows s to further

evelop

new

way

f

ooking

t

the

oetry

37

Hawley

"Author

nd

Authority")

rgues

hatnmuchmedieval ndian

oetry,

the

poet's

name

s

used not so much s

a

mark

f individual

uthorship,

ut

s a

meansof invokingheauthorityssociatedwith hepoet'sname.Ali Asani "The

Isma'ili

Gindns")

as dentified

similar

rocess

n

sma'li

ginaln

iterature,

nwhich

poems

of

apparently

elatively

ecent

rigin

re

attributed

o

much

arlier

uthors.

38

de

Bruijn, .

1.








attributed

o

him.

The

corpus

f

Bullhe

Shah

poetry

tself s

also

a

work n

progress,

lways haped

n

partby

the

perspective

f

those

who

present

t

through

diting

text,

hrough

eading

text,

hrough

performing

r

listening

o the

performance

f his

work).

A.K.

Ra-

manujan

dentified similar

rocess

t

work n

different

ellings

f

the

Rdamyana.

hebasic

plot,

haracters,

nd other lementsn

the

tale functions a

"pool

of

signifiers

like

a

gene

pool)."

Different

tellings

f the

tory

not

only

elate

o

prior

exts

irectly,

o

borrow

or

refute,

ut

hey

elate

o

each other

hrough

his ommon

ode or

common ool. Every uthor,fonemayhazard metaphor,ips nto

it and

brings

ut

a

unique rystallization,

new

textwith

unique

texture

nd

a fresh

ontext.""39

singRamanujan's

erms,

hen,

oth

Bullhe

Shah and the

poetry

ttributed

o him

themselves

ecome

similar ort f

pool

of

signifiers."

here re ommon

lements ithin

it,

butwhat

different

nterpreters

ake

from

his

pool,

and

the

narra-

tive

hat

hey

onstructo relate

hose

lements,

ay

differ

adically.

Nonetheless,

ach

is

aware

of

working

romwithin he

same

pool

of

material.

his

view of

the

orpus

llowsus toask

different,

nd

potentially

orefruitful

uestions.

What

kinds

f

poems

are found

in

differentditions f

Bullhe

Shah's work? s

there constant ore

setof

poems

hat

ppears

ncollections ith

ifferent

gendas?

c.

Definitionsf

Islam and Hinduismre likewise

nconstant

nd

multiformed,haped

by

the

perspective

in

both

ime

nd

space)

of

those

who

present

hem. ather

han

ocusing

n

placing

ullhe

hah

in

a

category,

e

should se

the

multiple

ersions fhis

poetic

orpus

as

a means f

understanding

ow

uch

ategories

re constructednd

used.Would

omeone

earing

r

reading

he ine "theres no

Hindu,

there s no Muslim"

n

BullheShah's

time

have

understood

t

n the

same

way

someone

might

oday?

What s at

stakewhen

nterpreters

claimthat ullhe

Shah's

true

nspiration

omesfrom

induism,

nd

not slam?

Why

s BullheShah so often sed for his

urpose?

39

Ramanujan,

ThreeHundred

dmdyaas,"p.

46.







80 RobinRinehart

The

Role

ofPerformance

If we

accept

he

fluidity

nd

multiplicity

f

understandings

f

Bullhe hah,

is

poetry,

ndhis

udience,

e can lso sk

mportant

questions

bout he

performative

ontextf his work.Most nter-

preters

ave

reated

he

performance

f

Bullhe

hah's

poetry

s

a

source f

disruption

f he

oetic

orpus. hrougherformance,

he

hypothetical

r-text,

ure,

ound,

static

bject,

ecomes efiled

s

performers

ake

erses ut

f

ontext,

nterpolate,hange

meters,

nd

vary

yntax

nd

vocabulary

n

the

basisof their

wn

dialects.

he

writtenext s takens primarynddefinitive;erformersreak ts

boundaries,

nd

deviate

romhe rue

ext. et t

the ame

ime,

he

poetic orpus

tselfs understoodo be firstndforemostral

according

o

virtually

very

ersion

f

Bullhe

hah's

ife,

e

sang

his

poems,

nd

hey

ere

nitially

ransmitted

rally.4

Many

ditors

note

he

xistencend

mportance

f

many

s

yet

unpublished

r

unknown

ullhe

hah

poems, uggesting

hat

he

oral

radition

f

transmission

s still ital. f we considerhese actorsrom

purely

practicalerspective,

he

nderlying

ssumption

f

single,mplicit

Ur-textoesn'tmake ense.

s a useful

nalogy,

e

might

onsider

teacher's

evelopment

f

single

ectureor n

ntroductory

ourse.

