MR. GANDHI AND ARYA SAMAJ

MR. GANDHI AND ARYA SAMAJ.

(BY MR. MADAN MOHAN SETH M. A., LL. B.) 

Published in Vedic Magazine for September 1924.

Reproduced by Dr.Vivek Arya

After the release of Mr. M. K. Gandhi his views on Hindu-Muslim Unity were eagerly awaited by disunited India. In the issue of Young India dated the 29th, May 1924, Mr. Gandhi takes up this "question of questions" and writes on it at considerable length covering more than ten pages of his paper.

Discussing the causes of Hindu-Muslim tension, Mr. Gandhi under-estimates  the case for Hindus and over-estimates that for Muslims. It may be due to his modest belonging as he does to Hinduism. But from a great man like him truer apportionment of guilt was expected as it is feared that his position may make the case for Hindus look weaker than it really is.

Discussing the causes of tension he dilates on "growing distrust.   However, while he dismisses Bari Sahib as "A simple child of God" and for that reason would not worry M. Abdul Bari about writings which have been shown to Mr. Gandhi and not understood by him. And while he characterizes Maulana Shaukat Ali as" One of the bravest of men capable of immense sacrifice" and would love the Ali Brothers "in spite of their faults." It is reserved for his pointed shafts to attack Swami Shraddhanand.

This in itself would have been of not much consequence to us as the two Mahatmas - as Swami Ji was also a Mahatma before becoming a Sanyasi-would have settled accounts between themselves. But in dealing with Swami Ji Mr. Gandhi has gone out of his way and uttered numerous obiter dicta (incidental remarks) about the Arya Samaj and its founder. However, similar observations are not made about Islam and its founder while dealing with Muslim personages. But it seems Mr. Gandhi strikes at Swami Shraddhanand as he hopes to strike the Arya Samaj at the same time; as the Punjab Government struck for that purpose at Lala Lajpat Rai in 1907 (as observed by Mr. Nevinson in his New Spirit in India, (Chapter on Arya Samaj). 

The protests from the Arya Samaj only bring forth further reiteration of the charges in the issue of the Young India of 5th June 1924. The first charge against the Swami Ji is" unfortunately he believes in the possibility of bringing every Muslim into the Aryan fold." We rub our eyes to see the possibility of Muslims becoming Vedic Dharmists being characterised as "Unfortunate," and that by a Hindu "Mahatma".  We fail to see where does misfortune comes in this. Does not Mr. Gandhi believe in the possibility of bringing every Indian into the Non-Co-operation fold? Is it unfortunate? And what is non-co-operation as compared with Vedic Dharam that embraces in its loving fold the whole of the Universe. For does not the sacred Veda say:

यथेमां वाचं कल्याणीमावदानि जनेभयः ।

ब्रह्मराजन्याभ्या थं शूद्राय चार्याय च चारणाय ॥

i. e., "as I have given this word which is the word of salvation for all mankind-Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishas, Sudras, women, servants, aye even the lowest of the low--so should you all do i.e., teach and preach the Veda."

The second fault of the Swami is, "He is hasty and easily ruffled." The Swami would have replied to it but in the very next sentence it is said. "He inherits the traditions of Arya Samaj." 

I do not know whence Mr. Gandhi has this idea that Arya Samaj is hasty and easily ruffled. The Samaj was founded in 1875, close upon 50 years ago. Have its actions shown haste? Has it not patiently preached its doctrines, converted people to its way of thinking with systematic and naturally slow propaganda ?

Does it lie in the mouth of a politician, who wanted to remove all ills-political and politico-social including untouchability with which India is suffering, in one single year, to accuse of hasty action against a body of patient and much-maligned people who have been plodding their weary social and religious way these fifty years.

Then there is the charge of being easily ruffled. Mr. Gandhi says in Young India of 5th June that, "I have not written a single word in reference to the Samaj or Rishi Dayanand or Swami Shraddhanand ji without deep consideration." May I humbly ask Mr. Gandhi where is the evidence of the Arya Samaj being easily ruffled? Does he know that in 1897 no less a beloved preacher of Arya Samaj than Pandit Lekhram was assassinated by a miscreant? Was Samaj ruffled thereby? Did it behave improperly? Does Mr. Gandhi remember that the Samaj was hard hit in 1907 when many of the Samajists were imprisoned and one of the most respected of them, I mean Mr. Gandhi's friend Lala. Lajpat Rai, was deported? Was the Samaj ruffled then and did it act ignobly? To my mind the charge of being hasty and easily ruffled against the Arya Samaj is, to say the least baseless.

