The True Voice of Baul: Reclaiming Indigenous Self-Determination
Wikipedia and all scholarly definitions of Baul are fundamentally flawed. They represent a "white-washed" narrative, created by academics who have "copied and pasted" misinformation from one book to another, perpetuating inaccurate descriptions of who the Bauls truly are. Scholars are, in effect, co-opting the self-determination of an indigenous, ancient ancestry. Only a Baul from an authentic, indigenous lineage possesses the right to define what Baul is. They are the rightful owners of this tradition, having preserved it for thousands of years.
The notion that "Baul is an umbrella term" is a colonial construct, not an authentic Baul concept. Baul, as a distinct category, requires protection from outsiders who fabricate stories about it. Scholars are never the ultimate authority on any indigenous people; they take from a culture and then presume to define it.
Only someone who has actively preserved the entirety of Baul for six decades has the right to speak about their indigenous tradition. This certainly does not include "fake Bauls" or their social media marketers who "cherry-pick and steal information" from our lineage Baul blog and websites. We are aware of who accesses our material. Stop using our intellectual property, name-dropping as if you have legitimate knowledge. Cease fabricating stories, such as the claim that "20,000 Bauls" remain; Baul is extinct, and its essence has been diluted enough. Do not name-drop or recount our stories, or use our written content without explicit permission. Everything has been copyrighted. This has been an ongoing issue since BabuKishan.com, the very first Baul website, was launched in the 1990s, with content consistently "poached, copied, with no credit given, names taken off, and stories reworked as if they were the originals."
Consider how you, as a scholar, would feel if a Baul presumed to define your identity and future. We intend to do just that, without offense, as we are simply exercising self-determination regarding your academic future. Bauls are not "monkeys in your zoo to be scientifically examined." They are a marginalized people, and you should not exploit them or the name "Baul." We will openly address the damage and karmic repercussions of your "scientific false narratives" through our forthcoming book, echoing the stance on lineagebaul.blogspot.com.
The authentic voice of Baul must originate solely from Bauls themselves, not from outsiders who base their research on ethnographic experimentation.
Redefining Baul: No "Umbrella Term" for Fakir or Muslim Traditions
The self-determining indigenous people of Baul unequivocally state: Fakir, Sai, Dervish, or Muslims are 100% NOT BAUL. To continue using this association or term is to propagate a "fake, false narrative."
As highlighted by Trevor Reed's work on cultural appropriation: "Something is common to all forms of cultural appropriation: all involve outsiders taking something from a culture other than their own... The differences between types of appropriation are, however, crucial in determining whether and how an instance of appropriation is objectionable." Copyright law, though imperfect, offers some protection against the appropriation of indigenous culture, including "copyrightable songs, dances, oral histories, and other forms of Indigenous cultural creativity."
This raises the critical question of how Baul can protect its millennia-old preservation. It is unacceptable for individuals to use Nabani Das Khyapa Baul's poetry, brazenly copying from Babu Kishan's YouTube videos, and then re-recording the songs as if they were the originators. Such actions may warrant legal qualification in court. If you are unaware of a poet's identity, do not assume there is no poet simply because you are "using Baul." Being a scholar does not grant you the right to appropriate Baul. The time for such practices has passed. Laws are needed in India to halt intellectual property theft. Bangladesh, in particular, is noted for its "masters at the intellectual property theft of Baul."
Baul is never an "umbrella name" for Fakir or anyone else!
Bauls originate exclusively in Birbhum, West Bengal, and are Vaishnava Tantric Sahajiya Vaishnava Bauls. They follow the path of the Avadhut, Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, and Shakti Sadhana.
Baul and Fakir are two completely different sects.
Do not attempt to "self-determine" our identity; you, as a scholar, have no right to do so. Making false associations simply because some Fakirs claimed to be Baul is unacceptable. Concrete proof is required, not anecdotal accounts or personal notes. You are not the authority on Baul, and Baul does not require further "social engineering." Bangladeshis have exploited Baul for an extended period, and this must cease. The last authentic Baul is believed to have left this earth in 1969.