The eacherrepareslecture,nddeliverst o tudents.he ecture

may

xistn

some

written

orm,

uch

s

notes,

ut

t

s

designed

obe

performed

eforen audience. he

next ime he eacher

eaches

hat

course,

he will

presumably

ake

nto

ccount numberffactors

-

students'

uestions,

heir

pparent

evel

f

comprehension,

ew

informationndnew

ircumstances,

hanges

n her wn

hinking

and

revise

he

ecture

ccordingly.

imilarly,

ven

f

we

accept

he

idea

of

Bullhe

hah

s a

single,

istorical

igure,

ho

performed

is

poems

ver

period

f

ime,

hen

t eems

easonableo ssume hat

Bullhe

hah

himself

ight

ave

revised

ndividual

oems

so

that

40

There s some debate s to whetherhehistoricaligure ullheShahactually

created

manuscripts

f his

poetry,

r

f

he neverwrote hem r had themwrittent

all.

According

o

Ramakrishna

p.

46),

therewere

original

manuscripts,

ut

fire n

thehouse of

Bullhe

Shah's descendants

estroyed

hem.








there ould

have been alternate ersions

n

circulationven

during

his

ife),

hat e

might

ave

expressed

ifferentdeas at different

e-

riods

n

his

ife

thus

reating body

f work hatwas not

doctrinally

consistent),

nd

that

e

might

ave

geared

his

poems

o differentu-

diences

thus

ome

might

ndeeduse "Hindu"

names

for

god,

others

include

Quranic

passages;

some

might

e

relativelyimple,

thers

philosophically

ore

ophisticated).

It

s also essential othinkbout he oleofBullhe

hah's

udience.

To a

great

xtent,

he ontinued

ower

nd

popularity

f

BullheShah

rests

upon performances

f

his work. f we return

o

the

analogy

of the teacher's

ntroductory

ecture, ere we should

magine

he

students'ecture otes.What did each

student

ake

away

from he

lecture?Whatdid

they

indmost

mportant,

ost

nteresting?

hat

did

theydisregard?

ow did

their

rior

knowledge

ffect he

way

that

hey

nderstood

or

misunderstood)

he eacher's

ecture?

very

teacher as storiesfthe

garbled

ersions fherwords hat

ppear

n

exams.And

f

we

imagine

ooking

t

notes

rom

ifferentersions f

that

ame

although

evised)

ecture ver several

years,

he

possible

variant

nterpretationsultiply.

f BullheShah

performed

is

poems

over

period

f

years, evising

nd

adding

ew

poems,

he

orpus

f

poetry

ven

during

is

ifetime

ould

nothave

fit

he

mage

hat

is

interpreters

eem to have of

t,

f twere ndeed

possible

o recover

those

original

orms.And

if

we factor

n

the furtherransmission

of his

poems

through erformance,

nd

later

hroughmanuscripts,

and

printed

exts,

he

corpus

of course would becomeevenmore

complex

as it

indeed s

in

reality.

ts

complexity

nd

apparent

inconsistencies,owever,

o

not

necessarily

ean hat ntire

ortions

of

t

are nauthenticnd thereforeo be

disregarded.

ullheShah the

performer,

hose

who

performed

is

poetry,

hose who listened o

it and read

t,

have all had

a

role

n

creating

he

corpus

f

poetry

that s now attributedo BullheShah.

f we

are to

take

BullheShah's

importance

s

a

poet eriously,

nd ask

why

he s beloved

y

different

religious

ommunities,

e should ake

seriously

ll the

poetry

hat

goes

under

his

name,

ven

f it is

possible

to establish hat

Bullhe

Shah

as

a

single

historical

igure

id not

ompose

ll of t.







