Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (14 page)

The legacy of Poddar was forgotten within a few months of his death as a power struggle ensued between his family and members of the Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya. The battle was over control of the sprawling Gita Vatika complex that Poddar had made his home. Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya wanted to make it clear that the rights over the property did not vest with Poddar’s family. On 13 May, less than two months after Poddar’s death, the trustees of Gobind Bhawan met and passed certain resolutions, the main one being that no memorial should be erected at the site of Poddar’s last rites in Gita Vatika. Ishwari Prasad Goenka, trustee of Gobind Bhawan, wrote on this matter to Parmeshwar Prasad Fogla, who had married Poddar’s daughter Savitri in 1941.
¹⁷²

Fogla was informed that the trustees felt the decision to allow Poddar’s cremation at Gita Vatika had been wrong and against the principles set by Jaydayal Goyandka. Two trustees—Bihari Lal and Ram Das Jalan—were blamed for the decision allowing the cremation. It had been decided that nothing should be kept at the site where Poddar was cremated. ‘Respected Sethji (Goyandka) and Bhaiji (Poddar) were against the idea of building a memorial, therefore nothing should be kept there. Trustees had only given permission for cremation not to build a memorial,’ Goenka told Fogla. Goenka also said all sorts of rumours were emanating from Gita Vatika, all of which were against the values propagated by Goyandka and Poddar. ‘Officials of the Gita Vatika should be warned not to vitiate the atmosphere.’

Fogla was asked to ensure that no construction, makeshift or permanent, came up in Gita Vatika. The trustees also made it clear that the rights to the property did not vest with Poddar’s daughter Savitri or anyone else. However, Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya Trust exempted the family from the rent of Rs 100 per month that Poddar had been paying.
Within days, Gita Vatika was rife with rumours that Poddar’s family would be asked to vacate the premises. Ishwari Prasad Goenka was asked to allay the fears of Poddar’s family: ‘Trustees have not taken any decision to get the bagicha (Gita Vatika) vacated. We view Bhaiji’s family with the same respect we accorded to him. If you make enquiries you will know what is right and what is not.’
¹⁷³

Not even a year after Poddar’s death, Jaidayal Dalmia, who had been one of his closest aides, levelled a series of serious allegations against Radha Baba, Poddar’s daughter Savitri Devi and Radheshyam Palriwal whom Poddar had brought up as a son. Among other allegations, Dalmia hinted at a relationship between Savitri and Palriwal and demanded the latter’s removal from the Poddar family and Gita Vatika on grounds of moral turpitude. Dalmia had distanced himself from Poddar’s first death anniversary function and even alleged that the commemorative volume brought out on the occasion was guided more by commercial interest than reverence. Dalmia went public with his allegation of debauchery in Gita Vatika and even threatened to go on a fast should Radha Baba refuse to expel Palriwal.

It took another of Poddar’s acolytes Chimmanlal Gosvami to defend Radha Baba, Savitri and Palriwal. A former personal assistant to Madan Mohan Malaviya, Gosvami was a Sanskrit scholar who had quit his job as a senior official of Bikaner state to join Gita Press as the first editor of the English-language
Kalyana-Kalpataru
. After Poddar’s demise he took over as editor of
Kalyan
, and was instrumental in organizing the nationwide commemoration of Poddar and publication of a mammoth volume on him on his first death anniversary.

In a lengthy public statement, Gosvami dismissed all the allegations and reminded Dalmia of the benevolence Poddar had always shown him. Gosvami made it clear that the expulsion of Palriwal from the family was a decision that could be made only by the head of the family and not Radha Baba. Gosvami said there was no evidence, as alleged by Dalmia, about Palriwal trying to defame Poddar after his death, and that if Dalmia had doubts about Palriwal’s character he should encourage him to reform instead of defaming him and maligning Poddar’s family in public. Gosvami also denied other allegations—that Savitri had bequeathed all her property to Palriwal, or that Baba had ever told Savitri to commit suicide to atone for her alleged relationship with Palriwal.
¹⁷⁴

Gosvami’s emotional defence and subtle attack on Dalmia helped resolve the matter in the Poddar household and Gita Vatika, but the damage had been done. Though Gita Press kept aloof from these machinations, confining itself to republishing Poddar’s huge body of work in
Kalyan
and
Kalyana-Kalpataru
, a trend that continues till today, Gosvami could feel a new wind blowing in the publishing house. More than two years after Poddar’s death, when Seth Govind Das requested that one of his plays being serialized by
Kalyan
should also be published as a book by Gita Press, Radheshyam Banka, on behalf of Gosvami, told him: ‘After the death of Babuji (Poddar) situation has undergone a big change. In the present circumstances publishing a book is nearly impossible. We will try but circumstances look adverse.’
¹⁷⁵
Still, Poddar’s formidable legacy endures. He is Gita Press’s very own saint and remains Nityalilalin, ever-present.