From Swami Shraddhanand Mr. Gandhi passes on to Swami Dayanand and says, "he made his Hinduism narrow." Let us see if there be any truth in this charge. Happily a picture of the times just before the advent of Swami Dayanand is preserved for us. It is from the pen of a master-mind. Says Keshab Chander Sen the great Brahmo Leader: 

"Look at yourselves, enchained to custom, deprived of freedom, lorded over by an ignorant and crafty priesthood your better sense and better feelings all smothered, under the crushing weight of Look at your homes, your wives and sisters, your mothers and daughters, immured within the dungeon of the Zenana ignorant of the outside world, little better than slaves, whose charter of liberty of thought and action has been ignored. Look at your social constitution and customs, the mass of enervating, demoralizing, and degrading curses they are working. Watch your daily life, where almost at every turn you meet with some demand for the sacrifice of your conscience, some temptation to hypocrisy, some obstacle to your improvement and true happiness. Say, from your own experience whether the spiritual government under which you live is not despotism of the most galling and revolting type, oppressive to the body, injurious to the mind, and deadly to the soul? Are you not yoked to some horrid customs of which you feel ashamed and which to say the least are scandal to reason and have you not often sighed and panted for immediate deliverance? Are you not required to pass through a daily routine of social and domestic concerns against which your educated ideas and cultivated tastes perpetually protest and considering the sum total of mischief and misery caused by Hinduism to its followers, religiously, socially, and physically have you not often wept bitterly in solitude for your hard lot and that of your countrymen ? Has Dayanand narrowed this Hinduism or has he expanded the same?

Swami Dayanand lays down the following as the definition of religion.

"That which is devoid of partiality, which inculcates justice and equity, which teaches truthfulness of thought, speech and deed, in a word that which is in conformity with the will of God as embodied in the Vedas even that I call Dharam."

In Satyarth Prakash which is a disappointing book to Mr. Gandhi Swami Dayanand lays down, "The class and order of an individual should be determined by his merits" (vide Light of Truth, page 622).

A short anecdote from his biography would give a more comprehensive idea of Swami Dayanand's belief on the subject :

"One day when Rev. Dr. Hooper took chair opposite to Swamiji, the Rev. gentleman put two questions to Swamiji..... ........The second question was as regards "caste system "in the Vedas. Swamiji replied that in the Vedas, division of classes was according to guna (qualities) and Karma (actions). The Rev. Gentleman, "If my qualities and actions be good, can I then be called a Brahman?" Swamiji. "Certainly, if your qualities and actions be those of a Brahman you will also be called a Brahman" (vide Biography in Urdu by Pandit Lekhram pages 304-306). Now is it making Hinduism narrow or wider? But we forget, there are political leaders and religious Maulanas who believe and preach that even a saint if he happens to be a Non-Muslim is to be rated lower than the blackest sinner who simply affirms his belief in the prophet of Arabia. These be the leaders who are making nationality and religion wide while Dayanand must be accused of trying "to make narrow one of the most tolerant and liberal of the faiths on the face of the Earth" by opening wide its gates to all and sundry and even regarding non-Hindus good Hindus if their actions are such.

Mr. Gandhi continues "I have read Satyarth Prakash the Arya Samaj Bible." Mr. Gandhi while commenting on the protest of the Arya

Samaj in Young India of 5th: June states, that, consistently with truth he could not suppress his opinion. May I respectfully enquire of the Mahatma on what evidence he states the Satyarth Prakash as the Bible of the Arya Samaj? Pray, can he support this statement from the principles of the Arya Samaj or from any of its authoritative literature? If anything, the protest against Pouranic Hinduism was started by Swami Dayanand's guru Swami Virjanandji regarding the later day works. The only book which is considered स्वतः प्रमाण "Final authority is the Veda and Veda alone. In the 3rd principle of the Arya Samaj  the study of Veda alone is enjoined. Thus Veda alone can be described as the Arya Samaj Bible. The very name shows that Satyarth Prakash brings "to light true meanings" of the Veda. 

However, Mr. Gandhi, "has not read a more disappointing book from a reformer so great."

In the first place,  may I take the liberty of asking Mr. Gandhi if the expression of his opinion was as relevant as it could not be left out consistently with truth-as this is the reason given by Mr. Gandhi in Young India of 5th: June for unburdening himself about Arya Samaj and its founder.

In the second place,  I may point out that this is simply an opinion and Mr. Gandhi has not seen fit to support it by any reasons. His opinion may be matched with scores of others to the contrary from equally eminent persons. It is a well known fact that the late Pundit Gurudatt Vidyarthi M. A., an eminent philosopher-scientist of his times who died young and whose writings attracted attention even in European countries was never tired of saying that he always found more and more precious gems as he repeated his readings of the Satyarth Prakash for 13 times.

 I need not write here that only the last 4 chapters of Satyarth Prakash examine in detail the prevalent religions and to remove whatever questionableis there in them to set up the true religion detailed in the first ten chapters.