It is a known strategy: being a Fakir attracts little attention or funding, but adding "Baul" garners significant interest due to its enduring popularity. Bengalis held an emotional connection to Bauls as a national image, which has been appropriated by Bangladeshis for fundraising. While Fakirs receive minimal attention, associating with Baul often leads to substantial funding. Anyone who has genuinely studied Baul over time would discern this fact, rendering notes from individuals like Carol Solomon insubstantial compared to the words of an indigenous Baul. You are simply mistaken.
Baul is extinct. Do not dilute or reduce it further. Fakir is a living tradition, and you should study Fakir, but do not place them under a "fake Baul umbrella." Those propagating such claims have no genuine relationship with Baul.
Your descriptions of Baul are inaccurate, watered-down "copy and paste" jobs. What gives you the right to comment on any indigenous culture? How would you like me to define a scholar? As "a synergistic group, a mixture of English, European cultural twisters and appropriators who create careers off of copy and paste of what other scholars have written, as if it is the truth, defining and repeating over and over what does not belong to them." This is merely a starting point.
You are never the authority on other indigenous peoples' ancestry, and you should not speak of Bauls as if they are random, generic individuals. This is "social engineering," as people uncritically adopt your written words as truth. In North America, particularly Canada, such external representation of indigenous peoples would be shut down. The continued allowance of this in India is baffling, reflecting extensive cultural appropriation of yoga and tantra. Textbooks predominantly authored by Europeans and Muslims still omit genuine Hindu narratives.
Which Fakirs were interviewed by you? Are they using "Fakir Baul," or is this a construct inherited and promoted by you from Carol Solomon? What are these Fakirs' qualifications regarding Baul? A fabricated story is not proof. They may be legitimate Fakirs, but if you are making this connection to Baul, it originates from Carol Solomon, and she is wrong.
You seek to make "Baul an umbrella name"; it is not. Stop using this term; it reduces and degrades who Baul is.Perhaps you use "Baul" because "Fakir" alone lacks popularity, and using the name Baul garners more attention.
The Fabricated "Baul Fakir" Narrative and Its Roots
Babu Kishan was aware of scholars' trips over four decades ago, having known and tested many of them, most of whom failed. Now, there's another "reworking" for someone's career. Only an authentic Baul can "self-determine" who is an authentic Baul. You will likely find limited engagement from genuine Bauls due to the historical damage inflicted by scholars, sensationalized media, and "fake famed social media Bauls." Baul is extinct and does not need further fabricated "Fakir Baul tags."
There is no such thing as "Baul Fakir" or "Fakir Baul." The rationale behind this will be extensively explained in the forthcoming book.
Some Baul singers attempt to legitimize themselves by displaying pictures of a "fake Baul Guru," claiming brief associations that conveniently lengthen over time. We meticulously document these discrepancies, as the first tenet of Baul is truthfulness. The "tricks" of social media personalities are extensive.
Keith Cantu's attempts to "sway Baul culture" by writing about "Baul Fakirs" will unfortunately be welcomed by Bangladeshis, who have long sought to appropriate Baul and this lineage's stories, even using images of Nabani for fundraising.
The term "'Baul Fakir' was promoted by Carol Solomon," a construct allegedly "engineered for funding." Without Babu Kishan, Carol and others would have had no knowledge of Baul. He instructed her, and she allegedly "twisted Baul to obtain grants," as grants were harder to secure for subjects already extensively covered by Western scholars like Edward Dimock, Charles Capwell, and Glen Hayes, who had previously written on this lineage. Cantu's claim of introducing a "new perspective" is dismissed.
Baul is an ancient lineage; it does not require a "new perspective" or further rearrangement with "false narratives." It demands accurate preservation by someone capable of discerning the distinctions between Bengalis and Bangladeshis, and between Baul and Fakir.
