Congress And The ‘Registration’ Of Sadhus
- By : Anirban Ganguly
- Category : Articles
Nehru’s Congress attempted to license Hindu sadhus, revealing a historical pattern of state overreach into religious affairs. This controversial bill, though defeated, exposes a long-standing tension between the Congress and Hindu traditions
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge is increasingly sounding not like the president of the principal Opposition party of India, but more like the chief of the Khaksar militia or the leader of a band of Razakars. His deranged utterances targeting Union Home Minister Amit Shah and the ongoing Mahakumbh—the world’s largest religious congregation and one of the most awaited auspicious moments for Hindus—only reiterate his frustration at his party’s increasing irrelevance and marginalisation in our national polity.
Frustrated, shrinking, irrelevant, and disconnected, Kharge has taken to doing what he and his master, Rahul Gandhi, do best: abusing Hindus, their faith, and their worship.
Should we be surprised by the Congress’s vituperation against the Mahakumbh, the Sadhu Samaj, and Sanatanis in general? No, it is an old habit. If one recalls Pandit Nehru’s anathema to the reconstruction of the Somnath temple, these sentiments fall into place. Nehru’s attitude towards Purushottam Das Tandon and his disdain for Dr Rajendra Prasad’s expression of his Hindu faith often became apparent in his comportment towards his political colleagues of long-standing.
The ongoing Mahakumbh is a good occasion to remember that Pandit Nehru encouraged Congress Member of Parliament from Delhi, Radha Raman, to introduce the Sadhus and Sanyasis (Registration and Licensing) Bill in 1956. Nehru’s aversion to sadhus was well demonstrated.
His challenger in the first general elections from Phulpur was Swami Prabhudatt Brahmachari. Though observing a vow of silence, Swami Prabhudatt Brahmachari’s public meetings attracted large crowds and compelled Nehru to return to then-Allahabad from his national campaign, writes Nikhil Menon in Planning Democracy, “to protect his own seat in Parliament.”
Brahmachari had also been active in the freedom movement. Despite his claim to have assimilated the civilisational spirit of India, Nehru often publicly upbraided sadhus, criticising them “as a group for including many fakes” and labelling them “lazy rascals.” In fact, his attitude gave the impression that he believed the majority of sadhus were “imposters” and “parasites.”
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of this draconian Bill was both insulting and provocative in its generalisation of sadhus. “In our country, the number of sadhus and sanyasis is increasing day by day,” Radha Raman stated, “and in the guise of saintly order, most of them indulge in vices, begging, and other anti-social acts, which is undesirable and which, if not checked, will help the crime incidence to increase unabated.”
In short, Nehru’s Radha Raman was accusing most sadhus and sanyasis of being anti-social elements who habitually engage in crime.
The ‘licensing authority’ in the ignominious Bill was defined as the ‘District Magistrate’ for the area in which the sadhu or sanyasi resided at the time of his initiation. The definition of sadhu-sanyasi was deliberately framed to ensnare and bind all Hindu religious seers and saints. The Bill stated that it included “a person who professes to belong to any religious institution, order, or mutt established or maintained for the preservation and promotion of the tenets or traditions of any Hindu religious denomination or any section thereof.”
The Bill also stated that anyone styling or proclaiming “himself as a sadhu or sanyasi” could do so only after being duly registered with the licensing authority, which was the District Magistrate. The licensing authority would be required to maintain a register and publish an annual list of registered sadhus and sanyasis.
An application had to be submitted for registration as a sadhu-sanyasi, and the licensing authority had the power to refuse to grant the licence. The licence would need to be renewed every ten years unless suspended or cancelled. The District Magistrate would have the authority to suspend or cancel a licence “if satisfied that the sadhu or sanyasi is living an immoral life,” among other reasons.
