IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)

Volume 25, Issue 6, Series 4 (June. 2020) 17-32

e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.
www.iosrjournals.org

Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities

and Differences in Brajbhasha Literature
Prateek Pankaj
Department of History, Hindu College, University of Delhi, India

Abstract: Surdas and Keshavdas are two of the most prominent poets of early Hindi literature, who wrote in
Brajbhasha, a language of the masses. This was a literary tradition that grew in the late medieval to early
modern period and produced compositions that were not only widely read in their time but became and remain a
staple in cultural memory even today. There have been ample and detailed studies about both these poets.
However, much lesser effort has been made in attempting to examine whether these two icons can be brought
closer to each other in how we understand them and their compositions. This is the context behind this paper.
This paper begins by examining Brajbhasha literature as a cultural development and contextualising it in its
historical roots, main stylistic features and relationship with the Mughal court. It then moves on to the lives of
Surdas and Keshavdas individually to get a sense of similarities and differences between them. Ultimately, the
aim of this paper is to suggest elements of similarity between the works of both our poets, and through them
draw broader inferences about the traditionally perceived dichotomy between bhakti and rīti genres of
Brajbhasha literature, which has also been questioned by many. The paper seeks to extend this line of inquiry by
arguing that thematically there are many points of commonality between Surdas and Keshavdas, and the bhakti-
rīti dichotomy is not so solid.
Keywords: Brajbhasha; Hindi literature; Surdas; Keshavdas; bhakti poetry; riti poetry; Mughal period;
vernacular literature
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Submission: 01-06-2020 Date of Acceptance: 16-06-2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bhāṣā of Braj

Literature composed in Indian languages has had a long and rich history. From the Sanskrit mahākāvya
(epics) to various compositions in vernacular languages, Indian literature offers plenty of material that can be
studied not only for their literary or aesthetic value but also their historical significance and symbolism.
By the late medieval to the early modern period1 Brajbhasha had become a very prominent language of
literary production in north India. Braj is also identified with the geographical area prominent in Indian spiritual
and mythical imagination as being associated with Lord Krishna‘s childhood, mainly focussing in and around
Mathura and Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh. Hence, the term ‗brajbhasha‘ implies the bhāṣā or language of Braj,
and the name of the region is used to refer to the language as well. This region saw a significant growth of
Vaishnavism from the sixteenth century onwards, and as has been argued by some, this association of
Brajbhasha with Vaishnavism, and especially with the cult of Krishna, bestowed on it a degree of primacy
compared to other regional varieties of Hindi in terms of literary compositions.2 The Vaishnava cult has been
associated with bhakti poetry, which began in south India long before it spread to the north and which is marked
by poems depicting intense devotion and love to one‘s personal God. A lot (but not all) of the literary
production in Brajbhasha also fits in this bhakti framework. Vaishnavism was finding firm footing in the
medieval period in various parts of India outside the south, leading to the emergence of various sects and literary
compositions. By identifying specific geographical localities in the Braj area as the places where Krishna‘s

1
Different studies show slight variations in locating the period of Brajbhasha prominence. See, Allison Busch, ―Hidden in Plain View:
Brajbhasha Poets at the Mughal Court,‖ Modern Asian Studies 44, no. 2 (2010): 267-268, accessed 27 March, 2020,
www.jstor.org/stable/27764657; Rupert Snell, The Hindi Classical Tradition: A Braj Bhāṣā Reader (London: School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London, 1991), 29; Sandhya Sharma, ―Keshavadasa and His Braja Poet: A Proof of Historical
Consciousness,‖ Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 68, Part One (2007): 399, accessed 9 April, 2020,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147852.
2
Snell, A Braja Bhāṣā Reader, 30. Stuart McGregor has argued that while Brajbhasha (and Avadhi) cannot historically and linguistically be
said to be dialects of modern Hindi, as the former two preceded the latter as literary languages, however, from the perspective of a present-
day study of literary cultures of north India, they can be regarded as part of a ―composite ‗literary tradition of Hindi‘‖. See his, ―The
Progress of Hindi, Part 1: The Development of a Transregional Idiom,‖ in Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia,
ed. Sheldon Pollock (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 913.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 17 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

līlā—talked about in the Bhāgvata Purāṇa—had actually happened in history, the south Indian theologian
Vallabha (1479-1531) and the Bengali mystic Krishna Chaitanya (1486-1533) gave a new literal significance to
Braj; Brajbhasha thus came to be regarded as the natural language in which contemporary devotional literature
was produced.3 However, ultimately, Brajbhasha literature came to encompass a lot more than just devotional
themes, and also spread beyond the geographical limits of the Braj region.
Gwalior, to the south of Agra, is perhaps the earliest identifiable centre of literary composition in
Brajbhasha. A poet called Vishnudas began a tradition of composing vernacular narrative on Sanskritic themes
by producing adaptations in Brajbhasha from the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa called the Pāṇḍavcarit
(1435) and the Rāmāyanakathā (1442) respectively.4 Vishnudas‘s work is considered important because he is
said to have established a vernacularising tradition, which was to be followed by many after him, by reviving
the old epic traditions of Krishna and Ram in a new popular dimension. 5 This is just one example of the
antecedents of Brajbhasha. In terms of language, vocabulary, content, style and imagery, it drew something or
the other from the Apabhraṁśa, the Sanskrit Purāṇas, the Persian and the Sanskrit lexicons, folksongs and so
on.6
The literature produced in Brajbhasha was not marked by stylistic homogeneity. Various kinds of texts
were produced. The pada, composed of rhyming couplets in a simple meter and meant to be sung, comprised the
more common form in the bhakti verse. Surdas and Mira both wrote in this style. Bihari was a master in the
dohā or couplet form. The dohā figures most prominently in Kabir also, as well as in narrative epic poems
alongside the caupāī or quatrain. Along with this, contemporary hagiologies of poet-saints leading a sampradāy
or sect, such as Vallabha and Chaitanya, were also produced. Of these quasi-historical sources, the Vallabhan
vārtā chronicles, an early example of Brajbhasha prose, are considered among the most important. Certainly,
this heterogeneity of styles also extends to the subject matter and themes on which such literature was produced.
In terms of content, padas focused on the descriptive eulogies of Krishna and his līlā, describing the deity in his
childhood, in his romantic adventures, while separating from the gopis and so on. While written rather simply,
they were meant to evoke a feeling of deep devotion in the lay devotee and were valued as compositions meant
to be sung. As touched upon before, the dohā could center on devotional as well as erotic or narrative themes. It
could also be used to compose works eulogising the poet‘s patron; the verses could be inspired from incidents
at the patron‘s court. Court poetry too, of course, was a form in itself. While this court poetry (rīti) was
conventionally understood as marking a phase distinct from the purely religious and devotional bhakti poetry in
traditional histories of Hindi literature, the ambiguity of a clear secular-religious dichotomy has also been
suggested. As this vernacular court poetry reflected Sanskritic elements, it came to be analysed according to the
conventions of alaṅkāraśāstra, the science of Sanskrit literary rhetoric. This included multiple aspects: one, a
classification of the hero and heroine of the tale (nāyak-nāyikā bhed); two, an analysis of the literary figures of
speech such as alliteration, metaphor, double entendre, etc.; three, dealing with prosody, known as chandśāstra,
and so on. Keshavdas‘ scholarly works on such poetics in Brabjasha literature are especially important.
Codifications of poetic conventions and a body of literary analysis meant that soon poetry began to rely
increasingly on certain go-to rhetorical descriptions, such as describing the heroine from top to bottom or listing
attributes like solah śṛṅgār or 'sixteen adornments'.7

Brajbhasha and the Mughals

While discussing the context in which Brajbhasha was becoming prominent in North India as a
medium of literary expression, it is important to remember the political backdrop of the time. It might seem
counter-intuitive to think that in a period where the culturally-different Mughals were ruling over large parts of
the subcontinent, that too with their centres of Delhi and Agra not far from the nucleus of Brajbhasha literature,
this relatively newer kind of indigenous literary tradition would have developed. That the leading political,
literary and courtly language of the time was Persian cannot be disputed. However, Brajbhasha very much was
present and indeed flourished. Moreover, it did not exist as an ‗underground‘ language away from the corridors
of Mughal power. Brajbhasha poets interacted with Mughal political elites in various ways. Some among this
political elite were patrons, and some even composed Braj literature themselves.

