Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (25 page)

In 1945, when a strike notice by the workers was met by partial acceptance of their demands, the strike went ahead. Despite Poddar’s best attempts, a lockout had to be declared in Gita Press for one-and-a- half months in 1946. Then again in 1948 the workers went back on the warpath. The Criminal Investigation Department in several reports to the government pointed out that ‘labourers of the Gita Press contemplate striking should their demands not be fulfilled’
.
At one point the workers suspended their strike, but realizing that their demands were not being fulfilled, they gave notice to strike again.
²¹⁷

One factor that impacted the finances of Gita Press was its interventions in times of public distress, almost on the lines of the RSS, providing flood and famine relief as well as running free Ayurvedic dispensaries. Though these activities aimed at building social capital were carried out largely through contributions from its rich Marwari patrons and partial help from the government, over the years Gita Press had to dip into its own coffers to sustain them. The Gita Press Seva Dal started by Poddar during the 1936 flood in Gorakhpur and neighbouring areas still continues as an important department of Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya.

The Poddar Papers have a chronicle of Gita Press’s work during the 1936 and 1938 floods as well as the 1942 famine, and the rich dividends it earned in terms of accolades and appreciation from the local administration, politicians and the press. The iconic journal
Saraswati
carried Poddar’s appeal for foodgrains and clothes.
²¹⁸

The collector of Gorakhpur, J.E. Pedley, ICS, was so enamoured of the work done by Gita Press during the 1938 flood that he left a testimonial praising the ‘selfless generosity of Hanuman Prasad Poddar and of the Press’, without whom it ‘would have been quite impossible to extend any relief at all to thousands of persons in the flooded villages in this and in other districts’
.
²¹⁹
At the time of 1942 famine it was the turn of Gorakhpur commissioner H.S. Ross to sing paeans of Gita Press’s work in making foodgrains available at the cheapest possible rates, ‘a work of real philanthrophy’.
²²⁰
When permission for the supply of rice bought by Gita Press in Muzaffarpur was delayed, Ross intervened and wrote to the Bihar government’s controller of prices to grant permission for export of grain from the state as it was a ‘purely philanthropic undertaking’.
²²¹
He pointed out that Gita Press had their own wagons for transporting the grain. A host of other British officials, from those in the administration to those in the railways, praised Gita Press for its relief work.

In the 1950s, as independent India’s first government got down to business, Gita Press faced the heat of new regulations. The first decision to directly affect Gita Press related to a hike—almost 100 per cent—in the postal rates for book packets. Gita Press protested and sought the intervention of sympathetic members of parliament like Seth Govind Das, a veteran Congress leader and conservative who was a close friend of Poddar’s.
²²²
Arguing that the hike in postal rates ‘directly concerns the vast population of the country and indirectly the finances of the country and the growing unemployment’ and ‘is also working as a brake against the spread of education and knowledge’, Gita Press sent a brief to Seth Govind Das with a request to raise the issue in parliament. It claimed that the postage charge on some of its popular publications—Bhagavadgita, Ramayana and Durga Saptashati—was equal to the price of the book, and accused the postal department of misusing its monopoly. The government refused to relent.

In 1956, when news came about the possibility of government extending the Employees’ Provident Fund Act XIX of 1952 to the printing industry, Gita Press was the first to petition the labour commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, seeking exemption. One reason offered was the reluctance of workers to join a government-run PF scheme. B.L. Chandgothia, manager, Gita Press, argued that the press already had its own provident fund with ‘rules no less favourable to the employees than the provisions in the government employees’ provident fund’
.
²²³
He agreed to amend any rule that was found less favourable to the workers. Chandgothia also volunteered to have the accounts of Gita Press examined to prove its ‘sound financial position’.

