Kiran Shinde
La Trobe University, Australia.
k.shinde@latrobe.edu.au
Sacred sites are often connected in some kind of pattern that leads to formation of what is known as a pilgrimage circuit that exists at both the physical and cognitive level. The connections of these sites within a certain physical geography are mediated by several factors including the ascribing of related mythology and legends on to the landscape and their incorporation as religious practice of pilgrimage. This paper discusses one such circuit – the Ashtavinayak circuit in the western state of Maharashtra in India which has gained immense popularity in recent decades. The circuit comprises of eight (ashta) sacred sites – each dedicated to a form of Vinayaka (Ganesha- the elephant headed God) This paper employs a case study approach in each of the eight sites to examine various facets of this circuit including its mythology, history, and current state. Fieldwork was conducted in these sites in 2022 and included mapping of temples and cultural landscape in each site, participant observations, critical analysis of vernacular literature and historical records, and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders.
The Ashtavinayak sites are Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, and Ozar. Each of these sites has a self-manifested (swayam-bhu) unique stone idol of Ganesha. All these places have mythological legends related to Ganesha but only three are found to have references in the Puranas. Morgaon is the place of the “Ganpatya” sect which considers Ganesha as their main deity. It became popular due to unwavering worship of that Ganesha by a saint named Morya Gosavi in the 17th century. His next seven generations continued performing pilgrimage to Morgaon. Three Ganeshas related to the pilgrimages of Morya Gosavi became popular during the 18th – 19th century as Peshwas (ministers of the Royal court) in Pune worshipped Ganesha as their family deity (kul-devata/ ishtadevata). A famous Peshwas breathed his last at Theur. The place-stories (mahatmya) of the remaining five are relatively recent.
At present the Ashtavinayak circuit weaving the eight sites is about 300 kms in perimeter around Pune. The field investigations revealed that in each site of the circuit, the sacred core of the place is a temple that commemorates the self-manifested idol of Ganesha but beyond the Ganesha temple, each site has a different geography: one is along a river, one is on a mountain, one is in a cave, and others are in rural hinterlands. Moreover, each site has a different Ganesha legend associated with it, with none of them collectively intersecting. This is different from what is commonly found in case of Hindu gods and goddesses where place-stories have some kind of shared narrative that connects the deity to the entire sacred landscape. And yet, despite the mythological and geographical differences, and distances between them, these eight sites are all visited as part of one circuit.
Based on findings, the paper argues that the claims about the antiquity of this circuit are questionable as there is no evidence of a shared religious framework or historic landscape connections. It has found that the popularity of the circuit for tourism can be attributed to 20th century religiosity, popular culture, and burgeoning travel facilities. The circuit journey is more modern as it relies on use of vehicles, including buses and cars, where people mainly from urban centres go from one site to the other seeking blessings of Ganesha. A major trigger for growth in visitation was a 1975 film named Ashtavinayak which inspired more of religious tourism. Like many films dedicated to revival of religious fervour in that period of rapid urbanisation in cities like Mumbai and Delhi, this film revolves around a city-based couple and how visiting the Ashtavinayak helps them overcome their struggles. The film had profound impact on the imagination of urban public. With the availability of bus transport and free time on weekends, people from cities such as Mumbai and Pune began to go on bus tours that would take them to all eight sites in 2-3 days. In fact, the government also facilitated by providing dedicated special State Transport buses for this circuit. The pattern of circuit-wide visitation on weekends has continued – more so with private and rental cars.
A salient feature of the Ashtavinayak circuit is also the fragmentation where certain segments or mini-circuits including only 2-3 sites are more popular than others. This is because of many factors including the invented stories and legends about those temples and places, easy accessibility, regional catchments, and the traditional ritual economies related to the sacred geography of the place. The celebration of the popular Ganesha festival is an apt illustration: in some sites there is no public celebration as each household celebrates that in their own homes, in some sites, there is only one public celebration for the entire village, and in another there is only a temple celebration. This is contrary to the popular understanding that Ganesha festival has to be a public event. Thus, the differences are startling: one has shown hyper-growth because of its location on a highway; one has emerged as a picnic spot; three continue to be very localised shrines embedded in village life; and one has negligible pilgrimage economy. This paper shows how within a circuit, different sites work as fragments but being a part of a popular circuit contributes significantly to their identity as sacred places both at regional and local level.
The paper argues that the circuit represents a powerful imaginary that is driven by and framed by popular culture rather than religious traditions. It recognizes “popular culture” as a driver of meanings and how that impacts the foundational sanctity of the sites. However fragmented it be, the Ashtavinayak circuit is a new place for tourism. The place-stores are now being used to modify traditional landscapes into making places for leisure and touristic activities in some sites. On one hand, the authenticity of true pilgrimage to a sacred site of Ganesha can be questioned. On the other hand, as shown in this paper, the sacred sites also anchor the possibility of creating more tourist attractions because of a captive audience aiming to fulfill religious and recreational needs. So, one would expect different experiential qualities of pilgrimage and expectations driven by motivations of tourism; both playing out in the combination of sacred and secular uses off the same places. Such a reflection on contemporary trends is helpful in nuanced understanding of the circuit and has significant implication for its promotion for tourism by the state and private sector. This can also inform making better policies regarding how to promote and manage increased tourist flows in the circuit so that both contemporary religious needs are balanced with touristic behaviours while maintaining the sanctity of the Ganesha sites and the Ashtavinayak circuit.
