Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (48 page)

In 1968,
Kalyan
admitted that there were differences of opinion among the leaders of the cow-protection movement.
⁸⁰
An unsigned article that bore the definite stamp of Poddar stated that vying for top posts within the SGMS had led to rivalry and opposing views being articulated. The biggest mistake made by the SGMS, the article said, was joining the government’s Goraksha Samiti and suspending the cow-protection movement.
Kalyan
pointed out that despite the movement’s suspension, government had not fulfilled its promise of withdrawing the cases against those who had been booked for allegedly inciting violence on 7 November 1966.

More disturbing were the deliberations of the Goraksha Samiti that,
Kalyan
feared, had been set up as an attempt to blunt the cow- protection movement. The Samiti had started examining cow experts who were against any ban on killing, and voted for a decision to discuss the pros and cons of a ‘complete ban’, ‘partial ban’ and ‘no ban’ on cow slaughter. This was opposed in
Kalyan
, along with the suggestion by certain economists that if cows could not be slaughtered in India they could be exported so that India could earn some foreign exchange. Saying ‘this is a demonic articulation of madness for money’, the
Kalyan
article advocated a revival of the cow-protection movement: ‘The last agitation shook the government’s throne. But this time . . . if people work with enthusiasm and better management the situation can be even better. The movement should be such that the government is forced to succumb. There is need for a serious discussion and not some hurried decision. All mutual differences should be buried and the movement should keep a distance from politics. Members of legislative assemblies and parliament should be convinced in favour of the law.’

The same issue of
Kalyan
criticized the book brought out by the Central government’s Publications Division titled
Gandhiji Aur Goraksha
(Gandhi and Cow Protection). The Hindi publication, to be distributed free, was seen as a clever ploy by the government to muddle the debate on cow slaughter and to try and prove that Gandhi was not completely in favour of a ban on cow slaughter. In a three-part article in
Kalyan
, Jaidayal Dalmia cited two lines from the monograph, originally written by Gandhi in
Harijan
, 1938: ‘After all, butchers also have to do their business’ and ‘We should make it economically unnecessary and impossible to sell cows to butchers.’ Dalmia said it was impossible to understand the correct meaning of these lines unless one knew the context in which Mahatma Gandhi wrote them. ‘It is possible when the Mahatma wrote these lines there had been a Hindu–Muslim riot and some butchers may have got beaten up by Hindus.’
⁸¹

Dalmia collected copious excerpts from Gandhi’s writings to prove that he was not ambivalent towards cow slaughter. To show that the cruelty involved in the slaughter of cows and other animals was not mere rhetoric, Dalmia cited various government reports that contained graphic details of the process of animal slaughter.

While keeping Gandhi beyond criticism, Dalmia squarely blamed Nehru for the continuance of cow slaughter in the country. He referred to Nehru’s speech during the debate in parliament in 1955 when he had said cows could not be given more importance than the economy of a country, or more importance than human beings. During the debate on the Indian Cow Protection Bill in 1955, Nehru had said, ‘I am willing to resign from the post of Prime Minister but I will not give in . . . My advice to people who do not understand economics and agriculture is not to take a step which will ruin our cattle wealth . . .’
⁸²

In the final instalment of his article, Dalmia demanded that, if the government was not keen to bring a law banning cow slaughter, it should at least accept the demands made by Gandhi in an article in
Young India
way back in 1923, and which still held true even after Independence: government should pay the highest price and buy every cow sold in the open market; should run dairies in big cities so that milk would be sold at a reasonable rate; should make full efforts to use the hide and bones of dead cows; should open a leather factory under its protection; should open model animal farms so that people could be trained to rear cattle; and should make available pasturelands and open a separate department for cattle welfare.

In many ways Dalmia was now steering the cow-protection movement. In a bid to resolve the confusion created by diverse opinion about cow slaughter and consumption of beef in the Vedas, he wrote to Krishna Chandra, who worked at Gita Press, to suggest to Poddar that a book be compiled in English and Hindi, to prove that neither beef eating nor cow slaughter were practised in the times of the Vedas and the Upanishads.
⁸³

Dalmia cited a portion from A.B. Shah’s
Cow Slaughter: Horns of a
Dilemma
that claimed ‘slaughter of cows on ceremonial occasions was considered auspicious in ancient India’
.
Shah had said ‘bride and bridegroom were made to sit on the raw skin of a red bull before the altar’, and that such a skin was also used during the coronation of kings. According to Shah, the practice was still prevalent in Nepal, the only Hindu kingdom in the world. He said at the time of the coronation of King Mahendra,
The Times of India
reported that ‘the sacred skin of an ox on which the throne of King Mahendra was mounted for the dazzling coronation ceremonies was personally flown to Kathmandu by Pakistan’s foreign minister Hamidul Haq Choudhury’
.

