Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (44 page)

Governor General C. Rajagopalachari also termed Hindu culture as Indian culture and Indian culture as the culture of the world.
¹⁴⁵
An old contributor to
Kalyan
, Rajagopalachari was steeped in the Hindu tradition but kept away from Hindu–Muslim conflict. Instead, he stressed the importance of spiritual knowledge, religious teachers and the need to surrender to God without whom there would be no end to sorrow and failure, no peace of mind. ‘Rich or poor, scholar or a fool, for everyone, whatever he might be doing professionally, Hindu culture is the only reality.’

Gandhian Vinoba Bhave limited himself to an encapsulated definition of a Hindu—one who believed in the varna system, in the four ashrams of life, and in cow worship; one who treated Shruti (the received Vedic texts) as his mother, respected all religions, did not disrespect idols, believed in rebirth and abhorred violence.
¹⁴⁶

 

The National Language
As editor of a high-selling Hindi journal, Poddar was a keen proponent of the Hindi language. In 1941, the Sasta Sahitya Mandal (founded in 1925 for the spread of cheap Hindi literature with the blessings of Gandhi and a host of top Congress leaders) in an attempt to expand the reach of its publications asked Poddar to share the subscriber list of
Kalyan
. The Mandal planned to hold a book fair that would move from city to city, in which Gita Press publications would also be sold. In the margin of the communication from Sasta Sahitya Mandal, Poddar’s old friend Haribhau Upadhyay, later a prominent Congress leader in Rajasthan, had written a note of assurance that the subscriber data would not be misused. The Mandal intented to make similar requests to other Hindi journals. Poddar, ever the Hindi enthusiast, obliged.
¹⁴⁷

In Poddar’s vision of independent India, Hindi was to play a central role as the lingua franca of the new nation, its unifying force. Always closely associated with the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, leading Hindi writers and various strands of language discourse, Poddar and
Kalyan
never wavered from their support of Hindi as the language of the Hindus and a key component of identity politics.

Replying to a reader who had expressed concern at the dominance of Urdu/Hindustani, an angry Poddar said he was not against Persian or Urdu or in favour of banning them, but the introduction of Persian words in Hindi to make it Hindustani and forcing people to read both Nagari and Persian scripts were oppressive acts that ‘would not lead to equality in society but breed language communalism. One can already see it happening.’ Poddar said Muslims would not study Hindi, while Hindus would forget Hindi and this would have an adverse impact on culture: ‘What to do? These are the days of adverse happenings. Proponents of Hindi should resist imposition of Hindustani and start an agitation. The effort is to turn Hindi into Urdu, Urdu into Persian so that Hindi is killed forever. This should not be allowed to happen.’
¹⁴⁸

The Hindi–Urdu battle was to get intense and even intemperate in the pages of
Kalyan.
A month after Poddar stirred the Hindustani/ Urdu language pot, his journal carried a lengthy two-part article ‘
Hindustan
i Ka Rahasya
’ (The Mystery of Hindustani).
¹⁴⁹
The first instalment did not reveal the author’s name, using the byline ‘
Ek Hindi
Ke Mukh Se
’ (From the Mouth of a Hindi-speaker). The second part identified the writer in insignificant type as Ravi Shankar Shukla, a Congress stalwart from the Central Provinces. A Hindu traditionalist and part of Malaviya’s Independent Congress Party, Shukla had been introduced to the Congress by B.S. Moonje of the Hindu Mahasabha.
¹⁵⁰
Moonje, a close aide of Tilak, had spent a number of years in the Congress before gravitating towards militant Hindu nationalist groups.

Shukla was a champion of Sanskrit but did not bring that up here. He was outraged by the nationalist Muslims of the Andhra region in Madras state petitioning Maulana Azad to change their medium of instruction from Telugu to Urdu. This move, Shukla said, only proved that Kangresi Musalman (Muslims sympathetic to the Congress), not more than the proportion of salt in cooked lentils (meaning an insignificant number), were with other Muslims on the issue of language. For Shukla the demand by Andhra Muslims would mean the communal division of social, cultural and political life in the Andhra region, mistrust, and spending of taxpayers’ money on the opening of Urdu schools and colleges.

Shukla felt there was complete confusion on the language front, and part of his ire was directed against Gandhi. On the one hand there was a demand for reorganization of Indian states on the basis of language, and on the other Gandhi was campaigning for Hindustani instead of Hindi as well as compulsory teaching of Urdu and Devanagari scripts.

