All World
Gayatri Pariwar

The challenges of religious debates

Brahmans expressed their anguish on Shriram’s donating the Dakshina of Bhagvat Pravachan to Harijan Fund. Pandit Dulichand Shastri was of the opinion that the offerings received in temples, shastra pravachans, or katha - kirtans should be used only in Brahmabhoj (feeding the Brahmans). Under his leadership, other Brahmans too started saying that giving the offerings of Katha Pravachan to sudras (Harijans) was a sacrilage. Letters of protest started pouring in the office of ‘Sainik’. Paliwalji would keep those letters in front of Shriram and smile. For some time, appropriate answers were given by Shriram, but the protests remained unabated. The same contention used to be repeated in one way or the other.

When the complaints didn’t stop even after replying personally to all the objections, Shriram published a small article in ‘Sainik’. In the same issue, he also published the contents of eight letters objecting to Bhagvat Katha. The title of the article, which was essentially a reply to those letters, was ‘Hari ko bhajai so hari ka hoi’ (meaning – God loves those who remember him constantly). Giving examples from scriptures and the life sketches of saints, it was established in the article that - “Caste, color, creed, state of health, lack of education, etc are no barriers to attain God’s love. Even the most degraded persons, after coming to the refuge of God, have attained salvation. When God’s love can be obtained by everyone without any hindrance, then a petty cash received in His name can also be utilized for the welfare of suppressed sections of the society. There is nothing bad in it; rather such utilization of money should be considered an act of virtue and piety.”

The article written on the basis of examples from scriptures further annoyed Pandits Dulichand, Gaurang Sharma and Nalini Gour. The trio reached the office of ‘Sainik’ and went straight to Pandit Shriram Sharma and arrogantly asked – “Have you studied scriptures at all or just cursorily scanned them?”

Shriram replied – “Respected Sirs! I have studied according to my wisdom and understanding. If I have committed any mistake, please tell me.” Saying this he folded his hands in humility. The Pandits considered this gesture as their ridicule. They became more arrogant and said – “Young Pandit! Don’t be so arrogant of your scholarship. If you are proud of knowledge, then do Shastrartha (debate on scriptures) with us; and prove your point in accordance with shastras.”

Shriram got up from his seat and said – “I bow to your scholarship and age. I have no interest in shastrartha. I wrote whatever my prudence thought to be appropriate. If anyone feels it to be wrong, my apologies to them. I am not adamant about it.”

Pandits thought that Shriram was shying away from shastrartha; his study was incomplete and hence fearing the defeat, he was not accepting the challenge. Considering this to be their victory, they burst into loud laughter; and went back arrogantly, as they had come. Paliwalji came to know of this incident. He said – “Shriram! Were you afraid of those people or didn’t you have sufficient evidence in favour of what you have written?”

Shriram said – “There was neither fear nor dearth of evidences; but those people appeared to be fanatically stubborn. Any confrontation with them meant unnecessary tension. I felt they came only for quarreling. Therefore in order to avoid a worthless confrontation I begged their pardon.”

Bapu’s example

Paliwalji praised his wisdom. Then he narrated a similar story of Mahatma Gandhi. In Allahabad, one Shastriji challenged him. He started arguing – “Will you make the lower caste people to wear Yagyopaveet; teach them Japa of Sandhya - Gayatri?

Bapu replied – “Every person, who has faith in Veda – Shastras, has the right to wear Yagyopaveet and do Japa of Sandhya - Gayatri. If Harijans don’t have the right to wear Yagyopaveet and do Sandhya - Gayatri; then the people of other castes too don’t need them.” On this reply, Shastriji said with the intention of confrontation – “Do Shastrartha.” In order to avoid him, Gandhiji said – “There is no need of it. I accept my defeat in front of you.” After narrating this incident, Paliwalji said – “Shriram! Like Bapu you have taken a wise step.”

In that decade of the thirties, there was a boom of Shastrarthas. There used to be plenty of Shastrarthas between the scholars of Sanatan Dharma and Arya Samaj. The progressive explanation of the religion and tradition that was given by Swami Dayanand on the basis of Vedas, annoyed the orthodox people. Such people tried to bind Sanatan Dharma in a narrow definition that was based mainly on traditions and foolish assumptions. In fact Sanatan Dharma, in its original form, is quite inclusive and generous. The truth of the Vedas, sayings of great men and scholars and the last but not the least, whatever sparks of thought are generated in the pure mind of a Sadhak are considered valid in the exposition of Sanatan Dharma.

The people, whose selfish interests were hurt by the religious revolution of Arya Samaj, made a narrow definition of Sanatan Dharma simply to protect their self interests. Whenever the rounds of arguments, debate or confrontation took place between them and the volunteers - scholars of Arya Samaj, there was never any consensus. Instead, the agitating scenes of heated dispute and conflict were generated.