Poddar’s response to Dalmia’s suggestion is not known, but for Dalmia the resolution of this question had become a personal mission. Dalmia decided to put together an edited volume himself—
Prachin
Bharat Mein Gomans: Ek Samiksha
(Beef in Ancient India: An Analysis)—with the avowed aim of disproving that the cow was ever slaughtered or its meat consumed in ancient India. Even though the Dalmia group was past its peak, Jaidayal Dalmia had enough resources to get 10,000 copies printed of which 5,000 were to be distributed free.
⁸⁴
Dalmia sent the first draft of the chapters to Poddar’s associate Harikrishna Dujari in Gorakhpur, with a request that Dujari seek Poddar’s approval the moment his health improved.
⁸⁵

Prachin Bharat Mein Gomans: Ek Samiksha
was published under the Gita Press imprint and became an instant hit with cow protectionists. From rave reviews of the book in the RSS weekly
Panchjanya
as well as ultra-conservative publications from Banaras and many small towns of UP, to letters of commendation from Golwalkar, Seth Govind Das, spiritual leaders and even judges of the Allahabad High Court, Dalmia’s efforts drew considerable praise.

A long spell of ill health had kept Poddar away from the success of Dalmia’s book. By the end of 1969, Poddar requested Dalmia to inform Niranjan Dev Tirth that he must get a new treasurer for the SGMS.
⁸⁶
He made it clear that contributions to SGMS did not get income tax exemption and there was no likelihood of it; in the same breath, he revealed the method SGMS adopted to avoid income tax. Poddar said SGMS used the receipts of Bharat Gosevak Samaj, a tax-exempt organization. He asked Dalmia to talk to them again and organize more receipts.

Two years later, Poddar was no more. As a tribute to his contribution to the cow-protection movement, the Bharat Gosevak Samaj brought out a special issue of its journal
Godha
n
in his memory.

 

Vishwa Hindu Parishad
On 29 and 30 August 1964 a meeting of leading members of Hindu right-wing organizations was held in Bombay at the Sandipani Ashram of Swami Chinmayananda, founder of the Chinmaya Mission and a known Gita expert. The meeting was called by RSS leader Golwalkar to address the all-round feelings of ‘insecurity, irreligiosity and oppression’ among Hindus and to ‘unite the Hindus in India with the crores of their co-religionists living abroad’
.
⁸⁷
Though only sixty of the 150 invited individuals attended,
⁸⁸
the meeting with one voice created the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a council to represent the interests of the Hindus of the world. With time the VHP became the special-purpose vehicle of the RSS and a ‘consistory for Hinduism’ that would ‘engage in ethno-religious mobilizing campaigns’
.
⁸⁹

The VHP was the Hindu right’s first major joint venture that drew strength and sustenance from individuals (including powerful sadhus, politicians, businessmen and former royalty) and a host of organizations led by the RSS. Two of its important functions were to propagate the Hindu religion among Indian expatriates and initiate a countermovement of reconversion to deal with Christian ‘proselytization particularly among India’s tribal people’
.

Though invited, Poddar could not attend the Sandipani Ashram congregation, but he had the stature to be made a founding trustee of the VHP
⁹⁰
along with other big names—among them, Jayachamaraja Wodeyar (the former ruler of Mysore and a keen proponent of the theory of Hinduism-in-danger), Sadguru Jagjit Singh (spiritual head of the Namdhari Sikhs), Sikh leader Master Tara Singh, Swami Chinmayananda, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar (former diwan of Travancore state who had been an associate of Annie Besant in the Home League movement, a Congress leader, vice chancellor of Banaras Hindu University and chairman of the committee on the reform of Hindu temples),
⁹¹
Rama Prasad Mookerjee, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s K.M. Munshi, M.S. Golwalkar and Keshavram Kashiram Shastri (a Gujarati and Sanskrit writer and teacher). Shivram Shankar Apte, who had been a junior lawyer and associate of K.M. Munshi in his days of legal practice and later a journalist and RSS pracharak (worker), became the first general secretary of the VHP.

