Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (41 page)

By 1949
Kalyan
had sharpened its attack on the Hindu Code Bill. Its criticism that had so far comprised religious and communal rhetoric was now at least attempting to sound meaningful. In a full-length critique, the journal challenged the proposed legislation on three grounds.
¹⁰⁰
One, the Constituent Assembly had no right to legislate on religious matters, as neither the voter nor the voted were required to have any knowledge of religion, and if there was no knowledge of religion how could they decide on a religious issue? Two, the same Constituent Assembly had principally agreed not to interfere in matters of religion, and this was such a matter as, for Hindus, marriage was the holiest ritual. Three, in a secular country, making laws relating to one religion was outright objectionable. The last charge—interfering with the religious code of the majority community while letting off minorities, especially Muslims—was levelled against what was seen as Nehru’s preferential treatment of minorities, especially Muslims.

Kalyan
even attacked the very basis of the Constituent Assembly, saying it did not truly represent the people as it had been constituted by the provincial assemblies that were elected by a minuscule thirty-five million of the total population of 400 million. ‘And if Muslim votes are taken out of this . . . the voter percentage goes down even further.’
¹⁰¹

As for the specific clauses of the bill, the same article painted a gruesome picture of their impact. Allowing marriages within the gotras meant that distant cousins and even uncle and niece could marry each other. Inter-caste marriages would become legal and marriage between Hindus of any caste and other religions would be valid.
Kalyan
presented a scenario in which a capricious son of a brahmin, kshatriya or vaishya could bring home any girl, either a lower caste, or a Christian or Muslim, and even consume meat, causing immense pain to family members who followed the tenets of varna system. If a Christian or Muslim declared himself a Hindu and married a Hindu girl, their son could inherit the mother’s wealth and then revert to the original faith of his father. A bigger loss expected was the gradual redundancy of shastric marriage rituals as court marriages would become more common and acceptable. Divorce, as
Kalyan
understood it, could take place simply if one of the partners levelled allegations against the other. This would destroy the great tradition of women being pativrata (worshipping their husbands). The loss to a woman (especially to her character) was stressed, as the husband ‘in order to escape paying of maintenance could cook up stories to prove her to be immoral’
.
Adoption was another issue raised—
Kalyan
maintained it was a religious process that had to follow an elaborate ritual, but the provisions for adoption in the bill allowed a man without a child to adopt a non-Hindu child.

The Hindu Code Bill was also perceived as a threat to the joint family system.
Kalyan
argued: ‘It is due to this system that, despite suffering thousands of years of oppressive foreign rule, Hindu families could retain their fortune.’ For
Kalyan
, giving an individual the right to his/her share of property could create a situation in which one member of a family could decide to sell off his share without consulting other members. The inheritance clause in the new law threatened the time-tested system of succession on the basis of seniority among male descendents.

The protest against the Hindu Code Bill intensified as
Kalyan
took upon itself the task of involving its readers. Claiming that even within the Congress there were differing opinions, readers were asked to send protest letters to Prime Minister Nehru and Lok Sabha Speaker G.V. Mavalankar.
¹⁰²
Appeals by Karpatri Maharaj and Algu Rai Shastri, a Congress member of the legislative assembly who worked in various districts in the United Provinces and made his name working for untouchables,
¹⁰³
were also published in
Kalyan
. While Karpatri said the bill was neither ‘tarksammat’ (based on logic), nor ‘shastrasammat’ (based on shastras) or ‘loksammat’ (based on public opinion), Shastri strangely forgot his work among untouchables and asked the government to leave such matters to religious gurus and not fall into the myth of social reform: ‘It is as if you send someone to your house to make arrangements to feed your guests and he sells off your property.’
¹⁰⁴

A novel literary tool employed by
Kalyan
during the Hindu Code Bill controversy was an account of a dream a swami had from ‘midnight to dawn’ on 15 June 1949. Possibly the longest anyone could have had, the dream was set in a courtroom and included Ambedkar as a lawyer. The swami reproduced every dialogue he claimed to have heard.
¹⁰⁵

The case was of a brahmin woman who had been lured into marriage by her doctor who claimed to be a brahmin from Madras but turned out to be a chamar (untouchable caste of leather workers)
.
The man who had testified to the doctor’s caste was also found to be of low caste. While married, the brahmin lady alleged, she had received a share in her father’s property; this was sold and the money pocketed by her husband. In the dream, Ambedkar was counsel for the husband and argued his client had done nothing wrong under the Hindu Code Bill. However, the judge termed the law illegal and ruled in favour of the brahmin woman. When Ambedkar protested and even threatened the judge with dismissal, the judge replied that he would request ‘mother nature’ to throw out ‘black English rulers’ just the way ‘real English rulers’ had been made to leave, and then ‘pure democratic government would be established’
.