Cantu writes: "I introduce a new perspective on ethnography for the study of Bengali Fakirs (male) and Fakirānis (female) with regard to Yoga and Tantra, as well as their participation in the broader umbrella of the Bauls of Bengal." This "umbrella term" is degrading and reduces Baul, stripping it of its indigenous self-determination.
Babu Kishan has been teaching Ethnomusicology across India since the 1970s. Ethnomusicology, "the study of music from the cultural and social aspects of the people who make it," is a field where many contemporary practitioners were taught by Babu Kishan. He also categorized "all the Folk music of India" for major Indian music companies at a young age. As a linguist with an astute ear, he can distinguish Baul from other traditions by vernacular dialect, song origins, and authenticity. He is the expert, and he unequivocally states there is NO UMBRELLA, and Fakir is not Baul.
How can one study Baul or Fakir without understanding the languages and music? Any research must be validated by a true expert. The reliability of newspaper articles is questionable, and personal notes are insufficient. You seek to define Baul based on your word alone.
You must qualify yourself. You are attempting to usurp the self-determination rights of indigenous Baul, which are protected by the United Nations.
Lalon Fakir was a great poet but not a Baul; he did not practice Baul sadhana. Fakirs do not practice Baul sadhana. While they may engage in some yoga or tantra, that does not make them Baul. One must truly understand who and what Baul is, rather than selectively interpreting and self-determining its identity. Baul sadhana is highly specific to Baul.
Baul is not merely Birbhum vernacular Bengali; it encompasses oral Sanskrit and Sandhya Bhasa. Do these Fakirs speak these languages? Are you proficient in them?
The "Bauls of Bengal" and The Problem of Funding
The name "Bauls of Bengal" emerged because Purna Das Baul and Laxshman Das Baul came to America in 1967 and were featured on Bob Dylan’s album, John Wesley Harding. Purna Das Baul officially registered "The Bauls of Bengal" as his singing group's name in India in the 1960s; no one used this name before this lineage. The first official Baul album worldwide, also titled The Bauls of Bengal, was released by Elektra New York in 1968. Therefore, when you refer to "the Bauls of Bengal," you are referring to this specific, sole lineage, and we unequivocally reject the term "Fakir Baul," as we know they are not Baul.
A "new perspective" on Baul is unnecessary; scholars have already caused sufficient harm through false speculation. Baul is not an "umbrella name" for Fakir, Aul, Sai, Dervish, or Shah; it is not an umbrella term for any group of wandering people. While Bauls accepted Fakirs as they did all people, Baul did not become Fakir. This persistent need to correct false narratives is tiresome. Mixing Baul with Fakir is a propaganda gimmick for money collection and fundraising, a practice rampant in Bangladesh since the 1972 War.
The fundraisers organized by The Beatles and Rolling Stones for Bangladesh after 1972 (attended by Babu Kishan, part of the Indian contingent with Ravi Shankar, Ali Akbar Khan, and Purna Das Baul) demonstrate how many attached themselves to fundraising efforts in Bangladesh, becoming "masters of fundraising."
While individuals like Nusratrani Fakrini or Alam Fakir were largely unknown, Purna Das Baul was a superstar in Bangladesh from the 1970s to 2000. Many capitalized on Baul's popularity during this time to fabricate the "Baul Fakir" identity. Understanding this history is crucial to grasping how this false narrative originated.
In Bangladesh, associating with Baul is common due to its funding potential. If they identify as Fakir, they receive no funding; if a Fakir associates with Yoga or Tantra, funding remains scarce. However, associating with Baul significantly increases funding opportunities—a "jackpot" for many. It's important to remember that Baul was largely unknown in Bangladesh before Purna Das Baul, and in the 1970s, "Muslim Baul" or Lalon Fakir (whom Rabindranath Tagore recognized only as a poet, not a Baul) were unheard of. It was Nabani Das Khyapa Baul, Babu Kishan's grandfather, who initiated Tagore into Baul.