Shukla bitterly criticized Gandhi’s Hindustani formula as ‘nothing more than an appeasement policy’. He said if Congress governments implemented it, Muslims would learn only Urdu language and literature and use Urdu for all official purposes. Shukla painted a grim scenario in which Urdu would become the dominant language since it was part of Hindustani, and this would lead to the death of regional languages in the long run. Muslims, Shukla said, cared only for Urdu and not the regional languages. Shukla said the need was for Urdu to change its course and for votaries of the language to adopt Hindi rather than force Hindiwalas to take to Hindustani.

Pakistan had become a reality by the time the second instalment of Shukla’s article appeared in
Kalyan
, and his attack on the Congress intensified on multiple fronts. Citing noted linguist Suniti Kumar Chatterjee’s
Indo-Aryan and Hindi
, Shukla repeated the claim of Hindi nationalists that Hindi existed prior to Hindustani. He asked: ‘Would people be taught both the scripts (i.e., Urdu and Devanagari)? If not, which country’s state language would Hindustani become, which country’s radio would use it and which country’s university would make it the medium of instruction? I think it is meant only for the Hindus of Hindustan. Hindus beware.’

Shukla, also a member of the Constituent Assembly, appealed to the Congress to do whatever it wanted with Hindustani but spare Hindi. He said Hindi should have total suzerainty in the United Provinces and Bihar, and all administrative work be carried out in Hindi. At the level of the Central government, Shukla suggested Hindustani be used on a trial basis in the defence and home departments. Shukla was in favour of making Urdu an optional language but only if Pakistan extended the same favour to Hindi. Further, ‘Hindusthan should become a Hindu rashtra and its state religion should be Hinduism. Hindus or non-Muslims should hold the top posts. Any person who does not believe . . . in Hindu culture should not be made a part of the government of Hindusthan. Muslims, as demanded by the premier of Central Provinces, should not be given the rights of citizenship. Muslims asserted their separate identity and got Pakistan.’

Shukla blamed Nehru, ‘a man who as Maulana Azad says even dreams in English’, for preferring ‘India’ to ‘Hindusthan’. ‘English might be his own language but not of 99.9 per cent of Indians.’ He argued that the Persian ‘stan’ be replaced with ‘sthan’ so that the nation became Hindusthan instead of Hindustan.

Shukla’s vituperative text was not considered convincing enough by another Hindi language fanatic Raghuvira, then a Congressman, who joined the ‘save Hindi’ chorus, deploying different language to make the same argument. He described those at the helm of Indian affairs as leaders who ‘had surrendered their mind and heart to Muslims and Britishers with little love for Hindu culture and religion’
.
¹⁵¹
Lamenting the failure of India’s leaders to understand the simple concept of a Hindu nation for the Hindu majority, he set forth on a long explanation about the wider acceptability of Devanagari as the script for many regional languages like Marathi, Nepali and Gujarati.

Raghuvira appealed to readers to write to members of the provincial assemblies expressing support for Sanskritized Hindi as India’s sole language and Devanagari as the only script. As if this was not enough, Poddar’s short editorial comment
¹⁵²
forewarned of ‘disastrous times ahead from which it would be difficult to come out’ if Hindustani replaced Hindi and Persian script was used instead of Devanagari. He again requested readers to write directly to Rajendra Prasad, Abul Kalam Azad and members of the provincial assemblies.

As the votaries of Hindi were confronted with the task of developing a standardized lexicon and grammar for it, one that could straddle multiple uses, Ghanshyam Singh Gupt, Speaker of the Central Provinces and Berar assembly, sounded a cautionary note. He explained the difference between the simple vocabulary of conversation and the specialized vocabulary needed for administration and education in various subjects, describing the problems he had faced when trying to use Hindi words for legislative purposes.
¹⁵³
He cited many examples of legislative terms to explain the complexity of the task. He did not share the view of language fanatics who insisted on introducing Sanskritized terms in place of common Hindi words. Though Gupt was confident Sanskrit had the potential to provide new words, he advocated that proper rules of inclusion in Hindi be followed.

The language kettle remained cold for many years after the constitution adopted Hindi as the national language with the express provision that English would cease to be the official language after 1965. But as the deadline for abolition of English approached, widespread language riots were reported from southern India, especially Madras state.
¹⁵⁴
Hindi, spoken only by 35 per cent people in north India, was seen as an imposition by south Indian states that also feared the decline of their regional languages. Even though the Official Languages Act was passed in 1963 as a way out of the impasse and to ensure that ‘English would coexist alongside Hindi for the foreseeable future’, anti-Hindi riots were reported even in 1965.

