Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (36 page)

There was also a patronizing tendency towards ‘newer’ religions, something that Poddar admitted much later: ‘They are all Hindus, whatever be their path to salvation. Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs are various branches of the giant Hindu tree.’
²³
Gita Press considered religions born within India as part of the Hindu culture. While this notion, part of the larger narrative popularized by the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS, never brought Gita Press into conflict with Buddhist, Jain or Sikh leaders, in 1934 the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) had to intervene when an article ‘
Devi Aur Sikh Dharm
’ (Devi and Sikh Religion) was proposed for
Kalyan
’s
Shakti Ank
. The SGPC got to know about the topic and wrote to Gita Press saying ‘there is a great difference of opinion among the historians as to whether the Sikh gurus especially Guru Gobind Singhji had worshipped Durga (Devi) or not’
.
²⁴
While ‘some writers who were under the influence of Hinduism’ had propagated the view that the Sikh gurus worshipped Durga, the majority, SGPC argued, did not believe in that theory. ‘The former view that the Gurus really worshipped Devi goes against their own teachings and the Sikh doctrine.’ The SGPC warned Gita Press not to ‘deal with this controversial subject at this stage, as its publication is sure to cause great excitement among the Sikh community’
.

The office of the Chief Khalsa Diwan, a representative body of the Sikhs in Amritsar, also got wind of the article and asked Gita Press ‘which is well esteemed and has become popular in the public in every corner of Hindustan’ not to purvey any wrong facts about Sikh history; in case Gita Press wanted to publish the article it should be prepared to carry another one as well, giving the true facts on the subject.
²⁵
Another letter from the SGPC, urging Gita Press not to enter into this controversy worked, and the plan to carry the article in the
Shakti Ank
was dropped.
²⁶
In tune with its principle of non-aggression, especially towards sects and religions it considered within the pale of Hinduism, Gita Press chose to avoid the issue.

 

Prelude to Partition
In the 1940s, as the prospect of Independence and subsequently Partition became real, the focus of Gita Press and
Kalyan
turned entirely political, reporting and interpreting events through the communal prism. Forgotten during this period was
Kalyan
’s avowed spiritual mission and emphasis on compassion, tolerance and brotherhood. This was also the period when the Gita Press took its cordial relationship with the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha to another level, that of open collaboration.

On Direct Action Day, 16 August 1946, killings began in Calcutta—‘for three days and nights, British India’s former capital, still its most populous city, became a free killing field for thugs and thieves, first Muslims, then retaliating Hindus, murdering, plundering, butchering whatever attracted their eyes’,
²⁷
leaving 4,000 killed and 10,000 injured. The killings in Calcutta had the blessings of chief minister Suhrawardy who at a rally on Direct Action Day ‘promised immunity from police and army interference’, though more Muslims seem to have died than Hindus, a point made by both Wavell and Sardar Patel.
²⁸
By October, riots had spread to Noakhali and Tippera. The violence in Noakhali was marked by widespread attacks on property and incidents of rape rather than killings.

The Hindu Mahasabha, which had dispatched senior leaders like Ashutosh Lahiry, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, N.C. Chatterjee and Pandit Narendranath Das to Noakhali for relief work, did not fail to see the long-term gain for the community: ‘Notwithstanding this great catastrophe it is a matter of satisfaction to the members of the Relief Committee to see a keen sense of fellow-feeling now awakened amongst all Hindus in every province of India.’
²⁹
The violence soon spread to Bihar, the United Provinces, Bombay and other parts of the country.

For Poddar it was time to throw caution to the winds and exchange Gita Press’s stated mission of spreading bhakti (devotion), gyan (knowledge) and vairagya (renunciation) for the language of violence, intimidation, reprisal and everything else that contributed to the uncertainty of the 1940s. Under the title ‘
Vartama
n Vikat Paristhiti
Aur Hamara Kartavya
’ (Present Troubled Times and Our Duty),
³⁰
Kalyan
’s November 1946 issue presented a compendium of communal violence from reports in
The Statesman
. Peppered with pejorative words used for Muslims, the article carried graphic tales of rape and torture of Hindu women, and pointed at the complicity of both ordinary Muslims as well as mullahs (Muslim clerics).