The Vedic Dharam being the first religion in the world it is evident that other religions were introduced to meet the contingencies of the time owing to decline of Vedic Dharam. But these later religions  got mixed up with much what was irrational-the truth remaining the same as in the pure Vedic Teachings. Thus the task of Swami Dayanand was to separate the grain from the husk and the chaff. And if the accretions in other religions were pointed out more prominently it was simply to serve the purpose of bringing mankind to the pure primitive religion of the Vedas. Thus Mr. Gandhi's point that Swami Dayanand unconsciously misrepresented other religions loses its force.

To show what Satyarth Prakash is I shall content myself by quoting only one paragraph from it. It runs as follows:-

Since the time of Swayambhava to that of Pandavas, the Aryas were the paramount power throughout the world. Thereafter, mutual dissensions among them caused their destruction. For in this world over which a just God presides, the rule of the proud, the unjust and the ignorant (such as the Kauravas were) cannot last very long. It is also a law of nature that the accumulation of wealth in a community out of all proportion to its needs and requirements brings in its train indolence, jealousy, mutual hatred, lustfulness, luxury and neglect of duty which put an end to all sound learning and education whose place is usurped by evil customs, manners and practices like the use of meat and wine, child marriage and licentiousness."

(11th Chapter of Satyarth Prakash.)

These words remind me of similar observations by Lord Morley. Perhaps his works may not be disappointing to Mr. Gandhi. Lord Morley writes in "On Compromise" "under such conditions with new wealth come luxury and love of ease and that fatal readiness to believe that God has placed us in the best possible worlds, which so lowers men's aims and unstrings their firmness of purpose. Pleasure saps high interests, and the weakening of high interests leaves more undisputed room for pleasure. Management and compromise appear among the permitted arts, because they tend to comfort, and comfort is the end comprehending all ends," Such insight into the causes of a nation's downfall as is shown by the observations of Swami Dayanand in the passage quoted above will alone make the book worth reading. But those, who must have unity at any cost even if one of the two communities of which unity is sought is to go to the wall, can see nothing but disappointing reading in the same. Further on, a curious charge is brought against Swami Dayanand. It is said that "Iconoclast though he was, he has succeeded in installing idolatry in the subtlest form. For he has idolised the letters of the Vedas and tried to prove the existence in the Vedas of everything known to Science."

If this be idolatry none can escape being idolater.  Not even the Muslim, who is "brave and " generous and trusting " and is never tired of boasting of his monotheism though coupling the name of God in the same breath with that of the Prophet, can escape being idolater as he believes in the letter of the Quran. So is the case of Christians and what  would you say to this a Sikh who holds Granth Sahib in such veneration and showers flowers on the same.

If believing in the letter of scientific treatise is to be dubbed as idolatry even the most exacting scientist who may be an agnostic or verily an atheist would be styled as an idolater. It is amazing that a clear thinker and a truth-lover like Mr. Gandhi can advance such arguments when pressed to attain his object of 455the? moment.

Mr. Gandhi observes "the Arya Samaj flourishes in my humble opinion not because of the inherent teachings of Satyarth Prakash but because of the grand and lofty character of the founder. "

An irreverent man would say that the observation holds good to the very letter as regards Mr. Gandhi's non-co-operation movement. If there has been any success in it,  it has been due to the grand and lofty character of its founder and not to any intrinsic value of its principles. As regards the Arya Samaj its belief is that its success is mainly due to the sublime teachings of the Vedas. For was not the founder's whole life lived in those teachings.? The Samaj also believes that Satyarth Prakash does its work in introducing the seeker to the true meaning of the Veda.

Mr. Gandhi's parting shot to the Arya Samajists is "having the narrow outlook and a pugnacious habit they either quarrel with people of other denominations and failing them, with one another."

The sentence, without changing a single syllable can be fittingly applied to the disciples of Mr. Gandhi himself both of the Non-changer? and the Swarajist types.

Is this the way of removing Hindu-Muslim tension? A man as well may abuse his relatives to bring about unity amongst his friends. Is it their narrow outlook that compels Arya Samajists to run to meet every misfortune that befalls Indians whether it be a famine or some other devastation? Was it their narrow outlook that compelled them to go to prison in large numbers for the cause of even Khilafat ?

Mr. Gandhi says, "My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Musalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as coward." Now the fact is that an Arya Samajist cannot take anything lying down. He has courage and puts a good doze of it in every Hindu who comes into his contact and makes him able to hold his own against the Muslim bully. But what irony of fate. That even this habit of his is to be characterised as pugnacious. Truly said Adam to Orlando: What a world is this when what is comely envenoms him that bears it." a rule is a?

The Arya Samaj and its founder have consistently preached that Cow-protection is an economic problem and has thus brought it down from religious plane. For this I have to refer Mr. Gandhi to the disappointing book Satyarth Prakash (Light of Truth pages 367-360) Swami Dayanand's another booklet Gokarunanidhi is also on the subject. 