When Bengalis heard Babu Kishan's Lalon Fakir music on the radio, Lalon Fakir gained popularity, even in Bangladesh, inspiring other music composers to set his poetry to music. Baul poetry naturally has an inherent tune. Babu Kishan was among the first to compose music for Lalon poetry. In the late 1970s, he brought renowned Bangladeshi singers to Calcutta, producing and recording an album of Lalon Fakir poetry, sung by his father, Purna Das Baul. This is the origin of "Baul Fakir." Just because a Baul sings other songs or the songs of other poets does not transform that poet into a Baul. Other poets, like Monohar Kepa and Baba Pagla, approached Babu Kishan to produce music for their poetry, associating with his family to raise their profiles. They were Baul enthusiasts and great poets, but not Bauls themselves.
Lalon Fakir's poetry had no inherent tune or music because he was not a Baul; he was solely a poet. If Lalon Fakir were a Baul, his poetry would have possessed a Baul tune and music. A Bengali film depicting Lalon Fakir as a Baul illustrates how false narratives perpetuate.
This was the first music ever composed for Lalon Fakir poetry, done by Babu Kishan. As an inborn music composer, he was awarded "youngest Indian composer" at age 11. It is not his fault that others exploited this to construct false narratives, which continue into 2023.
A Call to Action for Scholars and Protecting Indigenous Rights
Seriously, stop fabricating these narratives. When you suggest "more research is needed to focus only on Fakir Baul," remove "Baul." Tell your story with Fakirs, but do not use Baul as an umbrella. Research Fakir, by all means, but leave Baul alone; it has endured lifetimes of false narratives.
No more research is needed on Baul. All necessary research has been conducted by Babu Kishan through his lived experience, his extensive research, the recording and translation of thousands of Baul songs, and his 60 years of preserving Baul.
While we acknowledge Carol Solomon's notes, who was a dear friend of Babu Kishan's for decades, the truth must be spoken. Babu Kishan constantly corrected Carol's Bengali and provided her with immense assistance and information on Baul. He even signed for her funding, believing she would focus on authentic Baul. Many in Bangladesh then created the new narrative of identifying as Baul due to Purna Das Baul's popularity, followed by Lalon Fakir being labeled the "most famous Baul," leading to their opportunistic attachment to the Baul name. Carol Solomon's knowledge of Baul songs stemmed directly from this lineage; her Lalon Fakir songs are not Baul songs, as will be explained later in the book.
Your reliance on newspaper articles is flawed, as they are often inaccurate. Keith Cantu, you are not indigenous to Bengal, nor was Carol Solomon. While her notes are appreciated, your claims are wild. You are studying Fakir, not Baul, and your assertion of being "immersed in Baul Fakir" demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of immersion in true Baul.
Fakirs from Bangladesh use Baul and attach themselves to it because this family popularized Baul. Baul became a lucrative fundraising tool in Bangladesh, with one Bangladeshi official allegedly absconding with $9 million meant to "preserve Baul as being from Persia." Bangladeshis are adept at creating false narratives. They seek the "jackpot" of United Nations funding by blurring the lines between Fakir and Baul, creating absolute lies like "Baul is from Persia." Observing these patterns over time reveals their true nature.
How can you distinguish a Baul song from a Fakir song, a Bangladeshi Folk song, or a water song? How do you know what Baul is versus a folk song, based on an "11-year phone call," a newspaper article, or a performance? How do we know they, or you, are telling the truth? You must qualify yourself. You are attempting to strip Indigenous Baul of their self-determining rights as recognized by the United Nations.
Lalon Fakir was a great poet, but he was not a Baul; he did not practice Baul sadhana. Fakirs do not practice Baul sadhana. While they might practice some yoga or tantra, that doesn't make them Baul. You must first truly understand who and what Baul is; you cannot simply "cherry-pick and self-determine" who is Baul. Baul sadhana is very specific to Baul.