Poddar did add that it was not just Hindus who were getting killed in riots; Muslims were dying too. Since Muslims were the aggressors, more Hindus were getting killed initially, ‘but ever since Hindus started retaliating the number of Muslims killed is no less’
.
Poddar blamed Muslim politicians for creating animosity between the two communities: ‘If there was one Gandhi-like leader among Muslims instead of Jinnah, peace would have prevailed throughout the country and the two communities would have been helping each other rather than taking the nation on a suicidal path.’ Poddar called on each reader to act in the cause of humanity at such a juncture.

Poddar severely criticized the Muslim League for attacking nationalist Muslims like Sir Shafat Ahmed. ‘Even nationalist Muslims are Muslims first and nationalists later as is evident from the speeches of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, but the Muslim League is angry with him. It seems love, sympathy, affection, generosity and a sense of service is disappearing from the world.’ Meandering through various themes, Poddar blamed the Communist Party of India (CPI) for taking the side of Muslims, besides claiming that contact between untouchables and caste Hindus had caused people to attack Gandhi and other Congress leaders. He also stated that the interim government did not represent Hindus, as Nehru and the five Congress representatives claimed to represent the nation rather than the Hindu community. He further blamed the English education system for the decline in moral values of educated Hindu youth. However, he said, Hinduism would survive the onslaught, just as it had in the past.

Poddar proposed a twelve-point solution that included formation of a Raksha Dal (defence force) in each city and village to instill a feeling of confidence and security among the Hindu community, and to augment its strength so that the other side would not think of attacking. He also advocated the creation of first-aid facilities in each locality and in homes so that when the time came, people would be in a position to take care of the injured. He suggested that each household keep aside a share of foodgrain for times of emergency. Women should be trained to defend themselves, so that they would have the power of great women warriors. Elsewhere in the same article, Poddar even asked women to be prepared to commit sati like the Rajput women of the yore who preferred to sacrifice their own lives rather than lose their virtue.

Ambivalence and contradiction, so much a part of Poddar’s personality, resurfaced again here, as he wrote of Hindu–Muslim solidarity, saying followers of all religions are children of the same God and refuge should be provided to whoever sought it, including Muslims.

Of course, there was Poddar’s ultimate recipe for all situations—recitation of God’s name, study of the shastras, Gita and Ramayana, and conducting yagnas (sacrifices). Throughout the 1940s and for some years in the next decade, a militant approach in public coupled with recitation of God’s name (jap) in private and at community level would be Gita Press’s prescription for the problems of rapidly changing politics and society.
Poddar’s November 1946 article evoked sharp and varied responses from readers. He chose to publish the gist of these in the December issue.
³¹
The names of the readers were kept secret, but Poddar admitted many of his ‘respectable friends’ had found portions of the article objectionable and had requested him to not repeat such remarks in the future. Some of Poddar’s friends from Calcutta pointed out that many of the incidents of violence mentioned in the article had not taken place, but Poddar stated that all the incidents mentioned by him were taken from newspapers and offered to show the cuttings in his defence: ‘It is good news if some of the incidents were exaggerated and did not take place’. A few others were of the opinion that even if some incidents had taken place, it was better not to talk about them since it bred animosity, to which Poddar replied: ‘I agree, but some cases of oppression were intolerable. Not to oppose them would be a sign of cowardice.’

To one friend who argued that ‘Hindus were no less (to blame) and there was an active competition between the two communities’, Poddar justified the Hindu violence as having been in retaliation to that by the Muslims who had held sway on the first two days in Calcutta while the Muslim League government looked the other way. He also said that, from Calcutta to Bombay, Muslims were known for using knives to kill people and most of their victims were Hindus.
A very prominent and elderly scholar, again unnamed, agreed with Poddar about different religions being manifestations of one God. However, he stressed, the need of the hour was unity among Hindus: ‘The moment Hindus wake up, Muslims will be their friends. Congress still does not want Hindus to be united.’ For Poddar this letter was an endorsement of his views.