82 Robin

Rinehart

The "Portable"Bullhe hah

What o istenersnd eaders

ring

o he

xperience

f

hearing

r

reading

ullhe

hah's

oems? resumably,

ach

rings

is

rher

wn

religious

dentity

nd

religious

ensibilities.hose

whofind

ullhe

Shah's

oems

ersonally

eaningful

ost

ikely

lace

hose

oems

within

he

rameworkf heir

wn

eligiousnderstanding

Bullhe

Shah's

oems

re

hus

portable"

nto

ifferent

rameworks.

f Sikhs

find ullhe

hah's

oems

moving,erhaps

t s because

heyquate

sentiments

xpressed

n

the

poems

with

entiments

rom

heSikh

tradition,s is suggestedy henumberf rticlesomparingullhe

Shah

nd the

words

f

theSikh

gurus

n

recent

ublications

rom

the

ndian

unjab.41

f

Vedantinsre

nspired

y

ertain

ullhe hah

poems,

hen

erhaps

t

s

because

hey

ind

n

those

oems

deas hat

fit

heirwn

understanding

fVedanta. uslims

ho

espond

avor-

ably

o

Bullhe hah's

oems

fcourse an

also

fit

many

oems

nto

a

frameworkhat

uits

heir wnvisions

f slam. hese

esponses,

in

turn,

enerate

arying

enses

f

he real"

ullhe

hah,

elativeo

the

nterpretive

rameworkhe eader r

istener

rings

othe

oems.

It

s no

wonderhat herere

o

many

ifferent

nterpretations

f

he

poet.

What s

it about

is

poetry

hatmakes

his

ossible?

Inthemost amousf he oemsttributedoBullhehah,he oet

straightforwardly

xpresses

is

onging

or

od.

The

basic hemesre

the

pain

f

separation

rom

od,

dissatisfactionith

worldly,

ate-

rial

ife,

nd

he

retense

f

earning.

hese

oems,

ith

vocabulary

likely

amiliar

o most

peakers

f

Punjabi,42

xpressoncepts

hich

may

e

placed

nto ifferent

nterpretive

rameworks.ndeed

great

41

See,

for

xample,

Kala

Singh

Bedi,

"Bullhe

hdh de

Kalam

dd

Gurbdni

al

Tulndtmakdhiain" n Rattan

inghJaggi,

d.,

Khoj

Patrik4,

ain

Bullhe

hah

Ank

(Patiala:

Publication

ureau,

unjabi

University,

991),

pp.

134-150,

who

argues

or

the

profound

nfluence

f Sikh deas

on

BullheShah,

nd the

hapter

Bullhe hah

te Gurbdni"

pp.

169-182)

nBhishA

Vibhig

Punjib's

Bullhe

hdh:

Jivan

e

Racnd,

whichpoints utdifferencesetweenBullheShah's thoughtnd that f theSikh

gurus,

ut till

finds hem

worthy

f

comparison.

42

n

many

ditions

f

Bullhe

hah's

poems,

here

re

compositions

hich

nclude

a

fairly ophisticated

erso-Arabic

ocabulary,

nd

referenceso

the

Quran

s well








deal of

the

ppeal

of

Bullhe

Shah's

poetrymay

ie

in

its

very

orta-

bility

the

very

factthat

t

lends tself o so

many

nterpretive

frameworks.

erhaps

most

popular

re the

poems

n whichBullhe

Shah

sings

s

Hir,

hebeautiful

oung

woman

onging

orher

true

love,

Ranjha.

The

tragic

omance f Hir and

Ranjha

s a

part

f

the

shared olklore f all

Punjabis,

nd ike

Bullhe

Shah's

poetry,

t too

exists

n

many

ifferent

ersions,

nd has been

nterpreted

n

many

different

evels,

rom

imple

ove

story

o

complex

mystical

llegory

about

he

oul's

ourney

owards

od.43

I've criedout"Ranjhi,Rinjhi " so many imes hatnow 've becomeRanjhi

myself.

Just all me Dhido

Ranjhi

don't

bother

alling

me Hir

anymore.44

In

these

ines,

BullheShah

magines

imself

s

Hir,

sserting

er

complete dentity

ith

her

beloved

Rdnjha.

ines such as

these

re

easilyportable

ntodifferent

hilosophical

rameworks. Vedantin

might

ee this

passage

as

reflecting

heunion

of

the ndividual elf

[dtman]

with he universal

eality

brahman];

t

might

voke

for

Vaisnava

he

pain

of

separation

rom

od

[viraha]

nd the

oy

of

a

possible

uture

nion;