For Poddar, the birth of the VHP was a moment of celebration. He had long advocated a strong Hindu organization and the VHP fitted the bill. An additional gratification was the involvement of his dear friend Jaidayal Dalmia’s son Vishnu Hari Dalmia.

He was also excited about the new organization holding a first-of- its-kind mega meeting of Hindus from all over the world for three days, 22–24 January 1966, during the Kumbh Mela at Prayag (Allahabad). Poddar asked Hindu representatives from all over the world to participate in the Vishwa Hindu Sammelan for better understanding, love and cooperation among themselves and the future formation of VHP branches all over the world. Reviving memories of the assembly at Kanauj held by Harshavardhana in the seventh century CE to honour the Buddhist pilgrim Xuan Zang, 20,000 to 30,000 Hindus attended the VHP meeting in 1966.
⁹²
Representatives of more than 2,500 Hindu groups were present, including the Shankaracharya of Dwarka. Three state governors attended—Biswanath Prasad Das of Uttar Pradesh, K.N. Katju of West Bengal and Ananthasayanam Ayyangar of Bihar. Tulsi Giri, former prime minister of Nepal, represented the king of Nepal and read out his message. Rama Prasad Mookerjee presided over the meeting. Again, Poddar could not attend the Vishwa Hindu Sammelan owing to sudden illness. Regretting his absence, Sriman Narayan, India’s ambassador in Nepal, sent him a copy of the message from King Mahendra Vir Vikram Shah Deo of Nepal.

The VHP often drew on the networking skills of Poddar, and Apte would remind him to contribute to its journal
Hindu Vishva
. Apte said Poddar through his ‘effective and powerful articles could appeal to religious gurus and sadhus in pilgrimage places to take responsibility of the society at this crucial juncture’, and sought his continued cooperation, giving him the total freedom to ‘write on anything you consider to be right’
.
⁹³

 

Ram Janmabhoomi Movement
The seeds of what was to be a long-drawn battle were sown in the temple town of Ayodhya in the 1940s. Hindus contended that, at the site of the birth of Lord Rama, there had been a temple that Mughal emperor Babur had demolished in 1528 to construct the Babri Masjid. Not backed by archaeological evidence, the Hindu claim was disputed by the Muslims who continued to offer namaz in the Babri Masjid. A series of events in 1948–49 were to have repercussions in Ayodhya and ultimately in Indian politics over four decades later.

Baba Raghav Das, Poddar’s long-time friend, had won the June 1948 by-election from the Faizabad assembly constituency on a Congress ticket. His opponent, Congress Socialist Party’s Acharya Narendra Dev, a native of Faizabad and well steeped in Hindu religious thought as well as Marxian ideology, had lost by a slender margin of 1,312 votes (Das: 5,392; Narendra Dev: 4,080). The Baba’s victory was a shot in the arm for ‘Hindu communalists, whether inside the Congress or outside it’
.
⁹⁴
The Muslims of Ayodhya had overwhelmingly voted for Narendra Dev, the reason being Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant’s public display of affection towards conservative Hindu groups and the communal campaign run by Baba Raghav Das. Even before the by- election, Muslims had been threatened by local sadhus and Hindu Mahasabha not to offer namaz in the Babri Masjid. Pant, engaged in a battle of supremacy within the UP Congress, was not only involved in the communal campaign in favour of Baba Raghav Das but was dismissive of Muslim fears. The Baba’s victory offered an opportunity for further action.

On the night of 22–23 December 1949, an idol of Lord Rama appeared in the Babri Masjid, an event that was immediately portrayed as divine intervention and unambiguous proof that Rama had indeed been born there. The first information report (FIR) filed at the Ayodhya police station named Abhiram Das, Ram Sakal Das, Sudarshan Das and fifty to sixty unnamed persons for rioting, trespassing and desecrating a religious place.
⁹⁵
As it turned out, the police investigation hardly helped in sifting truth from myth. A conniving district and state administration (Pant was still chief minister) muddied the waters further by creating the fear of a Hindu backlash if the idol was removed. As a result, Hindus got the right to worship where the idol had allegedly manifested itself, and the mother of all legal disputes was born. Subsequently it has been proved beyond doubt that the act of the emergence of the idol was the handiwork of Abhiram Das of Nirvani Akhara and his associates, as part of a larger conspiracy of Hindu communalists.
⁹⁶