In 1950–51, when the Hindu Code Bill finally came up for discussion in parliament, it was stalled through a series of motions. Prabhu Dayal Himmatsingka, Poddar’s friend of youth and an accomplice in the Rodda Arms Robbery case, had become an eminent lawyer and was a member of the Constituent Assembly. Along with Biswanath Das, he moved a motion seeking wider discussion on the bill. A series of motions were moved by others, some demanding the bill be sent to another Select Committee and others demanding the law be ‘universally applicable to all religions’,
¹⁰⁶
Eventually the bill was put in cold storage for a few years, and a disappointed Ambedkar resigned.

While reformist and conservative politicians were engaged in intense battle in the legislature, Poddar and
Kalyan
reworked their opposition to the Hindu Code Bill. Instead of harping on the threat to Hindu existence, Poddar said there were more urgent tasks at hand for the government of the new nation than passing the Hindu Code Bill.

He reminded the government of various problems afflicting the nation: ‘Somewhere there is drought, somewhere there is flood. There is an outcry for food. On the other hand Pakistan is giving a call for jihad and Mian Liaquat is raring to fight. In such a situation our policy should be to forge unity and affection so that everyone supports the government in one voice and strengthens it. But unfortunately, at such a juncture our government is bringing the Hindu Code Bill.’
¹⁰⁷

Poddar realized the bill could be used as a potential poll issue during the first general election of 1951–52; however, his appeal to voters in
Kalyan
could not prevent the landslide victory of the Congress party. A confident newly elected government under Nehru reworked the Hindu Code Bill, dismembering it into four separate bills—the Hindu Marriage Bill, the Hindu Succession Bill, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Bill, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Bill. In a span of three years between 1954 and 1956, the four bills were passed by huge majorities.
¹⁰⁸

Still, Poddar did not give up. In 1954, when the people’s opinion was sought on the Hindu Succession Bill, he reiterated his stated opposition and requested his readers—‘Hindu janta (populace), educated, learned, Hindu institutions, religious gurus, business organizations’—to write to the law minister protesting against the bill.
¹⁰⁹
But it was a lost battle, and Gita Press would never forgive the Congress, especially Nehru, for what it saw as an assault on the majority community.

 

Questions of Caste and Conversion
Much of Gita Press’s critique of the Hindu Code Bill stemmed from its opposition to lower castes gaining liberty of access to upper-caste homes through marital alliances that had the sanction of law. This would undermine the fourfold varna system that was the very basis of sanatan Hindu dharma. Right from its inception Gita Press had not wavered from its stance that the caste stratification not only had shastric sanction but also at a social level was responsible for peace and mutual respect among the four castes. The varna system was built into Gita Press by its managing trust, Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya, where membership was open to ‘any Sanatan Dharmi Hindu by caste brahmin, kshatriya and vaishya’
¹¹⁰
and not to the fourth class—shudras—or to the ‘untouchables’ (Harijans) and tribals (adivasis) who were not among the ‘twice-born’.

The first test for Gita Press was the Poona Pact of 1932 negotiated between Gandhi and Ambedkar at Yerwada jail and signed by representatives of depressed classes and upper-caste Hindus, which promised increased representation to depressed classes. Poddar opposed it vociferously and engaged with Gandhi in a long argument in a series of letters, each refusing to budge from his position and trying to convince the other. Gandhi’s endorsement of inter-dining and temple entry for Harijans was something Gita Press could never come to terms with. Poddar pointed to Gandhi’s ambivalence on the caste question, quoting his old writings that justified varnashram dharma, but Gandhi did not budge.