3
Snell, ibid, 31.
4
McGregor, ―The Progress of Hindi, Part 1,‖ 914, 917.
5
Ibid, 918.
6
Snell, A Braja Bhāṣā Reader, 32.
7
For a detailed discussion on the various kinds of literary forms within Brajbhasha literature, their thematic heterogeneity and use of some
common elements, see, ibid, 32-36. A detailed study of the perceived bhakti-rīti dichotomy and its historical and ideological bases of
construction is Allison Busch, ―Questioning the Tropes About ‗Bhakti‘ and ‗Rīti‘ in Hindi Literary Historiography,‖ in Bhakti in Current
Research, 2001-2003, ed. Monika Horstmann (Delhi: Manohar, 2006), 33-47.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 18 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

In fact, patronage of Hindi by Indo-Muslims was not very recent anyway; regional sultanate courts and
Sufi khānqāhs gave Hindi textual production an impetus. 8 Although not found under Babur and Humayun, from
Akbar onwards there is evidence of the interest of the Mughal elites in languages of north India. Akbar was said
to be conversant in Hindi and so were his successors. This is only logical as he grew up in India. Moreover,
marriage alliances with the Rajputs meant that emperors like Shah Jahan and Jahangir were born to Rajput
mothers. The administration under Akbar also included many Hindus who were not only naturally versed in
Hindavi languages, but who also composed Braj poetry or were patrons of Vaishnava institutions. High-ranking
officials of Akbar such as Todar Mal and Man Singh were such patrons. In 1580, Mathura, which was located at
a close distance to the early imperial capital of Agra, was incorporated in the ṣūbah of Agra. Thus, even though
Persian was the language of the administration and ties to Turkish were still maintained, indigenous languages
like Brajbhasha were becoming an area of interest for the Mughal elites. 9 An important courtier and general of
Akbar, Abdur Rahim Khan-i-Khana produced literature of high quality. He is known to Hindi literature as the
poet Rahim whose compositions, such as the one below, are read even today by school students in their Hindi
classes:

Rahiman dhaga prem ka, mat todu chatkai,

Tootey phir se na milay, milay gaanth padi jai10

Rahim says, don‘t break the thread of love,

Once snapped, it doesn‘t mend; if it does, it bears a knot.11

His case has been said to be an example of a cultural symbiosis fostered by the interaction between a
Muslim political elite and a large Hindu populace. 12 But does one example suffice, or does it become an
exception to the prove the otherwise rule? Under Akbar, Braj poets by the name of Karnesh and Manohar are
recorded. Todar Mal, the emperor‘s revenue administrator, is also said to have composed Braj poetry, and so
did Faizi, Akbar‘s Persian language poet-laureate and brother of Abul Fazl. Birbal, one of Akbar‘s ‗Nine
Jewels‘, was also a Braj poet. Abul Fazl credited Akbar himself with some Hindi compositions. 13 Another poet
in this period whose compositions were numerous and who was held in high acclaim was Gang. Serving at
Akbar‘s court, various praśasti or panegyric verses dedicated to multiple Mughal elites like Akbar, Jahangir,
Rahim, Raja Man Singh, Birbal, and Prince Daniyal, are attributed to him. He is said to have been a masterful
representative of the bardic tradition of Hindi literature. His fame can be gauged by the fact that he was
considered an equal of Tulsidas by the eighteenth-century literary critic Bhikharidas. 14 Others like Keshavdas of
Orchha were also aware of political developments around this time, even if their association with the Mughal
court is difficult to ascertain. Orchha had been annexed by Akbar‘s armies in Keshavdas‘ youth. 15 At the same
time, it can be said that sometimes the relations between Braj poets and the Mughal emperors were ambivalent.
A legend about an encounter between Surdas and Akbar suggests that upon hearing the poet‘s praise, the
emperor invited him to his court. He asked Sur to sing his praises for which the latter could be rewarded
whatever his heart desired. Sur declined to entertain the emperor‘s wish and the only reward he asked for was to
be excused.16 However, it has also been suggested that this episode was not one of separatism over syncretism as
the parting between Sur and Akbar was amicable, and that this was an example of the relationship between
secular and spiritual power with the latter reigning supreme. 17

8
See, Busch, ―Hidden in Plain View,‖ 273, for a brief overview. See also, Muzaffar Alam, ―The Pursuit of Persian: Language in Mughal
Politics,‖ Modern Asian Studies 32, No. 2 (May 1998): 318-319, 344, accessed 15 February, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/313001, for
instances of association of Indo-Muslims with Hindavi languages before the heydey of Mughal rule and also among regional sultanates.
9
Busch, ―Hidden in Plain View,‖ 274.
10
Rakhshanda Jalil, ―Meet Abdur Rahim Khan-e-Khanan, Who Was Also the ‗Bhakta‘ Poet Rahim Das,‖ Scroll.in, 27 August, 2016,
https://scroll.in/article/814998/meet-abdur-rahim-khan-e-khanan-who-was-also-the-bhakta-poet-rahim-das.
11
Translation mine.
12
Snell, A Braja Bhāṣā Reader, 33.
13
Busch, ―Hidden in Plain View,‖ 275-276.
14
Amaresh Datta, ed., Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature: Volume II, Devraj to Jyoti (New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1988), 1364. See also,
Busch, ―Hidden in Plain View,‖ 276-277.
15
Busch, ―Hidden in Plain View,‖ 277-278.
16
See, John Stratton Hawley, Three Bhakti Voices: Mirabai, Surdas, and Kabir in Their Time and Ours (New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2005), 182.
17
Ibid, 183.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 19 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

During Jahangir‘s reign, Keshavdas‘ association with the Mughal court appears more solid as
evidenced by his Jahāngīrjascandrikā (Moonlight of the Fame of Jahangir) written in 1612. As the name
suggests, this was a praśasti and was set in the imperial court in Agra, although it is not clear whether he
presented this work to the emperor. Jahangir‘s referencing to a class of Hindi poets in the Jahāngīrnāmā in
favourable terms might suggest that Braj language had a greater currency at his court. 18 Shah Jahan‘s court
hosted many Braj poets and musicians. Descendants of Tansen (whose Braj music was present at Akbar‘s court)
like Lal Khan and his sons Khush-hal and Vishram, were present at the Mughal court. We come across names of
Braj poets like Harinath who are known to be associated with Shah Jahan. The emperor was also said to have
had encounters with Biharilal. Sundar, Kavindracarya Sarasvati, and Chintamani Tripathi are also among such
poets of high esteem associated with Shah Jahan‘s court. 19 While the extent of Aurangzeb‘s patronage to Braj
poets is unclear, it is suggested that such patronage nevertheless continued during his reign, albeit encouraged
more by the princes and nobility than by the emperor himself. 20 Aurangzeb‘s sons and grandsons were also said
to be enthusiasts of Braj.21 Thus, the association of the Braj literary tradition with the Mughal political elite
seems to have been a fairly long one. In an imperial hierarchy, Persian would have remained the first language,
but Brajbhasha also found its place in the courts. At the same time, many Brajbhasha achievements came from
courts other than that of Mughals, or away from royal courts at all.

