Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (40 page)

.
⁸²
The Hindu Code Bill incensed orthodox Hindu elements who saw the new legislation as an attack on Hindus and an affront to their religion in the name of social reform. As the grand coalition of myriad orthodox elements emerged, Gita Press’s
Kalyan
became an important vehicle in the campaign against the bill, not only educating its readers but also exhorting them to protest.

The same
Kalyan
had remained silent about the Sarada Act in 1929 that fixed fourteen as the minimum age of marriage for girls and eighteen for boys. Poddar was opposed to the law but chose to keep his anger out of the pages of
Kalyan
. He wrote to Goyandka: ‘I am a big opponent of this law not only because it relates to the age of girls but due to its interference in religious matters. There is a need to get this law revoked so that in future no need is felt to legislate on such matters. To break the law and go to jail is the only way out. I think opposing the legislation from a social and religious perspective would not help. The law has to be opposed politically.’
⁸³
He further stated, ‘
Kalya
n
should not get involved in this. Instead, it should concentrate on propagating humanity, ideal behaviour and devotion to gods. Today,
Kalyan
’s message is spread among thousands of government employees. The moment we turn political they will move away from the journal. It is not about losing subscribers but principles.’ But less than two decades later, these principles changed as Hindu nationalism grew more vocal.

An alert
Kalyan
had been keeping an eye on a slew of legislation that was being introduced in the Constituent Assembly that had been elected early in 1946. One early piece of legislation that had caught Jaydayal Goyandka’s attention related to the payment of compensation to a wife separated from her husband. Goyandka wrote in
Kalyan
that such ‘independence is not promised to women in the Hindu social structure. A woman has to live with her father till marriage, with her husband as a married woman and after his demise she has to live either with her son or some other relative. She cannot be independent at any cost.’
⁸⁴
Goyandka stressed the supremacy of the shastras that, according to him, already governed each and every aspect of Hindu life, and the inadvisability of tinkering with them. He also expressed his opposition to three more planned pieces of legislation that would legalize inter- caste marriage, marriage within the same gotra (patrilineal kinship group) and divorce. For Goyandka these pieces of legislation would not empower women but would make them morally depraved. Therefore, Hindus should oppose them unitedly. Goyandka stated that Malaviya, the biggest benefactor of Hindus, had been opposed to such social legislation, seeing them as ploys to divert attention from the more serious problems that plagued the country.

The final report of the Hindu Law Committee was submitted to the government on 21 February 1947. Besides Rau, the committee consisted of Dwarka Nath Mitter, a former judge of the Calcutta High Court, R. Gharpure, principal of the Law College in Poona, and Rajratna Vasudev Vinayak Joshi, a lawyer from Baroda. The report was submitted in the face of strong opposition from Mitter, an expert on Hindu law.
⁸⁵
A bill was introduced in the Central legislature and shelved,
⁸⁶
only to be taken up again in independent India in April 1948 with B.R. Ambedkar as law minister.

In brief, the Hindu Code Bill ‘introduced two types of marriage: the sacramental and civil’,
⁸⁷
and promised a great deal of freedom and flexibility in marriage and divorce, a paradigm shift that immediately invited the ire of Hindu traditionalists. Even those who had the sacramental or traditional marriage could have the marriage registered civilly; this would enable either partner to subsequently seek divorce. The bill also did away with polygamy and caste identity in marriage and the restriction on marriage within the same gotra, and made impotency a ground for divorce.

The Hindu Code Bill ‘treated the heirs of intestate succession not as coparcenaries but as individuals entitled to individual property’, and gave ‘absolute property rights to the heir that would give him power to dispose of his property’
.
Also, the ‘law of inheritance through agnates’ was removed and blood relationship was emphasized for deciding inheritance. Thus ‘the widow, the daughter and the widow of a predeceased son were brought at par’
.