The December 1946 issue of
Kalyan
also carried a further bulletin of communal incidents, now more intense and widespread. Titled ‘
Hindu
Kya Kare
’ (What Should Hindus Do?), it expressed a mix of extreme anger against the Muslims together with token avowal of the need to maintain communal amity.

There was a great demand for reprints of the two articles ‘
Vartaman Vika
t Paristhiti Aur Hamara Kartavya
’ and ‘
Hindu Kya Kare
’. Gita Press published them as separate tracts priced at two paise each, and also allowed readers to print and distribute copies themselves. One Pandit Ghasiram Sharma of Agra published and freely distributed 4,000 copies of ‘
Vartama
n Vikat
.. .’
³²

The year 1946 brought another misfortune for Gita Press—the loss of its guide and beacon of hope, Madan Mohan Malaviya, on 12 November 1946. His death could not have come at a more inopportune time for the conservative political set, as the possibility of Partition became increasingly real. For Poddar personally, Malaviya had always been the ideal politician steeped in sanatan Hindu dharma tradition.

As a tribute to Malaviya, Gita Press decided to bring out an additional issue of
Kalyan
. In its entire existence so far, it had not bestowed such an honour on any individual. The rationale was that since the publishing house had faced a strike in September–October 1946, it had been decided to publish an extra issue at the first opportunity. Gita Press chose to call it the October issue, an error since Malaviya had died in November. For Poddar, the more important reason was Malaviya’s stature in the sanatan Hindu world. In his view, Malaviya had died a dejected man, witness to an all-out onslaught against the Hindus.

Poddar was aware that spiritual-minded readers might ask why
Kalyan
was devoting so much space to current political events. He argued that
Kalyan
had not strayed away from its spiritual mission, as in sanatan dharma spiritualism was part of action (karma) and karma was in turn part of spiritualism. He said the 100,000 copies of
Malaviya
Ank
, published at an extra cost to Gita Press, showed the importance of the special issue.
³³

Malaviya Ank
claimed to have scooped the last public statement by the late leader. One of
Kalyan
’s regular contributors, Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Mishra ‘Madhav’, had been in Banaras to seek Malaviya’s help to secure the release of Prabhudatt Brahmachari who had been arrested in a case related to a Ramlila procession. On 28 October, Malaviya dictated a telegram to Govind Ballabh Pant and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, saying that Brahmachari was a ‘first rate spiritual person’ who had been falsely implicated in the case.
³⁴
Demanding his immediate release, Malaviya said Brahmachari had been maintaining a vow of silence for a decade and was engrossed in the study of scriptures. ‘He remains aloof from politics and communal issues. His arrest has caused immense pain to spiritually inclined people and could further sour Hindu–Muslim relationship.’ Eventually, Brahmachari was released.

Malaviya also issued a public statement that Poddar published in the special issue as the last ever made by the leader. Provocative and strident, the statement was an endorsement of what Poddar had been writing in
Kalyan
at the same time.

Coming from a man who was nearing his end, the statement reflected Malaviya’s unflinching belief in militant Hindu nationalism. He said Hindu politicians should realize that, apart from the motherland, they also had a duty towards their own religion, culture and co-religionists. He said his call for unity among the Hindus was necessary due to the action of the Muslim world. He cited ‘fiery speeches by Muslim leaders, secret literature of secret Muslim organizations, aggressive attitude of the Muslim League, Calcutta killings and misdeeds of organized Muslim gangs in East Bengal that have created a riot-like situation throughout the country, forcible conversion of Hindus, brutal behaviour towards Hindu men, women and children, rape of Hindu women and desecration and plunder of Hindu religious places’ as some instances of Muslim excesses.
³⁵

Resorting to the standard right-wing narrative, Malaviya regretted the fact that though the Congress was a nationalist organization and the Muslim League communal, the two parties had been treated equally. ‘Hindu aspirations are trampled upon even before they blossom and in the name of Indian nationalism, the culture and religion of Hindus are being ignored.’ Malaviya said the Congress was only the political custodian of Hindus and other communities, and on matters of communal, religious, cultural and social development, the final decision would rest with Hindus themselves or any organization representing them. Conversion should stop and special facilities be provided to those who were forcibly converted to Islam.