[II]

Sūr sūr Tulsī śaśi, uḍagaṇa Keśavadas

Ab ke kavi khadyota sama, jaha taha karata prakāśa.22

Sur is the Sun, Tulsi, the Moon; Keshavdas is the stars

The rest are like fireflies, flickering here and there.23

The above anecdote throws light on the esteem of the two poets under consideration in our study.
Surdas has been compared to the Sun, and Keshavdas to the stars. Tulsidas is often held as the gold standard of
early Hindi literature and here both our poets are mentioned in the same breath as him, indeed Sur is placed on
an even higher pedestal. There are other versions of this verse as well, one which reverses the position of the
first two poets, that is, Sur as the Moon, and Tulsi as the Sun. Regardless of how we frame it, it is clear that
Tulsi and Sur were the two brightest poets. Keshavdas, likened to the stars, was the only one even named
alongside them. All others are painted in the same brush and are subsumed under ―ab ke kavi‖ (the poets of
today). In another version of this verse, ―ab ke kavi‖ is replaced by ―bāki sab,‖ implying everyone else.
Irrespective of with whom the comparison is being drawn, it is clear that alongside Tulsi, Surdas and Keshavdas
are the highest of the literary elites. Being anecdotal, there are different versions of the above verse as well.
However, this version seems the most logical.
The reason for starting this section of the paper with this verse and its analysis was to emphasise, one,
the tallness of both the poets under our consideration, and two, to suggest a strand of similarity in their
otherwise seemingly divergent lives and careers. Such similarities and differences shall be subsequently
elaborated in this and the following sections.

The Blind Bhakta of Krishna

Ab tau yahai bāt man māni
Chādau nāhin Syām Syāmā kī Briṅdāban rājdhānī
Bhramyau bahut laghu dhām bilokat chanbhaṅgur dukh-dāni
Sarvopari ānaṅd akhaṅḍit Sūr maram lapiṭānī.24

18
Busch, ―Hidden in Plain View,‖ 279, 281.
19
Ibid, 285-294.
20
Ibid, 294.
21
Ibid, 297.
22
This is a famous anecdotal verse in Brajbhasha, which does not seem to have been attributed to a particular author. For a mention about
this verse, see, John Stratton Hawley, The Memory of Love: Sūrdās Sings to Krishna (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 8. The
transliteration of the verse here has been done by me to the best of my knowledge. I am grateful to my grandfather, a Hindi and Sanskrit
literary enthusiast, for shedding more light on these few lines for me in a telephonic communication.
23
Hawley loosely explains the meaning of this verse in this manner, without giving a word-by-word translation. The translation here is
based on his one. See, ibid.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 20 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

Now this alone is my heart‘s pleasure:

I shall not leave Vṛndāvan, Śyām and Śyāmā‘s royal domain.
I have wandered much, seeing lesser abodes—transient and grievous;
[but now] Sūr has embraced the inner truth of undivided and supreme bliss. 25

The above pada by Surdas might be an appropriate beginning point for talking about his life and the
context in which he wrote, much of whose compositions centred around Krishna bhakti.
The legend about the poet‘s life is that he was born in 1478 to a Brahmin family. Blind at birth, he was
still blessed with an inner vision through which he perceived the divinity of Krishna. He came in contact with
Vallabh who led him to follow the Bhāgvata Purāṇa as a model for his compositions. It is said that upon his
death, Sur claimed he perceived no difference between Krishna and Vallabha and that any of his verses could
apply equally to both.26 Of course, there are various versions explaining Surdas‘ blindness. Some tales say he
was blind at birth, while another legend says that once Sur was granted a vision of Krishna and then asked the
deity to take away his sight so that nothing he sees in the future might dilute the spectacle of the divine vision he
had just witnessed.27 Regardless of the circumstances of his blindness, what is more certain is his poetic and
religious merit was widely acknowledged, both in his time and ours.
Surdas‘ authority has been attested in different ways. We noted the verse perhaps celebrating him as
being higher than even Tulsidas. But there are many more examples. The court of Afghan ruler Islam Shah Suri,
who displaced the Mughals for a brief period of time, was celebrated by the writer of the seventeenth-century
text Afsānah-i-Shāhāṅ (Tale of Kings), Muhammad Kabir, for having hosted accomplished poets like Surdas.
Although the historicity of this supposed episode and even the whole text has been questioned, it nevertheless
suggests that Surdas‘ fame was such that courts of rulers who were far removed from the poet‘s geographical or
literary centres of influence also claimed his presence. 28 We had noted previously that Bhikharidas hailed Tusli
and Gang as two masters of poetry. That same text also mentions a long line of Braj poets and begins by taking
the name of Surdas first (Keshavdas is mentioned second). Surdas‘ primary position might have been noted for
his literary excellence.29 The theologian Nabhadas and the poet Hariramvyas celebrated Surdas as the finest
craftsman of the pada.30 In another strain, the poet has been bestowed honour and authority by giving his works
Sanskritic roots. This is the position of Vallabhites, followers of the theologian Vallabh whose disciple Sur
supposedly was. The Vallabite narrative is that Sur‘s poems are essentially translations of the Bhāgavata
Purāṇa, the Sanskrit text to which Vallabh was most deeply devoted and the contents of which were
miraculously transmitted to the poet by his master. Thus, the Braj texts are given an implicit Sanskritic basis.
Sanskrit, of course, was the tongue of the learned and the Gods, the language of the classics, signifying the high-
culture. However, it has been suggested that Sur‘s verses did not simply copy the contents of the Bhāgavata and
present them in a vernacular. His early verses are said to have contained theological positions very different
from the Purāṇa.31
A further point can be made as well. As with some other vernacular texts, they often surpassed in terms
of popularity the ―original‖ Sanskrit text(s) which inspired them. The Rāmāyaṇa we most widely know and
reproduce today is not the Sanskrit version of Valmiki; it is the Rāmcaritmānas of Tulsidas. In this case, the
Sanskrit text is the parent text of Tulsi‘s work; that perhaps cannot be said about Sur‘s case, at least with the
same level of confidence. However, Tulsi‘s classic is not celebrated because of its Sanskrit roots. It is celebrated
because of its literary, devotional, and philosophical excellence, and because it made Lord Ram so deeply
revered by the masses at a time when Krishna bhakti was the most prominent. Thus, Tulsi‘s work has been
called ―arguably the greatest ode to Lord Ram.‖32 Similarly, even if we say that Sur‘s padas were rooted in the
Sanskrit Bhāgavata, their claim to fame cannot be attributed to just this fact. The literary and devotional value
of the work cannot be discounted.

24
Snell, A Braj Bhāṣā Reader, 84 (see No. 3). Snell has reproduced the pada in the Devanagari script. For the sake of uniformity, I am
using the Roman equivalents to reproduce the pada here.
25
Ibid, 85.
26
Ibid, 38.
27
See, Hawley, The Memory of Love, 12-14.
28
Ibid, 19-20.
29
Ibid, 20-21.
30
Hawley, Three Bakti Voices, 185.
31
See, Hawley, The Memory of Love, 15-18.
32
A focussed study of Tulsi‘s magnum opus is, Pavan K Varma, The Greatest Ode to Lord Ram: Tulsidas‘s Ramcharitmanas; Selections &
Commentaries (Chennai: Westland, 2020).
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 21 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

Surdas‘ magnum opus is the Sūrsāgar, literally the ‗Ocean of Sur‘. This massive compilation has
however not been composed solely by Surdas. It has been suggested that it is not a single chronological work in
which every pada connects to the next. Even though its contents highlight the life journey of Krishna, it is
argued that the earliest manuscripts did not arrange the verses sequentially to narrate the deity‘s life. The early
manuscripts were thus in the form of anthologies.33 Moreover, the collection grew over time. The oldest
manuscript attributed to Sur is said to contain only 239 poems. Indeed, the compilation was called Sūrsāgar for
the first time only in 1640 to refer to a manuscript that contained 795 poems. And by the nineteenth century, a
manuscript attributed to Sur contained over 10,000 poems.34 Thus, it has been suggested that while the original
version of what eventually became the Sūrsāgar contained only some hundred verses, probably all composed by
Surdas himself, over time many other poets also added to this compilation. Thus poems that were signed
originally by other poets also joined the corpus in a modified form where the signature was that of Sur‘s. Thus,
this was a gradually evolving ―tradition‖ of poetry. It bore the name of Sur across its verses, the mark of his
authority and legitimacy, but these were composed by other poets as well who would have probably wanted
their own works to be bestowed the fame of Surdas. 35 It is however a moot point asking whether all these
numerous verses were written by one poet. However, in identifying them as part of one tradition and even the
works of one poet, the literary memory that speaks of and to these compositions recognises only one man,
Surdas, as the poet who recreated the life of Krishna in this splendid manner and whose works are sung to
inspire devotion and love for the deity. Many others who followed this same pattern became a part of a whole
tradition identified synonymously with Surdas.