Foolish conditions

Several times the conditions to be met for winning / losing a Shastrartha used to be foolish. For example, once there was Shastrartha between Mahatma Vedbhikshu and Pandit Jagannath in Banaras. It was decided that the loser would have to shave his head and, keeping the scriptures involved in the debate on his head, go to Ganga barefooted. So far it was tolerable. There was another incident in which two scholars of Allahabad were to engage themselves in Shastrartha with the condition that the winner would be entitled to marry the daughter of the loser. Both were married and were almost of the same age. Whoever would have won, he would have to marry the daughter of the opponent. This was equivalent to marrying one’s own daughter! When this condition became publicly known, the religious leaders interrupted and prevented this debate from being held. In Avantika, the condition of Shastrartha was that the winner would strike the deity / scripture of the opponent by shoes. The topic of Shastrartha was ‘idol–worship’. Sanatan scholar was a devotee of Lord Shiva. Had he lost he would have to go to the Shiva temple and declare his defeat. In the event of Arya Samaj scholar losing the battle, the same treatment was to be given to Vedas.

At some point of time, the aim of Shastrartha would have been genuine. In order to understand the meaning of a scripture, two or more scholars would come on the stage. There used to be intellectually enlightening debate among them, which cleared the understanding of participating people. This process became intense after the rise of Swami Dayanand; but it continued properly only for a few decades. Later on it became quarrelsome and genuine scholars stopped participating. The answers given in response to the objections on the program for Harijan upliftment in the form of an article in ‘Sainik’ were in the form of that kind of healthy debate. The challenge given by Pandits to Shriram was the ugly side of Shastrartha. Next day they sent a message that Shriram should declare himself defeated in the newspaper. Shriram refused to oblige. He sent a reply that he never accepted the challenge and hence there was no question of winning or losing. They wrote three – four letters and each time the reply was sent in the same tone. Finally they got a pamphlet printed and distributed from their side. Shriram neither replied to it nor expressed any reaction to it in the newspaper or through a separate pamphlet.

Disintegration of Theosophical Society

It was hardly one year since the passing away of Dr. Annie Besant in 1933 that her institution – the Theosophical Society started disintegrating. The way she had wholeheartedly imbibed Indian religion or the Sanantan Dharma, no one could challenge her. At that time two powerful currents of religious revival were busy cleansing the dirt and debris of Sanatan Dharma – first Theosophical Society and second Arya Samaj. But the alternate definitions of Indian culture and spirituality that they were propagating didn’t encompass the total ethos, insights and perennial message of Indian heritage. Both the movements considered Veda – Vedang as the original source of Indian religion, but neither of them gave recognition to Avatarhood, idol-worship, devotion, polytheism, fasting etc. Both movements opposed casteism, superstition and outmoded customs. They supported women education and considered child marriage to be antireligious. With these healthy reformations, they also committed one excess. That excess was in the form of limiting the horizon of Sanatan Dharma. Theosophical Society was a movement restricted to scholars. It had no understanding of the collective psyche of the masses. Arya Samaj did touch the society extensively.

Commenting on the philosophies of Arya Samaj and Theosophical Society, Pandit Sripad Joshi had written – “The refined form of Theosophical Society appeared as if Sanatan Dharma was an Indian version of Christianity. In the same way, Arya Samaj too appeared to be very different from prevalent Hinduism. It is the brave arm and bold face of Indian religion, but it is not complete in itself.” Sanatan Dharma that Dr. Annie Besant supported was essentially an exponent of Hinduism in its entirety. The discourses on yoga, bhakti, anushthan, avatar, puja, rebirth, etc from the mouth of a British woman surprised not only the Indian scholars but also the western scholars. That also restored the faith of many Indians in their hoary spiritual heritage.

Dr Annie Besant was a famous scholar and an impressive speaker. She belonged to a very noble family. Prior to coming to India, she worked for the Fabian Society – a British socialist movement. Authors like George Bernard Shaw were her colleagues. She had extraordinary command over English. Bernard Shaw once wrote that there was no person in England comparable to her in delivering a poetic speech. In fact, there was no speaker comparable to her in the whole of Europe. She was of the view that India possessed enough wealth of spirituality (in the form of principles of Sanatan Dharma) that could be shared with the rest of the world. Once she said – “Sanatan Dharma is under the clouds of extremism. It is the Indians who can take up the anushthan of dispersing these clouds.” At her level, she also tried to conduct an experiment, but it failed badly. This failure led to disintegration of the Theosophical Society. Due to the shock of this disintegration and also due to her old age, she finally shed her physical form in 1933.