Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (39 page)

 

Kalyan
continued with selective extracts from newspapers, which became almost a regular column in 1947, showing what it called the tragedy of Hindu jati. The focus remained on Bengal and the ‘dangerous policies’ of the Muslim League government that was ‘openly courting Muslims who were filling most of the administrative posts’
.
⁶⁶

Poddar termed Gandhi’s efforts at a rapprochement between the two communities futile; while he praised Gandhi’s principles of ahimsa and tolerance, he argued that they meant nothing to Muslims. Poddar cited the indifference of Bengal Muslims to Gandhi’s general call for contributions to help the riot victims, while the Hindus, he said, showered Gandhi with money and valuables. ‘Gandhi’s influence is on Hindus who by nature are spiritual and respectful towards him. They consider Gandhi a saint and a mahatma. If he says they have committed a sin, Hindus admit it. If he asks Hindus to tolerate, they do that. They should realize what this tolerance will lead to and whether it can save them from the Muslims’ well-organized attack. The Hindus will not gain the respect of the Muslims until they are united.’
⁶⁷

With each passing month Gita Press became increasingly combative on the Hindu–Muslim front. A month after the ban on two of its issues,
Kalyan
reproduced a full-page call to Hindus to gear up against the Muslim violence that had first appeared in
Prabuddha Bharat
, the journal of the Ramakrishna Mission started by Swami Vivekananda in 1896.The call—‘
Hinduon Ka Kartavya
’ (Duty of Hindus)—included a direct message to Muslims not to interfere in the affairs of the Hindus: ‘Religion is the basis of a Hindu’s life. Whoever comes in the way of his freedom to practise or disturbs it is an asura, a demon. Such an act calls for retaliation in some form. Hindus do not force anyone to convert at the point of swords . . . Hindus should fight for their dharma and go down fighting like men of valour. But they should not be the one to initiate the aggression. Violence in self-defence is as fully justified, as aggression is despicable.’
⁶⁸

Sometime in April 1947 the government decided to arrest Karpatri Maharaj for his move to initiate dharma yudh (religious war). Born in Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh as Har Narayan Ojha, Karpatri was no ordinary god-man. Considered a ‘manifestation of Lord Shiva’, Karpatri (the one who uses his hand as a vessel for food) also had many Shankaracharyas as his pupils.
⁶⁹

Kalyan
’s May 1947 issue launched a campaign against his arrest.
⁷⁰
Justifying his call for dharma yudh, the journal said it was a result of the government turning a deaf ear to the various demands of Hindus. ‘The government promises religious freedom and justice to all but disregards the demands and views of followers of sanatan dharma who are the largest group in India.’
Kalyan
demanded the early release of Karpatri Maharaj and called on Hindus to strengthen the movement started by him.

In the same issue, Poddar warned that ‘Mian Jinnah is not going to remain contented merely with Pakistan . . . the way he is planning he would attack to capture the whole of Hindusthan (literally, abode of the Hindus).’
⁷¹
Poddar said that Indian Muslims who chose to stay behind would help Jinnah in the capture-Hindustan campaign. If Poddar were to be believed, one of the key arrangements being made to carry out Jinnah’s plan was distribution of arms across a large Muslim network. He said the manufacture of arms by Muslims was under way in Punjab, the United Provinces, Sindh and border areas. Aligarh, he said, had long been an active centre of arms manufacture and distribution. ‘It is also being said arms are being offloaded at the ports of Muslim-ruled Kathiawar. Arming of Muslim Guards (associated with Muslim League during the Pakistan movement) is being talked about openly. There are reports of recovery of huge cache of arms from Assam.’

He asked Hindus and Sikhs to remain alert—not to initiate any attack, but to defend themselves valiantly. Poddar’s biggest regret was the composition of the two nations: ‘Pakistan would forever remain a pure Muslim state but Hindusthan instead of becoming a pure Hindu state would become a khichri (hotchpotch) state.’