The Life and Times of Keshavdas

It is perhaps a testament to the acclaim of Keshavdas that his name keeps coming up in the lists of
greatest poets even when one is not focussing on him exclusively. As shall be noted subsequently, his works
have been considered pioneering in many aspects and are celebrated for their literary brilliance but also for their
political awareness and historical consciousness.
There is a lot of variation in dating Keshavdas‘ birth, as can be expected. Vijaypal Singh has dated his
birth to saṁvat 1618,36 which in the English system corresponds to the year 1562. However, estimates even
range from saṁvat 1508 to saṁvat 1624,37 that is, from 1452 to 1568 AD; a range of over a hundred years. The
exact date of the poet‘s birth is not much of our concern anyway. However, going by the most recent studies, his
birth has been dated to 1555 AD by most.38 What is undoubted is that Keshavdas of Orchha (in present day
north-western Madhya Pradesh) flourished around the late sixteenth to early parts of the seventeenth century. A
Sanāḍhya Brahmin pandit by birth, his was a family of elite scholars. His distant ancestors were bestowed the
title of paṇḍitrāja (king among scholars) from the Tomar kings. His grandfather Krishnadatta Mishra was under
the employ of King Rudrapratap, the founder of the Orchha kings. The poet‘s father, Kashinath Mishra, was a
master of Sanskrit śāstras (sciences) and was honoured at the court of the king Madhukar Shah, son of
Rudrapratap, who reigned from 1554-92. Keshavdas‘ brother, Balabhadra Mishra was also a scholar of Hindi
and wrote books.39 In the second part of his Kavipriyā, Keshavdas reconstructs in detail his own family history.
Writing in the dohā meter, the poet tells us about his lineage in the verses number four to sixteen of this section.
Starting from very early ancestors like Kumbhvar, Devanand, Jayadev, Dinkar (who was titled paṇḍitrāja), he
traces his lineage to his grandfather, father, elder brother, himself, and his younger brother Kalyana. 40 Clearly,
Keshavdas‘ family was one of scholars, intellectuals and men of culture. This makes it all the more interesting
that Keshavdas chose to write in Brajbhasha and not Sanskrit. He was well-versed in Sanskrit, and it was the
language of the classics, but he chose the language of the people to compose his works. This break from
tradition and turning to a language not considered as high and refined as Sanskrit led him to even call himself
maṅdmati or dim-witted, especially because even the servants in his family spoke Sanskrit. 41

33
Hawley, The Memory of Love, 24.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid, 25-26; Hawley, Three Bhakti Voices, 28.
36
Vijaypal Singh, Keśav aur Unkā Sāhitya (Delhi: Rajpal and Sons, 1961), 33.
37
For a brief overview of various dates, see, K.P. Bahadur, The Rasikapriyā of Keshavadāsa (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1972), xxxi.
Bahadur himself seems to be dating Keshavdas‘ birth to saṁvat 1612, i.e., 1556 AD.
38
See, Busch, ―Hidden in Plain View,‖ 277; Sharma, ―Keshavadasa and His Braj Poet,‖ 399.
39
See, Allison Busch, Poetry of Kings: The Classical Hindi Literature of Mughal India (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 23-24;
Bahadur, The Rasikpriyā, xxxii. Sandhya Sharma identifies Keshavdas‘ father as a court poet in Madhukar Shah‘s court named Krishna
Datta, not Kashinath Mishra. Cf. Sharma, ―Keshavadasa and His Braj Poet,‖ 399.
40
Vishwanath Prasad Mishra, ed. Keśava Granthāvalī, Volume I, 3rd ed. (Allahabad: Hindustani Academy, 1990), vv. 4-16 on 99-100.
41
Busch, Poetry of Kings, 23.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 22 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

Keshav‘s family also had a history of royal patronage as has been hinted above. The poet‘s two most
famous patrons were Indrajit Singh and Bir Singh, both from Orchha. Indrajit Singh was the younger brother of
Ram Shah, the ruler of Orchha. One of Keshav‘s earliest and most famous works, the Rasikpriyā, was composed
for this patron. Bir Singh, famous as Bir Singh Bundela, was Indrajit‘s brother and the most famous Orchha
ruler. The work Vīrsiṁhdevcarit (1607) was composed in honour of Bir Singh. Amar Singh, son of Maharana
Pratap and ruler of Mewar has also been suggested as a possible patron of Keshav, in whose honour the poet
dedicated some lines of his Kavipriyā.42
The political background in which Keshavdas wrote had to do a lot with his compositions. It is true that
he emphasised and eulogised his own native place and its rivers, forests, etc., and his own caste. 43 However, his
works were also rooted majorly in the contemporary politics of the time. It has been suggested by Allison Busch
that taken together, the Ratnabāvanī (52 Verses About Ratan, around 1583), the Vīrsiṁhdevcarit (Deeds of Bir
Singh Deo), and the Jahāngīrjascandrikā (Moonlight of the Fame of Jahangir, 1612) form a series of
chronologically connected historical poems, detailing the subsumption of the state of Orchha into the Mughal
fold; tracing the situations described in these works helps reconstruct the penetration of Mughal power, initially
from occasional incursions to ultimately the establishment and acceptance of a new political order. 44

Differences Abound
Thus, towards the end of this section it can be said that Keshavdas and Surdas, both poets par
excellence, were very different in their own ways. Both were Brahmins but the trajectories their careers
followed were vastly different. First, we know more about Keshavdas‘ biography and family history through his
own works. He was born in a line of scholars who had been associated with royal courts since generations.
Surdas by contrast does not give us much about his own family history. We know he had some contacts with the
Vallabhite sect but his identity did not stop there. Indeed, as has been stressed before, reconstructing Sur‘s life
and analysing his works strictly through Vallabhite sources does not lead us to productive results always.
Second, Sur was not a court poet like Keshav. Even though we noted his name appearing in the list of
poets who supposedly performed at royal courts far distant from the geographical regions associated with him,
those lists and the works they appear in are not of high historic value and were likely only used to bolster courtly
image rather than provide facts. The legend about Sur‘s encounter with Akbar and him rejecting the emperor‘s
wish to perform at the court may or may not be true but it does throw light on a tendency of distance from royal
courts that we can infer about Surdas. His work was instead for the masses, to be sung, enjoyed and used to
express their devotion and love to Lord Krishna, and of course was an expression of his own devotion for the
deity. Keshavdas instead enjoyed royal patronage like his family members before him and composed various
works dedicated to various rulers, as noted above, and also to poets and scholars. Indeed, he is held as a pioneer
of Hindi rīti or court poetry for his excellence in that literary field.
Third and as an extension to the previous point, Keshav‘s work speaks a lot to the political situations
around him, while Sur‘s does not. Not all of Keshav‘s work is a historical source of facts, of course. Yet, there is
an awareness in him of the contemporary scenarios and his works bear a mark of such situations. Surdas by
contrast seems to be removed from the politics of his day and age even though it‘s not as if his period was
devoid of any political dynamism. For one, his time period was marked by the transition from the Delhi
Sultanate to the Mughal empire and would have seen three Mughal emperors sit on the throne. Yet, Sur‘s padas
remain more devotional than political.
Lastly, we know which works Keshavdas produced and when. There is clear evidence for that. The
compositions attributed to him did not expand enormously over time. With Surdas, we have an entire literary
tradition with its constituent verses growing significantly over time. Thus, how we read and interpret the works
of both these poets is very different. Questions of authorship have to be negotiated while doing so.