In Gita Press’s scheme of things Hindi was the language of the Hindus. After an elaborate account of the efforts of Muslim and British rulers to use their languages—Persian, Urdu and English—to colonize the minds, bodies and souls of their subjects,
Kalyan
argued that Hindi and Sanskrit epitomized Hindu religion, culture and ancient thought. Without referring to the conflict between the languages of north and south India,
Kalyan
stressed the unity of religious and language identity: ‘Studying Sanskrit and Hindi is integral to our religion. What kind of a Hindu is the one who does not know them? Hindi creates emotional unity in the country and binds it together.’
¹⁵⁵

Articles promoting Hindi and Sanskrit have continued to grace the pages of
Kalyan
over the decades, as regular re-statements of Gita Press’s mission as the custodian of Hindi, Hindu and Hindusthan—part of its role as foot-soldier of the Sangh Parivar.

 

 

 

Through
the power of print, Gita Press sought to influence the policies and politics of free India, supporting various movements, ideologies and organizations that promoted Hindu identity and culture, and opposing those seen as a threat to sanatan dharma. The role of Gita Press was not limited to that of a cog in the wheel; the purpose was much more subtle. Gita Press had the sanction of Indian nationalism and had a deep reach through
Kalyan
to middle- class homes. Where else would you get articles by Mahatma Gandhi, S. Radhakrishnan, Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari and Govind Ballabh Pant as well as M.S. Golwalkar, Karpatri Maharaj and Prabhudatt Brahmachari, all in one special issue?
¹

Hindu nationalists used
Kalyan
’s novelty and reach among the Hindu reading public to the full, with Gita Press and Poddar as willing partners. Disillusioned with what he called the anti-Hindu policies of the first Congress government, the clear option for Poddar was to openly support, and even get actively involved in, the politics and struggles of Hindu nationalist groups and later political parties like the Jana Sangh.
Kalyan
was used not only to disseminate their world view but also become a propaganda vehicle in ‘using ethno-religious appeals to build up agitational movements’
.
²
This was on full display during the cow-protection movement.

 

Cow Protection: The Early Years
A sacred symbol of militant Hindu identity and nationality, representing mother (gau mata), the cow was central to the Gita Press project.
³
Divisive politics and widespread violence had accompanied the issue of cow protection since the late nineteenth century when Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayanand Saraswati established the first cattle sanctuary in 1879 and the first gaurakshini sabha at Agra in 1881.

By the time Gita Press entered the discourse on cow protection in the first quarter of the twentieth century, the broad contours of the debate were already well drawn. The cow had emerged as the ‘rallying symbol for the mobilization of the Hindu community’
.
⁴
While the movement for cow protection had created a common enemy in the Muslims who practised cow slaughter, the colonial government was not spared either for interfering with the Hindu belief system and its ritualistic universe.

Peter van der Veer asks the question: Why would people want to die and kill for the protection of cow?
⁵
He looks at the centrality of the cow at four levels. One, in brahminical rituals the cow is akin to mother, a ‘symbol of the earth, the nourisher, goddess who fulfills every wish (
kamadhenu
), symbol of wealth and good fortune (
lakshmi
)’ who is integral to rituals related to ‘death, pollution and sin, and devotional worship of gods and goddesses’
.
Two, sacredness is also attached to cow products like milk, dung and urine. Consumption of milk, butter and ghee (clarified butter) is believed to make a person satvik (pure) and a mixture of five cow products—milk, curd, butter, urine and dung—is used to prepare the panchgavya that is used to purify a polluted person (it was offered as a solution for Hindu women who had lost their modesty during the communal riots at the time of Partition). Three, the symbol of cow as the wish-fulfilling mother of Krishna is celebrated in the bhakti cult. Finally, gaumata was symbolic of both family and community. Protecting the cow meant reiterating the patriarchal authority like the kingdom of Rama (Ramrajya), the ideal Hindu state.

Politically, cow protection assumed national importance during the Khilafat movement of 1919 in support of the khalifa (caliph) of Turkey. At the behest of Gandhi, Congress supported the Khilafat cause as a ‘nationalist programme of non-cooperation’.
⁶
This support was used by votaries of cow protection as a bargaining point to persuade Muslims not to slaughter cows. Gandhi, though a staunch defender of the cow, was opposed to the idea of mixing support to the Khilafat cause with the demand for a total ban on cow slaughter. He was hopeful that even without the quid pro quo Muslims would make the gesture of banning cow slaughter. The Muslim League did pass a resolution to ‘curtail slaughter’ in its annual conference in December 1919–January 1920.