The provident fund issue was simple compared to the recommendations of the wage board for working journalists in 1967. Alarmed at the prospect of
Kalyan
and
Kalayna-Kalpataru
falling under the definition of newspapers, Jaidayal Dalmia, who was closely associated with Gita Press through the 1960s, sought the opinion of the legal department of his Dalmia enterprise. The legal opinion was clearly that the two journals did not fall under the category of newspapers as the articles appearing in them ‘do not contain any public news or comments on public news’, but Gita Press was cautioned to cross-check if other printed periodicals of the same type were classified as newspapers by the wage board.
²²⁴
Dalmia also advised Gita Press to seek legal opinion from the advocate general of Uttar Pradesh so that in case there was any future complication, the state government would find it hard to dismiss the opinion of its highest law officer.
²²⁵

By the late 1960s, Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya was faced with a steady decline in income without any curtailment of expenditure. To add to this, the price of newsprint was slated to increase by 25 to 30 per cent and press workers were to get the new salary fixed by the government, leading expenditure on salaries to go up by Rs 3 lakh annually. Poddar said there were two ways to deal with the situation: either increase the income or scale down Gita Press’s work. Though the price of
Kalyan
had been increased, it would not be enough to offset the losses. Various measures had failed: the decision to rent out the ground floor of Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya in Calcutta had proved a non- starter; similarly, the manufacturing of ayurvedic medicines for sale to government hospitals at a commission of 20 to 25 per cent had not taken off. Poddar suggested that the ayurvedic unit could be restarted for extra income. Another proposal mooted by Mohanlal Patwari, a follower of Goyandka, was to start a business in handloom clothes to be run by Gita Press, which could bring an annual income of Rs 150,000. Poddar was agreeable and, to elicit support, he requested Ishwari Prasad Goenka to attend the meeting of the Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya trust. ‘There are issues that cannot be settled through circulars without discussing them in the meeting.’
²²⁶

In 1969, workers of the shoe unit in Calcutta, possibly influenced by the rising tide of trade unionism in the city in the late 1960s, represented to Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya protesting against the policy of showing them as contractors and deducting Rs 5 per month per worker as licence fee. The workers demanded a 25 per cent increment in shoe- making rates, an end to licence fee, an annual bonus of one month’s salary, festival leave with full wages and introduction of provident fund with contribution of 10 per cent of wages from both employer and employee.

Unlike the press, the shoe business was a diversification for Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya and could easily be closed if the workers persisted with their demands. Matters came to a head in December 1969 when the workers laid siege to the Gobind Bhawan office. Many senior functionaries were held hostage for many hours and the police had to intervene. Even before the hostage incident, a decision had been taken to close the leather unit as Gobind Bhawan was clear that giving its workers permanent jobs would not only eat into its marginal profits but lead to further complications. In addition, the state government was not cooperative. A Gobind Bhawan official would rue the growing power of workers: ‘No one can think of doing anything against workers . . . Looking at the situation in Bengal it is impossible to have any favourable settlement.’
²²⁷

Gobind Bhawan got a shot in the arm when the office of West Bengal’s labour commissioner, after investigation, concluded that ‘the persons worked under contract agreements and acted not as “workers” defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act’
.
The labour commissioner’s office also pointed out that thirty-seven persons had already settled their dues as ‘suppliers’. ‘In the circumstances, the suppliers cannot be treated (as) workers under the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the dispute cannot be deemed to be an industrial dispute.’
²²⁸

The Bhawan’s annual statement of accounts for 1968-69 showed a drop in the sales of all varieties of shoes except fancy slippers. The sale of velvet shoes had gone up on paper; however, a year earlier (1967-68) they had not been sold at all. The report noted a rising tendency among the staff of the shoe department to steal goods. There were similar stories of financial loss from other departments.
²²⁹

Finally, when the trustees of Gobind Bhawan met on 7 March 1970 at Poddar’s residence in Gita Vatika, the first item on the agenda was to close the shoe business forever. It was also proposed that the house where the workers lived should be vacated and the property sold.
²³⁰
The trustees also decided that the Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram in Churu would not admit new students till certain rogue elements among them had been expelled. Even the annual function of the ashram was put on hold.

Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya was constantly confronted with reconciling the conflict between commerce and religion, profit and charity. While the newsprint business brought in huge profits, mounting losses in Rishikul Ashram, Gita Press,
Kalyan
and Gobind Bhawan were a cause of great worry. The running costs of Gita Press were also met through interest on contributions people had made.

After much discussion and internal bickering, the cover price of
Kalyan
and other publications was increased. The first price rise in Gita Press publications, to the extent of 50 per cent, had taken place in 1942 when newsprint prices increased, but the prices were reduced again when the cost of newsprint stabilized. Poddar realized that price increase was the only way the venture could be sustained and the anger of employees quelled. He justified the increase in the 1960s, arguing: ‘Why would seeking to recover one rupee on expenditure of the same amount be considered against religion?’
²³¹

Taking full responsibility, Poddar stated that Gita Press’s prices were still lower than those of other organizations selling religious texts. ‘The last hike took place when the price of newsprint was three rupees per pound and monthly staff salary began at six rupees.’
²³²
Like an ace businessman out to revive a failing business, Poddar explained how despite input costs having gone up by five to seven times, the publications had continued to be sold at the earlier prices, losses being offset by high profits of the newsprint business. However, the profits from newsprint were now almost at an end. ‘Last year the overall loss (of Gita Press) was two lakh rupees. We will have to hire more people this year and the next. Along with the all-round rise in prices we have to deal with government rules and the trade union. I do not think workers are unjustified in demanding better salaries. If we do not increase the prices, losses would mount, our capital would deplete and work would stop.’

Poddar highlighted the fragile state of Gita Press’s finances: ‘. . . capital is invested in the press and in real estate, book stock has been built through deposits from people and for newsprint bank loans have been taken’
.
He dismissed a suggestion that Gita Press should ask for contributions to run its affairs, wondering who would give money every year. ‘Not all trustees are crorepatis. With contributions we can undertake work during emergencies like drought, not manage an institution that runs on sales. The matter is different in the case of Christians as they have funds running into crores for religious propagation. Forget contributions, no trustee has even a lakh or two to cover running costs. We had to borrow from two trusts. In such a situation we cannot run the operation on emotions. One has to deal with the situation in a realistic manner.’

Despite the financial hardship Gita Press was undergoing, it was decided in 1968 to publish an English translation of the Bhagavadgita in book form. The translation had appeared continuously for six years from 1952 to 1957 as the annual numbers of
Kalyana-Kalpataru
. Running into 1,728 pages, this was a mammoth task. Jaidayal Dalmia approached
The Times of India
and
The Indian Express
to give cost estimates for 3,000 to 5,000 copies without factoring in profit, since ‘the aim of Gita Press is to supply religious books as cheap as possible’
.
²³³
The Times of India
gave an estimate of Rs 67,392 for 3,000 copies if printed on white paper and Rs 91,584 for printing the same number of copies on Bible or thin paper.
²³⁴
Goenka said
The Indian Express
did not have an ‘offset press in Delhi’ but only a ‘rotary press’. He, nevertheless, offered to ‘do any work for [Gita Press] in Delhi . . . free of cost’
.
²³⁵
In 1970 Gita Press faced a major crisis when newsprint supply was stopped. In those days newsprint was in short supply, with each newspaper having a quota of indigenous and imported newsprint fixed by the government. Many newspapers tried to fudge their circulation figures so that they could get more newsprint which they could sell in the black market.

What could have been merely an escalation of its financial woes turned out to be a murky episode as it was soon revealed that Gita Press had been selling the newsprint allotted for publication of
Kalyan,
Kalyana-Kalpataru
and religious texts in the open market. Its supplier Orient Paper Mills, owned by Ganga Prasad Birla, immediately suspended the supply. Poddar was not in the best of health, and his complicity in this affair is not clear. The incident caused immense damage to the reputation of Gita Press that was not only engaged in publishing religious texts upholding the tenets of sanatan Hindu dharma, but had always advocated high moral standards and honest dealings in private and public.