[III]

As mentioned above, Surdas and Keshavdas seem very different from each other. But, can we still
make an effort to find elements of commonality in their works? This section now takes a look at some of the
works produced by both these poets and tries to arrive at such points of similarity.

42
Bahadur, The Rasikpriyā, xxxvi-xxxvii.
43
Ibid, xxxv.
44
Allison Busch, ―Literary Responses to the Mughal Imperium: The Historical Poems of Keśavdās,‖ South Asia Research 25, no. 1 (May
2005): 32-33. Accessed 30 March, 2020. doi:10.1177/0262728005051606.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 23 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

Prestige and Influence

The most obvious point of similarity between Surdas and Keshavdas is their enormous influence and
the prestige their compositions brought not only to their own persons but also to the broader ‗institutions‘ or
cultures with which they were associated.
Keshavdas in his association with the Orchha court fulfilled many different roles of a poet and
intellectual, but also political and moral guide, friend, and guru to the rulers of the kingdom. This was a time
when Mughal power was overshadowing the political sovereignty of many regional kingdoms. It has been
suggested that the latter however managed to retain some forms of sovereignty in their cultural and literary
achievements, which is where someone like Keshavdas became important. 45 In his personal capacity as a poet
too, his works were hugely influential. He has been held as a pioneer of rīti literature by many modern scholars,
as noted earlier. Some of his works were unprecedented in not just their stylistic achievements but also in
elevating Brajbhasha to the level of an established language for literary expression replete with theories,
principles, and a system of aesthetics. As a scholar, Keshav composed the first comprehensive body of classical
aesthetics theory in a vernacular form in north India through his three rītigranths: the Rasikpriyā, the Kavipriyā,
and the Chandmālā; his contributions have been understood as a foundational piece in the ―birth of Hindi
classicism‖.46
The influence of Surdas was different in some ways but some essential points of similarity can also be
made. We have noted how he became the progenitor of a whole tradition of bhakti writings devoted to Krishna,
so much so that thousands of verses came to be added to the Sūrsāgar corpus over time, in all likelihood by a
host of other poets who claimed their poetry in the name of Sur to make it all the more glorious. He inspired a
folk tradition, which was in the very nature of his poetry. They tell the stories of Krishna in his various stages of
life and of his divine deeds. Even now, his devotional verses are sung in temples and other religious settings. In
this regard, Surdas is different from Keshavdas. Unlike the ‗star‘ of Braj literature, the supposedly blind poet did
not produce scholarly texts on poetics meant to be studied and understood by younger poets and scholars. And
unlike Sur, Keshav‘s texts while meant to be accessible to common masses (―I have written in Bhasha [the
vernacular] so that even a fool can grasp the hidden doctrine, measureless, unfathomable, without end‖)47 could
not have been sung by groups of devotional bhaktas. There is obviously no Keśavasāgar, or Keshav‘s Ocean.
Yet the essential similarity remains, well, same. Both were able to inspire whole literary traditions and
cultures in their own ways. Even though Sur was not the only one writing devotional padas, and nor was Keshav
the first to write a rītigranth,48 the influence of both the poets in their respective fields was often much greater
than their peers.
Although this similarity is not directly concerned with the literary aspects of the poets‘ compositions, it
is an important result of their works. However, this is also a somewhat generic point of similarity. Such
conclusions can be drawn for many. Tulsidas can similarly be said to be essentially similar to Sur and Keshav
because his Rāmcaritmānas is one of the best known Indian literary texts of any period. Thus, even though the
influence and prestige of Sur and Keshav does make them very similar in one respect, we need more concrete
bases to qualify this similarity.

Krishna Imagery and Vaishnava Influence

Amid the study of Keshavdas‘ courtly compositions and in an effort to find the historical symbolism from
his works, one might overlook the rich and illustrious Radha-Krishna imagery he draws upon to exemplify the
scholarly principles in his rītigranths. Thus, in his Rasikpriyā, Keshavdas explains Sanskrit-based literary
models in a vernacular renditioning and illustrates the theoretical definition verses (or lakṣaṇ) by using original
poetry as a example.49 As a result of Vaishnava flourish in the sixteenth century, the Sanskritic literary models
were being increasingly explained using such related imagery. Hence, śṛṅgāra or passion, which was considered
the leading rasa in Sanskrit poetics, was illustrated more and more by the story of Radha and Krishna, being
suffused with bhakti or devotional themes as well.50 It is suggested that in choosing Krishna and Radha as the
nāyaka (hero) and the nāyikā (heroine) respectively of his poems, Keshavdas was refining the Rasikpriyā; his
poems were spiritually exalted and at the same time lost ―nothing of love‘s delight.‖ 51 For instance, the poet
explains the definitions of ‗frustrated love‘ as a literary motif and which includes four kinds of separations that

45
Busch, Poetry of Kings, 29.
46
Ibid, 32.
47
Ibid, 55.
48
Ibid, 33.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Bahadur, The Rasikpriyā, xxxviii.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 24 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

can happen between lovers: separation after initial infatuation, that due to a sorrowful incident, that due to a
quarrel, and that which happens because of a journey away from home. 52 The poet then proceeds to give an
example of this ‗frustrated love‘ after Radha‘s initial infatuation:

Don‘t show me flowers—without Hari they are oppressive thorns.

Take away the garland, it upsets me as though it were a snake.
Don‘t fan me with fly-whisks or fans.
Keshav says, a fragrant breeze maddens me like a whirlwind.
Don‘t apply sandal paste, it‘s akin to scorching my body.
I don‘t want the vermilion powder, it‘s a fire to my limbs.
And don‘t feed me any betel, friend—it‘s poison to me.53

An example of the pangs of separation can be found, with strikingly similar imagery, in a verse by Surdas:

That‘s the way my days are now.

What am I to do, friend? It‘s really no one‘s fault
what‘s happened since Hari turned his loving eyes away.
The musk, the sandal, the camphor, the saffron—
all of them, always, like servants to me—
And the lazy breeze, the moon and tender flowers:
now they have a harsh and vengeful look.
The koels, peacocks, and crested cuckoos
to whom I‘ve given shelter in my garden
Babble night and day as they please.
I forbid it, but they pay no heed.
The saplings I‘ve nurtured with my own hands—watered,
watered into full-grown trees:
Tell them, Sūr, they obscure my line of vision
by sprouting disastrous leaves.54

Sur‘s verse appears to be highlighting a more permanent separation; indeed, Hawley has presented it in
the chapter titled ‗Krishna Departs for Mathura, Never to Return‘ of his work cited here. However, this verse
can be said to fall under the broad purview of the frustrated love that Keshav elaborated in his Rasikpriyā.
Interestingly, Hawley also allows an interpretation of this verse as perhaps the voice of a gopī saddened by
Krishna turning his attention from her to another woman (and admits that if this is the case, this verse should
feature in a different chapter of his collection). 55 Thus, it might not even be a permanent separation but one very
close to what Keshav‘s verse mentioned earlier would denote. This is further underscored by the very similar
imagery. The phenomena and objects ideally associated with love—the breeze, the sandalwood—are now a
source of anguish as a result of the longing left in the speaker‘s heart caused by the separation from Krishna.
This is not only highlighted richly in both verses but forms the underlying substance of both. In one verse,
flowers become oppressive thorns and the garland a snake, while in the other tree leaves are disastrous because
they obstruct the even the sight of a separated lover. Moreover, even though both verses obviously employ
erotic imagery, they are also devotional because of the clear identification of Hari, and hence not generic to any
romantic poetry.56

Again, similar usage and substance is found in another one of Sur‘s verses:

It all seems something else these days—

Now that our enchanting Cowherd has gone,
everything in Braj has changed.
Our homes have turned to caverns, lions‘ lairs,
and the beast is panting for its prey.
You know how they say, friend, that moonbeams are cool

52
Busch, Poetry of Kings, 34.
53
Ibid.
54
Hawley, The Memory of Love, 111.
55
See, Note 192.2 in ibid, 227.
56
See, Busch, Poetry of Kings, 35.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 25 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

and soothing, but we‘ve been scalded instead,

And no matter how much we women shower each other
with water mixed with kumkum and sandalwood powder
And musk from the deer, it all comes to naught
in face of the fever of being apart.
We‘ve heard that love is a life-giving vine,
but now, without Sūr‘s Lord, it bears a poison fruit,
And deprived of the light from Hari‘s lunar face
the lotus of our hearts declines to bloom.57

It seems as though the verses from Sur could just as well be incorporated in Keshav‘s scholarly works
to illustrate the lakṣaṇ. Similarly, many other verses can also be produced to elaborate the point being made.
Both Keshavdas and Surdas rely heavily on Vaishnava influenced traditions about Krishna (and Radha). They
are the main hero and heroine of many of these verses. Keshav uses them as an ideal couple to illustrate his
literary principles about the description of love, and Sur constructs a narrative around a significant event in his
lord‘s life. Both are imbued with devotional thought.

