Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (47 page)

The first fallout of the unanticipated violence was the dismissal of Home Minister Gulzarilal Nanda by Indira Gandhi. The Jana Sangh, that had made the ban on cow slaughter part of its 1952, 1957 and 1962 election manifestos,
⁶¹
made desperate attempts to distance itself from the likes of Rameshwaranand and others. However, top Jana Sangh leaders could not escape arrest. Nanda, already a keen votary of cow protection, became a part of the movement by 1968,
⁶²
addressing meetings with Niranjan Dev Tirth.

Undeterred, Brahmachari and Niranjan Dev Tirth decided to continue with their fast as planned earlier, from 20 November. The Jana Sangh, RSS and the Gita Press were soon back. In the case of the Jana Sangh, cow protection again became a part of the 1967 election manifesto,
⁶³
complete with the promise of pasturelands, dairies and improvement of goshalas (cow shelters).

But Poddar was rattled by the violence and unsure of its consequences for him personally and for the cow-protection movement in general. In a long and tedious explanation, Poddar claimed, ‘Though according to Hindu religion I do not consider Hindu politics separate from religion, I have no links with any political party.’
⁶⁴
He said it was god’s wish that made him a part of the cow-protection movement. Admitting that critics would not be wrong in mocking the protestors for demanding protection of cows but allowing human beings to be killed, Poddar said it would be almost a sin to blame the organizers for the violence of 7 November. Men were killed; those who rejoiced in the misery of others set a few buildings and old vehicles on fire. Poddar requested leaders of the movement not to lose heart but maintain peace and calm. At the same time, he urged the government to fast-track the legislation banning cow slaughter.

Elsewhere in the same issue of
Kalyan
, Poddar dismissed allegations that the violence of 7 November was part of a conspiracy: ‘What can we tell them? If it was a well-planned conspiracy to loot and kill why would 1,000,000 people come without arms? Why would they bring 50,000 women with them, some of them with infants, while a few others needed walking sticks? The idea was to hold a peaceful, disciplined rally.’
⁶⁵

Poddar regretted the loss to life and property and demanded a judicial inquiry. More painful for him was the arrest of Prabhudatt Brahmachari and Shankaracharya Niranjan Dev Tirth. He said no government had ever thus humiliated a Shankaracharya. Poddar referred to Jayaprakash Narayan’s speech in Simla blaming the government for the violence, as an example of public sympathy for the cow-protection movement.

In a long letter to Indira Gandhi, in which he addressed her as sister, Poddar mentioned his past as revolutionary during the colonial period.
⁶⁶
He reeled out names of nationalist leaders—Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das and Madan Mohan Malaviya—with whom he claimed close association. For Mahatma Gandhi, Poddar said, he had been like family. Poddar attempted to show he was equidistant from all political parties and nursed no political motive.

Poddar admitted that cow protection was close to his heart, but for spiritual reasons. Coming to the violent incident, Poddar said he was hurt by the government’s response. He gave his version of the incident and denied the organizers had any hand in it. Poddar maintained that lakhs of people consisting of the elderly and young, men and women and even infants had come together out of reverence for the cow and not to indulge in wanton violence. He requested Indira Gandhi to view the facts of the case: ‘I still remember how non-violent satyagrahis were attacked by the British police. Is it justified to repeat such a thing on our own people under our own rule? I request you to think about it with a sympathetic heart. You are the nation’s sister.’ His belief in cow protection was still firm, though, and he asked her to give it priority.

The January 1967 issue of
Kalyan
challenged the repeated argument of Indira Gandhi and her home minister Y.B. Chavan that cow protection was a state subject; that many states had already passed laws banning cow slaughter and the states that had not would be pressured by the Centre to pass the law. Poddar said the laws prevailing in the states were based on the Supreme Court order that allowed slaughter of aged oxen.
⁶⁷
He contended these were inadequate since in the name of old oxen, not only young oxen, but even cows were being killed every day. Poddar’s demand was for a complete and comprehensive ban on the killing of any member of the gau-vansh (cow family that included cows, bulls, oxen, calves of all ages) and severe punishment to offenders. He said the law in Uttar Pradesh was so flawed that a cow killer could be out of jail after paying a small fine.