In June 1947,
Kalya
n
carried another speech Golwalkar delivered at the RSS’s annual function in Delhi.
⁷²
Generally making the same point as earlier, Golwalkar, without taking Gandhi’s name even once, mocked Hindu–Muslim unity endeavours, calling them an ‘effort to assimilate two mutually contradictory cultural streams’
.
After all, he said, if a brahmin tried to be friends with a demon, the brahmin would always be the loser.

Meanwhile, though Karpatri Maharaj was in jail, the dharma yudh movement was still on in Delhi. A group of sadhus and sanatan dharma organizations like Gita Press sought commitment from the government that it would not bring any legislation that might subvert the age-old shastric order. If the Congress high command refrained from bringing in anti-religious legislations, enacted a law banning cow slaughter and gave an assurance that India would not be partitioned,
Kalyan
assured the government that Karpatri Maharaj could be persuaded to withdraw his dharma yudh.
⁷³

In July 1947, Poddar was upset that the Muslim League slogan of
Lad Ke Lenge Pakistan, Maar Ke Lenge Pakistan
⁷⁴
(We will fight for Pakistan, We will kill for Pakistan) had scored over the Hindu slogan
Jinnah Chahe De De Jaan, Nahi Milega Pakistan
(Jinnah can give his life, He will not get Pakistan). Poddar criticized the Hindu leadership in general and Gandhi in particular for acquiescing in the formation of Pakistan despite their public position against the partition of India. ‘It is a riddle to understand Mahatmaji’s mutually conflicting views.’ He argued that if the political class had been helpless in thwarting the demand for Pakistan, it should have been created two years ago. ‘At least the conditions would not have been so extreme and the Muslim League could have been contained.’ Poddar denounced the Indian leadership’s reluctance to call the new nation Hindusthan, the land of Hindus, and questioned their promise to treat the Muslim minority on a par with the Hindu majority: ‘Muslims in India do not deserve good treatment if Hindus in Pakistan are not treated well.’

Poddar then presented a twelve-point template for the Hindu- majority independent India, and appealed to ‘Congress, Hindu Mahasabha, Sanatanis, Jains, Sikhs to work together to achieve this’
.

 

a)	India should be called Hindusthan or Aryavarta.
b)	It should be purely a Hindu nation and entirely organized on the basis of Hindu culture. The national flag should be saffron and Vande Mataram should be the national anthem.
c)	As a matter of basic principle, cow slaughter should be banned.
d)	The official language should be pure Hindi (not the corrupt Hindustani) and the script Devanagari.
e)	Military training should be made compulsory and the Arms Act should be amended.
f)	The Indian Army should only consist of Hindus. Therefore, the Army should be divided beforehand.
g)	Muslims should not be appointed to any high post.
h)	In government jobs Muslims should be appointed based on their percentage in the population. This should be done only if Hindus in Pakistan get government jobs in proportion to their population.
i)	Laws should not be made for any religion in the name of social reform.
j)	In the border areas of East and West Bengal, East and West Punjab, North-West Frontier Province and Assam and all other borders, the Central government should deploy a strong army so that in future India is not attacked.
k)	Pakistan should be treated as a foreign country and passports be made mandatory for travelling there.
l)	In India, Muslims and other minorities should be given adequate facilities. Their life and dignity should be protected.

 

In addition, Poddar spelt out eight principles that every Hindu should follow:

 

a)	Honour India’s ancient culture, its glorious history as well as show respect and imbibe the valour and knowledge of great men of the past.
b)	Take pride in Hindutva. A Hindu of any varna, jati or faith should know that his primary identity is of a Hindu. Such unity would result in helping each other.
c)	Despite social differences, make united efforts to create a great Hindu  rashtra.
d)	Substitute selfish traits like personal ambition, hankering for power and craving for honour and wealth by service to the nation.
e)	Help the weak and poor with dedication, money and might. Never be afraid of oppressors (in the present context this could mean Muslims). They should be exterminated with all possible means. Not doing anything (in retaliation) to their oppression would be a sin just the way it is to oppress the poor.
f)	Consider yourself invincible and strong and always work in that direction.
g)	Have belief in God’s unlimited power and benevolence, and conserve energy to fight internal and external enemies.
h)	Consider every work as worship of God.