Any sadhu-sanyasi failing to register or contravening the process would be liable to a fine of five hundred rupees or a prison term of up to two years. This exposed the acute anti-Bharat mindset of the Nehruvian system. The so-called modern edifice of India, as envisioned by Nehru and his acolytes, sought to ensure that a life of renunciation was registered, regulated, and regularised through officialdom.
The Lok Sabha debated the preposterous Bill in August 1957. It was an interesting discussion. The Member of Parliament from Sambalpur, Odisha, Sahitacharya Sraddhakar Supakar (1915-1993), of the Ganatantra Parishad, for instance, made a hard-hitting and thought-provoking intervention. A former Leader of the Opposition in the Odisha Assembly, Sraddhakar Supakar was an educationist and a writer, and had a long career in public life.
Supakar said he opposed the Bill because it sought “to scrutinise our social life to the extreme limit” and was, therefore, most undesirable.
He argued that the Bill was uncalled for, “Having regard to the past of our country, and having regard to the debts that India owes to our sadhus, from the hoary old days down to the present age.” The “insinuation that is sought to be cast against the sadhus in general in the Statement of Objects and Reasons,” Supakar told the House, was also uncalled for, and that “the reason for which this Bill is sought to be introduced in this House seeks to cast a reflection on the order of sadhus and sanyasis, which is not justified at all.”
There may be some “black sheep” and “undesirable elements”, but that still did “not justify the slur, the insinuation that is sought to be cast on the sadhus as a whole,” he said. How could registration be a deterrent for those who were actually bent on carrying out anti-social activities? It was like saying, he quipped, that we should also bring in a Bill for the registration of pickpockets, thieves, and goondas in society.
“I think the reason advanced for bringing forward this Bill before the House is that if a man gets himself registered, he is above all criticism. But is it correct? Is it possible for a District Magistrate or an officer to know who is a real sadhu, to whom a certificate of merit, a certificate of good conduct should be given, and who is the person to whom it should not be given? We know that it is very difficult for ordinary people to recognise the moral and spiritual greatness of some of our sadhus…” he argued.
This Bill was taking a very narrow view of sadhus and their contribution. It was meant to force them to become “Sarkari Sadhus“; “it is to take a very narrow view of spiritualism and to ignore the work that is done by some of our sadhus who maintain our culture, our heritage, and our greatness for which India is proud and for which India can hold its own; and the debts that the country owes to some of these great men throughout these centuries.”
Supakar’s concluding riposte, however, was biting. He tore into the Nehruvian logic and exposed its mischief. “Can you imagine,” he asked the House, “if Sankara were living today, if Buddha were living today, if Upagupta, who made Ashoka into a great man and brought him into the picture of history, were living today, if Aurobindo [Sri Aurobindo] were living today, if Swami Vivekananda were living today, would they have come to a court of law, to a District Magistrate, and requested him, ‘Sir, my conduct is good; I want a good conduct certificate from you saying that I am worthy to be called a sadhu or sanyasi’? They may not be here, but I believe that equally great people, who are worthy to be the successors of these great men, are still living in India today. Shall we compel them to get themselves registered under the penalty of paying a fine?” There was no counter.
The Bill did not pass muster eventually. But it exposed the Nehru government’s complete divorce from India’s traditions, spiritual essence, and evolution. A tradition and lineage that articulated and sustained civilisational India was sought to be officialised, regulated, and strangled by free India’s first Prime Minister and his acolytes.
Kharge and his master Rahul Gandhi, along with the Congress first family, continue to ooze that mindset. It is a mindset which, if given a chance and a free hand, would want Hindu sadhus and sanyasis to genuflect, prostrate, and submit, remaining captive by reneging on their faith and traditions. Nehru’s intention of compelling sadhus and sanyasis to register themselves exposed a diabolical trait that was intolerant of Sanatana Dharma, its tenets, and adherents. Kharge’s abuse of Mahakumbh yatris betrays that same satanic mindset. It is a mindset which daily regurgitates curses, hoping for the end of Sanatana Dharma and of Sanatanis. For the Congress, as they say, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!