 

Jaydayal Goyandka: A Shadowy Presence
Written literature about Goyandka, even hagiographic, is scarce. For a founder of the most successful religious publishing enterprise of the colonial period, whose success continues unabated, Goyandka has received less than his due. Even in the copious literature about the founding duo published from Gita Vatika, a conscious effort to talk up Poddar over Goyandka is apparent. Accounts of Goyandka’s life are brief—mere appendages to the detailed writings on Poddar.
¹⁷⁶
They appear more as apologies or afterthoughts to avoid the raising of eyebrows their omission might occasion. Unfortunately, because of the dearth of sources, this chapter is constrained to make that very same discrimination between the two colossi of Gita Press in terms of the space given to accounts of their lives.

Stories about Goyandka’s birth are less spiritually oriented than those about Poddar. Jaydayal was born in 1885 in Churu, Rajasthan. His father Khubchand Goyandka had lost his parents at an early age, and the burden of raising Khubchand and his two siblings, brother Lalchand and sister Lakshmi, fell on their grandfather Shalagram Goyandka. The family was God-fearing, but action mattered more than knowledge of religious texts. As was the tradition among Marwaris, Khubchand’s grandfather put him through the paces of business at a young age. But his very first foray resulted in a huge loss, and the young Khubchand was barely able to recover a part of his investment. Next he dabbled in brokerage and became a commission agent. Younger brother Lalchand was sent to Calcutta from where he would send handcrafted garments to Churu for sale at a small profit.

Accounts of Jaydayal Goyandka’s early years and education in Churu are vague, but abound in tales about his innate qualities of selfless love for his father and other elders of the family. Married at the age of twelve, Jaydayal is believed to have not consummated the marriage for many years. Also, a bottle of perfume gifted to him by his friend named Hanuman Prasad Goyanka (at the behest of Khubchand) was never opened, signifying his reluctance to enjoy marital life. At the age of sixty, Jaydayal would joke that the bottle was still intact in Churu.

Jaydayal’s story starts assuming mythological overtones when, at the age of fifteen, he is believed to have become a follower of Lord Hanuman and had a darshan of the monkey god. Thereafter, Goyandka worshipped a series of gods—Surya, Shiva, Rama—claiming to have ‘visions’ of each of them in turn. As in the case of Poddar, Goyandka’s ‘visions’ were often accompanied by conversation with the god/goddess.

In 1899, an encounter with Mangalnath Maharaj of the Nath Sampradaya in Churu further changed the course of Goyandka’s spiritual quest. In Mangalnath, Goyandka saw a role model to emulate. In 1907, Goyandka claimed he had his first ‘vision’ of Lord Vishnu who invested him with magical power. That year Goyandka’s childhood friend and spiritual fellow-traveller Hanuman Prasad Goyanka was afflicted with syphilis. Goyandka’s hagiographers claim he cured the disease, taking away half of his friend’s pain. No moral comment is made on the friend’s contracting of syphilis—common among the rich but not among the spiritual.

For a decade beginning 1910, Goyandka pursued business but still kept ample time for his satsangs and spiritual discourses. After gaining experience at his maternal uncle’s business in Bankura, he branched off on his own in Chakradharpur. His reputation as a god-man gained ground around the same time. Every day after work, he would travel to nearby Kharagpur where he had a group of friends and acquaintances keen on religious discourse. In Calcutta religious congregations would take place at 174, Harrison Road and Goyandka would spend the night at his friend Atmaram Khemka’s house. As Goyandka’s discourses began attracting more and more people, Gobind Bhawan was started. His old friend Hanuman Prasad Goyanka, then working with Khemka, would be by Goyandka’s side during his discourses in Calcutta. It was here that Goyandka would also get closer to Hiralal Goyanka and his father Surajmal Goyanka. Later, as kathavachak at Gobind Bhawan, Hiralal would be at the centre of a sex scandal involving Marwari women that would shake the foundations of Gita Press and erode Goyandka’s standing as a mystic, divine healer and grihasta sadhu.