Sufi

ersed

n

bn-'Arabi's

ritings ight

ind

ita

good expression

f

wahdat

l-wujaid,

ccording

o which

he rue

self s infact manifestationf Allah. n theworld fphilosophical

texts nd

treatises,

ne who tudied

bn-'Arabi's

heory

f

wahdat

l-

wujiid

nd ts attendant

echnical,

hilosophical

pparatusmight

ot

immediately

ee affinities

ith

he monistic

hilosophy

f Advaita

Vedanta,

r

the

pain

of

separation

rom

God

felt

by

the

Vaisnava

as Persian iterature.ut

these

o not eemto be themost

opular

f

Bullhe

Shah's

poems.

ndeed

a

potentially

seful ield or

future

tudy

wouldbe to

identify

he

poems

most

ommonly erformed

nd found n various

ditions

f

Bullhe

Shah's

poetry,

nd

to

confirm hetherhemost

popularpoems

re

in

fact hose

with

he

least

echnical,

ommunally

loaded"

vocabulary.

43

For brief ntroductiono the

Hir/RanjhA

radition,

ee

Rinehart,

Hir/Ranjhh"

inPeter laus andMargaret ills, ds.,BibliographyfSouthAsian FolkloreGar-

land

Press,

orthcoming).

44

Punjabi

from

uther,

.

102. For other ersions f this

oem,

ee

Atam

ingh,

pp.

108-9,

nd

Ramakrishna,

.

63.







84

RobinRinehart

devotee. t hat

evel,

ach raditionas ts wn

history

nd ense f

identity,

ts

wn

ocabulary,

ts

wn

diosyncrasies

nd

particularities.

Yet

reader

r

isteneramiliar ith he

asic

deasof

any

f

these

traditionsould

ertainly

ind

ffinitiesetween

hem nd

many

f

the

asic entiments

xpressed

n

Bullhe

hah's

oetry.

hus

many

f

the deas

most

ommonlyxpressed

nthe

oetry

ttributedo

Bullhe

Shah

re

n

fact

portable"

nto ifferent

eligious

nd

philosophical

frameworks,

reating

vast

potential

udience.

s

a

result,

hose

who dmire im ave

ought

oclaim is s

a

champion

f

heir

wn

particular

orldview.

n

so

doing, hey

ontinually

ashionew nd

often

onflicting

ullhe hahs.

Conclusions

Bullhe

hah s

clearly

n

mportant

igure

n the

eligious

evel-

opment

n

the

Punjab,

oth

s

a

poet

n

his own

right,

nd

as

an

example

f

how

nterpreters

ave

ought

o

understand

hat evel-

opment. espite

he

wide-ranging

nd

conflicting

nterpretations

f

his ife nd

work,

early

ll

share

he ame

nderlyingethodolog-

ical framework.his

framework,

ithts

unquestionedssumptions

about

iography,

extual

orpus,

eligious

ategorization,

nd uthor-

ship, asdictatedhe indsf uestionshateople ave skedbout

Bullhe

hah,

nd he

nswers

hat

hey

ave

rovided.

et he

many

answers

bout

who

Bullhe

hah

was,

what e

composed,

ndhow

he ived is

ife,

eaveus

with

seeminglyewilderingrray

f on-

flicting

ortrayals.

As an

lternative,

ecan

pproach

he

oet's

ife nd

work

ith

he

understanding

hat

we

willfind

multiple

ullhe hahs,

nd

multiple

versions

f

his

poetic

orpus,

ach

constructed

ith

lementsrom

the

ame

pool

of

signifiers,"

ut arriedntodifferentiscursive

spaces.

his

rovides

s

not

nly

with

way

f

dealing

ith

xisting

divergentnterpretations,

ut

lso

of

sking

ew,

nd

potentially

ore

meaningful

uestions

bout isrole n

Punjabi eligions.

ftherere

indeed

multiple

ullhe

hahs,

henwe

can ask

what

xactly

ach

is

like,

ndwhich

roups

e

represents.

f therere

multiple

odies








of

poetry,

e can both escribend

compare

hem. ow do

they

differ? hat o

they

ave n

common

what

xactly

s in the

"pool

f

ignifiers?"

e

might

iscover

hat heres

a

common

hread

of

expressionunninghrough

he

many

ditionsf

Bullhe

hah's

work,

nd

gain

new

nsight

nto

hared

spects

f

Punjabi eligious

experience.

o

suggest

hatherere

multiple

ullhe hahs

oesnot

mean

hat

we must

eject

ntirely

he

oncept

f

a

single

erson,

but ather

hat

n

order o understand

ullhe

hah's

mportance,

e

must eorientur

pproach

o

the

many ays

nwhich

his

igure

as

been

emembered.fter

ll,

Bullhe hah's

nterpreters

ssume

hat

they

re lltalkingbout he ame

erson

the isagreementies n

their

nterpretation

fwho hat

erson

as,

nd

what ind f

poetry

he

composed.