According to Geraldine Forbes, the Rau Committee report ‘masterfully blended two views of Hindu society’—it ‘nationalized the women’s rights movement, claiming that it would be possible to combine the best elements from the ancient Hindu texts with legal principles suitable for contemporary society’
.
⁸⁸

Kalyan
’s response was swift and direct. A detailed comment, without the author’s name, stated that the proposed legislation was the handiwork of people who knew nothing about the shastras but were so influenced by Western civilization’s according of primacy to physical needs that they were out to destroy the Hindu jati.
⁸⁹
The prime target was Ambedkar.
Kalyan
had been harsh to him in the past for demanding equality for untouchables, and this time too made highly disparaging, casteist remarks about him as the law minister who supported the legislation. Sir Sultan Ahmed, former law minister, who had introduced the bill in the Constituent Assembly in 1944, was not spared either.

Ambedkar bore the brunt of Poddar’s hostility throughout his stint as law minister. His resignation was demanded on the slightest pretext. In 1950, newspaper reports of Ambedkar’s allegedly negative remarks on Hindu gods Rama and Krishna caused
Kalyan
to launch a fusillade against secularism in general and Ambedkar’s anti-Hindu persona in particular: ‘Such signs do not augur well for a democracy in its infancy. Till now Hindu public was taking his words seriously but now it is confirmed the Hindu Code Bill introduced by Ambedkar is the most important part of his conspiracy to destroy Hindu dharma. It would be a matter of great humiliation, shame for the Hindus and a blot on Hindu dharma if a man like him remains their law minister. Through peaceful but effective means we should force the government to remove him and withdraw the Hindu Code Bill.’
⁹⁰

Kalyan
called on India’s ‘religiously inclined’ president (Dr Rajendra Prasad), ‘international statesman’ prime minister (Jawaharlal Nehru), ‘elderly experienced’ home minister (Sardar Patel) and top Congress functionaries to sack Ambedkar and withdraw the Hindu Code Bill in order to exhibit their sense of justice, secular credentials and belief in democratic principles.

The magazine claimed that the bill was being forced through parliament despite the clear lack of support the committee had found when it travelled across the country eliciting people’s opinion. The journal relied heavily on Mitter’s dissenting note which was, apparently, the result of witnessing ‘such strong opposition to the reforms suggested’.
⁹¹
Mitter had maintained an exhaustive record of the deliberations of the Hindu Law Committee, and the views of the opponents and supporters of various provisions of the Hindu Code Bill. He had come to the conclusion ‘that the majority of the Hindus incline to the view that the codification of Hindu Law is neither possible nor desirable’
.
He said ‘most of the Hindu rules are now well settled and well understood, and a code is not, therefore, called for at all’
.
⁹²

For Gita Press, Mitter’s chronicle of public hearings on the Hindu Code Bill that included opposition by orthodox groups like Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Hindu Mahasabha, Akhil Bharatiya Dharma Sangh, Akhil Bharatiya Varnashram Swaraj Sangh and Jain associations was a godsend.
Kalyan
used these views to make the point that the votaries of the Hindu Code Bill were in a hopeless minority. The journal also emphasized opposition to the bill by leading conservative politicians like Malaviya and Kailash Nath Katju and women novelists like Anurupa Devi of Bengal. ‘Are they all bereft of wisdom? Are only a handful of reformists wise?’
⁹³

In response to the progressive argument that legislating the Hindu Code would bring caste and gender equality in society, the same article asked if equality had brought happiness in the Western domestic world: ‘Abundance of unmarried women, innumerable abortions, rising divorce rate, women working in hotels and shops in complete disregard to their honour and purity are telling us loudly that Western civilization is a curse on women. The system created by the sages and saints for Indian women at home and in society was endowed with their knowledge.’

Gita Press realized that its arguments against the Hindu Code Bill would have even greater resonance in the orthodox world if they were articulated through the Hindu–Muslim prism, citing the legislation as an instance of Muslim assault in their domestic domain. Thus, the provision in the bill giving a daughter inheritance rights to her father’s property was seen as a straight lift from Muslim law: ‘Since the bill is the brainwave of Sir Sultan Ahmed it is natural such a provision has been made.’
Kalyan
painted a dreadful picture of the repercussions of daughters getting inheritance rights: ‘The battle between bhai-bhai (brothers) would now become a battle between bhai-behen (brother and sister). Daughters would get rights from their fathers but would have to give away similar rights to their nanads (husband’s sister). So there would be no benefit, but the peace and tranquillity of our homes would be gone. Daughters live with their husbands, so how would it benefit the family if they get a share of their father’s wealth?’