Poddar suggested the most amicable solution to the cow question would be a Central law. He said under Articles 249 and 250 of the Constitution of India, the Centre had the right to make laws on state subjects in the national interest. Another suggestion was that the president promulgate an ordinance banning cow slaughter. The 1967 elections were barely two months away, so Poddar argued that this would be better than mere assurances from ministers.

The 1967 elections were turning out to be the most crucial since Independence, posing a serious challenge to the Congress hegemony from socialists and Hindu nationalists. While Poddar issued an unsigned appeal stating that the SGMS had nothing to do with the elections, and that he personally had no link with any political party, he could not resist taking a dig at the Congress and warning it of the consequences of turning a blind eye to the demand for a ban on the killing of cows: ‘In the present context those who have committed the sin of forcing revered acharyas and sadhus to die of hunger and put thousands of men and women into jail in biting cold should expect votes only from those who are Hindus only in name, have abandoned the belief of their ancestors and are engaged in acquiring wealth and power, and from those who are too innocent or too scared.’
⁶⁸

By 30 and 31 January 1967, both Niranjan Dev Tirth and Prabhudatt Brahmachari had given up their fast on the government’s promise of setting up a new twelve-member committee with the mandate to propose an amendment of the Constitution if protection of the cow required it.
⁶⁹
The committee had Golwalkar, Rama Prasad Mookerjee (former chief justice of Calcutta High Court and brother of Jana Sangh leader Syama Prasad Mookerjee) and Niranjan Dev Tirth as members. However, Golwalkar said he could not attend for three months and Tirth resigned on the ground that government was not serious about implementing the ban. A certain level of fatigue had set in. Karpatri Maharaj who had taken over as head of the SGMS, was in favour of forming a united front with the Jana Sangh, Hindu Mahasabha and his own Ram Rajya Parishad that would go to people with the sole promise of banning cow slaughter. But the Jana Sangh did not show any interest in the proposal—though it retained the plank of cow protection for the elections.

After the February 1967 elections saw Indira Gandhi return to power,
Kalyan
carried a piece by Brijlal Biyani, a Congress leader. Biyani’s concern was the parallel discourse against the cow-protection movement that argued: one, the cow-protection movement was religious in nature; two, such a movement had not existed under colonial rule; three, the movement had been timed to coincide with the general election; four, cow protection had become a political subject; and five, undertaking a fast as a strategy was not productive.
⁷⁰
Biyani countered each criticism, contending that: one, if a secular state interfered with religion and faith, there was bound to be a movement against it; two, gaurakshini sabhas had been formed throughout the country during the British period and there was no reason why a movement should not take place now even if it had not before; three, it was natural to initiate a movement when the possibility of its success was the highest; four, every political party had its core ideological principles and there was nothing wrong if a party that believed in cow protection joined the movement; and finally the fast was an accepted form of protest as demonstrated by Gandhi against the British and more recently by Potti Sriramulu’s fast to death for the creation of the state of Andhra Pradesh.

Biyani took exception to Congress leader S.K. Patil’s remark that if the Shankaracharya of Puri had died in the course of the fast it would have been a blot on the Hindu religion. On the contrary, Biyani countered, had the Shankaracharya died it would have been a blot on the present government.

Poddar in his short comment on Biyani’s article merely said that only the future would tell who would win the battle.
⁷¹
Frustrated with the long-drawn struggle, a despondent Poddar said it was unlikely that Biyani’s hope of triumph would materialize. However, he asked those demanding a comprehensive legal ban on cow slaughter to remain faithful to God and not allow dilution of their enthusiasm. A wide network of businessmen, mostly Marwari, was working closely to provide food and shelter to agitationists who were coming out of jail or were part of the camp that had been set up in the Arya Samaj temple in Delhi.