Thenotionf

multiple

ullhe hahs ould

llow

ur tudieso ake

on

a

historical

imensions

well.

How

have

nterpretations

fBullhe

Shah

hanged

ver

ime

e.g. olonial/post-colonial)?

hat

oes his

tell

us

about he

ngoing

evelopment

f

the

elf-understanding

f

different

eligious

ommunities

n

the

unjab,

s well s

their

ela-

tionships

ith ne

nother?

historically

ensitive

ritique

f

Bullhe

Shah's

nterpreters

ould

lso

allow

s

to

develop

ewmeans

f

cat-

egorization

or

is

work nd hework f

other

oets.

uch

ategories

would

give

us new

ways

of

viewingeligious

elief nd

practice

in

the

unjab.

here ould

e

great

alue

n

studying

ow Bullhe

Shah's"

ife

nd

work

avebeen

onstantlyeshaped

nd

renewed,

and what

hese

eformulationsellus about hosewho

continue

o

create

hem.

Department

f

Religion

ROBINRINEHART

Lafayette

ollege

Easton,

A

18042,

SA

REFERENCES

Ahmad,

ayyad

Nazir,

d.

1976.

Kalam-e-Bullhe

hah.

Lahore:

Packages

Limited.







Asani,

Ali

S. 1996. "The

sma'ili

Gindns: eflectionsn

Authority

nd

Authorship"

in

Farhad

Daftary,

d.,

Medieval

sma'ili

History

nd

Thought

Cambridge:

Cambridge

niversity

ress),

p.

265-280.

Bedi,

Kala

Singh

1987.

Bullhe

hdh:

locndtmak

dhiain. atiala:Publications u-

reau,

PunjabiUniversity.

Bhasha

Vibhag anjab

1970.

Bullhe

hah:

Jivan e

Racnd.

Patiala:Bhasha

Vibhag.

Bhatti,

Abdul

Majid

1987.

Kafidn

Bullhe

Shah.

Islamabad:Lok

Virsa

Publishing

House.

de

Bruijn,

homas

1997. "Visions

of the

Unseen,

Rhetorical

trategies

n Bhakti

andSufi

Poetry." aperpresented

o

the

Seventh

nternationalonferencen

Early

Literature

n

New

ndo-Aryananguages,

Venice,

taly,August

997.

Faqir,Muhammadaqir1960.Kulliyat-e-Bullhehah.Lahore: unjabiAdabAcademy.

Foucault,

Michel

1986.

"What

s an

Author?"

n HazardAdams and

Leroy

earle,

eds.,

Critical

heory

ince

1965

(Tallahassee:

lorida

tate

University

ress),

pp.

137-148.

Johann

iick

1940.

"Die Sufische

ichtung

n

der

Landesspraches

es

Panjab,"

Oni-

entalische

iteraturzeitung,

3, 1,

pp.

1-11.

Hawley,

J.S. 1988.

"Author nd

Authority

n

the Bhakti

Poetry

f North

ndia,"

Journal

f

Asian

Studies, 7,

2,

pp.

269-290.

Kaur,

Mahindar

967.

Asli

temukammal

Kafian

ullhe

hah

Jivan e

BhumikM

amet.

Amritsar: hai

Mehar

ingh

nd Sons.

Khan,

Muhammad

saf.

1992.

Akhid ullhe hah. Lahore:Pakistan

unjabi

Adabi

Board.

Kohli,

Surindar

ingh

1987.Bullhe hah.

New Delhi:

Sahitya

Akademi.

Luther, . Rauf1982. "Versifiedranslationf Kafees" n C.F. Usborne, .K. La-

jwanti,

A.

Rauf

Luther,

ullah

Shah:

Mystic

Poet

of Punjab.

(Lahore:

Sh. Mubarak

Ali),

pp.

69-159.

Matringe,

enis 1988.

"Krsnaite

nd NAth lementsnthe

Poetry

f

the

ighteenth-

centuryanjabi

ilfiBullhe

Ah"

in

R.S.

McGregor,

d.,

Devotional iterature

in

SouthAsia: Current

esearch,

985-1988.