In 1946, a Harijan called Prabhakar presided over a marriage as a priest. Gandhi blessed the married couple, and Kaka Kalelkar and Vinoba Bhave translated the Vedic mantras for the wedding into Hindi. A
Kalyan
reader brought news of this marriage to Poddar’s notice and asked his views, since he was a known follower of Gandhi. Poddar replied: ‘I consider him a saint and have always respected his truthfulness. I loved him and continue to do so. But as far as I know he is not a saint in the Indian tradition. More than the Indian saints, gods and their incarnations, Gandhi is influenced by Western saints and social reformers. Therefore, at times he does things that are strongly against Indian culture.’
¹¹¹
Poddar stated that ‘hating Harijans is a sin’ and ‘there is no difference between a brahmin and a Harijan’
.
He argued the atman (soul) is the same, be it of a well-educated brahmin, a chandal (worker at the cremation ground), a cow, an elephant or a dog. Therefore, the learned man looks at them all with the same eyes. ‘But this does not mean his behaviour towards all of them would be the same.’ He argued that a Harijan did not have the right to do what was designated for others, but ‘is best suited to do what his body is intended for. In this regard what Mahatma Gandhi has done is neither in tune with Hindu culture nor sanatan dharma. This is his free will and an assault on Hindu culture and varna dharma. The assault is serious since Gandhi is considered a saint and innumerable people believe in him and there is no dearth of people who would blindly follow him. Detractors of Hindu religion feel strengthened when they find Gandhi’s action in endorsing their belief. The biggest problem is Gandhi considers himself a sanatani Hindu and despite believing in marriage rituals, participates in and encourages such un-shastric acts.’

On Gandhi’s decision to attend only those weddings where at least one of the partners was a Harijan, Poddar fumed: ‘If this is true it is really dangerous. Now anyone wanting the Mahatma to bless their child would have to marry their son/daughter to a Harijan. What does one say about Mahatmaji?’

The issue of temple entry for untouchables was seen by Gita Press on one level as an attempt by Muslim League politicians to lure untouchables towards their party and eventually towards Islam. Jinnah’s appointment of Jogendranath Mandal to the Viceroy’s Council was shown as a case in point. Two, it was seen as the classic British ploy of divide and rule—with new categories of interest groups such as workers, untouchables, mill owners, peasants and zamindars being created. Taking a leaf from history to make a larger point, howsoever flawed, Gita Press said Hindus and Muslims had fought the war of 1857 together without making demands on each other. ‘By giving a call for Hindu–Muslim unity we actually turned them into two distinct communities. Now by seeking to integrate Harijans we are distancing ourselves from them. Hindu–Muslim unity gave birth to Jinnah and the call for the emancipation of untouchables has given rise to Ambedkar.’
¹¹²

In its wisdom, Gita Press ascribed the demand for temple entry to the mixing of religion with politics, for which Gandhi was held fully responsible, and saw it as a pressure tactic by the lower castes for greater representation. Gita Press claimed that Ambedkar himself was opposed to the Temple Entry Bill of 1933–34: a complete and deliberate misinterpretation of Ambedkar’s opposition. For Ambedkar the far more important issues for untouchables were ‘higher education, higher employment and economic advancement’ rather than temple entry that could only ‘destroy the basis of the claim of the untouchable for political rights by destroying the barrier between them and the Hindus’
.
¹¹³

Deliberately ignoring the multilayered complexities of the temple entry debate, an article by Madangopal Singhal used the opposition to the bill by various provincial governments and organizations of untouchables to construe that the Hindu world was indeed united against the legislation.
¹¹⁴

Singhal raised the aspect of purity. Untouchables, he said, had the right to worship nature gods, the sun, the moon, the fire, the earth, the Ganga, the banyan tree, etc. The other forms of gods, i.e., the ‘cultural statues’ brought to life through the chanting of Vedic hymns, could be worshipped ‘only by a dwija (twice-born)’, and this was ‘the basis on which the dharmashastras bar the entry of untouchables into temples’
.
It was argued that social reform was possible only through transformation of the heart and not through legislation. The untouchables were told that exclusive temples could be built for them, but they should pay attention to education, health and employment. Ostensibly repeating Ambedkar’s priority concerns for the untouchables was not as innocent as Gita Press would have us believe, but reflected deep-seated prejudices. ‘Scientific’ reasons were advanced to justify the practice of untouchability: ‘Through their sharp eyes the Maharishis had come to the conclusion that doing the job of a bhangi (a low caste associated with cleaning) for generations leaves germs in their body and therefore there is need to persist with the system of untouchability.’