 

Surprisingly, political comment was minimal in the August issue of
Kalyan
, except for a negative piece ‘
Tab Aur Ab
’ (Then and Now) that compared the earlier peace, tranquillity, brotherhood, respect for the fourfold varna system, the rule of law and low prices with the current all-round tension among castes and religions, social breakdown and high prices—fruits of the much-awaited swaraj.
⁷⁵

In this month of Independence,
Kalyan
also reproduced two instances of ‘Pakistan behaviour’ that had been carried in
Hindustan
, a Bangla daily from Calcutta, and
Milap
published from Shikarpur, Sindh.
⁷⁶
The first was a postcard, reportedly written by one Mohammed Shamsul Hussain to the Hindus of East Bengal. He rejoiced that ‘due to the mercy of Allah, Pakistan has already come into being in East Bengal’, and advised the Hindus that the only way they could save their lives was through marriage. ‘We do not like complications. In plain language, we want to marry your daughters and bring them home.’

The second piece reported a Muslim League speech in Qazi-Arf village in Sindh on 15 July 1947 that threatened Hindus with conversion of their temples into mosques and replacement of brahmin priests with maulvis. The report stated that pleas by Hindus of the village had been disregarded by the Muslims.

In the months following,
Kalyan
carried more accounts on the misdeeds of Pakistan, including Nehru’s complaint that the Pakistan government had cut off all communication lines from West Punjab and was not cooperating in the transfer of Hindus and Sikhs stranded there.
⁷⁷
As refugees from Pakistan started streaming in,
Kalyan
carried an article by Poddar’s old acquaintance Prabhudatt Brahmachari who made a fervent appeal for help in setting up relief camps and providing jobs, money, shelter and food.
⁷⁸
Poddar appended an editorial comment endorsing the appeal. He said Hindus coming from Pakistan should not be considered refugees but ‘our own people’ who have suffered ‘demonic oppression’.

As far as
Kalyan
was concerned, Partition was a misfortune for Hindus.
⁷⁹
It repeatedly blamed Gandhi and the Congress leadership for this. Regretting the loss of ‘everything’ Hindus had,
Kalyan
said with the formation of Pakistan yet another Muslim country had been created, whereas there was not a single Hindu country in the world.

Gita Press’s advocacy of militant nationalism in the 1940s through the powerful print medium of
Kalyan
was not the reflection of a stand- alone publishing house but the collective voice of Hindu nationalist organizations like the RSS, Hindu Mahasabha and others. In particular, it had originated with the Hindu Mahasabha’s thirty-first session in Gorakhpur during 24–25 December 1946. An old Mahasabhaite, Poddar was a delegate at the meeting and entrusted with the task of making arrangements to feed 6,000–7,000 members who had converged from all over the country. The meeting took place in the backdrop of the Calcutta and Noakhali killings and these events dominated the Mahasabha proceedings. Poddar spoke on both days, calling on Hindus to unite against the Muslim violence in Bengal.
⁸⁰

The seeds of what
Kalyan
and Poddar wrote throughout 1947 were sown at this Mahasabha session.
⁸¹
L.B. Bhopatkar who presided over the session had given a call to ‘Hindus to take up arms in defence of their religion and culture’, as ‘while it is only human to forget and to forgive, it is divine to resist and to repay’
.
Poddar was to repeatedly urge such action in the pages of
Kalyan
in 1947, as also the formation of a Hindu National Guard that was advocated at the session along with a call to Hindu women to carry daggers. Even his twelve-point template for Hindustan drew heavily from the Mahasabha session.

 

The Hindu Code Bill
In 1941, the colonial government had appointed a Hindu Law Committee chaired by Calcutta High Court judge B.N. Rau, which advocated the formation of a Hindu law code. The committee was revived in 1944, when it prepared a draft ‘Hindu Code Bill’, a piece of social legislation aimed at modernizing the laws of Hindu marriage and inheritance. The intention was to ‘extend the rights of Hindu women by enforcing monogamy, recognizing the principle of inheritance through a daughter, and giving a woman complete rather than limited control of her property’