Did you know that Baul is not solely Birbhum vernacular Bengali? That Bangladeshi Bengali is different? That Baul is oral Sanskrit and Sandhya Bhasa? What language and vernacular Bengali do these Fakirs speak? Are they oral Sanskrit? Are you?
As per the United Nations, "Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination."
The Fabricated "Baul Fakir" Narrative: A Challenge to Authenticity
The promotion of "'Baul Fakir' was orchestrated by Carol Solomon primarily for funding. It's imperative to understand that no one, not even Carol Solomon, would have known about Baul without Babu Kishan. He was her teacher on Baul, and she allegedly distorted its essence to secure grants. Western scholars like Edward Dimock, Charles Capwell, and Glen Hayes had already extensively documented aspects of this lineage, making it difficult to obtain new funding for the same subject.
When Cantu states he is "introducing a new perspective" on Baul, it fundamentally misunderstands Baul. Baul is an ancient lineage; it does not require a new perspective or rearrangement with more false narratives. Its sole need is accurate preservation by someone who can discern the intricate differences between Bengalis and Bangladeshis, and crucially, between Baul and Fakir.
Cantu's assertion that he introduces "a new perspective on ethnography for the study of Bengali Fakirs (male) and Fakirānis (female) with regard to Yoga and Tantra, as well as their participation in the broader umbrella of the Bauls of Bengal" is a misrepresentation. There is no "umbrella." This "umbrella term" is degrading, waters down Baul's unique identity, and strips Bauls of their indigenous right to self-determination.
Babu Kishan has been teaching Ethnomusicology throughout India since the 1970s. As defined, "Ethnomusicology is the study of music from the cultural and social aspects of the people who make it." Many contemporary ethnomusicologists were, at some point, taught by Babu Kishan in Baul and Indian Philosophy. He categorized all the folk music of India for major music companies at a young age. As a linguist with a discerning ear, he can precisely identify who is Baul and who is not, based on vernacular dialect, song origins, and authenticity. He is the undisputed expert, and he unequivocally states: there is NO UMBRELLA, and Fakir is NOT Baul. Fakirs are Fakirs, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that identity.
How can one conduct any study of Baul or Fakir without a profound understanding of the languages and the music? All research must be qualified by someone with true knowledge. The reliability of anecdotal accounts, newspaper articles, or personal notes is questionable. For outsiders to claim to determine who Baul is, relying solely on their word, is unacceptable.
Do you, as a scholar, genuinely know the difference between authentic Baul music and folk music? Do you possess the necessary linguistic proficiency? To use "ethnography"—the "scientific description of the customs of individual peoples and cultures"—and place Baul "under a microscope" by an outsider who does not truly know Baul, then categorize it under an "umbrella term," is ridiculous.
Baul does not need to be compared to Fakir or have Fakir attached to its name. If a Fakir copies Baul, it bears no relation to the genuine Baul tradition. They are distinct subjects, with different attire, customs, and foundational philosophies: one is rooted in Islam, the other in Sanatan Dharma. A genuine study of individual peoples and cultures would prevent the creation of such "social engineering projects," new speculations, or the repetition of previously erroneous descriptions perpetuated by scholars, journalists, and Bangladeshis.
The Genesis of "The Bauls of Bengal" and The Funding Agenda
The name "‘Bauls of Bengal’ originated solely when Purna Das Baul and Laxshman Das Baul came to America in 1967 and were featured on Bob Dylan’s album, John Wesley Harding. Purna Das Baul officially registered "The Bauls of Bengal" as their group name in India. No one used this name before this lineage began in the 1960s. The first official Baul album worldwide, also titled ‘The Bauls of Bengal’, was released by Electra in New York in 1968. Therefore, any discussion of "the Bauls of Bengal" refers specifically to this one and only lineage, which emphatically disagrees with the term "Fakir Baul" because this lineage knows who is genuinely Baul and who is not.