Muslims ought to have been thankful to Arya Samajists for thus taking out the religious sting of this thorny question; but no, Arya Samajists are worst obstacles to the Hindu-Muslim Unity. This is not a new story but an old one. As Arya Samaj stands for the rights and the honour of Hindus-majority of whom are not tolerant and liberal as styled by Mr. Gandhi but only look so as they are inert and pusillanimous and hence must be abused and maligned. 

Under the heading Shuddhi and Tabligh, Mr. Gandhi states that "the Arya Samaj preacher is never as happy as when he is reviling other religions."

Will the great Mahatma be pleased to give instances when he observed this tendency. Or is it based all on hearsay, as is his other statement that Arya Samajists virtually kidnap women and try to convert them. Again no instances are given. If it would have been true that Aryas and Hindus try to convert women to their faith it would have been welcomed. As it would have saved so many Hindu girls being kidnapped and turned into Moslems and Christians, because then the non-Hindus would have learnt that the same game would be played by Hindus as well. The only misfortune is that-thank to caste prejudices amongst Hindus-such is not the thing. There are several other points which deserve examination but I leave them all except one for want of space at my disposal.

The one that I consider very important is Mr. Gandhi's opinion, "There is no such thing as proselytism in Hinduism as it is undersood in Christianity or to a lesser extent in Islam. The Arya Samaj I think copied the Christians in planning its propaganda."

 It is strange that of all persons Mahatma Gandhi wants to make Hinduism a close preserve for those who are born as such. Can this make Hinduism a Universal religion. On the point I quote from a Muslim writer of some reputation in Northern India. Writes the late Khan Bahadur Mohammed Zakaullah Khan in a learned thesis on, Religious Progress under British rule":

The Samaj (Arya) has washed away from skirts of Hinduism the stain of non-admittance of men of other religions into its fold. In 1852 when Professor Ram Chandra was to accept Christianity renouncing Hinduism, then was at Delhi a learned Pandit from Benares staying at the garden of Madhodas. The Hindus requested the Professor to see the Pandit and have a discussion with him. The Professor with a large multitude of Hindus went to the Pandit who asked him to explain the objection as he had against Hinduism. The latter replied that he could not believe that the Hindu religion was on behalf of God because God's religion ought to be the same for the inhabitants of the whole world and every man could be admitted into it. But the Hindu religion was monopolised by the Hindus of Bharat Khanda (India) only and no man of any other religion could enter it. The Pandit gave a shillyshallying reply that carried no weight. This stain the Arya Samaj has removed and it admits any and every body into its fold." (Translation of an extract taken from Urdu Vernacular Matriculation text prescribed for Allahabad University Matriculation, year 1909, 1910. Third edition pages 68-71).

This is what a Muslim writer of note observes.

Does Mr. Gandhi consider Jains and Budhists to be Hindus? Did they carry on no proselytism? If they were not Hindus did not Hindus reconvert thousands of Buddhists of India to Hinduism ? The Modern Review has recently published a case of reconversion of a Muslim in the times of Shivaji. Were Christian Missionaries carrying on their propaganda of proselytism at the time in India ? Is there any proof of the Samaj copying Christian methods in this respect? Or is any argument good enough to discredit the work of the Arya Samaj ?

Even if there was no proselytism in Hinduism-and that might be for the reason that there was no other religion in India, or for the matter of that in the world older than Hinduism, an intrepid reformer like Mr. Gandhi should not object to new ways and means being found for the people to once more come into the fold of their forefather's religion.

I have presented the facts according to my humble light. May I hope that Mr. Gandhi be pleased to revise his views and do justice to a community that is bearing the brunt of reformation in India without requesting any special concessions in the shape of reserved seats in councils or services of the country.

In 1907 there was an effort to crush the Samaj. It came out unscathed of the same. In 1924 there is again an effort to crush it out and this time the services of the most popular leader in India have been enlisted for the purpose.

But the Arya Samaj has always believed in the religion of love and devotion. For does not the great God command in his Veda

समीक्षामहि सर्वाणि  i. e. "Look upon all with the eye of a friend.

It has always thought with Lord Morley that "Morality is the nature of things" ( सत्यमेव जयति नानृतम)

And these convictions of its in addition to giving it a giant's strength have rendered useless to have Tokios and Angeras to fall back upon in times of need.

Surely those who think that the Samaj wonld succumb to this new peresecution are destined to be woefully disappointed. For so long as the Samaj walks in the footsteps of its great founder.

"One who never turned his back but marched breast forward Never doubted clouds would break, Never dreamed, though right were worsted, wrong would triumph, Held we fall to rise, are baffled to fight better, sleep to wake"- For so long I say even the worst vilification would have no terrors for its members.