Questioning Authority
Another such similarity, and a fascinating one considering the genres of both poets, is how they dealt
with their lord—either the deity or the patron king. It is believed that court poetry is sycophantic and the only
job of a court poet is to eulogise his patron. Thus, it has been suggested that rīti or court poetry came to be
viewed by both colonial and nationalist critics as decadent or devoid of any higher purpose other than pleasing
the rich.58 However, this understanding of courtly poetry and panegyrics has been questioned in many different
cultural and literary contexts as well. In analysing Persian and Arabic qaṣīdah or panegyric poetry, Julie Scott
Meisami argued that panegyric poets were not, as is often assumed, ―frustrated artists‖ or ―second-rate hacks‖
simply inflating the egos of their patrons; they were instead moral perceptors who presented an idealised form of
monarchy to which the monarch should aspire. The ritual function of panegyrics—being read aloud on
ceremonial occasions, their ―repetitious nature‖ and so on—allowed the poets to present these ideals for the
monarchs to emulate, thus combining both ―encomiastic‖ and ―didactic‖ elements in such poetry.59 These
observations can be extended to our area of consideration as well, especially in the case of someone like
Keshavdas who was, as we noted, a guru, friend, and advisor to the Orchha kings alongside being a court poet.
Thus, we see strands of didactic elements in Keshavdas‘ works.
A key example of this comes from his Vīrsiṃhdevcarit, composed in honour of Bir Singh Deo Bundela
and almost at the same time as his accession to the Orchha throne. Bir Singh had captured the Orchha throne by
rebelling against his brother Ram Shah. He had allied with Prince Salim (the future Jahangir) when he set up an
alternate court at Allahabad opposed to his father and then emperor, Akbar. Bir Singh assassinated Akbar‘s
famed court chronicler Abul Fazl at the behest of Salim. When Salim became Jahangir (that is, ascended the
Mughal throne), he backed Bir Singh‘s takeover of Orchha with an imperial edict. 60 This conflict for power
between brothers and the assassionation committed by his patron was not lost on Keshavdas. The poet frames
this story in the beginning as a dialogue between the personified traits of Greed and Generosity, however
without clarifying which trait Ram Shah and Bir Singh represented. 61 Moreover, the nāyaka Bir Singh‘s armies
are called nisācargana or ‗demon forces‘ in one instance, while Ram Shah‘s general is called Hanuman, which
by extension might imply that Ram Shah was the legendary Lord Ram, while the person he was fighting, the
poet‘s own patron Bir Singh, Ravan. 62 A similar tendency is seen when Keshavdas deals with the episode of Bir
Singh assassinating Abul Fazl, which would have certainly been an uncomfortable event to reconcile in his
work: a nāyaka could not have been an assassin. Keshav at first shows Bir Singh trying to dissuade Salim from
moving forward with the assassination. Abul Fazl is compared to a demon (asura) while Bir Singh to a Vishnu
avatār. However, later the poet glorifies Abul Fazl abundantly, highlighting his spirituality and glorious
achievements, and also details Akbar‘s grief at the loss of his friend. Thus, Keshav sympathises with Akbar and
Abul Fazl, almost completely leaving Bir Singh out of the narrative for some time. 63

57
Hawley, The Memory of Love, 113.
58
Busch, ―Questioning the Tropes,‖ 35.
59
Julie Scott Meisami, ―The Poetry of Praise: The Qasidah and Its Uses,‖ in Medieval Persian Court Poetry (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1987), 41-46.
60
Busch, ―Literary Responses,‖ 38.
61
Ibid, 39.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid, 40-41.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 26 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

It has been suggested that these poetic devices could be a way for Keshavdas to critique the politics of
his patron, something he probably could not have done in person because of his role as a loyal court poet. 64
There are other possibilities as well, but this seems like a logical one, especially if we extend Meisami‘s analysis
to our case. Keshav‘s account is not devoid of praises for his patron; far from it. But, if his role indeed was to
act as a moral adviser, he would have needed to touch upon those acts of his patron that were not suited to the
high ideals to which he should have aspired. Not possible to perform this task in person because of the
conventions of courtly behaviour, a masterful poet like Keshavdas could have resorted to his poetry to fulfil this
job.
Surdas also critiques, or at least expresses dissatisfaction with, his lord. His lord isn‘t a monarch who
patronised him to write eulogies in his honour; his lord is the God himself. One might expect a clear-cut
supplication and humility to characterise all of Sur‘s verses about his lord. After all, a bhakta is much lower in
hierarchy than the lord and possibly lacks any authority to express dissatisfaction with him. However, consider
the following verses:

They say you‘re so giving, so self-denying, Rām,

That you offered Sudāmā the four goals of life
and to your guru you granted a son.
Vibhīṣaṇ: you gave him the land of Lanka
to honor his early devotion to you.
Rāvaṇ: his were the ten heads you severed
simply by reaching for your bow.
Prahlād: you justified the claim he made.
Indra, leader of the gods, you made a sage.
Sūrdās: how could you be so harsh with him—
leaving him without his very eyes?65

Clearly, Surdas shows signs of disenchantment from his revered deity. The same God (the verse
mentions the deeds of both Ram and Krishna, and even other deities, but attributes them to the same being as all
those deities are considered avatārs of Vishnu) who blessed his devotees, and even demons, with such
magnanimity has left another one of his devoted bhaktas, Sur himself, unblessed and blind. ―How could you be
so harsh with him,‖ is certainly a strongly-worded complaint, almost a rebuke.

And in a similar vein:

What did I ever not do?

Think of my actions one by one
And tell me how you can advertise yourself
as Purifier of the Fallen.
Ever since I was born into the world
and called a living being,
Aside from the evils and errors I‘ve done,
I‘ve simply done nothing at all.
Those who are virtuous, obedient, pure—
how can you help but be drawn toward them?
But to shield someone burdened with fear
proves the lordliness of the Lord indeed.
Oh beautiful dark one, lotus-eyed,
who knows us all inside,
What kind of prayer can be made to you by Sūr,
who is cruel,
who is crooked,
who craves?66

This verse also shows dissatisfaction with the lord, but is more of a plea of help at the same time. This
is different from the previous verse as here Sur adopts a more supplicant and humble tone. He paints himself as

64
Ibid, 41.
65
Hawley, The Memory of Love, 181.
66
Ibid, 180.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 27 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

a crooked desperate man who is not virtuous or obedient or pure. But he asks why has the lord, who is known as
the ―purifier of the fallen‖ (patit pāvan), not purified or saved this fallen poet-sinner.67