Seriously, a "new perspective" is not what Baul needs. Scholars have inflicted enough damage on this indigenous tradition through false speculation. Baul is not an umbrella name for Fakir, Aul, Sai, Dervish, or Shah; it is not an umbrella term for any individual or group of wandering people.
While Bauls accepted Fakirs, as they did all people, Baul did not become Fakir. This constant need to rectify false narratives is exhausting. Mixing the name "Baul" with "Fakir" is a calculated propaganda gimmick for soliciting money and fundraising, a practice rampant in Bangladesh for decades, especially since the 1972 War which created Bangladesh.
Many still recall the fundraisers organized in London by The Beatles and Rolling Stones for Bangladesh. Babu Kishan himself attended four of them since 1972 at Hyde Park; this lineage was part of the Indian contingent, alongside Ravi Shankar, Ali Akbar Khan, and Purna Das Baul. This is how many attached themselves to fundraising efforts in Bangladesh; they are masters at leveraging causes for financial gain.
Individuals like Nusratrani Fakrini or Alam Fakir were unheard of. However, Purna Das Baul was a superstar in Bangladesh from the 1970s through 2000. Many people capitalized on Baul's popularity during this period and invented the "Baul Fakir" identity. Understanding this history is crucial to dismantling the fabricated narrative.
It is common in Bangladesh for individuals to associate with Baul because it is a source of funding. If they identify as Fakir, they receive minimal funding. Even if a Fakir associates with Yoga or Tantra, it rarely attracts significant funds. However, associating with Baul makes it far easier to obtain funding; this is an undeniable fact and has been a "jackpot" for many.
It is crucial to acknowledge that no one in Bangladesh knew about Baul before Purna Das Baul, and in the 1970s, "Muslim Baul" or Lalon Fakir (whom Rabindranath Tagore recognized solely as a poet, never a Baul) were virtually unknown. It was Nabani Das Khyapa Baul, Babu Kishan's grandfather, who initiated Tagore into Baul.
Babu Kishan, who deeply admired Lalon Fakir (Shah)'s poetry, recognized its "Baul-like" quality, but affirmed it was not Baul. When Bengalis heard Babu Kishan's Lalon Fakir music on the radio, Lalon Fakir gained widespread popularity, including in Bangladesh, inspiring other music composers to set his poetry to music. Authentic Baul poetry inherently carries its own tune.
It was Babu Kishan who was among the first to compose music for Lalon poetry. In the late 1970s, he brought a group of renowned Bangladeshi singers to Calcutta, producing and recording an album of Lalon Fakir poetry, which his father, Purna Das Baul, sang. This is the origin of "Baul Fakir." The mere act of a Baul singing other songs or the works of other poets does not transform that poet into a Baul. Other poets, such as Monohar Kepa and Baba Pagla, sought out Babu Kishan to produce music for their poetry and associated with his family to elevate their public profile. They were passionate admirers of Baul and exceptional poets, but they were not Baul.
Lalon Fakir's poetry, recorded, produced, and set to music by Babu Kishan out of his own pocket, became a tremendous hit. It introduced Lalon Fakir's poetry to West Bengal on a massive scale because Purna Das Baul sang the songs composed by Babu Kishan. No one had recorded Lalon Fakir's poetry to music before this. Lalon did not have a tune or music for his poetry because he was not a Baul; he was solely a poet. If Lalon Fakir were a Baul, his poetry would have possessed a Baul tune and music. The existence of a Bengali movie portraying Lalon Fakir as a Baul exemplifies how "fake narratives just go on and on," which is precisely the point: a few individuals can destroy an indigenous tradition by creating and perpetuating false narratives.
This was the first music ever used for Lalon Fakir poetry, created by Babu Kishan. As an inborn music composer, he was recognized at 11 as the youngest Indian composer. It is not his fault that others exploited his work to construct false narratives, a practice that continues into 2025.