In 1923, Gita Press was registered as a subsidiary of Calcutta-based Gobind Bhawan Karyalaya under the Societies Registration Act of 1860, now known as the West Bengal Societies Act, 1960. Gita Press was first located in Urdu Bazaar in a rented accommodation where a hand press was installed in September 1923. Because of poor production quality it was replaced within a month with a treadle machine acquired for Rs 2,000. This failed too, leading to the acquisition of a pan flat-bed cylinder machine for Rs 7,000, an exorbitant price in those days. As the publication of the Gita progressed, the place was found to be too small and a piece of land was bought for Rs 10,000 in July 1926. In the next few years, as work expanded and
Kalyan
moved to Gorakhpur, successive adjoining plots were bought. Gita Press also kept pace with technological changes that had become necessary to meet the rising demand for the new journal.

As Gita Press found a firm foothold and its finances were worked out, Goyandka, the incessant traveller, resumed his forays into the spiritual world. At times, warring Marwari families would invite him to preside over the division of their assets and business, often giving him the final say. Goyandka’s moral authority in the community ensured that his verdict was rarely violated.
¹⁷⁷
The economics behind having a community elder like Goyandka as arbiter was not lost on Marwaris—it saved lakhs of rupees and precious business time that would have otherwise been spent in litigation.

Goyandka’s services would also be requisitioned to settle social debates within the sanatan Hindu dharma fold, as evident from Gita Vatika’s account
¹⁷⁸
of Goyandka mediating between Congress and Hindu Mahasabha leader Madan Mohan Malaviya and Swami Karpatri Maharaj, ‘the most influential ascetic of Banaras and later founder of Ram Rajya Parishad’,
¹⁷⁹
on the issue of allowing untouchables to be given diksha (initiation through Vedic verses), thus far the sole preserve of brahmins and a few other castes.

Jaydayal Goyandka had three brothers and three sisters. His younger brother, Harikrishna Das translated many Sanskrit texts into Hindi, later published by Gita Press. A better part of Jaydayal’s life was spent in religious work, leaving little time for business. The youngest of the Goyandka brothers was Mohanlal, whom Jaydayal adopted. A graduate from Rishikul Ashram in Ratangarh, Mohanlal lost his wife early and remarried at Gandhi’s behest. According to Dujari’s account Mohanlal was highly influenced by Gandhi from an early age and had met him several times. But remarriage did not help Mohanlal; he soon left his home and his khadi business. He returned eventually, once again on Gandhi’s request, and joined his maternal uncle’s grain business in Bankura. By 1930, Mohanlal and Harikrishna had branched out on their own, and in 1932 registered a cotton-trading firm called Jaydayal Harikrishna. Within a few years, the company expanded—first a dyeing unit came up and then a vest-manufacturing factory. A series of family tragedies in the late 1930s resulted in their business being run through the Goyandka Trust. A major share of the profit was ploughed into the running of schools and bridge-building.

Jayadayal Goyandka grew distant from his family, involving himself in meditation, satsang and spiritual writing. Influenced by his interpretations of the Gita, Ramsukh Das, an eminent exponent of the Gita, and Swami Chakradhar persuaded Goyandka to pen a comprehensive commentary on the text. Through an elaborate exercise that entailed intense debate with scholars and swamis on various interpretations, Goyandka began work on his commentary in Gorakhpur in 1936, and completed it in 1939 at Bankura. The first version came out as
Kalyan
’s annual number of 1940 and later as a book
Gita Tattva
Vivechani
, one of the highest-selling titles from the Gita Press stable.

A substantial part of Goyadka’s time would be spent at Swargashram in Rishikesh. He had started visiting the town in the early 1920s, and when he was not travelling, most of his time was spent there. He was visiting Gorakhpur less and less frequently, partly on account of growing differences with Poddar on various issues; and Swargashram became Goyandka’s second home, the place where he would breathe his last.

Poddar acknowledged that his relationship with Goyandka was multilayered, but wished this to remain private. He would tell Gambhirchand Dujari: ‘You should not discuss with anyone my spiritual relationship with him or the fact that we are like a brother-sister. Also do not mention that his poems are not getting published in
Kalyan
. You should maintain silence. You and (Chimmanlal) Gosvamiji should pay attention to my request.’
¹⁸⁰