As the fortunes of the cow-protection movement dwindled, there came news of an alleged attack on sadhus in Delhi’s Tihar Jail by some dreaded criminals in the presence of prison officials. The attack on the evening of 29 June 1967, Poddar reported in
Kalyan
, was carried out when Karpatri Maharaj was delivering a lecture to fellow agitationists in the jail.
⁷²
Poddar said the criminals who attacked the sadhus with rods, lathis and stones had broken the locks of the barracks. After visiting the injured sadhus in the Tihar Jail hospital, Poddar said some of them had been impaired for life. Karpatri Maharaj was severely injured in one eye. Poddar claimed to have enough evidence—photographs and testimonies—of government involvement. But this evidence was withheld from the public as the government had immediately set up a commission of inquiry under S.S. Dulat, retired judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Poddar said the reason for the attack was unknown, but it was likely that the jail officials wanted to scare the sadhus so that the movement was called off. He described another disturbing incident that had taken place on 5 July 1967, as 105 sadhus stepped out of Tihar after their release. A criminal had approached them at the prison gate and warned them that they would be killed if they continued to participate in the cow-protection movement.

The year 1967 saw an unprecedented drought in Bihar, followed by devastating floods the following year. Under the aegis of SGMS, Poddar collected Rs 5,000 and then another Rs 20,000, which was donated to the Bihar unit of the Central Cattle Relief Committee. The money was used to organize cattle fodder for 2,624 families spread over 147 relief centres.
⁷³

The SGMS had collected a considerable fund in the name of cow protection, the bulk of which came from anonymous patrons of the cow in Delhi and Calcutta.
⁷⁴
Hitsharan Sharma, a trusted employee of Jaidayal Dalmia, was managing the funds of SGMS in Delhi. He regularly reported, often in a resentful tone, about expenditure on various heads, some avoidable—for instance, the telephone bills of Niranjan Dev Tirth and Karpatri Maharaj and the expenses of naga sadhus stationed on the banks of Yamuna, who had declared they would not give up the satyagraha till the ban on cow slaughter was announced. The SGMS was also paying the medical and legal expenses of those injured in Tihar Jail in June 1967.
⁷⁵
The court case was mishandled, with the lawyer duping the SGMS. Further, there was distrust and disharmony among senior leaders.

By the last quarter of 1967, Poddar began distancing himself from the SGMS, partly due to indifferent health but mainly owing to his growing disenchantment with the movement. Yet,
Kalyan
continued as a faithful chronicler of the cow agitation in the street and in parliament. Occasionally the journal would have an article on a Muslim putting his life at stake to protect a cow, as a result of which gaumata would bless him with darshan.
⁷⁶
There were always reiterations of the social, religious and economic benefits of protecting cows.
⁷⁷

On 21 December 1967, two Lok Sabha MPs—Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was the Jana Sangh leader in parliament and Om Prakash Tyagi, initially an Arya Samajist from Uttar Pradesh and the party’s chief whip—asked if cow and pig fat were being used to manufacture soap, and whether the government was aware that a majority of Indians had a problem with touching animal fat. In his reply, K. Raghuramaiah, minister of state for petroleum, chemicals and social welfare, admitted the use of animal fat in soap manufacturing. He said fat constituted 11 per cent of the ingredients of soap; however, he said edible fat imported from the US was not mixed in soaps and also refused to confirm if pig fat was used. The minister claimed consumers had made no complaints.

The Vajpayee–Tyagi question in parliament and the response was reproduced in
Kalyan
with Poddar’s comment: ‘Government is not afraid to hurt the religious sensibilities of the Hindus. But it is scared of the Muslims. Therefore, a clear reply was not given about the use of pig fat in soaps. This can be found out directly from the importers of fat from the United States. The soap packet should specify what fat it consists of.’
⁷⁸

What Poddar considered a crisis and an affront to Hindu sensibilities provided a big business opportunity for the manufacture of soap without animal fat. Poddar had asked readers to send him names of manufacturers of soap that did not contain any fat. By June 1968,
Kalyan
had a list of sixty-eight such manufacturers,
⁷⁹
the first on the list being Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya, the parent organization of Gita Press, always in search of business that could fetch it a small profit to subsidize its publications. The list was dominated by Indian companies like Rohtas Industries (by the late 1960s under the control of Ram Krishna Dalmia’s son-in-law Shanti Prasad Jain), Bengal Chemicals, Modi Soap Works, DCM Chemical Works, Ganesh Flour Mills, Marwari Soap Works, Kutch Oil & Allied Industries, Tata Oil Mill and a host of others. Even the large multinational Hindustan Lever claimed it had switched over to making fatless soaps, both for washing clothes and bathing.