The verses of both Sur and Keshav are instances where the higher authority is being critiqued, or at
least questioned, by those below them. Sur questions his lord, Keshav questions his patron king. This may seem
strange intuitively, but it is not so. It is because the devotee loves his lord that he can make a complaint. The
common wisdom of ‗you get mad at the people you love‘ seems to be at play here too. A person not devoted to
the lord does not complain; he doesn‘t expect anything in the first place. However, the poet here, who is
intensely devoted to the lord expects to be blessed for his devotion. When he does not get that blessing, he feels
frustrated, disappointed, and disenchanted, and complains to the lord. A similar logic is at play when Keshavdas
critiques his patron king. Someone not concerned with the affairs of the state has no reason to critique the bad
politics of the king. But, Keshav‘s position compels him to do so. He is subservient to the king, but at the same
time as an adviser he must question his patron when he goes wrong. It is because of his position, and not in spite
of it, that he is able to present this critique.
The point here then is this: in verses of both these poets, we find examples of authority being
questioned and somewhat subverted. Both are different in many ways—who they question, why they question
them, in what capacity this questioning happens—but both question this authority all the same. The underlying
logic for this is not a maligned intention to challenge and displace this authority. It comes from a place of
devotion and loyalty. Sur obviously could not be malignant towards his master, and Keshav could not have evil
intentions against his patron king. This similarity between Surdas and Keshavdas can also be extrapolated to
broader frames of bhakti and rīti literature, which have been questioned by many others as well. One, there is a
similarity between both genres in the hierarchy persisting in the poet-subject relations: the poet, be it the bhakti
saint or the court poet, is subservient to the authority of their overlords, who are also usually the subject of the
compositions. Two, it is because of this very position of hierarchical relation and the closeness between the poet
and the lord that the former is able to question and critique the latter. Third, both genres are not very watertight
to begin with; for instance, Keshav uses ample bhakti imagery in not only his rītigranths but also in his own rīti
compositions such as the Vīrsiṃhdevcarit as well.

Some Other Commonalities

Yet other similarities exist between both poets. Consider the following verse in the Vīrsiṃhdevcarit, in
which Keshavdas describes the beauty of the city of Jahangirpur (as Orchha came to be called), specifically the
Bir Lake:

When Generosity and Greed set out to see Jahangirpur

They saw a huge array of forts, towns and villages –
How could I possibly recount all their names?
They saw lakes and rivers that made them glad.
Then they approached ‗Bir lake.‘ Seeing the magnificent Bir lake
They sought the appropriate terms for describing it.
It gives such pleasure on earth, this body of water!
It is marvelous, clear, vast, and profound in its depths.
It is home to blossoming flowers, bright like a star-lit sky.
It is a place of great coolness, where the heat of summer is forbidden entry:
Abode of scents, a place of beauty, effacer of the world‘s cares
Like the goddess Candika in its dark hue.
The tall waves are a cluster of clouds releasing their spray in the wind
At sunset the water takes on a red quality,
Waves shimmering like lightning, removing the sorrow of men‘s hearts.
Night and day peacocks dance in all directions to the spray of the lake
The lotuses bloom, their white luster like moonlight . . .68

And now, this one by Surdas, describing the Ganges river:

From the lotus of those beloved feet, it is nectar

To divert the bee of a mind of impure thoughts
from the dulling liquor of the senses.

67
See, Note 397.8, in ibid, 269.
68
Busch, ―Literary Responses,‖ 44.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 28 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

It flows with less impurity than even ambrosia,

the liquid of deathlessness. Its form is inner joy.
Its great cooling powers were known by Shiva
when he bore it on his head, casting aside the moon
And caring nothing for mountains or snakes
or the duel in which gods and anti-gods were bound.
In all three worlds, says Sūr, that River-of-the-Gods
is immanent, immortal, and so free.69

The obvious similarity is that both describe rivers in glowing terms. But it is deeper than that. Both
poets use the rivers and their beauty and divinity to make larger points about the glory of the city and the God.
Keshav uses the imagery of the river to paint the picture of a perfect king and a perfect kingdom. The river
keeps the unpleasantness, like the hot summers, out of Bir Singh‘s realm. It is suggested that the ―effacer of the
world‘s care‖ as a descriptive for the river also serves as an analogy to the expectations that Bir Singh‘s subjects
would have from his rule.70 Similarly, Sur uses the imagery of the sacred Ganges to not only eulogise the river
itself, but also Vishnu, and specifically his feet, from which the river is said to flow. 71 Thus, both poets use the
imagery of rivers to underscore the beauty, divinity, and perfection of more abstract concepts. Of course,
imagery of nature is not specific to either Sur or Keshav; it has deep roots in Sanskrit mahākāvya traditions. But
this point only serves to reinforce the deeper similarities of bhakti and rīti literature in terms of the influence of
Sanskrit literary principles on both genres. The same principle is at work in another one of Sur‘s verses, also
eulogising both the Ganges and Krishna:

A necklace of pearls to captivate the mind

Glistens on the beautiful chest of Śyām—
a Ganges descending from Himalayan heights to earth.
Its banks are his biceps; its whirlpools, Bhṛgu‘s scar;
and its oh so lovely waves, his sandal-paste designs.
Fish shimmer brightly in the sparkle of his jewels:
they‘ve left their lakes to come and join
his earring-crocodiles.
Sūr says, a lovely sacred thread flows down his chest
as if within the stream there were
a yet more splendid stream,
And the conch, disk, club, and lotus in his hands
are ganders come to rest on his lovely lotus pond.72

And here again, when Keshavdas describes Jahangir‘s cities to mark his ideal rule in his
Jahāngīrjascandrika:

In Jahangir‘s cities the only thunderous sound is that of a storm rolling in

There is no fear of calamity;
The only concern is to protect the populace from poverty and instability.
There is no illicit sex with improper women;
The only sneaking around is to attack an enemy fort.
The only inconstancy is in literary representations of the myriad emotions.
The only theft is of others‘ pain.
The only land-grabber to be seen is Ṣeṣanaga, holding up the earth.
The people are all able-bodied; says Keśavdās,
The only odd-shaped things are the impenetrable labyrinthine fortresses.
On hilltops all you see are temples.
Jahangir‘s rule is ideal in every respect. 73

69
Hawley, The Memory of Love, 196.
70
Busch, ―Literary Responses,‖ 45.
71
See, Note 432.1-432.6, in Hawley, The Memory of Love, 279-280.
72
Ibid, 90.
73
Busch, ―Literary Responses,‖ 47.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 29 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

Lastly, another point of similarity can also be made between Sur and Keshav, and more broadly also
about bhakti and rīti poetry. Often, elements traditionally associated with one of these genres permeate into and
are found in the other as well. For instance, a key element of court poetry is the description of courtly features
and the valourisation of the king in battle. After all, bravery in battle is a hallmark of a strong ruler. However,
such descriptions are not at all limited to rīti literature. Consider these verses by Sur:

Mādhav, in anger, took the wheel in his hand.

Abandoning the word of the Veda, his own promise,
he did what would please his devotee.
He stepped from his chariot to earth, all astir,
and the moment his foot touched the ground he ran.
The earth could not endure the weight
and shuddered fearfully, as if deranged.
His upper garment slipped down his limbs
and as he lifted his vast, strong arm
It revealed a torso radiant with sweat and blood—
a thundercloud raining pearls and rubies.
Sūr says, when Brahmā saw that fine warrior
and the discus he held, called Fine Vision [Sudarśan],
He fell into confusion, as if this were a new creation
and he a baby, lotus-born upon an umbilical stem.74

The way his yellow garments fluttered,

The wheel in his hand, how swiftly he ran—
I‘ll never forget how he appeared
When he stepped from his chariot to earth, all astir.
With bits of dust smeared through his hair he seemed
Like a lion emerging from a mountain lair
on sensing some great, mad elephant.
The same Gopāl who fulfilled my vow,
who brushed aside the Vedic sense of right—
This is the one who‘s coming to my aid:
such a Lord, says Sūr, and yet so near.75

Both verses talk about the same event from different perspectives. This event is when Krishna in the
Mahābhārata war, broke his vow (of not wielding a weapon) because of Bhishma, who had himself taken a vow
to make Krishna fight in the battle. Thus, the deity broke his own vow to honour the vow of his devotee
(Bhishma). The first verse described the event through the perspective of Brahma watching the battle while the
second from that of Bhishma himself. Note the vivid imagery in describing Krishna in battle. These glorify him
as a warrior, whose skills were divine to begin with. Another even more graphically vivid description of a deity
in battle (in this case, Ram) can be seen in the following verse of Surdas:

Today Rām is raging in battle,

And Brahmā and his company have mounted their chariots—
gods come to witness the fray.
Rām has arrayed his cloud-dark body in godlike armor;
he‘s set his bow, Sāraṅg, in his hand;
He‘s purified his arrows, straightened them all,
and fastened his quiver to his waist.
Oceans rumble; Śeṣ‘s hood trembles;
the wind is crippled to a hush;
Indra laughs, while Shiva smiles and weeps
to see that what he‘s promised cannot be.
Earth and sky and the directions melt to one
as arrows fill the air like so many rays of sun,
Announcing, as it were, the ending of the world,

74
Hawley, The Memory of Love, 160.
75
Ibid, 161.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 30 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

when at a single time the twelve suns rise.