However, the Congress itself dithered on passing a resolution against cow slaughter despite attempts by cow-protection societies in various provinces. Later in 1927, the Congress call for Hindus and Muslims to work together, and to put aside their differences over cow slaughter and music processions before mosques, only added to the party’s long history of taking ambiguous positions on contentious religious issues.

Gita Press’s engagement with the cow was at three levels: ritualistic, devotional and economic. Though
Kalyan
had been writing about the importance of the cow in Hindu life, and threats to it, for a long time, an annual number on the cow was planned only in 1945. Poddar’s letter to prospective contributors said that the
Gau Ank
would discuss religious, social, economic as well as scientific measures to protect cows. Disregarding a bevy of works by scholars and Indologists like Rajendra Lal Mitra, L.L. Sundara Ram, P.V. Kane, H.D. Sankalia and Laxman Shastri Joshi, that quoted passages from the dharmashastras to prove that the practice of cow sacrifice and beef-eating prevailed in ancient India,
⁷
Poddar lamented that it was ‘indeed deplorable that (the cow) should have been reduced to such a woeful predicament’ in the land of ‘Bharat Varsa, the scene of many endearing pastimes of the divine Sri Krsna’
.
⁸

The 663-page
Gau Ank
has a diverse range of contributors of varied ideological affiliations—from ultra-conservatives like the Shankaracharyas, Swami Karpatri and Prabhudatt Brahmachari to Hindu nationalist politicians and Congress conservatives like Madan Mohan Malaviya, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, Govind Ballabh Pant, Rajendra Prasad, K.N. Katju, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas and Jankidevi Bajaj, wife of Jamnalal Bajaj. Gandhi sent a brief message to
Kalyan
for the
Gau Ank
, merely stating that India’s prosperity was linked to the well-being of the cow and its progeny,
⁹
but a long article was compiled from his previous speeches and articles on the cow. Senior Congress leader Pattabhi Sitaramayya in his short statement said that Hindustan was nurtured by three matas (mothers): gau mata, bhu mata (mother earth) and Ganga mata. Maulana Kabil, president of Hindu–Muslim Gauraksha Sabha, and Gandhians Vinoba Bhave and Kaka Kalelkar also wrote, keeping the focus away from the communal angle. Poet Maithilisharan Gupta, a keen votary of Hindu nationalism, wrote a poem ‘
Gau Geet
’ comparing the cow to the mother as a selfless giver who sustained life and agriculture, even her dung and urine being a source of salvation.
¹⁰
The cow’s sacredness was also celebrated by another leading Hindi poet, Ayodhya Singh Upadhyay ‘Harioudh’.

Gau Ank
extended the ‘cow as mother’ metaphor to another plane, claiming it was natural to see women as cows and cows as women.
¹¹
In ancient times, it said, wars were fought for women and cows. Also, women nurtured cows, source of a family’s prosperity.
Kalyan
said the cow embodied non-violence, compassion and tolerance—attributes of an ideal Hindu woman. ‘The ideal Hindu woman sees success of her womanhood in being a wife and a mother. To achieve them she sacrifices her personal happiness. She is happy if others around her are happy. In the animal world, the cow displays similar characteristics.’

The Shankaracharyas of Dwarka, Jyotishpeeth and Kanchi dwelt on the religious, scientific and economic bases for protecting cows, with the last even suggesting that the cow and its products could save the world from the post-war economic crisis. He also talked of the medicinal powers of milk and its potential to cure various epidemics that had broken out after World War II.
¹²

But the task of establishing the relationship between Hindutva and the cow was left to Prabhudatt Brahmachari, who wrote: ‘. . . anyone who considers cow a mother is a Hindu. It is the most beautiful definition of a Hindu. One swayamsevak said it is an incomplete definition. I told him if we say those who believe in the Vedas are Hindus it would not be appropriate since many among Hindus like the Jains and the Sikhs do not consider the Vedas as theirs.’
¹³

Brahmachari’s larger argument was that, even in the age of all-round moral decay, a Hindu nation like Nepal had imposed a total ban on cow slaughter. Brahmachari recounted tales from the Vedas, Puranas and Mahabharata to illustrate that all was well in society when primacy was given to cows. There was no crime more despicable than killing a cow and no charity greater than feeding cows. In the ‘classical past’ people would do anything, even lay down their lives, to defend cows. Brahmachari lamented the present state of affairs when even Hindus had become direct murderers of cows, especially aged animals who were sold to slaughterhouses. Referring to the time of the 1857 rebellion, he wrote, ‘In Meerut such a big revolt took place to protest against taking the cartridge in the mouth. But today I have proof that barristers and lawyers are even eating beef.’