Further, the fear was raised that giving girls of sixteen and above the freedom to marry anyone of their choice might lead to their tying the knot with Muslim boys. ‘In one corner of the house Bhagwan would be worshipped and in the other end there would be recitation of Quran and beef would be cooked. Which Hindu is going to tolerate such a law?’ A similar fear was expressed for lifting the ban on marriage within gotras and allowing divorce.
Kalyan
said that Hindu marriage was a spiritual bond between two individuals, and cited one A. Mark Mathews as having said, ‘Divorce is a blot on American society’, to drive home the point that India was merely adopting this social disease. While requesting readers to write protest letters to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru,
Kalyan
made it clear only pandits and scholars of shastras had the right to interpret and point out the rights and wrongs in a Hindu marriage.

As a strategy to exercise moral pressure on the government and votaries of the legislation,
Kalyan
reproduced one Phaguram Aggarwal’s letter in the Delhi-based
Indian News Chronicle
that quoted disapproval of the Hindu Code Bill expressed by the late Mahatma Gandhi: ‘I cannot imagine a situation in which a wife would be doing things separately from her husband. Taking care of children and looking after the house would take away all her energy.’
⁹⁴

Swami Karpatri, the old ally of Gita Press, was spewing venom on the Hindu Code Bill. Naturally, their resources were put together and
Kalyan
carried a public notice that first appeared in Karpatri’s
Sanmarg
. As the Select Committee was to meet on 20 July 1948 and the Constituent Assembly session was to commence from 4 August, opponents of the Hindu Code Bill—including Jains, Arya Samajists and Sikhs—were urged to be vocal.

‘Everyone is caught up in their own troubles. Government will make use of the current situation and pass the bill. Government should follow the principles of democracy. People in the villages are not even aware (of the Hindu Code Bill). We request Nehru to carefully read the note of dissent by Mitter. We also request everyone opposed to the bill to send letters and telegrams before 4 August to the government. If this is not done, later we will be told there was not enough opposition to the bill.’
⁹⁵

The next month,
Kalyan
made another fervent appeal to the government not to go ahead with the bill. Apart from reiterating earlier arguments, the journal requested the government to consider the views of Malaviya, ‘the uncrowned king of Hindu India’, as well as those of four judges of Calcutta High Court who had said: ‘Most of the rules of Hindu law are now well settled and well understood, and a code is not, therefore, called for at all. We are not aware that the whole of the personal law of any community in any country has been, or is sought to be, embodied in a code, and it is our conviction that all communities in India, like the Muslims for instance, will stoutly resist any attempt to foist a code of personal law upon them. We see no reason why the Hindus should be treated differently.’
⁹⁶

The Hindu Code Bill could not be taken up during the August 1948 session of the Constituent Assembly, but
Kalyan
kept up its campaign. In an editorial comment, Poddar advised readers not to think the bill had been shelved: ‘President Rajendra Prasad had advised shelving of the bill on legal grounds but it has not been accepted. Only the debate on the bill has been put on hold till the next session. As before, the general public and organizations should continue to hold protest meetings and send letters and telegrams.’
⁹⁷
It was true that ‘Prasad had strongly opposed the Hindu Code Bill right from the beginning. He felt the bill would destroy our strong family links and our cultural tradition would go haywire.’
⁹⁸

Having got to know about government’s plan to take over the management of temples, in the same editorial comment
Kalyan
justified the huge tracts of land given to temples so that they could generate revenues to sustain themselves economically. ‘To protect these temples, their founders, feelings of devotees and of Hindu culture it is important to save these zamindaris that had continued even during the Muslim and British rule.’
⁹⁹
Lamenting the situation of being hounded under independent India’s ‘own’ rule, Gita Press said such a takeover of temple zamindari would be a sin and a matter of great shame. The proposal of government providing a fixed monthly contribution to temples for running their affairs was of little use as the value of money was bound to come down in the future, making any contribution ineffective. However, it agreed to government intervention to protect the rights of farmers working on land owned by temples.