Cambridge:

ambridge

niver-

sity

ress),

p.

190-206.

Mir,

Mustansir 995.

"Teachings

f Two

Punjabi

ufiPoets"

n

Donald S.

Lopez,

Jr., d.,

Religions f

ndia

n

Practice.

Princeton:

rinceton

niversity

ress),

pp.

518-529.

Padam,

Piara

Singh.

1968.

Sain

Bullhe

hah.

Patiala:

Sardar

ahitBhavan.

Puri,

J.R

and

T.R.

Shangari

986. Bulleh

Shah:

The

Love-Intoxicatedconoclast.

Amritsar: adha Soami

Satsang

Beas.

Rafat, aufiq 982.BullehShah:A Selection enderedntoEnglishVerse. ahore:

Vanguard

ublications.

Ramakrishna,

ajwanti

1938.

Panjabi

Sufi

Poets

A.D. 1460-1900.

London:

Oxford

University

ress.

86

RobinRinehart







The Portable ullheShah 87

Ramanujan,

A.K.

1994.

"Three

Hundred

Rdmamyanas:

ive

Examples

and

Three

Thoughts

n

Translation"

n

Paula

Richman,

d.,

Many

Redmryanas:

he Di-

versity

f

Narrative

radition

n

SouthAsia

Delhi:

Oxford

niversity

ress),

pp.

22-49.

Rinehart,

obin 1996.

"Interpretations

f

the

Poetry

f

Bullhe

Shah."

nternational

Journal

f

Punjab

Studies,

,

1,

pp.

45-63.

Sayyad,

Ghafran

984.

Panjabi

dd

Nidharak

hd'r

BullheShah.

Lahore:

Punjabi

Tahaqiqati

Markaz.

Schimmel,

nnemarie 971.

"The Influence f

Sufism

n

Indo-Muslim

oetry"

n

Joseph

.

Strelka,d.,

Anagogic

ualities

f

Literature.

Univ.

ark,

A:Penn-

sylvania

tate

University

ress),

p.

181-210.

1975.Mystical imensionsf slam.ChapelHill:UniversityfNorth arolina

Press.

1982. "Reflections

n

Popular

Muslim

Poetry,"

n RichardC.

Martin, d.,

ContributionsoAsian

Studies:

Vol.

17,

slam n Local Contexts.

Leiden:

E.J.

Brill),

pp.

17-26.

Sekhon,

ant

Singh

nd Kartar

ingh

Duggal

1992.A

History fPunjabi

Literature.

New

Delhi:

Sahitya

Akademi.

Sharda,

adhu Ram 1974.

Sufi

Thought:

ts

Development

n

Panjab

and

Its Im-

pact

on

Panjabi

Literature

rom

Baba Farid

to

1850 AD. Delhi:

Munshiram

Manoharlal.

1976."Bullhe hah

dd

Sifi

Vicardhdra,"

n Diwan

Singh

nd Bikram

ingh

Ghuman, ds.,

Bullhe

Shdh

dcdKdvi Lok:

Alocnd

te

Path.

(Jalandhar:

ew

Book

Company), p.

32-53.

1984. "Bullhe Shah,Safi an Sant,"Khoj Patrika, ain BullheShahArik,

Patiala:Publications

ureau,

anjabiUniversity,

o.

23,

pp.

51-59.

Singh,

Atam,

ranslator940.

Songs f

Bullah,

nd d. Lahore:

anjabi

AdabiLaihr.

Singh,

Kuldip

1969.

Bullhe

hah

dd

Sifit

nubhav. udhiana:

ahore

Book

Shop.

Singh,

rilochan 986.

"Bullhe

hah dd

Tasawwuf,"

n

qbal

Salauddin,

d.,

La'ldn

di

pan1d.

Lahore:

Arbez

Publishers),

p.

430-438.

Sital,

Jit

ingh

1970.

Bullhe

hah:

Jivan e Racnd.Patiala:

PunjabiUniversity.

Stewart,

ony

K. and

Carl

W. Ernst

orthcoming.Syncretism"

n

Peter

J.

Claus

and

Margaret

.

Mills, ds.,

SouthAsian

Folklore:

n

Encyclopedia.

Garland

Publishing).

Usborne,

.F.

1976.

Bullah

Shah:

Sufi,Mystic

nd Poet

of

he

Panjab.

Lahore:

aadi

Panjabi

Academy.

eprint

905 ed.

bulleh shah 3

Documents