Brahmachari prescribed a tenfold path for Hindus and Hindutva to survive. He asked Hindus to keep cows at home even if this meant they had to have fewer motor vehicles. Those consuming beef should be shunned—others should not marry into or dine with these families. Cows should not be sold to slaughterhouses at any cost; they should be treated as family members; grass should be grown at home for cows; cow milk and ghee should be consumed; people should vote only for those who promised to ban killing of cows; artificial methods to enhance milk production should be shunned; to improve the ox breed they must be fed milk, should not be made to work beyond capacity, and old oxen should not be sent to the slaughterhouse. Instead, ox and cow protection societies should be established.

In their editorial comment, Poddar and co-editor Chimmanlal Gosvami prepared an even more exhaustive list of dos and don’ts. Among the many suggestions, stress was put on influencing Muslim opinion.
¹⁴
To do this, they said, Urdu translations of articles in favour of cow protection by Muslims could be published in ‘Muslim newspapers’—a perpetuation of the stereotype of Urdu as the language of all Muslims.

Poddar and Gosvami proposed a fresh approach to heighten respect for cows, saying measures should be taken to raise the price of cows. ‘As a result cows would not only be precious from the point of religion but would also tempt people to make a profit.’ This was an interesting mix of religion and commerce by the editors of a publishing house entirely patronized by Marwaris. Rich Marwaris had bankrolled gaurakshini sabhas from the late nineteenth century, but for the cow-protection movement to be successful the bait of profit was needed—a business model for bhakti.

This was also in tune with the overall attempt to cast cow-protection arguments within ‘secular terms’, and (like the rest of
Gau Ank
) reflected three highlights of the reworked debate, as pointed out by Therese O’Toole.
¹⁵
One, the cow had high economic utility, and there was a direct relationship between the quality of cattle and general prosperity in the country. Two, national pride was associated with economic prosperity that was in turn wrought by the cow economy. Three, the cow issue had the potential to ‘cement harmonious relationship between Hindus and Muslims’
.
At the same time, emphasis on an economy based on cow protection could be ‘a way to pursue an economic boycott of Muslims and make the Hindu economically more prosperous’
.
¹⁶

So strong was the stress on the economic factor that
Gau Ank
’s extract from Swami Dayanand’s
Gaukarunanidhi
, the pamphlet written in 1881 highlighting the state of cows, was entirely confined to the argument that prosperity would be guaranteed if cow and ox were not slaughtered. Dayanand had come up with startling figures. According to him, if on an average a cow conceived thirteen times, one cow alone could provide milk to 25,740 human beings. Each time a cow conceived, he calculated, 1,980 human beings consumed her milk. Similarly, he had calculated how a pair of oxen contributed to the production of 200 tonnes of foodgrain in their lifetime. On the other hand, he claimed, the beef of a slaughtered cow could provide only a single meal for eighty human beings.
¹⁷

The special issue also had a large number of experts on cattle, dairy scientists and veterinarians providing the scientific rationale for protecting cows. Sir Datar Singh, advisor, cattle utilization to the colonial government, had spent his lifetime working for cow protection (his granddaughter is BJP leader and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi). His argument, entirely economic in nature, was in favour of creating more cowsheds and shelters. Reeling out a series of data on cows, Singh, a close friend of Poddar, said India had 2.1 million of the world’s 6.1 million milch cattle but the per capita consumption of milk was abysmally low at 7 ounces compared to 56 ounces in New Zealand and 45 ounces in Australia. Singh admitted that cow varieties in India were inferior to those in developed countries, and recommended getting superior varieties of bulls for breeding. But Singh believed cows could not be protected till there was a paradigm shift in the government’s attitude. He asked provincial governments to appoint officers who would take interest in the development of cowsheds and shelters. One, he demanded these be shifted out from cities so that cows would get good pastureland. Two, no distinction should be made between old and young cows in terms of the food they were provided. Three, better medical facilities should be provided for the animal.
¹⁸

Sociologist-ecologist and a scholar of many parts, Radha Kamal Mukerjee talked of the inevitable threat to livestock if immediate steps were not taken to create pastureland for them, while existing forests should be conserved and new ones created.
¹⁹
Mukerjee said the increasing fragmentation of landholdings had brought an end to the system of leaving farms fallow for one season so that animals could graze there. He also regretted the introduction of new crops like cotton, sugar cane and jute, which though beneficial to farmers, were harmful for cattle as they were grown at the cost of crops like lentils and legumes that also provided fodder. Mukerjee gave a province-wise break-up of the skewed ratio of jungle to cultivable land.