Flags, flagpoles, parasols, and chariots break—
bows, shields, swords, and armor;
Brilliant warriors burn, as in a forest fire
trees are stripped of branches and leaves.
Splashes of blood spatter to the sky
as arrows hit elephants and horses:
It looks like a city where suddenly a great fire
leaps from the straw-carriers‘ houses.
Headless corpses rise and stagger about in fear,
awakened by burns. They try to flee
While jackals circle, dig for heads from the heap,
snatch them, and chase away.
The fury of Raghupati stokes the blaze,
the sighs of Sītā are the breeze,
And Rāvaṇ‘s family, stubborn warriors all,
like a forest of thick bamboo
Turns in a second to ash, as if someone
had touched a flame to old, discarded clothes.
Sūrdās‘s Lord, with the power of his massive arms,
has smashed them in an instant to ants.76

Thus, it is important to note that bhakti does not only imply worshipping a deity in abstract or praying
to them with humble submission. It also involves glorifying the bravery of the deity in battle. Conversely, rīti
texts constantly rely on divine imagery to drive the point home about the bravery and prowess of the kings, for
instance by comparing the patrons to deities. In that regard too, both the poets and their broader genres are quite
similar.
A last brief point can also be made here. Surdas was not a contemporary of Keshav. He lived and wrote
before the poet from Orchha. However, as the Sūrsāgar contains works of poets other than Surdas who probably
wrote many years after him, it is possible that some were contemporaries of Keshav or lived after him. In that
case, they might have studied the scholarly works produced by Keshav and might have implemented his
principles, which could be an explanation for these similarities. And even if we consider ‗the‘ Sur who would
have lived and wrote before Keshav, it is likely that his bhakti compositions would have influenced Keshav‘s
own writings. Thus, although difficult to prove conclusively, it might be that the traditions and works of both
Sur and Keshava influenced each other in some or the other way.

[IV]
Conclusion
Thus, towards the end, some final observations can be made. At a fundamental level, Brajbhasha
poetry, which became a major medium of Hindi literary expression in the sixteenth century, was intensely rich
in its breadth and scope, and produced poets par excellence. This cultural efflorescence coincided with and was
influenced significantly by the growth of the Vaishnava traditions in the Braj region, which incidentally was
very close to the centres of Mughal power. The Mughals, who were also spreading their spheres of influence in
this period, had a very curious relationship with Braj literature. Even though it was not a language of the
administration and remained secondary to Persian in an imperial hierarchy, many emperors, nobles and other
political elites not only patronised Braj poets and musicians, but some also produced literature themselves.
Through the lives of Surdas and Keshavdas—two poets heralded by observers contemporary and modern as two
of the tallest pillars of Brajbhasha literature—we can arrive at points of similarity between the works of even
those poets whose careers seem to be widely dissimilar. And drawing on their examples, we can draw broader
conclusions about the similarities in two genres of Hindi literature that were traditionally understood to be not
only chronologically and stylistically very different but also morally hierarchised: bhakti and rīti literature. Of
course, these two genres are not the same, and this paper does not suggest so. It does, however, seek to extend
the line of inquiry that questions this supposed dichotomy between these two genres by relying on the study of
two ‗celestial‘ examples from each genre. This dichotomy is hence questioned by pointing to similarities in the
works of Surdas and Keshavdas, especially in terms of: one, their own popularity and influence; two, Vaishnava
and Sanskrit influences on their works; three, the well-intentioned questioning of authority of their respective
masters through their poetry; four, use of elements traditionally associated with the other genre in their own

76
Ibid, 171.
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 31 |Page
 Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in ..

compositions; and five, use of common elements such as nature imagery to symbolise and glorify more abstract
and broader concepts. To conclude, I posit that in any thematic study of Hindi literature, should themes such as
the ones mentioned above be employed as frames of reference, not only would Surdas and Keshavdas be
prominently featured but might also be mentioned in similar breaths.

REFERENCED BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]. Alam, Muzaffar. ―The Pursuit of Persian: Language in Mughal Politics.‖ Modern Asian Studies 32, No. 2
(May 1998): 317-349. Accessed 15 February, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/313001.
[2]. Bahadur, K.P. The Rasikapriyā of Keshavadāsa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1972.
[3]. Busch, Allison. ―Hidden in Plain View: Brajbhasha Poets at the Mughal Court.‖ Modern Asian Studies
44, no. 2 (2010): 267-309. Accessed 27 March, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/27764657.
[4]. ―. ―Questioning the Tropes About ‗Bhakti‘ and ‗Rīti‘ in Hindi Literary Historiography‖ in Bhakti in
Current Research, 2001-2003. Edited by Monika Horstmann. Delhi: Manohar, 2006, 33-47.
[5]. ―. Poetry of Kings: The Classical Hindi Literature of Mughal India. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2011.
[6]. ―. ―Literary Responses to the Mughal Imperium: The Historical Poems of Keśavdās.‖ South Asia
Research 25, no. 1 (May 2005): 31–54. Accessed 30 March, 2020. doi:10.1177/0262728005051606.
[7]. Datta, Amaresh, ed. Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature: Volume II, Devraj to Jyoti. New Delhi: Sahitya
Akademi, 1988.
[8]. Hawley, John Stratton. Three Bhakti Voices: Mirabai, Surdas, and Kabir in Their Time and Ours. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.
[9]. ―. The Memory of Love: Sūrdās Sings to Krishna. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
[10]. Jalil, Rakhshanda. ―Meet Abdur Rahim Khan-e-Khanan, Who Was Also the ‗Bhakta‘ Poet Rahim Das.‖
Scroll.in. 27 August, 2016. https://scroll.in/article/814998/meet-abdur-rahim-khan-e-khanan-who-was-
also-the-bhakta-poet-rahim-das.
[11]. McGregor, Stuart. ―The Progress of Hindi, Part 1: The Development of a Transregional Idiom‖ in
Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. Edited by Sheldon Pollock. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2003, 912-957.
[12]. Meisami, Julie Scott. ―The Poetry of Praise: The Qasidah and Its Uses‖ in Medieval Persian Court
Poetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987, 40-76.
[13]. Mishra, Vishwanath Prasad, ed. Keśavgranthāvalī, Volume I. 3rd ed. Allahabad: Hindustani Academy,
1990.
[14]. Sharma, Sandhya. ―Keshavdas and His Braja Poet: A Proof of Historical Consciousness.‖ Proceedings of
the Indian History Congress 68, Part One (2007): 398-405. Accessed 9 April, 2020.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147852.
[15]. Singh, Vijaypal. Keśav aur Unkā Sāhitya. Delhi: Rajpal and Sons, 1961.
[16]. Snell, Rupert. The Hindi Classical Tradition: A Braj Bhāṣā Reader. London: School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London, 1991.
[17]. Varma, Pavan K. The Greatest Ode to Lord Ram: Tulsidas‘s Ramcharitmanas; Selections &
Commentaries. Chennai: Westland, 2020.

Prateek Pankaj. ―Reconciling Surdas and Keshavdas: A Study of Commonalities and Differences in
Brajbhasha Literature.‖ IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 25(6), 2020, pp.
17-32.

DOI: 10.9790/0837-2506041732 www.iosrjournals.org 32 |Page